I hate to beat a dead horse....
frankhardy
Posts: 8,097 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
...but I think this just might resurrect it. I just happened to come across an article by Bernie Miklasz of the St Louis Post Dispatch on why Albert Pujols should have been the MVP. Here it is. To all of those that think Ryan Howard should have been the MVP over Pujols, read this and reconsider your position.
*******************************************
I must admit up front that it's difficult to write a column about the MVP voting in the National League, because the last thing I want to do is disparage Ryan Howard.
There is so much to admire about the big fella from Lafayette High in St. Louis who used his prodigious power and amiable personality to conquer the notoriously tough town of Philadelphia.
Howard is an outstanding guy, friendly to everyone. He hasn't forgotten his hometown, or his family, or his old friends. Fame hasn't affected Howard, who has remained true to what he is: a genuinely nice human being.
Howard is also a remarkably scary power hitter. And Howard will have a special career because he works so hard on his hitting; his determination to improve a weak spot in his stroke by mastering the inside pitch is the No. 1 reason he cranked 58 homers in 2006. And no question, Howard boosted the Phillies and played a leading role in keeping them in contention for a wild card spot long after most pundits counted them out. Advertisement
I'm happy for Howard. He's worthy of the MVP Award. He had a sensational season and was a sensational story, and that carried the vote. More than anything, sportswriters root for stories, and root for moments. And Howard simply had an electric presence this past summer. For pure thrills, oh-my-gosh swings of the bat, and must-see TV, Howard was the most spectacular player in baseball in 2006.
That said, the voters got it wrong in choosing Howard over the Cardinals' Albert Pujols for the MVP.
The error in the NL voting wasn't nearly as egregious as the incomprehensible selection of Minnesota first baseman as American League MVP. (Morneau was, at best, the third-most valuable Twin behind catcher Joe Mauer and pitcher Johan Santana; so how in the world was he tabbed as the MVP of the entire league?)
In the NL, Pujols once again played the role of Henry Aaron, ironically penalized by his annual excellence, which the supposedly knowledgeable baseball writers clearly take for granted. Aaron won only one MVP award in his career; his constant drumbeat of offense often was overshadowed by another player's more dramatic and thunderous production. And so it goes with Pujols, who in his six major-league seasons has captured one MVP award while finishing second in the voting three times, third once, and fourth once.
Pujols' brilliance is dispensed on a daily basis in a variety of ways. It's wonderful stuff if you get a chance to see Pujols' skill set on display. The way he saves runs with his Gold Glove fielding at first base. The way he takes an extra base with his instincts as a runner. The way he'll ignore the temptation to pull the ball, and instead rifle an outside pitch to the opposite field to deliver an RBI single. But if you are a baseball writer in another market, you won't see the more subtle elements of Pujols' game illuminated on ESPN's "SportsCenter;" what you'll see is lots of home-run highlights, accompanied by the soundtrack of awestruck announcers.
Remember the baseball marketing slogan, "Chicks dig the long ball?" Well, baseball writers dig the long ball, too. They're just as seduced by home runs and RBIs as any fan in the stands. I would hope that my colleagues would be more discerning, but it isn't the case.
Here's why Pujols was the MVP:
— If you want to use the more traditional statistics, Pujols was the only hitter in the NL to finish in the top five in average (3rd), homers (2nd), RBIs (2nd), runs (5th), on-base percentage (1st), slugging percentage (1st), and batting average with runners in scoring position (1st).
— If you want to use sabermetrics, Pujols was first in the NL in Value Over Replacement, first in Win Shares, first in Equivalent Average, first in Runs Created, first in Win Probability Added.
— If you want to zero in on clutch hitting, Pujols led the NL with a .397 batting average with runners in scoring position. Howard ranked 51st in the NL with a .256 average with runners in scoring position. With runners in scoring position and two out, Pujols hit a preposterous .435. Howard batted .247.
— If you want to downgrade Pujols because the Cardinals struggled in September, then I would simply ask why this should be held against him. In the final month, Pujols batted .372 with 10 homers and 28 RBIs. In the final week of the regular season, Pujols batted .370 with four homers and eight RBIs. And if I'm not mistaken, Philadelphia was in strong position to win the wild card, only to go 3-4 in the final week.
— Pujols was the NL's best defensive first baseman. In the Baseball Prospectus defensive-rating stat, Fielding Runs Above Replacement, Pujols was a plus 25. Howard was a minus 5.
— Pujols finished eighth in the NL in extra bases taken as a runner; he would have rated even higher on the chart had he not missed nearly three weeks with a strained oblique.
— If you want to say that Howard "carried" the Phillies' lineup, then I must simply ask why is it that two of Howard's lineup mates received MVP votes? Philly second baseman Chase Utley finished eighth overall in the voting and was named on 26 of 32 ballots. Phillies shortstop Jimmy Rollins also received a ninth-place vote. No other Cardinals position player received a vote. So how can anyone possibly argue that Howard carried the Phillies more than Pujols carried the injury-ravaged Cardinals?
— Pujols hit 49 homers and drove in 137 runs. Howard is the undisputed HR champion, and we salute him. But what about RBIs? The voters love RBIs. And Howard had 149 RBIs, 12 more than Pujols. But let's look beneath the surface numbers. Howard had more RBIs than Pujols for an obvious reason: He had more RBI opportunities. Howard had 358 plate appearances with runners on base; Pujols had 301 plate appearances with runners on base. The Phillies had 509 runners on base for Howard's at-bats; the Cardinals had 429 runners on base for Pujols' at-bats. Howard had 164 at-bats with runners in scoring position; Pujols had 126 at-bats with runners in scoring position. And despite having 38 fewer at bats in those situations, Pujols actually drove in more runs than Howard, 88-83.
Again, this is no outrage. Howard had a monster season. A rising star who hits 58 homers and knocks in 149 RBIs doesn't have to apologize for winning the MVP.
But many years from now, when perplexed baseball historians look back on all of Pujols' second-place finishes, they might wonder if the baseball writers owe Pujols an apology.
******************************************
I thought he made an excellent case. I would like to see someone to argue for Howard after reading this article. Someone may can defend the writers, and that's fine. I would just like to see it.
*******************************************
I must admit up front that it's difficult to write a column about the MVP voting in the National League, because the last thing I want to do is disparage Ryan Howard.
There is so much to admire about the big fella from Lafayette High in St. Louis who used his prodigious power and amiable personality to conquer the notoriously tough town of Philadelphia.
Howard is an outstanding guy, friendly to everyone. He hasn't forgotten his hometown, or his family, or his old friends. Fame hasn't affected Howard, who has remained true to what he is: a genuinely nice human being.
Howard is also a remarkably scary power hitter. And Howard will have a special career because he works so hard on his hitting; his determination to improve a weak spot in his stroke by mastering the inside pitch is the No. 1 reason he cranked 58 homers in 2006. And no question, Howard boosted the Phillies and played a leading role in keeping them in contention for a wild card spot long after most pundits counted them out. Advertisement
I'm happy for Howard. He's worthy of the MVP Award. He had a sensational season and was a sensational story, and that carried the vote. More than anything, sportswriters root for stories, and root for moments. And Howard simply had an electric presence this past summer. For pure thrills, oh-my-gosh swings of the bat, and must-see TV, Howard was the most spectacular player in baseball in 2006.
That said, the voters got it wrong in choosing Howard over the Cardinals' Albert Pujols for the MVP.
The error in the NL voting wasn't nearly as egregious as the incomprehensible selection of Minnesota first baseman as American League MVP. (Morneau was, at best, the third-most valuable Twin behind catcher Joe Mauer and pitcher Johan Santana; so how in the world was he tabbed as the MVP of the entire league?)
In the NL, Pujols once again played the role of Henry Aaron, ironically penalized by his annual excellence, which the supposedly knowledgeable baseball writers clearly take for granted. Aaron won only one MVP award in his career; his constant drumbeat of offense often was overshadowed by another player's more dramatic and thunderous production. And so it goes with Pujols, who in his six major-league seasons has captured one MVP award while finishing second in the voting three times, third once, and fourth once.
Pujols' brilliance is dispensed on a daily basis in a variety of ways. It's wonderful stuff if you get a chance to see Pujols' skill set on display. The way he saves runs with his Gold Glove fielding at first base. The way he takes an extra base with his instincts as a runner. The way he'll ignore the temptation to pull the ball, and instead rifle an outside pitch to the opposite field to deliver an RBI single. But if you are a baseball writer in another market, you won't see the more subtle elements of Pujols' game illuminated on ESPN's "SportsCenter;" what you'll see is lots of home-run highlights, accompanied by the soundtrack of awestruck announcers.
Remember the baseball marketing slogan, "Chicks dig the long ball?" Well, baseball writers dig the long ball, too. They're just as seduced by home runs and RBIs as any fan in the stands. I would hope that my colleagues would be more discerning, but it isn't the case.
Here's why Pujols was the MVP:
— If you want to use the more traditional statistics, Pujols was the only hitter in the NL to finish in the top five in average (3rd), homers (2nd), RBIs (2nd), runs (5th), on-base percentage (1st), slugging percentage (1st), and batting average with runners in scoring position (1st).
— If you want to use sabermetrics, Pujols was first in the NL in Value Over Replacement, first in Win Shares, first in Equivalent Average, first in Runs Created, first in Win Probability Added.
— If you want to zero in on clutch hitting, Pujols led the NL with a .397 batting average with runners in scoring position. Howard ranked 51st in the NL with a .256 average with runners in scoring position. With runners in scoring position and two out, Pujols hit a preposterous .435. Howard batted .247.
— If you want to downgrade Pujols because the Cardinals struggled in September, then I would simply ask why this should be held against him. In the final month, Pujols batted .372 with 10 homers and 28 RBIs. In the final week of the regular season, Pujols batted .370 with four homers and eight RBIs. And if I'm not mistaken, Philadelphia was in strong position to win the wild card, only to go 3-4 in the final week.
— Pujols was the NL's best defensive first baseman. In the Baseball Prospectus defensive-rating stat, Fielding Runs Above Replacement, Pujols was a plus 25. Howard was a minus 5.
— Pujols finished eighth in the NL in extra bases taken as a runner; he would have rated even higher on the chart had he not missed nearly three weeks with a strained oblique.
— If you want to say that Howard "carried" the Phillies' lineup, then I must simply ask why is it that two of Howard's lineup mates received MVP votes? Philly second baseman Chase Utley finished eighth overall in the voting and was named on 26 of 32 ballots. Phillies shortstop Jimmy Rollins also received a ninth-place vote. No other Cardinals position player received a vote. So how can anyone possibly argue that Howard carried the Phillies more than Pujols carried the injury-ravaged Cardinals?
— Pujols hit 49 homers and drove in 137 runs. Howard is the undisputed HR champion, and we salute him. But what about RBIs? The voters love RBIs. And Howard had 149 RBIs, 12 more than Pujols. But let's look beneath the surface numbers. Howard had more RBIs than Pujols for an obvious reason: He had more RBI opportunities. Howard had 358 plate appearances with runners on base; Pujols had 301 plate appearances with runners on base. The Phillies had 509 runners on base for Howard's at-bats; the Cardinals had 429 runners on base for Pujols' at-bats. Howard had 164 at-bats with runners in scoring position; Pujols had 126 at-bats with runners in scoring position. And despite having 38 fewer at bats in those situations, Pujols actually drove in more runs than Howard, 88-83.
Again, this is no outrage. Howard had a monster season. A rising star who hits 58 homers and knocks in 149 RBIs doesn't have to apologize for winning the MVP.
But many years from now, when perplexed baseball historians look back on all of Pujols' second-place finishes, they might wonder if the baseball writers owe Pujols an apology.
******************************************
I thought he made an excellent case. I would like to see someone to argue for Howard after reading this article. Someone may can defend the writers, and that's fine. I would just like to see it.
Shane
0
Comments
<< <i>But many years from now, when perplexed baseball historians look back on all of Pujols' second-place finishes, they might wonder if the baseball writers owe Pujols an apology. >>
None has been issued to Ted Williams, so I figure Pujols shouldn't hold his breath.
As long as the definition of MVP differs from writer to writer (and as long as the writers' vote is what counts), we will continue to have significant debate about who should win. That's what baseball is all about, wouldn't change a bit of it!
I am a big fan of Pujols, as well as Howard.
In my opinion and that of many others Howard deserved it, and he won.
I think that Ted Williams deserved more than 2 MVP awards. I mean, when you win the Triple Crown twice (1942 and 1947) and don't win the MVP in those years, something is really wrong.
1420,
I realize that people think that Howard should have one, but based upon the info above, WHY do people think that Howard should have won. Was it because of the home runs and RBI's?
Shane
Ted Williams wins the triple crown but........is NOT the MVP???
This is part of what makes baseball so frustrating, enjoyable, and fun to discuss, I also would probably not wish to change it .
Pujols had a fabulous season but at some point it's time to realize he's not going to win the mvp every year, especially as long as there is debate as to what 'valuable' means.
Howard had a fantastic year and was more than worthy to win the MVP.
Sure, maybe I did bring up a dead horse. That's what all the the replies have been about. What I want is for someone to refute the article. I don't think it can be done! (Unless Skinpinch can find a way!)
Shane
The writer points out the fact that Pujols was better than Howard in pretty much all the measurements available(the good ones to boot!), AND he even beats out Howard in the flawed 'VALUE' area, and he brings up Utley and Rollins to show that Howard was not alone. I will take that one step further....
Team OPS
Phillies .794
Cardinals .769
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that since Pujols himself has a higher OPS than Howard, that HOWARD'S TEAMMATES HAD A BETTER OFFENSIVE SEASON...no not just one or two, THE TEAMMATES AS A WHOLE.
The dumbfounding thing is that Pujols's non selection just flat out spits in the face of the criteria used to select Morneau and most past MVP's...the criteria of being on a division winner. I don't agree with this criteria, but it has mostly been the determining factor in the history of MVP races, and like the writer correctly pointed out, Morneau(the third best player on his own team!) won the award because of this criteria. He simply does not win it if Minny is in third. So why is Pujols then not winning it. Writers, which is it? Make up your mind.
That tells me they were invaluable to their teams playoffs aspirations, and they had years that were more 'valuable' than the other candidates.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Would not better hitting by Howard early on, coupled with his later barrage, have allowed Philadelphia to not fall out so fast, only to come up short in the long run? If one wants to play this 'game' then one can say Howard should have done better early on, and not put them in a hole...same for Morneau. Morneau should just be out of the equation..the man was the third best on his own team. Just get him out of the discussion now, ti is that crazy.
These are examples of how that game can be played. But Ax, you cannot take that stand of hitting down the stretch when it counts, UNLESS you use that same stance against Arod, and his lower numbers late in the game. It simply cannot be both ways from the same mouth.
Perplexed? BS! Howard won it and well deserved it. Pujols was second. Case closed.
Shane
This year proves it about as well as any year ever has: MVP Awards are meaningless.
<< <i>Dead horse. Yeah, it might have been a slight injustice to Pujols, but who really cares? We're World Champs. >>
Individual awards are secondary to a championship
<< <i>Tell us why Howard deserved it? The issue isn't who WON IT. We know that. The issue is THE ARTICLE and WHO SHOULD HAVE won it. If you think Howard deserved it, then tell us why. Refute the facts in the article. >>
You should read the article that you posted...it already points out the reasons why Howard won the award, but of course it put a spin on those reasons. The rest is all opinion. Besides the writer seems like a St. Louis "homer" - what do you expect him to say about his home boy? Now Albert will probably invite the writer over to his house parties. Again...Howard won the award and it was well deserved. Case was reviewed...Case closed again - get over it.
Sure, it pointed out some reasons that Ryan Howard won the award. Yet, it pointed out about 7 times as many reasons that Pujols should have won. Again, this Cardinals fan is not whining. I just think it is interesting conversation. No one has yet to show any reason (other than HR and RBI) why Howard should have won over Pujols.
Shane
<< <i>Oh, I am over it. The Cardinals are the Champs as a couple have already pointed out. I just thought it interesting to debate.
Sure, it pointed out some reasons that Ryan Howard won the award. Yet, it pointed out about 7 times as many reasons that Pujols should have won. Again, this Cardinals fan is not whining. I just think it is interesting conversation. No one has yet to show any reason (other than HR and RBI) why Howard should have won over Pujols. >>
My exact quote from another earlier thread:
"I wouldn't have argued with Pujols getting it. Great to see Howard get it though."
I've got no problem at all with the "interesting conversation" from you, and Pujols is of course without a doubt a terrific ballplayer. Hopefully there will be many more "debates" over the years with these two guys being perennial MVP candidates.
Frankly though, I just didn't like that writer's choice of the word "perplexed" - there was no reason to be perplexed about the choice of Howard for MVP...other than possible ulterior motives of the writer, some of which I mentioned.
-
Shane
He also brings up the terrible error in Morneau, and rightfully ranks him third most important on his own team...let alone the MVP of the entire league. He sees the ridiculousness in that.
The problem is, this writer has done his homework and used some logic...and that makes him a rare breed among his contemporaries. I think he wants his fellow writers to be held to a higher standard, because the voting is historically a downright joke.
<< <i>I kind of disagree with the writers motives. I don't think it is just being a homer for Pujols. I think he is expressing some of the same concerns that I have posted about idiot writers...and kind of what JrMcdaddy said, MOST WRITERS SIMPLY DON'T DIG DEEP ENOUGH WHEN DOING THEIR VOTING! I think this has this guy upset, because it is true, because these guys must be doing a lot of that(plus a pinch of ignorance).
He also brings up the terrible error in Morneau, and rightfully ranks him third most important on his own team...let alone the MVP of the entire league. He sees the ridiculousness in that.
The problem is, this writer has done his homework and used some logic...and that makes him a rare breed among his contemporaries. I think he wants his fellow writers to be held to a higher standard, because the voting is historically a downright joke. >>
I understand your point and understand the other points made here, and of course my ulterior motive for Howard is I'm a Phillies fan.
It's tough choosing between players who had great seasons but the choice has been made and we can disagree on the choice, but I don't think whatsoever in any way it was a bad choice, and I know nobody here said that about Howard.
About the stats - if we strictly let stats choose MVP's then we may as well let computer programs decide the MVP which of course isn't going to happen. There are as we know, and should be "intangibles" that go into someone winning the MVP.
-
Shane
Then, for him to end on owing Pujols an apology? Give me a break.
Howard had a fantastic year and is absolutely deserving....Pujols, too, had a great year but Howard's was better.
I under your being a Cards' fan why you can't let this go, but you said it yourself: you're beating a dead horse here.
Shane
<< <i>Without reading the article, can someone really step forward and say that anyone other than Howard should have been NL MVP this season? That was a no-brainer. I like Pujols, but c'mon - the Cardinals were the worst team ever to win a World Series - if not for their presence in the lackluster NL Central, the Cardinals would have watched the Series at home with everyone else. Also, how about the fact that the Cardinals this season played the weakest schedule in all of baseball, and also consider the NL Central as a whole this season was 65 games under .500 against teams from the NL West, NL East and AL (485 games total). How would the Cardinals have fared in, say - the AL East? Point being, I don't see how you can make any argument for Pujols given this mediocrity - while Howard carried the Phillies on his back for a tremendous second half run. Case closed, as far as I'm concerned. >>
So, no player on a bad team, or even a mediocre team can be considered for MVP? Jeter wasn't MVP because the Yankees can win their division without him, so no player on a very good team can be MVP. Every single point you made, indeed every single point that can possibly be made, against Pujols' deserving the MVP referred to the team he was on - you make not a single mention of how he performed as a player which is the only thing under his control. So I figure that every single player on about 25 or 26 teams would be eliminated from consideration for the MVP, and the award would go to the best player (or third best in Morneau's case) on the 4 or 5 teams that slip into the extremely narrow window your definition leaves open - even if that means the player who wins the award is the 19th or 20th best player in the league.
I urge you to rethink this; what you are describing is not an MVP Award but a joke.
Trying to reason with Axhole the idiot is like spitting in the wind.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I would like to see an intangible that Howard so called posseses that Pujols does not. AND NO, using anything that has to do with what the teammates did or didn't do, or how much they needed them(because of what they did or didn't do), does not count. Is he a better motivator in the clubhosue? Does his work ethic rub off on his teammates? Is he a teacher as well as a player? Is he better than Pujols at any one of those? And no, clutch hitting is not intangible, as it can be measured.
Knowing that Howard does not possess any of those qualties above Pujols, and knowing that Pujols performed better, yes, Frankhardy and the writer are absolutely correct in bringing up the injustice...and the Morneau one too.
I would like naysayers to produce something other than...."Howard deserved it, so I am fine with it." If he possessed an intatngible Pujols did not, show it and support it. Did he hit better in the clutch, show it and support it. Was he a better performer, show it and support it. Heck, even show and support how much his team needed him, because Pujols had a worst supporting cast. One cannot do this reasonably, because each one of those criteria have already shown to be in Pujols's favor...
which means the only reason Howard won the MVP is because he exploded better than expected, and Pujols was possibly taken for granted... this is what angered the writer, because if the award is to mean something, for goodness sakes, use reasons other than sillyness.
<< <i>Steve, even if the intangibles really make a difference, and even if an intangible could be viewed the same by everyone... in this case Pujols has the same conceivable intangibles that Howard posses, AND he performed better. AND, he was also on a division winner(which in most cases by the writers means 95% of everything). Logic shows, as Dallas pointed out, that basing an individual award on how good/bad/mediocore your teammates are, renders said award trivial.
I would like to see an intangible that Howard so called posseses that Pujols does not. AND NO, using anything that has to do with what the teammates did or didn't do, or how much they needed them(because of what they did or didn't do), does not count. Is he a better motivator in the clubhosue? Does his work ethic rub off on his teammates? Is he a teacher as well as a player? Is he better than Pujols at any one of those? And no, clutch hitting is not intangible, as it can be measured.
Knowing that Howard does not possess any of those qualties above Pujols, and knowing that Pujols performed better, yes, Frankhardy and the writer are absolutely correct in bringing up the injustice...and the Morneau one too.
I would like naysayers to produce something other than...."Howard deserved it, so I am fine with it." If he possessed an intatngible Pujols did not, show it and support it. Did he hit better in the clutch, show it and support it. Was he a better performer, show it and support it. Heck, even show and support how much his team needed him, because Pujols had a worst supporting cast. One cannot do this reasonably, because each one of those criteria have already shown to be in Pujols's favor...
which means the only reason Howard won the MVP is because he exploded better than expected, and Pujols was possibly taken for granted... this is what angered the writer, because if the award is to mean something, for goodness sakes, use reasons other than sillyness. >>
Well, you're ignoring a bit perhaps the most important part of the equation - human nature. But you didn't ignore it entirely by stating, "Pujols was possibly taken for granted." That is most probably true. Howard is "new" and makes for a better story, and his story will sell more newspapers than Pujols winning the MVP - at least in most sportwriter's minds it will. If anyone thinks money doesn't factor in with this type of voting, then that is being very naive.
If there's a big difference in the candidates, if Pujols was clearly the best, then the writers would have been "forced" to choose Pujols - but all things being close...and it was close...then the logical pick was Howard...again...it makes for a better story and that's what people prefer to read.
The best political candidate doesn't always win an election, the best employee doesn't always get the top paying job, and the best horse doesn't always win the race. That's life my friend. Again...it's interesting to discuss and I enjoy sports debates...but one thing I will guarantee you...the MVP vote for Howard will not be overturned.
-
But the writers points, and the ones that I or Dallas having been pointing out, need to be understood a little better by the writers. At the very least, they should be digging as deep as that writer...it is their job after all. It shouldn't at all be a knee jerk RBI reaction.
I agree 100%. Nobody has refuted the article. I don't believe anyone can.
Shane
By accusing the guy of hometown bias. He starts off saying it's difficult to write about the MVP voting, and I thought he was going to say because he can't be objective.
The guy rambles on and on and on about numbers, but the MVP isn't 'the best offensive year'.
It's about value, and value to his team. There is no set rule that says you have to vote for the guy with the best numbers, or the best sabremetrics, or any measured statistic.
Howard could have easily packed it up when the Phillies traded abreu - but he didn't. The natural reaction for anyone is to suffer a letdown after learning your front office has pretty much thrown in the towel for the year. He didn't.
What can be refuted in the article? They are numbers that are indeed facts - there is nothing to refute. But the MVP is not just about numbers...if it were, then it'd be an easy choice year in and year out, wouldn't it?
If your answer is, "it depends on how much the team needs him," then it is no longer an individual award, as it now becomes an award based on the greatness/mediocrity/incompetance of the teammates...or GM for that matter. It can be based that way, but once it does, it trivializes the award. It then means a player can only win it if he is in certain team situatins(like Dallas pointed out), so what is the pont of an individual award like that?
Again, the writer didn't just point out the facts of performance, he also pointed out that Pujols's value to the Cardinals is in no way less than Howard's was to the Phillies...in fact, his value(as based by the history of the award), was actually higher than Howards.
You keep talking about Howard not packing it in when they traded him. SO what! Pujols didn't pack it in either when the entire team was choking. I ask, which not packing it in was more important(valuable)....Pujols's not packing it in while they barely held onto first, or Howards in his failed attempt to make the playoffs?
In other words...whose absence would have been more noticable or hurtful?? Howards? They didn't make the playoffs with him, so what would it matter without him?
How about Pujols? If no Pujols, they don't make the playoffs, and then of course don't win a WS. In the history of the award, this is where the value was placed(as faulty as that is), but they didin't do it for Pujols...but did for Morneau(though he was third most valuable on his own team).