NL MVP?

[Hawk the Slayer]

Pretty self-explanatory. But, this year there's really not an obvious choice... every worthy candidate seems to have one or two flaws to go along with four or five great qualities.
...
I know who I'd vote for, but I'll wait a bit to cast my vote and state my case. (And, no - I didn't put any pitchers in the mix. I don't believe a pitcher has as much influence over his team's W/L as a position player. If you disagree, feel free to click "other" and tell me why I'm an idiot.)

[Hanover Fist]

Manny Ramirez should be NL MVP. Not the best player in the league, but the Most Valuable Player to his team in the league.
Before he was traded to the Dodgers where were they in the standings? What has he done since the trade? Where are the Dodgers currently in the standings?
2nd place is probably a tie between Carlos Delgado and CC Sabathia for me.

If you disagree with me you are probably worse than Hitler.

[Hawk the Slayer]

I'm worse than Hitler. No way that a half season of Manny is as valuable as a full season of Pujols, a full season of David Wright, a full season of Chase Utley, et cetera. It's "National League" MVP - all those games he played for Boston didn't help the Dodgers one iota.

[The GWD]

Why's this shit private? I want to know where individuals stand.

[Stax]

Manny Ramirez should be NL MVP. Not the best player in the league, but the Most Valuable Player to his team in the league.
Before he was traded to the Dodgers where were they in the standings? What has he done since the trade? Where are the Dodgers currently in the standings?
2nd place is probably a tie between Carlos Delgado and CC Sabathia for me.

If you disagree with me you are probably worse than Hitler.

A. It's Pujols. Nobody else except maybe a couple Texas sportswriters voting for Berkman. It's Pujols.
B. From a recent Peter Gammons article:

In Ramirez's first 40 games, the Dodgers had a run differential of plus-22 and averaged 4.55 runs per game, as opposed to 4.43 through July 31....It's hard to talk about the MVP Award for Manny when the team that paid the Dodgers to take Ramirez is 27-13 without him through Sunday and have seen their runs per game increase from 4.94 at the time of the deal to 6.22 since.

The second part I don't really care about, but the first part is clear. Manny has certainly provided some offensive value (as seen by his stats), but if the team's offense hasn't changed it's hard to break the traditional rules of value to say he's 'helped his team' more.

[Hawk the Slayer]

Why's this shit private? I want to know where individuals stand.
My bad. Mis-click when starting things up. Possible to edit poll options after they're made?
/me goes off to check

[Hanover Fist]

I'm worse than Hitler. No way that a half season of Manny is as valuable as a full season of Pujols, a full season of David Wright, a full season of Chase Utley, et cetera. It's "National League" MVP - all those games he played for Boston didn't help the Dodgers one iota.


Manny may not be the best player, but I still say he was more valuable. The Dodgers would not be a playoff team without him. He is batting over .400 and averaging better than an RBI a game since he got there. The Dodgers were shit before Manny got there, now look at them. I'm one of those people that says you cannot give an MVP to a non-playoff team. I don't care how good you are, if your team doesn't make the playoffs you aren't that valuable, because winning the World Series is all that matters and you have to make the playoffs to have a shot at it.

[Stax]

Manny may not be the best player, but I still say he was more valuable. The Dodgers would not be a playoff team without him. He is batting over .400 and averaging better than an RBI a game since he got there. The Dodgers were shit before Manny got there, now look at them. I'm one of those people that says you cannot give an MVP to a non-playoff team. I don't care how good you are, if your team doesn't make the playoffs you aren't that valuable, because winning the World Series is all that matters and you have to make the playoffs to have a shot at it.

You are wrong, again as Gammons said their offense has not significantly changed with him there in terms of run scoring.

If you are looking at individual numbers, Pujols is better. If you are looking for a team effect, Manny's done nothing to improve run scoring (and guys like Pujols have had just as amazing 'down the stretch' numbers)

[Hawk the Slayer]

I'm one of those people that says you cannot give an MVP to a non-playoff team. I don't care how good you are, if your team doesn't make the playoffs you aren't that valuable, because winning the World Series is all that matters and you have to make the playoffs to have a shot at it.
Then you're a moron. I posted this in the NL Central thread a few days ago:
...
Fun fact: Barry Bonds won the MVP four consecutive years with the Giants, from 2001-2004. In 2001 and 2004, the Giants did not make the playoffs. Bonds' numbers?
2001: .328 BA, 73 HR, 137 RBI, 177 BB, .515 OBP, .863 SLG
(Fuck you, Barry. You didn't turn it on when it counted, or your team would be in the playoffs. Let's find a REAL MVP candidate.)
2004: .362 BA, 45 HR, 101 RBI, 232 BB, .609 OBP, .812 SLG
(Barry, you just don't get it. No playoffs, no MVP. Fuck off and go sit in the corner. Would a MAN please step forward to claim the award?)
...
Did Barry NOT deserve the MVP those two years? Well? WE'RE WAITING!

[Hanover Fist]

If your team doesn't make the playoffs then no, you shouldn't be MVP. Your teams season ends at the end of the regular season the same place they could finish with or without you.

[Stax]

If your team doesn't make the playoffs then no, you shouldn't be MVP. Your teams season ends at the end of the regular season the same place they could finish with or without you.

You are stupid.

Again, lets go real simple:

Jar of 100 pennies: Value = $1
Jar of 100 quarters: Value = $25
Jar of 100 pennies with a $5 bill in it: Value = $6
Jar of 100 quarters with a $1 bill in it: Value = $26

The Jar of quarters is more valuable overall, even with the dollar bills added. In a jar-playoff system the Quarter Jar would be going to the playoffs. But there is no definition of value under which the $1 bill is more valuable than the $5 bill, despite it being in the "losing" jar.

[Hanover Fist]

You are stupid.

Again, lets go real simple:

Jar of 100 pennies: Value = $1
Jar of 100 quarters: Value = $25
Jar of 100 pennies with a $5 bill in it: Value = $6
Jar of 100 quarters with a $1 bill in it: Value = $26

The Jar of quarters is more valuable overall, even with the dollar bills added. In a jar-playoff system the Quarter Jar would be going to the playoffs. But there is no definition of value under which the $1 bill is more valuable than the $5 bill, despite it being in the "losing" jar.


No you are stupid. And a virgin. I win.

Manny is still more valuable than Pujols.

[Stax]

No you are stupid. And a virgin. I win.

At life, probably. At analyzing baseball, no.

Manny is still more valuable than Pujols.

No he isn't. Again, explain to me how Manny doing EXACTLY THE SAME THINGS deserves an INDIVIDUAL AWARD for TEAM RESULTS.

Manny on the Red Sox: Would he be MVP despite their being a playoff team without him?
Manny on the Dodgers: Would he be MVP since they've made their playoff push with him on the team (despite no real big offensive increase)?
Manny on the D-Backs (with the Dodgers still taking the NL West lead): Would he be MVP for keeping the DBacks 'competitive' and being 'in a playoff race'?
Manny on the Pirates, or some other obviously nonplayoff team: Would he not be the MVP, even if he put up better #s than anyone?
And for that matter...
Pujols on the Dodgers? Who would probably make them a no-doubt playoff team , by wider margins than Manny? If he's provided more individual value why does he get punished for his team?

You are providing absolutely zero reason for why things outside of what you do should affect whether you win an individual award or not. If you provide 10 wins of offense + fielding + pitching (where applicable) and no one provides more wins, you are the MVP whether your team wins 10 games or 162 because you are the:
-Most: Superlative, highest possible
-Valuable: Provided value (in combination with most means the person provided "Most value")
-Player: Individual award, not a measure of team performance

[Hawk the Slayer]

No I am stupid. And a virgin. I fail.

Manny is still not worthy of sucking the sweat off of Pujols' large dangly testicles.
Fixed. I'm going to quit arguing with you now, as it's pointless. It's like trying to explain carbon dating and evolutionary theory to a Bible thumper who insists that dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago.
...
Have fun living in your happy little deluded world. :D

[Hanover Fist]

Ok now that we've all agreed that Manny should be the NL MVP, let's move on to who should be 2nd place in the NL Cy Young behind CC Sabathia.

[Stax]

Ok now that we've all agreed that Manny should be the NL MVP, let's move on to who should be 2nd place in the NL Cy Young behind CC Sabathia.

But wait, the Brewers aren't going to the playoffs (back a half game right now). I thought you just said:

If your team doesn't make the playoffs then no, you shouldn't be MVP. Your teams season ends at the end of the regular season the same place they could finish with or without you.

Doesn't the same apply to the MVP of pitching?

[Hanover Fist]

But wait, the Brewers aren't going to the playoffs (back a half game right now). I thought you just said:



Doesn't the same apply to the MVP of pitching?


The Cy Young isn't awarded to the MVP of pitching. It's awarded to the best pitcher in the league. The definition is the "Single best pitcher in the league", Sabathia is definitely that in the NL.

[Stax]

The Cy Young isn't awarded to the MVP of pitching. It's awarded to the best pitcher in the league. The definition is the "Single best pitcher in the league", Sabathia is definitely that in the NL.

So according to you you can get the Cy Young if your team only wins the game you pitch (so only wins 25 games lets say), but you can only win the MVP if your team is good (even if you're like 100% better than everyone else)?

[Draven X 23]

I picked Chase Utley.

He plays a premium position for a playoff caliber team. Where all of the other stars have slumped. Howards OPS slumped over .100 points. Rollins had 30 HRs and a .875 OPS last season and it sits now at 11 HR and .793 OPS. Burrell had almost 100 RBI and now sits at 79.

But I might be wrong. I see a lot of his numbers are down too. I just think he deserved it last year over Rollins and his .344 OB% for a lead off hitter... just didn't make me think MVP.

[Hanover Fist]

So according to you you can get the Cy Young if your team only wins the game you pitch (so only wins 25 games lets say), but you can only win the MVP if your team is good (even if you're like 100% better than everyone else)?


Not according to me, according to the definition of the awards.

Sabathia is the best pitcher in the NL without a doubt, head and shoulders above the rest of the field.

[ADD]

They don't award possible "rental players" and guys who spend half the season in the other league. Plain and Simple. Manny has no chance at MVP. C.C. has no chance at Cy Young.

[Stax]

Not according to me, according to the definition of the awards.

Sabathia is the best pitcher in the NL without a doubt, head and shoulders above the rest of the field.

Show me these definitions. Because you are lying.

The only place those are 'definitions' is in the completely arbitrary, fluid, and changing non-'rules' that writers apply to justify their pick.

[Hanover Fist]

In 1955 baseball commissioner Ford Frick created the Cy Young award to be handed out each season to the leagues "best pitcher". In 1967 the award was modified to include "the best pitcher" from the AL and NL.

In 1911 Hugh Chalmers announced a change to his 1910 promotion of best hitter in the league which became the MVP award. For 1911, Chalmers decided that batting average was too narrow a focus for an award. He announced the Chalmers Award, which was to be given to the player in each league who "should prove himself as the most important and useful player to his club and to the league at large in point of deportment and value of services rendered." This was the first attempt to recognize a player for overall contributions to his team's success—hence the designation Most Valuable rather than "player of the year", a distinction which remains today.

[ADD]

They also have an award for the best hitter/offensive player of the year. It's called the Silver Slugger. It seems very few people who vote put "value" into their decisions, though in every sport.

[Stax]

In 1955 baseball commissioner Ford Frick created the Cy Young award to be handed out each season to the leagues "best pitcher". In 1967 the award was modified to include "the best pitcher" from the AL and NL.

Right, and best is a measure of value. I already made the case for CC in the Central thread, but was rightly convinced that his performance was not sufficiently above average to make up for his limited inning count.

If you say otherwise (which is a perfectly fine opinion) then the Cy Young winner every year should be a guy who makes like 1 start with a 0 ERA, cause he's the most effective pitcher out there (and any inning 'requirement' you make would be an arbitrary creation by you). However if you approach it logically you'd see that value (the only determinant of being 'best', 'worst', '3rd best', or anything else) is a combination of rates and time playing. Sabathia's pitching at a better rate of value than anyone in the NL, but not through nearly enough games to make up the difference with someone like Lincecum.

In 1911 Hugh Chalmers announced a change to his 1910 promotion of best hitter in the league which became the MVP award. For 1911, Chalmers decided that batting average was too narrow a focus for an award. He announced the Chalmers Award, which was to be given to the player in each league who "should prove himself as the most important and useful player to his club and to the league at large in point of deportment and value of services rendered." This was the first attempt to recognize a player for overall contributions to his team's success—hence the designation Most Valuable rather than "player of the year", a distinction which remains today.



Right. The bolded section proves my point, not yours. It isn't some esoteric "Player of the Year" which goes to whomever they think was just the all-around coolest dude of the year. It goes to the MOST. VALUABLE. PLAYER. Which is a measurable force, and Manny is nowhere close.

[Stax]

They also have an award for the best hitter/offensive player of the year. It's called the Silver Slugger. It seems very few people who vote put "value" into their decisions, though in every sport.

Value is a combination of Hitting and Defense in baseball (and baserunning, to a lesser degree) for position players and Pitching and Defense for pitchers (occasionally offense in the NL). There is no other way in which you can provide value to your team other than those factors that are measured on the field. Being a 'good clubhouse guy' or some other esoteric thing (like claiming a month and a half of Manny is more valuable than a season of other, better, guys because the team is winning, despite it demonstrably not being because of Manny) does not.

[ADD]

Value is a combination of Hitting and Defense in baseball (and baserunning, to a lesser degree) for position players and Pitching and Defense for pitchers (occasionally offense in the NL). There is no other way in which you can provide value to your team other than those factors that are measured on the field. Being a 'good clubhouse guy' or some other esoteric thing (like claiming a month and a half of Manny is more valuable than a season of other, better, guys because the team is winning, despite it demonstrably not being because of Manny) does not.

I completely agree. It's part of the whole reason I'd not vote for a DH as MVP since they play half a game (the David Ortiz argument a few seasons ago).

I was just pointing out that it seems a lot of people who vote don't vote on value, and there's an award for offensive player, so many voters are fucked in the head right off the bat.

[Stax]

I completely agree. It's part of the whole reason I'd not vote for a DH as MVP since they play half a game (the David Ortiz argument a few seasons ago).

I was just pointing out that it seems a lot of people who vote don't vote on value, and there's an award for offensive player, so many voters are fucked in the head right off the bat.

If a DHs offense makes up for 0 defense, a DHs offense makes up for 0 defense. Value is value, no matter the source.

[TheImpossibleMan]

YOU'RE A FUCKING MORON HANOVER. Manny has improved the Dodgers by maybe two or three games since he's joined them - that is, they've won two, maybe three games they wouldn't have won without him. Guess how much Pujols is worth to the Cardinals.

(hint: It's something like a dozen)

As for the "make the playoffs or no MVP", that's monstrously retarded. Only four teams per league go! Are you insane? In a sport in which an individual has the least impact on any given game (as compared to sports like basketball or hockey), you want to give out individual player awards based on TEAM performance? You're fucking dumb. The Cardinals were in contention through September, when the wheels fell off.

[UNC]

No one from the NL's best team on this poll.

I mean..you know, the team with the most allstars.

You suck

[goldsoundz]

well, the cubs are just a great team. there's no one that i would consider a most valuable candidate like pujols or berkman or utley or whatever. take any player off that team and they still are probably the best team in the nl. the same can't be said if you took one of the guys i mentioned off their team.

[Hawk the Slayer]

No one from the NL's best team on this poll.

I mean..you know, the team with the most allstars.

You suck
So, which of the Cubs deserve to be in that list? They're a great example of a team that is excelling because they have a collection of quality players, all having years ranging from good to outstanding. But, I can't think of one Cub having the numbers THIS YEAR to compete with the names I put on the poll. Your mileage may vary, of course.

[UNC]

well, the cubs are just a great team. there's no one that i would consider a most valuable candidate like pujols or berkman or utley or whatever. take any player off that team and they still are probably the best team in the nl. the same can't be said if you took one of the guys i mentioned off their team.


Without those guys the Astros and Cards Still don't make the playoffs. Don't really see your point. If helping the team win is the only criteria...only plyers from playoff teams should be considered.

I know the Cubs have alot of good players...but Pujols won it before on a deep team with great hitters surrounding/protecting him.

Not saying a Cub should win...just saying one or 2 deserve a spot on a ten player poll.

[Draven X 23]

Without those guys the Astros and Cards Still don't make the playoffs. Don't really see your point. If helping the team win is the only criteria...only plyers from playoff teams should be considered.

I know the Cubs have alot of good players...but Pujols won it before on a deep team with great hitters surrounding/protecting him.

Not saying a Cub should win...just saying one or 2 deserve a spot on a ten player poll.

Which 1 or 2?

Soto?

[UNC]

Ramirez would be the most likely candidate if you are looking at numbers across the board...but yeah, Soto would be an underdog candidate if you look at value to the team...but he's pretty much a lock for rookie of the year so he's not a realistic pick for mvp. Lee is having a decent year...Soriano would definately be right there if not for the games he has missed

[Stax]

Without those guys the Astros and Cards Still don't make the playoffs. Don't really see your point. If helping the team win is the only criteria...only plyers from playoff teams should be considered.

Untrue on the face of it. If, for example, 90 wins gets you to the playoffs then you as an individual could help your team win anywhere from 0 (a replacement player) to 89 games (Jesus Christ playing baseball) more games without your team automatically making the playoffs. Winning correlates with make the playoffs, certainly, but in the range of reality on how much a player can really help their team win at a maximum (10-15 games, at the absolute extreme) there are no guarantees. The idea that someone could be an MVP (individual award) on one team, but doing exactly the same thing on a losing team shouldn't is silly.

Teams make the playoffs, not individuals. All a player can do is help a team win GAMES, which in turn helps make the playoffs (but individual input towards that end goal is small, even for the best of players).

If you make the sauce for a restaurant and make the best sauce on the planet Earth you are the Most Valuable Saucier, whether or not the overall dish is tasty. You have no control over it, how can you be judged for individual accomplishment based on it?

Ramirez would be the most likely candidate if you are looking at numbers across the board...but yeah, Soto would be an underdog candidate if you look at value to the team...but he's pretty much a lock for rookie of the year so he's not a realistic pick for mvp. Lee is having a decent year...Soriano would definately be right there if not for the games he has missed

Albert Pujols: 12 WARP, .369 EQA
Geovany Soto: 6.6 WARP, .292 EQA
Derrek Lee: 6.8 WARP, .285 EQA
Aramis Ramirez: 6 WARP, .299 EQA

The Cubs are a good team because they are all-around good, not because they have one individual stand-out MVP. 10 hitters with 10+ VORP (including Zambrano, lulz), 7 of which are 20+ (including Jim Edmonds as a pickup), and 4 with 30+ (D-Lee is basically a 5th at 29.8) along with 6 20+ VORP pitchers.

EDIT - Oh, and:

Alfonso Soriano: 5.8 WARP, .301 EQA

[Stax]

From my fantasy baseball updates for Pujols:

Thu, Sep 18 The Los Angeles Times' Dylan Hernandez reports Los Angeles Dodgers OF Manny Ramirez said he didn't deserve to be National League MVP. He said St. Louis Cardinals 1B Albert Pujols should win the award.

[Da Raider]

NL MVP should be Andruw Jones.

[TheImpossibleMan]

From my fantasy baseball updates for Pujols:
As if I didn't like Manny enough already. I feel an avatar change coming on...

[Hawk the Slayer]

NL MVP should be Andruw Jones.
This gave me a nice little smile. I can remember about 1-2 years ago, when a bunch of Cards fans were begging the front office to spend the $$$ to bring in Andruw Jones to replace Edmonds. Sometimes, the best moves are the ones you DON'T make.

[TheImpossibleMan]

WOW DELGADO REALLY PUT THE METS ON HIS BACK HE SHOULD TOTALLY GET THE MVP OVER PUJOLS

[ninja33]

http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/photographer/28/28718_large.jpg

[TheImpossibleMan]

Surely no one really thinks Delgado is the MVP. No one can be that slack-jawed retarded.

[Stax]

Surely no one really thinks Delgado is the MVP. No one can be that slack-jawed retarded.

Because the Florida Marlins scored 2 more runs than the Mets, because Ryan Church's ball didn't quite go out, you're probably right. But I bet if yesterday's single game went slightly better he'd get big MVP support which is pathetic.

[feith]

chase!

There's also cole hamels to consider.

[ADD]

No. Pitchers.

[Stax]

chase!

Chase Utley is a legitimate choice, IMO. As one BP poster put it, responding to a BP article that listed Ryan Howard as that author's #2 choice for NL MVP (which I think is crazy):

Chase Utley is the Rodney Dangerfield of baseball. Every year, he's the most valuable player (by a lot) on his team. Every year, some lesser teammate ends up the writers' favorite irrational candidate for MVP, with Utley left completely off the ballot (as above). Sheesh. Can you seriously argue that Howard has been the 2nd-most-valuable player in the league, but the guy next to him who has been 3 wins better offensively (and another 3 wins defensively) at a tougher position, who doesn't vanish against left-handed pitching the way Howard does, isn't even in the top 10?

Utley leads his team by a wide margin in VORP 62.3 to Howard's 35.2 (Jimmy Rollins actually in the middle at 43.4), which is good for 7th in the NL. Effectively tied (Adrian Gonzalez has .309 to his .308, Beltran also at .308) for 11th in the NL in EqA. Double Howard's WARP and 3.5 wins better than Rollins. Utley is clearly the Phillies MVP, the question is just whether that's enough. I'd still vote Pujols, Hanley, Berkman, or Chipper over him without a doubt.

But looking at the "playing on a playoff team" subset of voters (which discounts all 6 guys ahead of him in VORP - Pujols, Hanley, Chipper, Berkman, Wright, Reyes) he'd be a VERY serious choice. Heck, even if you include guys on 'conteders' (so Wright, Reyes, and maybe Berkman) he's at least in the conversation.

There's also cole hamels to consider.

I gotta say no, and I would as a voter, but looking through the "plays for a winner" set of goggles (which takes Lincecum and possibly Johan out of the picture) he and Dempster would probably be the best pitchers in the NL. But not close to MVP, even in that case, though.

[ninja33]

http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/photographer/28/28718_large.jpg

[ADD]

No. Pitchers.

[zaphrodesiac]

It's Pujols. He means more for his team than any other player in baseball. He's the biggest reason they were in contention by far.

I voted for Chipper anyways because I'm a fucking homer, so fuck you.

[Stax]

The first FJM post on an article not picking Pujols for MVP (http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2008/10/albert-pujols-was-not-good-enough.html) (not just that, but fucking Ryan Howard).

I for one can't wait for the deluge of Ryan Howard-for-MVP columns from older dudes wearing RBI Glasses™. RBI Glasses™: Available at ShittyLensCrafters all across the country. Hey, here's the first one, from Bob Klapisch.

Me: Bob Klapisch, you're writing a column about your awards picks. What are you going to call it?

Bob Klapisch (stopping to think for exactly 0.00038 seconds): The Klappie Awards! I'm on break.

Bob Klapisch's Klappie Awards

MOST VALUABLE PLAYER, NL: Ryan Howard, Phillies.

Nope. Wrong. So so so so so so so wrong. You should be criticized on some sort of hypercritical baseball blog for that opinion.

We’re prepared to face the firing squad on this one, having passed over Albert Pujols.

Klapisch is talking about a literal firing squad. He has written his farewell notes to his wife and kids. But he's doing this because he's a man. A man taking a stand. A man choosing another man who is ranked 30th in his league in VORP for MVP. These are the kinds of causes for which a man like Bob Klapisch is willing to stare death in the face.

Mark DeRosa and Cristian Guzman had higher VORPs than Ryan Howard. VORP is not the final word by any means; it obviously has deficiencies. But hey, also: Ryan Howard was 6th on his team in OBP. Think about that.

But as unthinkably dangerous as the Cardinals’ slugger was, he couldn’t get his team to the postseason. Howard did.

You're right. Albert Pujols did not nearly pitch well enough, or for enough innings (Can you believe zero innings? What a bum!) for the Cardinals to to make the playoffs. (The Phillies had a team ERA of 3.88; the Cardinals 4.19. Albert Pujols? More like Albert Not A Very Good Pitching Coach!)

Pujols should have lobbied to have St. Louis the city moved to Oregon, where his Cardinals would have won the NL West by two games and he would be lauded as a clutch MVP baseball superhero with quality intangibles and a leader with the uncanny ability to come through when it counts. But unfortunately, Pujols has never been good at getting entire cities to spontaneously change their geographical locations.

Ryan Howard batted .168 in April. Albert Pujols' batting averages, by month (and I know batting average doesn't matter. Here they are anyway): .365, .373, .302, .347, .398, .321. Bob Klapisch, do you think for some reason that games played in April don't count in the standings? Ryan Howard batted .213 in August.

Granted, Pujols had better season-long numbers.

Granted, "The Wire" is a "better" show than "Hole in the Wall."

But Howard was in another reality in September, when impact players make their mark.

But "Hole in the Wall" and one very funny moment where a guy couldn't fit through the hole in the wall, and that is the kind of impact that impact TV shows make when it counts.

While the Phillies were catching and passing the Mets (again), Howard batted .352 and hit 11 home runs — one every eight at-bats.

While the Cardinals were playing baseball, Albert Pujols batted .357.

Ryan Howard hit behind Jimmy Rollins and Chase Utley. If Albert Pujols hit behind Jimmy Rollins and Chase Utley, he would have had 493 RBI. Do the math. It checks out.

He finished the season with a mediocre .251 average, but otherwise led the majors with 48 HR and 146 RBI.

Sure, he hit by far the most home runs. RBI are bullshit. Here are things he didn't lead the majors in:

EqA
VORP
WARP1
WARP2
WARP3
OBP
OPS
SLG
WPA
BB
BA
R
Literally any defensive statistic. Any of them. Just pick one.

You know who led or was damn close to the lead in a shitload of those statistics? Albert Pujols. The 2008 NL MVP.

[TheImpossibleMan]

Assuming Bill James was right, Pujols is the new Craig Biggio - a player so utterly good that everyone takes him for granted and bitches about percieved flaws in his game and slap together ridiculous arguments for why he's not the best player in baseball.

I mean, if Pujols doesn't win this year, this'll be, what, the fourth season in which he was clearly the best player in the NL and he doesn't win the MVP?

[ShitBreak]

He's been the best player every year, and has only won it once...and that was because Barroid was injured.

[ADD]

He's the NL version of ARod is what you're saying

[Stax]

BP's "Internet Baseball Awards" has him as the 2005 and 2006 NL MVP, they gave last year to Holliday (which was actually my vote back then). That list I posted a while back of the overall 5 most valuable players in the MAJOR'S by WARP each year (http://rapidshare.com/files/146136499/Copy_of_Baseball_Prospectus_MVPs_1_5_By_Year-1.xls) (though using an old model of WARP, it doesn't mesh perfectly now for example ARod was slightly better than Pujols last year but here was listed below him) lists him as the MVP 04, 05, 06, and 07 MVP (technically tied with Barry in 04, and Holliday isn't in the top 5 on that list for 07).

[Stax]

The 'best players' of the 90s were pretty clearly Bonds and Griffey, ARod and Bonds were the 90s-00s bridge, and ARod and Pujols keep on going into the 00s. One of the crazy young studs right now, a Pedroia or Sizemore or Hanley Ramirez will probably start being Pujols mate as the best players in the league in a couple years.

[TheImpossibleMan]

Pedroia seems legit (I didn't realize he walked so much), Hanley is already there.

[TheImpossibleMan]

AND MIGUEL CABRERA IS THE BEST PLAYER NO ONE TALKS ABOUT

[Stax]

AND MIGUEL CABRERA IS THE BEST PLAYER NO ONE TALKS ABOUT

He kind of got buried on a failure of a Detroit team this year. Had they been close to successful he'd be crazy lauded with praise.

BTW, which team would you rather be made GM of along with $25 million to buy some pitching? Texas, with 3 fucking MVP-calibur hitters who can't post a winning record despite a shit division, or Florida who can lose Miggy Cabrera and still have a crazy powerful IF (and managed to post a winning record in a more stacked division)?

[TheImpossibleMan]

I feel the same way about Pujols as I do about Obama: Surely people can't be so retarded they're voting for someone else, can they?











CAN THEY?????

[TheImpossibleMan]

He kind of got buried on a failure of a Detroit team this year. Had they been close to successful he'd be crazy lauded with praise.

BTW, which team would you rather be made GM of along with $25 million to buy some pitching? Texas, with 3 fucking MVP-calibur hitters who can't post a winning record despite a shit division, or Florida who can lose Miggy Cabrera and still have a crazy powerful IF (and managed to post a winning record in a more stacked division)?
If the Marlins had 50 mil to blow on CC/Sheets/whatever and a reliever or two they would win 95+ games.

[Stax]

This best player gives me an idea for ANOTHER POINTLESS THREAD!

[twisterf5]

pujols but manny does get alot of consideration

[Hawk the Slayer]

pujols but manny does get alot of consideration
You're absolutely right. If there were a "NL MVP for August and September" award, he would definitely be a legitimate contender. All of you "Manny Ramirez for NL MVP!" guys just DO NOT GET IT. Imagine a player who broke his leg on Opening Day, and didn't return to the lineup until August 1. Once he got back, he was crazy good. Helped his team to the playoffs, hit the crap out of the ball, the whole 9 yards. NOBODY would give this guy a single vote for MVP. Why not? "He missed too much time... can't help your team when you're injured." This is precisely why Chipper Jones doesn't have a chance in hell to be NL MVP. (That, plus the overall suckitude of the Braves.) However - if the guy is healthy all year, then gets traded from one league to another, joining his new team on August 1, and the same situation ensues (hot Aug/Sep, leads team to postseason)? OMG, HE MIGHT JUST BE THE MVP!
...
Even though he helped his team precisely as much as the guy with the broken leg did. By exactly the same amount. Yet, the injured guy is obviously not the MVP, but the traded guy just might be. How in the hell does that even begin to make sense? Manny is not the NL MVP. He should not even get a single 5th place vote. Two months of outstanding play does not make up for the FOUR WHOLE MONTHS he spent in the other league.