Options
Ryan Howard for NL MVP......
DrJ
Posts: 2,213
in Sports Talk
... sorry to all the Pujols fans out there, but Ryan Howard is putting up an extremely strong case for winning a second NL MVP Award. Yes his average has been less than stellar, but when it comes to Run Production, which the offensive game is all about at the end of the day, he is heads and toes ahead of anyone in the NL this season. Quick comparison....
RBI
Howard -- 129 (17 More than the next closest player)
Pujols -- 99
HR
Howard -- 43 (7 More than the next closes)
Pujols -- 33
And the kicker....
Runs
Howard -- 91
Pujols --90
For Pujols's on base% and Batting Average, he is right about even with Howard when it comes to runs, which is a reflection of both the surrounding team and the timeliness of his hits. With the tear Howard has been on lately, I would not be surprised if he ended up with 50 HR again which is a major major accomplishment in the post steroids era.
Thoughts?
RBI
Howard -- 129 (17 More than the next closest player)
Pujols -- 99
HR
Howard -- 43 (7 More than the next closes)
Pujols -- 33
And the kicker....
Runs
Howard -- 91
Pujols --90
For Pujols's on base% and Batting Average, he is right about even with Howard when it comes to runs, which is a reflection of both the surrounding team and the timeliness of his hits. With the tear Howard has been on lately, I would not be surprised if he ended up with 50 HR again which is a major major accomplishment in the post steroids era.
Thoughts?
0
Comments
<< <i> Ryan Howard is putting up Dave Kingman type numbers >>
I agree with you. Howard has over 40 hr's and over 129 rbi's but look at his strikeouts and ave. If he could have hit over .270 and cut his strikeouts in half then we might be talking about Howard for MVP. He's proven before he can hit over .300 . Either way, Howard is an awesome player and an MVP to the Phillies.
<< <i>
<< <i> Ryan Howard is putting up Dave Kingman type numbers >>
I agree with you. Howard has over 40 hr's and over 129 rbi's but look at his strikeouts and ave. If he could have hit over .270 and cut his strikeouts in half then we might be talking about Howard for MVP. He's proven before he can hit over .300 . Either way, Howard is an awesome player and an MVP to the Phillies. >>
The question comes down to what is the ultimate indicator of offensive success. In my mind it is total Runs batted in and runs scored which has the greatest impact on team success. In these categories combined, Howard is second to none.
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>In my mind it is total Runs batted in and runs scored which has the greatest impact on team success >>
Exactly. Which means you could also say that it is team success that has such a great impact on the RBI and runs scored totals of Howard
had a rough start but after that he has been amazing, winning many more games with the long ball than losing with the strike out.
It appears that Utley and Burrell have ran out of gas and the big man is driving the semi now and soon we will be chasing the Mets, while
the Brewers will be in the rear view soon!
His Runners In Scoring Position batting is quite nice, .303 AVG, .420 OB%, and .545 SLG%. So even though RBI totals often lie, in this case, Howard's RBI total isn't all that misleading.
However,
It is unfortunate for the Phillies that Howard has been poor in HIgh Leverage situations, and has shined in Low Leverage situations. What does that mean? It means he has done a lot of good hitting when the game is basically decided, and has shrunk when the game is still hanging in the balance.
In High Leverage Situations his OPS is .747
In Low Leverage Situations his OPS is .909
Most of the high leverage OPS comes from the category of Late and Close where Howard has a .146 AVG, .284 OB%, and .281 SLG%.
He has really shined when the game lead is greater than four runs, .292 AVG, .395 OB%, and .677 SLG%.
All that is wrapped up nicely with the drastic OPS differences in HIGH LEverage situations, as compared to Low Leverage.
So as much as his good men on base hitting has helped the Phillies, his poor hitting with the win still in doubt has hurt them.
The final result is No MVP, deserved, nor given with the c*$kamamee criteria people always use.
Delgado....ummm, NO. His overall hitting is not good enough, and he has also been poor in High Leverage situations
stress spots? I bet he could down a big mac in 2 seconds with a pack of wolves coming at him! Ill forgive him for poor leverage as long
as he is hitting them out of the park!
Ryan Howard? He has been hot lately; so hot that he is now better than the average player in the league. He has still committed more errors at first base than the Phillies regular shortstop and third baseman COMBINED (talk about a record that will never, ever get broken), he is still on pace to break his own record for strikeouts, and he is still the third best hitter on his team. He would be the worst MVP choice in history.
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.
leverage numbers? huh huh huh?
<< <i>
Ryan Howard? He has been hot lately; so hot that he is now better than the average player in the league. He has still committed more errors at first base than the Phillies regular shortstop and third baseman COMBINED (talk about a record that will never, ever get broken), he is still on pace to break his own record for strikeouts, and he is still the third best hitter on his team. He would be the worst MVP choice in history. >>
The major league leader in HR and RBI is now only better than the average player in the league? LOL.
Berkman started out hot and has slowed down big time.
Chipper has been hurt for long periods this year and his team is in the crapper
Pujols has not been able to carry his team to a better record and playoff contention all year.
Fielding rarely comes into play with MVP voting. That is why there is a separate award called the Gold Glove.
Grote,
I don't think what you are saying has a strong logic foundation. He has been hot since June 27th, that is true. But the Mets were below .500 on June 27 partly because of Delgado being bad. This cannot be ignored. It isn't like the early season games meant nothing.
His 1st half OPS was .784, and 2nd Half 1.016. Each of the first half games meant just as much as each of the second half games.
By your logic, it is like giving citizen X a medal for plugging the hole in the damn after he was the one who created it in the first place!
This is not the same as saying hitting in a low leverage situation is the same as a high leverage situation, because low leverage situations are when the game is basically in hand(it isn't the first inning as some might assume). So heavy production in low leverage situations are basically 'empty' stats as they don't change the outcome of the game.
A HR in the eigth inning when leading by six runs is an example of a low leverage output. A double with the bases loaded in the first inning is an example of a HIGH leverage situation.
Dallas is absolutely correct in that none of the true deserving guys will win the MVP, and it will go to one of the guys who just happen to have teammates that are just good enough to make their team barely win a division, but not with teammates that are too good or too bad that make them win or lose by a wide margin. By giving it to one of the lesser guys who are having a good season, who happen to have the right mix of teammates, simply makes that award a joke. And that is ashame, as it could be a worthy award!
DrJ. I find your comment that Pujols has not been able to carry his team to a better record as a perfect example of the absolute silliness. It is the lack of ability of his teammates(compared to that of Howard's or Delgado's teammates) that have prevented the Cardinals from attaining a better record. Pujols's output is tremendously higher than the other two players(and he also has done his best in High Leverage situatios, so it isn't empty production). So it cannot possibly be him 'failing' to carry any team. That is just an outrageously incorrect comment. But please do not let this mention of Pujols bring fandango anywhere near this thread...we don't need sticky keyboards.
<< <i>Delgado is worthier than Howard at this point. If the Mets win the East and the Sillies miss the playoffs, Delgado will win it for sure. >>
I was going to make that argument, and sure, he's had a great second half, but you could argue Reyes is more valuable to the Mets then Delgado is...
you could argue, anyway...
Also, the Cardinals would be in first place (or very close to it) if the bullpen was just average. They have blown over 30 saves this year. If you cut those in half, they would have 15 more wins than they do now.
Shane
Pujols is being penalized because his teammates weren't quite good enough...and it is silliness to give an individual award BASED ON THE ABILITY OR INABILITY OF TEAMMATES, yet that is what the backers of Howard or Delgado are doing.
I also want to add that Fandango has company, no not FrankHardy, but it looks like a couple of Ryan Howard stalkers are out there as well...
Steve
<< <i>I also want to add that Fandango has company, no not FrankHardy, but it looks like a couple of Ryan Howard stalkers are out there as well... >>
Thank you!
Shane
<< <i>There is NO way a guy thats hitting under .275 will win the MVP, unless he has 150 rbis then maybe. Gotta give it to Carlos right now. >>
If Howard keeps up his current pace he will be close to 150 RBI and 50 HR at the end of the year. If the Phils end up making the playoffs, Howard is a no brainer for MVP.
First half of the year Berkman was my MVP, but he has slowed down in recent times.
It will be interesting, but Howard should definitely be in the conversation with Pujols, Berkman, and Delgado since he is the #1 Run producer in the NL.
I'm a bit undecided on an NL MVP. Don't think Pujols merits it this year - at different times of this season I've gone with Berkman or Braun or Ramirez (Hanley, that is). I suspect Delgado will get it, but I feel uneasy giving it to someone for having one good year after he's underperformed for so many years with the Mets and left them stranded or collapsing.
I don't think what you are saying has a strong logic foundation. He has been hot since June 27th, that is true. But the Mets were below .500 on June 27 partly because of Delgado being bad. This cannot be ignored. It isn't like the early season games meant nothing.
His 1st half OPS was .784, and 2nd Half 1.016. Each of the first half games meant just as much as each of the second half games.
No question his very poor first half works against him here, but if the Mets make the playoffs and the Phillies (Howard), Brewers (Braun), Astros (Berkman) and Cardinals (Puljos) all don't make the playoffs, I believe Carlos Delgado will have an excellent shot at getting the MVP based on what he's done to propel the Mets into playoff contention since late June. Of course, if the Mets miss the playoffs, he has no shot at all.
Kirk Gibson won the award in 1988 with very pedestrian stats .290 BA, 25 HR, 76 RBI (especially when you compare his to Strawberry's from that same season, though he did have 31 SBs also), but he was widely viewed is being the driving force behind the Dodgers' playoff push (a feat he validated rather nicely after the voting with his heroic HR in Game 1 of the World Series), so I can certainly see Delgado getting the MVP if the above scenario plays out. The Mets have some excellent players, but it is no coincidence that their turnaround coincided with Delgado's hot streak, and he has been as valuable as any player in the NL during that span. For me, the MVP ought to be awarded to a player whose team at least makes the playoffs, especially in this era of three divisions and a wildcard winner.
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>Kirk Gibson won the award in 1988 with very pedestrian stats .290 BA, 25 HR, 76 RBI (especially when you compare his to Strawberry's from that same season, though he did have 31 SBs also), but he was widely viewed is being the driving force behind the Dodgers' playoff push (a feat he validated rather nicely after the voting with his heroic HR in Game 1 of the World Series), so I can certainly see Delgado getting the MVP if the above scenario plays out. >>
But the voters were correct that year; they looked past the raw stats and actually found the most valuable player (or, at worst, the second most valuable player behind Will Clark). Kirk Gibson was not at all a bad choice for MVP in 1988.
Howard represents the opposite - not looking past the stats and being blinded by a high RBI total. If Howard does win, he will join a large group who have won it for no other reason. To date, Andre Dawson in 1987 is the worst MVP in history (excepting, as always, relief pitchers). Howard will take that spot if the voters are as blind this year as they were in 1987.
Even Joe Gordon over Ted Williams?
Steve
I agree with you there. I was only using Gibson as an example since he was an MVP with stats that didn't jump off the page at first glance.
The MVP is one award that is more than just about numbers and stats, unfortunately for Skin.
It should also be noted that Delgado plays his home games at Shea Stadium, an old ballpark, that is certainly not a "hitter's" park by any stretch, either.
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 guess the voters got those 2 right too?
Steve
<< <i>Even Joe Gordon over Ted Williams? >>
Yes, even worse than Joe Gordon over Ted Williams.
<< <i>Terry Pendelton also won the MVP one year with pedestrian stats, Larkin too.
I guess the voters got those 2 right too? >>
Larkin was a fine choice. Pendleton, not so much, but still a far better choice than Howard this year.
dallas you really don't believe that.
Steve
<< <i>dallas you really don't believe that. >>
In terms of value, Williams was better than Gordon by virtually the same amount that Tim Raines was better than Andre Dawson. But, from a different direction, Joe Gordon was much, much better in the year he won the MVP than Dawson was the year he won his. Or, from yet another direction, Joe Gordon was one of the best three or four players in the AL in 1942; Dawson was maybe the 20th best player in the NL.
So yes, I believe it, because it's true. Gordon was a bad pick; Dawson was an awful pick.
The Baseball Writers Association of America, who gives out the award, never really laid out the exact conditions, standards, or norms for who should win. So it’s left open for interpretation.
So value aside, the choice of Dawson (as being the worst) is only your opinion Steve Right?
Steve
Yes, it's my opinion, but I've yet to hear a theory that explains how a so-so right fielder with three times as many Ks as walks on a last place team could possibly deserve an MVP Award. Well, there's the "he had so many RBI" theory, but - in my opinion - that's not a theory it's a mental defect.
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.
Sincerely,
The Future
You hit the nail on the head that it is open for interpretation, and the writers really don't have a criteria.
So what they, and what people on this board are doing, is giving it to guys BASED ON THE GOODNESS OR BADNESS OF THEIR TEAMMATES.
Grote can say that Delgado carried the Mets(despite that he hurt them before), and their winning coincided with his hotness...and it just happens to be that his teammates are just good enough that they will eek into the playoffs, thus making it look all the more impressive what Delgado did. Yet Delgado(or somebody else) could do even BETTER, but have teammates who are a smidge better or worse, and they either win by too many games(thus trivializing the contribution), or LOSE by too man games(thus again trivialize the contribution).
I can make a c$%ckamamme case for Mark Derosa, being that the Cubs never expected so much production out of a super utility player, and that no team has had a player do so much that played so many positions, and he has soo many RBI in less at bats, and that without him the Brewers would be ahead of the Cubs...and that he HAS PICKED UP THE SLACK FOR A SINGLES HITTING DEREK LEE!! Grote, does that sound familiar? Boy, Lee can't hit HR anymore, but if it weren't for this Derossa coming out of nowhere with his HR the Cubs would not be in the playoffs. Wow, he is the MVP.
YES, there is no criteria, and all the stuff you guys spout above is some sort of criteria...BUT WHAT IT DOES IS MAKE THE AWARD TRIVIAL itself.
Simply put, an award that rewards a player that has the most value to a major league team...no not to a specific team where the moons align and the circumstances are all in order to make him look more valuable...but TRUE BASSEBALL value, then you have an award with merit.
Delgado, or Howard do not fit the criteria of winning an MVP award that actually has merit to it. They may win one of the ones where the stars and moons must align to make their contribution shine greater than it really is...but not the one that has merit.
DRJ, looking at raw RBI totals does not do that. You also have to look at the runs Howard has cost his team due to not getting on base, making a lot of outs, and stranding runners. When you weigh the ledger, then Howard comes up way short in baseball value.
<< <i>
DRJ, looking at raw RBI totals does not do that. You also have to look at the runs Howard has cost his team due to not getting on base, making a lot of outs, and stranding runners. When you weigh the ledger, then Howard comes up way short in baseball value. >>
I understand this argument, but it based purely on Hypotheticals. Runs, Runs Batted In, and Team Wins is the ultimate measure. Everything else is simply statistics used to justify an argument one way or another. It is part of the fun of debating baseball stats, but fun is it all it is at the end of the day.
<< <i>
<< <i> Ryan Howard is putting up Dave Kingman type numbers >>
I agree with you. Howard has over 40 hr's and over 129 rbi's but look at his strikeouts and ave. If he could have hit over .270 and cut his strikeouts in half then we might be talking about Howard for MVP. He's proven before he can hit over .300 . Either way, Howard is an awesome player and an MVP to the Phillies. >>
There is no comparison to Kingman and Howard. Kingman only cracked 100 RBI (max of 118) twice in his career, 40 HR once in his career, and 90 runs once.
Over the past 3 years Howard has hit 40 or more HR, scored 90 or more runs, and drove in over 129 (and counting this year) runs.
J
There are no hypotheticals, we know exactly how many opportunties there are. In fact, I laid them out pretty clear in my RBI myth thread I just wrote up....Pull up a chair.
However with that said, they were not the worst in the NL, far from it.
That was a year where the last place team in the East was better then the 3rd place team in the West.
I looked at the voting that year and no other then Ozzie Smith was second in MVP voting.
Ozzie may have been a better choice.
Steve
<< <i>DRJ,
There are no hypotheticals, we know exactly how many opportunties there are. In fact, I laid them out pretty clear in my RBI myth thread I just wrote up....Pull up a chair. >>
Opportunities are hypotheticals, because each at bat is unique based on the circumstances of the game. Your high and low leverage numbers do not take into account the fact that a player may be batting in a low leverage situation because they placed their team in an advantageous position due to earlier performance in the game.
Runs and Runs Batted In never lie since they are emblazened in the score board each game. I like to stick with tangible numbers.
I have all the tangible numbers you need in the RBI myth thread.
DrJ, you are incorrect on your leverage analysis! There are many medium and high leverage situations in the first inning, 2nd inning, etc... You are flat out wrong in your analysis. Many of the low leverage situations come when the score is lopsided, and even a HR only raises the chance of winning from 2% to 4%. In fact, Howard has done his best hitting in low leverage situations...situtions where his offensive prowess did nothing toward contributing towards a win. You said you do like wins, did't you?
<< <i>DrJ,
I have all the tangible numbers you need in the RBI myth thread.
DrJ, you are incorrect on your leverage analysis! There are many medium and high leverage situations in the first inning, 2nd inning, etc... You are flat out wrong in your analysis. Many of the low leverage situations come when the score is lopsided, and even a HR only raises the chance of winning from 2% to 4%. In fact, Howard has done his best hitting in low leverage situations...situtions where his offensive prowess did nothing toward contributing towards a win. You said you do like wins, did't you? >>
I have now joined the RBI thread as well......
AND his SLUGGING % is not even close to Pujols.....which is saying a lot, since he has 10 more dingers...
AND Howard is not even the MVP of his team.....Utley is more valuable and Rollins was more valuable (ss)....
i hope the voters realized their mistake in 2006 when they gave a guy with a .245 BA w RISP the MVP! WHAT A JOKE@!
<< <i>RYAN HOWARD has an embarassing OBA and an embarassing OPS......
AND his SLUGGING % is not even close to Pujols.....which is saying a lot, since he has 10 more dingers...
AND Howard is not even the MVP of his team.....Utley is more valuable and Rollins was more valuable (ss)....
i hope the voters realized their mistake in 2006 when they gave a guy with a .245 BA w RISP the MVP! WHAT A JOKE@! >>
Gary,
You sig line tells us enough about your bias. Get back to re-sealing 1975 Topps Minis.
<< <i>Ozzie may have been a better choice. >>
Ozzie would definitely have been a much better choice. As would Raines, both Clarks, Strawberry, Schmidt, Johnson, Davis, Murphy, Gwynn, Guerrero, Wallach and so on and so on.
When Dawson was not in Wrigley he hit .246, had a .288 OBP (!) and slugged .480. Away from Busch, Ozzie hit .318, had a .408 OBP and slugged .395. Throw in baserunning and consider the outs made and Ozzie was a better offensive player than Dawson when you put them in neutral parks - throw in defense and the gap just gets so enormous it's silly. By any reasonable standard, the NL MVP should have gone to Raines, Smith, or Jack Clark. I'm not going to add IMO to that either, because there's been 20 years for someone to make a case that Dawson's MVP was not an unfunny joke, and nobody has made it. That it was a worse MVP pick than Gordon's is my opinion; that it was a horrible MVP pick is simply beyond dispute.
His fielding was above the league average.
I think the voters fell in love with his HR and RBI totals and his leadership.
I still think Joe Gordon over Ted Williams in 1942 was the worst.
The year before was prolly almost as bad. Guy hits 406 and is not the mvp?
Looking at 1987 I do though now see that Dawson being chosen was not one of the better choices.
Steve