As for the playoffs:

AFC:
1. Patriots (ugh)
2. Colts
3. Broncos
4. Steelers (I think they right the ship and take back an open division)
5. Chiefs
6. Chargers

I'd have liked to take the Dolphins for that last spot, but a brutal last four games on the schedule concluding with the Patriots...that could easily kill their drive to get needed wins for the Wild Card down the stretch.

A coin flip between the Chargers and Ravens for the last spot, I'll take SD.

Playoffs:

Wild Card:
Chargers over Broncos (It's Peyton in the playoffs, and the Chargers could do it...)
Steelers over Chiefs

Divisional:
Patriots over Chargers
Colts over Steelers

AFC Championship:

Colts over Patriots (The "Luck" has to swing sometime...) ;)

NFC:
1. Seahawks (God I hate typing that)
2. Panthers (Watch out for them...weak division, a GREAT defense, and Cam...)
3. Packers (Lose out on the #2 seed as the Panthers have an easier division)
4. Eagles (I think Chip's crazy like a fox...we shall see...)
5. Cowboys
6. Vikings (There's always a surprise team, and the Lions have a hard schedule)

Playoffs:
Wild Card:
Packers over Vikings
Eagles over Cowboys

Divisional:
Seahawks over Eagles
Panthers over Packers

NFC Championship:

Panthers over Seahawks

SUPER BOWL 50 (because L for Roman numerals would've been unfashionable)...

PANTHERS: 24 COLTS: 17

bump

obi, give people time to remember how to read your posts.

I like to think of myself as unforgettable (much like a nasty rash.) ;)

#CespedesforMVP

Also, the Panthers are not gonna win the fucking Super Bowl. Just........ no.

Give your own pick, then?

Cam, a great defense, and a weak division...

Rizzo > Cespedes

Rizzo is only the third best first baseman in the NL and the only decent one on a playoff team.

Go Cardinals! They win. Also Go Hawks!

Rizzo > Frenchie

Someone shoot me a message when the acquisition of another player brings their runs/game total up from last in the NL before the trade to first in the NL afterwards and we'll talk.

Someone shoot me a message when somebody who literally plays less than half the season in the league in question manages to win the MVP. See '08 Ramirez.

OBI IS ALIVE?? It's a webDip miracle!!

Bo, you realize correlation isn't causation, right?

^ right, that too.

Players that joined the Mets around the time of the Cespedes trade: Michael Conforto, Travis D'Arnaud, David Wright

Hell, Cespedes hasn't even been the Mets' MVP. DeGrom, Harvey, and Granderson all beat him out by virtue of actually having been on the team all fucking year. Then you have Bryce Harper having the best non-Bonds offensive season of the century and singlehandedly keeping his team from joining the rest of that division in the cellar. I like the Mets, and Cespedes has been great, but his supposed MVP candidacy is a joke.

I think we were arguing whether Cespedes deserves MVP more than Rizzo, but Harper is definitely first.

bo seems to think Cespedes actually deserves it. bo is the worst though, so it's not really a surprise.

Nah, Greinke and Kershaw deserve it far, far more, and so does Harper, except the Nats are gonna miss the playoffs so it kinda screws his chances in my mind. Same goes for Goldschimdt and Votto (as an aside, why the fuck can't you ask for time?), who are both having career years, but none of them are making the postseason. Might throw Jake Arrieta into the conversation too, because he is having an unbelievable season capped off by the no-hitter. That's three pitchers and no hitters if not making the playoffs eliminates a player, which it should, because it's pretty damn hard to say someone is the most valuable (NOT best player) if the team isn't doing shit.

I don't see how you can penalize him by default for playing in the AL for half the year, and I don't see how the best player is by default the MVP. I don't see why stats are the only thing to go off of and why heroics are not part of the conversation. Cespedes has that over Harper by a mile, and while I'll give you any day that a 1.1+ OPS is fucking superhuman (though Pujols' 2006, 2008, and 2009 season were all better - Bonds wasn't the only one [and by no means is that an insult to Harper to be grouped with those two]), you can't give the award for the guy most valuable to his team to a guy that didn't make the postseason. Harper is the only hitter in the NL playing better than Cespedes since Cespedes came over.

Manny finished fourth in the MVP voting in 2008. He drove in 53 in 53 games. Cespedes is on pace to do the same thing (36 RBIs in 36 games right now). He's playing hero and he has the story, which the writers love. He's got a legitimate chance to be the most valuable single player on a playoff team in the NL, so he ought to be in the MVP conversation. I don't care that you think that that's a joke because the writers clearly don't. Pitchers can win the MVP because they shouldn't be penalized for not hitting; that's not their job. Players can also win the MVP even if they haven't played a full season in the league if they are the most valuable player in the league because they shouldn't be penalized for playing elsewhere and being traded, because, similarly, that's not their job to worry about it. They just play, and he's been doing that. That precedent was set with Manny.

Of the playoff contenders, I'd still put Greinke and Kershaw ahead of Cespedes. Jake Arrieta has to be there as well. Rizzo is in the conversation. Andrew McCutchen is in the conversation if the Pirates can manage to beat the Brewers, which they apparently can't, and actually make the playoffs.

Also, Nolan Arenado is out for the same reason. I don't think anyone thought of him anyway, but he deserves consideration if we're talking best player.

Patriots>Oxygen

That is all

So, first off, making the postseason should not be a requirement for MVP. That's just dumb. Even if you want to make an argument that spot on the win curve matters, Harper has kept the Nationals in a conversation that they shouldn't be in, and even if they fall short of the playoffs, Harper has provided a ton of value to them. Second, if you're going by best player, Cespedes is nowhere close for the whole year. If you're going by value provided to a team, Cespedes hasn't had enough time to provide significant value to the Mets. It really doesn't matter how you cut it, he just shouldn't be in the conversation. Third, I don't know what metric you're using to conclude that Pujols had three seasons better than Harper's 2015, but it's wrong. OPS is a shitty, simplistic stat that doesn't adjust for park or run environment, and it rates Harper better than any Pujols season. wRC+ shows it to not even be a contest. Fourth, Arenado's not in the conversation first because defense is undervalued and second because he's just not on that level at all. His raw offensive numbers are kinda shiny, but only because he plays in Coors. He's a good player, but he shouldn't be anywhere near the MVP conversation.

The team has no value if not winning. Losing by a little bit is not valuable. Missing the postseason by one game is as bad as missing it by a hundred (pray that never happens). Harper is giving it a hell of a go but he should not be winning the MVP on a losing team. Simple as that. He will anyway, but he shouldn't, because a non-playoff team has no shot at the title and therefore no value. Best player? Absolutely. That's not what this award is for, though there should be an award for the best hitter on top of the MVP.

Cespedes is providing the spark in a huge run. That got Manny Ramirez legitimate consideration even though they only won a weak division with a record barely over .500. It should get Cespedes consideration as well because he is playing on that level. The field of players in consideration for the MVP this year is also worse than it was then because the best players are not proving to be the most valuable players. Given that, it doesn't really matter how you cut it, he should be in the conversation.

Harper and Pujols were in the same area in oWAR in two out of those three seasons. Harper's 8.0 beats Pujols' 7.4 and 7.9 respectively. Pujols beat Harper in WAR in two of those three seasons. He beat Harper in WAA in two of those three seasons. He beat Harper in RAA. Harper beats Pujols in OPS+ but barely. In 2008 and 2009, Pujols' stats were right on par with Harper's if not better. In 2008, the Cardinals missed the playoffs. In 2009, they made the playoffs, partly because they brought in Matt Holliday. Back in 2006, he led the Cardinals to a World Series championship with 49 HRs and 137 RBIs and hit .331. Similar stats pretty much all around, more winning. Pujols was better.

Arenado isn't in the conversation because he (and Carlos Gonzalez) play on the ridiculously terrible Rockies, and yes, he plays in Coors Field, but he doesn't have to lead the NL in home runs to be one of the best all-around players in the game. My whole point is that, despite being one of the best, he's not the most valuable or even close.

OK, we disagree about how the MVP should work. He's providing value by giving his team a better chance to make the playoffs. Just because they happen not to make the playoffs doesn't mean he didn't improve their chances. That's value. As for Cespedes, he's not playing as well as Manny was, and Manny didn't win. He's not providing the most value to his team. He's not the spark anymore than Duda or Wright or anyone else. He's playing a part, and it's helping the team, but that doesn't make him the most valuable player.

As for Pujols, you seem to be forgetting that Harper's season isn't over yet. Harper's on pace to beat Pujols's highest fWAR total, and that's with UZR liking his defense a lot less than DRS. Harper's wRC+ is 20 higher than anything Pujols ever posted. Harper's stats are marginally better, and you've said yourself that the Cardinals won more because of other players. If you really think that makes Pujols the better player, you clearly don't understand, like, the most basic principles of logic.

As for Arenado, again, he's just not one of the best players. He's good, for sure, but he's a 5 WAR player, not a 7-8 WAR player.