It would be extremely unusual for any player who is on the field for less than 3% of the season to be the most valuable player on that team; it's never happened, but if it ever does it will be a remakable pitcher on a really bad team.
What do you mean it has never happened?
It happened this year when the Phillies players voted Lidge as the MVP.
Or do you mean it has never happened with the Baseball writers? If so we have had MVP closers.
It happened this year when the Phillies players voted Lidge as the MVP.
Or do you mean it has never happened with the Baseball writers? If so we have had MVP closers.
Not sure I understand your gobbledgook.
Steve >>
And if the Phillies voted Cloris Leachman their "MVP" would that mean that she was, in fact, the most valuable player on the team?
Idiotic MVP votes occur all the time, and all they prove is that voters are idiots. They aren't even evidence regarding who really was the most valuable player. Brad Lidge was not the most valuable player on the Phillies, unless we are falling back on the contention that "most" and "valuable" are nothing more than random letters strung together, devoid of any and all meaning in the English language. As long as we define "most" and "valuable" in any way remotely resembling the meanings that they have always had, it is not possible for a pitcher who pitches 69 innings to be nearly as valuale as Chase Utley or to be the most valuable player in the league. For such a pitcher to even be the most valuable player on his own team would require that pitcher to be exceptionally great and that nobody else on the team be very good. Lidge WAS more valuable than Ryan Howard, but then so were dozens of people.
And while closer is indeed a BS position, closers have been the best players on their own teams - just not ones who pitched as rarely as Lidge. John Hiller in 1973 is a good example - the Tigers weren't very good that year, and there was no single player who stood out. Hiller, with an ERA of 1.44 over 125 innings, was that team's most valuable player.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>it is not possible for a pitcher who pitches 69 innings to be nearly as valuale as Chase Utley or to be the most valuable player in the league.
If that is your opinion ok, if you are trying to claim it as fact I disagree.
Steve >>
How can a player with such little amount of playing time be the most valuable player as an every day player?
Utley was hands down the MVP of the phillies, both with his bat and with his glove. To claim otherwise or use the excuse 'his teammates voted him MVP!' is weak.
<< <i>it is not possible for a pitcher who pitches 69 innings to be nearly as valuale as Chase Utley or to be the most valuable player in the league.
If that is your opinion ok, if you are trying to claim it as fact I disagree.
Steve >>
OK, I'll rephrase it.
It is not possible for a pitcher who pitches 69 innings to contribute as much to his team's victories as Chase Utley did in 2008. That's a fact, whether I claim it as one or not.
{And yes, it is making me extremely uncomfortable having Axtell agree with me; but even Axtell, like a broken clock, is bound to be right once in a while.}
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
One can look at VORP and see that Lidge wasn't even the most valuable pitcher to his team. Both Hamels and Moyer (!) were worth more to their team than Lidge was.
Now, don't get me wrong, Lidge coming back from the debacle in Houston to win a ring is great, but to say a reliever with such a minimal impact on the game should be the MVP of his team is just wrong. It's not even an opinion at this point, it can be statistically proven that Lidge wasn't the MVP of his team.
I just want to go on record that I disagree with Dallas and Stevek when you both talked about how SHOULD win and who WILL win. I do agree that Ryan Howard is closer to the top of the list of "who will win" than he is on the top of the list of "who should win". I disagree with you two that Ryan Howard WILL win. From everything I've read, all of the so called "experts" are saying that Pujols will win the award. I have not heard of many major media people say that he thinks Ryan Howard will win. Almost all are saying that Pujols will win. I also think he will win.
<< <i>I just want to go on record that I disagree with Dallas and Stevek when you both talked about how SHOULD win and who WILL win. I do agree that Ryan Howard is closer to the top of the list of "who will win" than he is on the top of the list of "who should win". I disagree with you two that Ryan Howard WILL win. From everything I've read, all of the so called "experts" are saying that Pujols will win the award. I have not heard of many major media people say that he thinks Ryan Howard will win. Almost all are saying that Pujols will win. I also think he will win. >>
I haven't read anything one way or the other, I just empty my mind of all logical thought, hit my head with a hammer until I start to drool out the corners of my mouth and the first name that pops into my head after that I assume will be the MVP. But this method is painful and for days afterward the only sound I can make is "RBI" in a tone reminiscent of zombies, so I'd like to find a better way. If Pujols wins, maybe I can just use evidence and common sense so I certainly hope you're right.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I know this is only one example, but I kept track of USA Today's Power Rankings. For the entire last month (pretty sure), they had Pujols the overwhelming favorite for MVP. Howard was way down the list.
When I say he shouldn't be MVP of the team I'm not saying his teammates didn't vote him that way, I'm simply saying he wasn't the MVP of his team. Utley, Hamels, and Moyer all were more valuable to their team than Lidge was.
I'm sure their vote was more sentimental in nature than on actual results, for his coming back from that Pujols homer.
Even Albert is probably open-minded enough, to see how others may percieve the meaning of "MVP"and how the award is chosen.
"Thursday, November 30, 2006; Page E02
The St. Louis Cardinals' Albert Pujols is upset he lost out to the Philadelphia Phillies' Ryan Howard for the National League MVP award, saying yesterday the honor should go to someone on a playoff team.
"Someone who doesn't take his team to the playoffs doesn't deserve to win the MVP," Pujols said in Spanish at a news conference organized by the Dominican Republic's sports ministry in Santo Domingo"
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Again & again...round & round...the award is NOT who is the BEST player, the award is who is the MOST VALUABLE player...and Ryan Howard is the Most Valuable Player for 2008, I don't give a chit what the sportswriters voted.
OK, then Khalil Greene is my MVP, and both of us have picked equally deserving players.
Once you completely separate the MVP from being the best - and you have to COMPLETELY separate the two to get Ryan Howard's name into the discussion - then you have a trivial, meaningless award. Being the best is subjective enough that we can have reasonable debates about that; but if being the best has nothing to do with it, then why the hell would anyone ever care who wins it? It's the same - EXACTLY the same - as caring about how a random coin toss comes out.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
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.
OK, then Khalil Greene is my MVP, and both of us have picked equally deserving players.
Once you completely separate the MVP from being the best - and you have to COMPLETELY separate the two to get Ryan Howard's name into the discussion - then you have a trivial, meaningless award. Being the best is subjective enough that we can have reasonable debates about that; but if being the best has nothing to do with it, then why the hell would anyone ever care who wins it? It's the same - EXACTLY the same - as caring about how a random coin toss comes out. >>
Come on now, I never stated or I certainly didn't intend to imply not to factor in being the best with getting the MVP, but how a player's team does in the standings should be factored in, and how that player at various times during the season carried that team and helped get that team through some rough spots, as well as other factors - Howard did all that and more.
Hey, it wasn't an extremely close vote, but by no means was it a runaway vote - Howard did finish second, and I think he got 12 first place votes, so if I was a voting sportswriter, he would have gotten 13.
Oh well...I'm still so joyous and jubilant that the Phillies won the World Series, that I've even been finding Grote15's Aesops Fables analogies both humorous and fascinating.
<< <i>Come on now, I never stated or I certainly didn't intend to imply not to factor in being the best with getting the MVP, but how a player's team does in the standings should be factored in, and how that player at various times during the season carried that team and helped get that team through some rough spots, as well as other factors - Howard did all that and more. >>
OK, let's relegate being the best player to just one of many factors to take into consideration for the MVP, and also consider a team's place in the standings and the other factors you mention. To get Ryan Howard to the top, we have to make two additional assumptions:
1. By "how a player's team does in the standings", you have to mean "whether a player's team came in first", because there is no reasonable way to argue that Pujols, and many others, didn't improve their teams' W/L records more than Howard did. So you're not talking about improving a team's record the most - which is something the best player will do - you're talking about improving the best team's record the most. But it goes beyond that: the Phillies weren't the best team - at least they didn't have the best record - and they weren't the only team to win a division. Aramis Ramirez was on a division winning team and it was the team with the best record. Aramis Ramirez was also better than Ryan Howard. So there must be more......
2. The second thing we have to assume to make your argument work is that a win in September is worth more than a win in any other month. Because even if we get around Pujols being the best player and Ramirez being the best player on a division winning team, we're still faced with the Chase Utley hurdle. And that's where words like "random" and "meaningless" have to come in. Because it simply isn't true that Ryan Howard's carrying the team in September contributed more to the Phillies division win than Chase Utley's carrying the team for the five months before that. But since we MUST assume that it did for your argument to work, we're trapped in a logical fallacy and whatever comes out the other end - a Ryan Howard MVP, for example - must be either fallacious or, at minimum, random.
Bottom line, there is no way to define MVP that makes any sense that gets Ryan Howard the award. He wouldn't have been on my ballot anywhere, but there are ways that are at least logically consistent that get him to 5th or 6th. But even introducing every bias and Phillie-centric argument one can concoct, there is no possible way to get him past Utley. That is, without introducing the silliness - or randomness, if you prefer - of weighting performance by calendar month. Weighting it by day of the week - Ryan Howard was AWESOME on Thursday's, for example - would make precisely as much sense; we'd just be left wondering why Thursday's matter most instead of why September matters most. Well, not actually wondering since we know for certain that neither one is true, but you get my point.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>Come on now, I never stated or I certainly didn't intend to imply not to factor in being the best with getting the MVP, but how a player's team does in the standings should be factored in, and how that player at various times during the season carried that team and helped get that team through some rough spots, as well as other factors - Howard did all that and more. >>
OK, let's relegate being the best player to just one of many factors to take into consideration for the MVP, and also consider a team's place in the standings and the other factors you mention. To get Ryan Howard to the top, we have to make two additional assumptions:
1. By "how a player's team does in the standings", you have to mean "whether a player's team came in first", because there is no reasonable way to argue that Pujols, and many others, didn't improve their teams' W/L records more than Howard did. So you're not talking about improving a team's record the most - which is something the best player will do - you're talking about improving the best team's record the most. But it goes beyond that: the Phillies weren't the best team - at least they didn't have the best record - and they weren't the only team to win a division. Aramis Ramirez was on a division winning team and it was the team with the best record. Aramis Ramirez was also better than Ryan Howard. So there must be more......
2. The second thing we have to assume to make your argument work is that a win in September is worth more than a win in any other month. Because even if we get around Pujols being the best player and Ramirez being the best player on a division winning team, we're still faced with the Chase Utley hurdle. And that's where words like "random" and "meaningless" have to come in. Because it simply isn't true that Ryan Howard's carrying the team in September contributed more to the Phillies division win than Chase Utley's carrying the team for the five months before that. But since we MUST assume that it did for your argument to work, we're trapped in a logical fallacy and whatever comes out the other end - a Ryan Howard MVP, for example - must be either fallacious or, at minimum, random.
Bottom line, there is no way to define MVP that makes any sense that gets Ryan Howard the award. He wouldn't have been on my ballot anywhere, but there are ways that are at least logically consistent that get him to 5th or 6th. But even introducing every bias and Phillie-centric argument one can concoct, there is no possible way to get him past Utley. That is, without introducing the silliness - or randomness, if you prefer - of weighting performance by calendar month. Weighting it by day of the week - Ryan Howard was AWESOME on Thursday's, for example - would make precisely as much sense; we'd just be left wondering why Thursday's matter most instead of why September matters most. Well, not actually wondering since we know for certain that neither one is true, but you get my point. >>
Well you rambled a bit on this and I don't mean that in a bad way, and I do get your point.
A point I was trying to imply is that clutch hitting can be more "valuable" than the "best" player who has better stats - if/when the players appear to be basically equal for the most part. It goes without saying that a player who gets clutch "meaningful" hits is better than a stat collector who say hits a lot of home runs with his team up or down by 10 runs in the 9th inning - of course that is just a general categorization, and I'm not saying that Pujols isn't a clutch hitter, but I do know for sure that despite his strikeouts, Ryan is a clutch hitter and that makes him very valuable, and I think you may not be factoring this enough into the MVP equation.
You may think I'm biased because Ryan is a Phillie - that would be incorrect. Mike Schmidt is one of my favorite players but I never considered him to be a clutch hitter compared to his stats - it wasn't an accident why he got booed a lot in Philly despite him being the greatest third baseman of all time.
Winpitcher, Dallas knows it is not voted for the best player, he is just pointing out obvious foolish and faulty rationale that is used to determine it! Every rationale put forth has been logically shot down by Dallas. Nobody has given a good answer to refute what Dallas has been saying when he has pointed out the severely flawed rationale.
Steve K,
Howard actually did his best hitting when the margin of the game was greater than four runs. .278/.376/.639. OPS of 1.1015.
Howard actually did his WORST hitting in Late/Close situations. .158/.306/.337. OPS of .643.
How Chase Utley only received 30 points in the voting shows a COMPLETE lack of understanding of baseball by the sportswriters.
<< <i>Howard actually did his best hitting when the margin of the game was greater than four runs. .278/.376/.639. OPS of 1.1015.
Howard actually did his WORST hitting in Late/Close situations. .158/.306/.337. OPS of .643. >>
Which is why nobody will ever convince me that a fan watching games and telling you what he saw is worth one tenth what the statistics say. Ryan Howard was NOT a clutch hitter; so since that was the only remaining rationalization for giving him the MVP, I can say for absolute certain that the case is now closed. Not that people won't keep arguing otherwise, just that the case is, in fact, closed.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Kevin (Philly): Hey Rob, what do you think of the underhanded tactics employed by some Pujols voters to ensure that he won the MVP award? Knocking Howard way down on their ballots, or even leaving him off completely so he can't close the first-place gap with secondary votes... I think it's disgraceful. Such writers should have their voting privileges revoked.
Rob Neyer: Ummm, do you have some sort of proof of this, Kevin? Because a reasonable person could make a reasonable argument that Howard wasn't one of the 10 best players in the league. I'm just saying.
More:
Kevin (Philly): What exactly is the case that a "reasonable" person makes to leave Ryan Howard off their top 10 list?
Rob Neyer: Low on-base percentage, poor defense, sub-par baserunner, million strikeouts. Is that enough?
Still More:
Andre GA: A reasonable argument that Ryan Howard doesn't make the top ten is Albert Pujols, Lance Berkman, Carlos Beltran, Hanley Ramirez, Chase Utley, Brad Lidge, David Wright, Jose Reyes, Ryan Braun, Carlos Delgado or Aramis Ramirez ... and I'm not even counting CC Sabathia, Manny Ramirez or Johan Santana.
<< <i>Winpitcher, Dallas knows it is not voted for the best player, he is just pointing out obvious foolish and faulty rationale that is used to determine it! Every rationale put forth has been logically shot down by Dallas. Nobody has given a good answer to refute what Dallas has been saying when he has pointed out the severely flawed rationale.
Steve K,
Howard actually did his best hitting when the margin of the game was greater than four runs. .278/.376/.639. OPS of 1.1015.
Howard actually did his WORST hitting in Late/Close situations. .158/.306/.337. OPS of .643.
How Chase Utley only received 30 points in the voting shows a COMPLETE lack of understanding of baseball by the sportswriters. >>
Those stats can be very misleading to show a clutch power hitter who generally get hits in streaks. He could get a clutch hit, blow the game open especially with the Phillies offense, and he keeps getting hits throughout the game to bloat the stats the way they are presented in your post. If you were a Phillies fan, and watched a good number of games, and saw the relevant situations which occurred when Howard came to the plate, then you would know that Ryan Howard is a clutch hitter, and all of Philly knows that, and 12 sportswriters know that. Case closed.
<< <i>Howard actually did his best hitting when the margin of the game was greater than four runs. .278/.376/.639. OPS of 1.1015.
Howard actually did his WORST hitting in Late/Close situations. .158/.306/.337. OPS of .643. >>
Which is why nobody will ever convince me that a fan watching games and telling you what he saw is worth one tenth what the statistics say. Ryan Howard was NOT a clutch hitter; so since that was the only remaining rationalization for giving him the MVP, I can say for absolute certain that the case is now closed. Not that people won't keep arguing otherwise, just that the case is, in fact, closed. >>
Perhaps the dumbest comment I've ever read on Sportstalk, possibly anywhere. To illustrate further...in a powerful lineup such as the Phillies...you think Charlie Manuel is stupid? You think Charlie Manuel would keep a stiff batting 4th in the lineup if he wasn't producing and wasn't a clutch hitter? You can think and believe whatever you want, but those points are absolutely ridiculous that some sportswriter voting looking over some statistics or anyone else looking at statistics who only sees the Phillies games occasionally, would know more about this than the fans who watch every game.
A famous old saying is there are..."Lies, damned lies, and statistics" and it was written to point out misleading statistics such as these on this topic.
PS: No offense - you're a good poster here and I respect your viewpoint, no matter how dumb and how wrong.
I'll tell you in what way - Philadelphia sports fans are widely acclaimed at being perhaps the most knowledgeable sports fans in the country.
Hope that answered your intuitive question.
You Pujols fans and Philly bashers, got your wish...your boy got the MVP and Ryan didn't. But we got the 2008 ring so Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! - It's great to get the last laugh
For your sanity, I hope the Phillies don't think like you...and let Utley get away, while keeping the most overrated player in MLB at what will be high salary.
My question to you is- will you boo Howard next year when his luck with men on base hitting reverts to normalcy, which will then make his awful OB% and slipping SLG% show their true colors?
For your sanity, I hope the Phillies don't think like you...and let Utley get away, while keeping the most overrated player in MLB at what will be high salary.
My question to you is- will you boo Howard next year when his luck with men on base hitting reverts to normalcy, which will then make his awful OB% and slipping SLG% show their true colors? >>
Sorry man, too hypothetical to me, and I know you meant it rhetorically, but that's too much negative thinking for me after a great World Series, that I'll always fondly remember. I'm gonna presume and hope that Howard actually improves, gets better, which at his age certainly is entirely possible, and then take it from there.
I'm already looking forward to next season - Once you've had a taste of honey, you want more.
Comments
<< <i>Also, if you're not already aware, closer is a BS position...
I did not know that.
What do you mean it has never happened?
It happened this year when the Phillies players voted Lidge as the MVP.
Or do you mean it has never happened with the Baseball writers? If so we have had MVP closers.
Not sure I understand your gobbledgook.
Steve
+ 1 for new word gobbledgooks
akenslargenafarginbargin-thats pirate talk steve
Steve
<< <i>What do you mean it has never happened?
It happened this year when the Phillies players voted Lidge as the MVP.
Or do you mean it has never happened with the Baseball writers? If so we have had MVP closers.
Not sure I understand your gobbledgook.
Steve >>
And if the Phillies voted Cloris Leachman their "MVP" would that mean that she was, in fact, the most valuable player on the team?
Idiotic MVP votes occur all the time, and all they prove is that voters are idiots. They aren't even evidence regarding who really was the most valuable player. Brad Lidge was not the most valuable player on the Phillies, unless we are falling back on the contention that "most" and "valuable" are nothing more than random letters strung together, devoid of any and all meaning in the English language. As long as we define "most" and "valuable" in any way remotely resembling the meanings that they have always had, it is not possible for a pitcher who pitches 69 innings to be nearly as valuale as Chase Utley or to be the most valuable player in the league. For such a pitcher to even be the most valuable player on his own team would require that pitcher to be exceptionally great and that nobody else on the team be very good. Lidge WAS more valuable than Ryan Howard, but then so were dozens of people.
And while closer is indeed a BS position, closers have been the best players on their own teams - just not ones who pitched as rarely as Lidge. John Hiller in 1973 is a good example - the Tigers weren't very good that year, and there was no single player who stood out. Hiller, with an ERA of 1.44 over 125 innings, was that team's most valuable player.
The Phillie Players voted Lidge the team MVP.
You can't say it never happens. Because it did!
It may never happen with how you personally feel an MVP should be awarded in your own mind I guess.
Steve
Ummm according to his team mates he was. Not sure if he was under
whatever stats or events YOU want to use but according to his team mates he was.
Steve
If that is your opinion ok, if you are trying to claim it as fact I disagree.
Steve
<< <i>it is not possible for a pitcher who pitches 69 innings to be nearly as valuale as Chase Utley or to be the most valuable player in the league.
If that is your opinion ok, if you are trying to claim it as fact I disagree.
Steve >>
How can a player with such little amount of playing time be the most valuable player as an every day player?
Utley was hands down the MVP of the phillies, both with his bat and with his glove. To claim otherwise or use the excuse 'his teammates voted him MVP!' is weak.
<< <i>it is not possible for a pitcher who pitches 69 innings to be nearly as valuale as Chase Utley or to be the most valuable player in the league.
If that is your opinion ok, if you are trying to claim it as fact I disagree.
Steve >>
OK, I'll rephrase it.
It is not possible for a pitcher who pitches 69 innings to contribute as much to his team's victories as Chase Utley did in 2008. That's a fact, whether I claim it as one or not.
{And yes, it is making me extremely uncomfortable having Axtell agree with me; but even Axtell, like a broken clock, is bound to be right once in a while.}
Now, don't get me wrong, Lidge coming back from the debacle in Houston to win a ring is great, but to say a reliever with such a minimal impact on the game should be the MVP of his team is just wrong. It's not even an opinion at this point, it can be statistically proven that Lidge wasn't the MVP of his team.
Shane
<< <i>I just want to go on record that I disagree with Dallas and Stevek when you both talked about how SHOULD win and who WILL win. I do agree that Ryan Howard is closer to the top of the list of "who will win" than he is on the top of the list of "who should win". I disagree with you two that Ryan Howard WILL win. From everything I've read, all of the so called "experts" are saying that Pujols will win the award. I have not heard of many major media people say that he thinks Ryan Howard will win. Almost all are saying that Pujols will win. I also think he will win. >>
I haven't read anything one way or the other, I just empty my mind of all logical thought, hit my head with a hammer until I start to drool out the corners of my mouth and the first name that pops into my head after that I assume will be the MVP. But this method is painful and for days afterward the only sound I can make is "RBI" in a tone reminiscent of zombies, so I'd like to find a better way. If Pujols wins, maybe I can just use evidence and common sense so I certainly hope you're right.
Shane
By getting the most votes? Which by the way is what Lidge did when he was voted MVP by his team mates
If you want to disagree with their choice that is one thing, but to say it has never happened is just not true.
Steve
I never said he should win anything! I simply said he WAS the MVP of his team by virtue of his team mates vote.
Steve
I'm sure their vote was more sentimental in nature than on actual results, for his coming back from that Pujols homer.
Congrats Albert Pujols.
Shane
to see how others may percieve the meaning of "MVP"and how the award is chosen.
"Thursday, November 30, 2006; Page E02
The St. Louis Cardinals' Albert Pujols is upset he lost out to the Philadelphia Phillies' Ryan Howard for the National League MVP award, saying yesterday the honor should go to someone on a playoff team.
"Someone who doesn't take his team to the playoffs doesn't deserve to win the MVP," Pujols said in Spanish at a news conference organized by the Dominican Republic's sports ministry in Santo Domingo"
<< <i>Ryan Howard was not one of the ten best players in the league. >>
Braves fan wants to forget 2008. There is more of that coming in 2009
Sincerely,
Ryan Howard
I will take the 2008 World Series as a runner up prize.
<< <i>Ryan Howard was not one of the ten best players in the league. >>
Lol. Alrighty then. Who was?
<< <i>
<< <i>Ryan Howard was not one of the ten best players in the league. >>
Lol. Alrighty then. Who was? >>
Pujols, Berkman, Ramirez, Beltran, Utley, Reyes, Wright, Ludwick, McLouth, and Gonzalez.
That was easy, but I give up. What was the "lol" for?
<< <i>
<< <i>Ryan Howard was not one of the ten best players in the league. >>
Lol. Alrighty then. Who was? >>
Berkman
Pujols
Beltran
H. Ramirez
Utley
Reyes
Wright
Lincecum
McLouth
Ludwick
Gonzalez
Ryan Howard is my MVP for 2008 - period.
<< <i>Ryan Howard is my MVP for 2008 - period. >>
OK, then Khalil Greene is my MVP, and both of us have picked equally deserving players.
Once you completely separate the MVP from being the best - and you have to COMPLETELY separate the two to get Ryan Howard's name into the discussion - then you have a trivial, meaningless award. Being the best is subjective enough that we can have reasonable debates about that; but if being the best has nothing to do with it, then why the hell would anyone ever care who wins it? It's the same - EXACTLY the same - as caring about how a random coin toss comes out.
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>
<< <i>Ryan Howard is my MVP for 2008 - period. >>
OK, then Khalil Greene is my MVP, and both of us have picked equally deserving players.
Once you completely separate the MVP from being the best - and you have to COMPLETELY separate the two to get Ryan Howard's name into the discussion - then you have a trivial, meaningless award. Being the best is subjective enough that we can have reasonable debates about that; but if being the best has nothing to do with it, then why the hell would anyone ever care who wins it? It's the same - EXACTLY the same - as caring about how a random coin toss comes out. >>
Come on now, I never stated or I certainly didn't intend to imply not to factor in being the best with getting the MVP, but how a player's team does in the standings should be factored in, and how that player at various times during the season carried that team and helped get that team through some rough spots, as well as other factors - Howard did all that and more.
Hey, it wasn't an extremely close vote, but by no means was it a runaway vote - Howard did finish second, and I think he got 12 first place votes, so if I was a voting sportswriter, he would have gotten 13.
Oh well...I'm still so joyous and jubilant that the Phillies won the World Series, that I've even been finding Grote15's Aesops Fables analogies both humorous and fascinating.
<< <i>Come on now, I never stated or I certainly didn't intend to imply not to factor in being the best with getting the MVP, but how a player's team does in the standings should be factored in, and how that player at various times during the season carried that team and helped get that team through some rough spots, as well as other factors - Howard did all that and more.
>>
OK, let's relegate being the best player to just one of many factors to take into consideration for the MVP, and also consider a team's place in the standings and the other factors you mention. To get Ryan Howard to the top, we have to make two additional assumptions:
1. By "how a player's team does in the standings", you have to mean "whether a player's team came in first", because there is no reasonable way to argue that Pujols, and many others, didn't improve their teams' W/L records more than Howard did. So you're not talking about improving a team's record the most - which is something the best player will do - you're talking about improving the best team's record the most. But it goes beyond that: the Phillies weren't the best team - at least they didn't have the best record - and they weren't the only team to win a division. Aramis Ramirez was on a division winning team and it was the team with the best record. Aramis Ramirez was also better than Ryan Howard. So there must be more......
2. The second thing we have to assume to make your argument work is that a win in September is worth more than a win in any other month. Because even if we get around Pujols being the best player and Ramirez being the best player on a division winning team, we're still faced with the Chase Utley hurdle. And that's where words like "random" and "meaningless" have to come in. Because it simply isn't true that Ryan Howard's carrying the team in September contributed more to the Phillies division win than Chase Utley's carrying the team for the five months before that. But since we MUST assume that it did for your argument to work, we're trapped in a logical fallacy and whatever comes out the other end - a Ryan Howard MVP, for example - must be either fallacious or, at minimum, random.
Bottom line, there is no way to define MVP that makes any sense that gets Ryan Howard the award. He wouldn't have been on my ballot anywhere, but there are ways that are at least logically consistent that get him to 5th or 6th. But even introducing every bias and Phillie-centric argument one can concoct, there is no possible way to get him past Utley. That is, without introducing the silliness - or randomness, if you prefer - of weighting performance by calendar month. Weighting it by day of the week - Ryan Howard was AWESOME on Thursday's, for example - would make precisely as much sense; we'd just be left wondering why Thursday's matter most instead of why September matters most. Well, not actually wondering since we know for certain that neither one is true, but you get my point.
<< <i>
<< <i>Come on now, I never stated or I certainly didn't intend to imply not to factor in being the best with getting the MVP, but how a player's team does in the standings should be factored in, and how that player at various times during the season carried that team and helped get that team through some rough spots, as well as other factors - Howard did all that and more.
>>
OK, let's relegate being the best player to just one of many factors to take into consideration for the MVP, and also consider a team's place in the standings and the other factors you mention. To get Ryan Howard to the top, we have to make two additional assumptions:
1. By "how a player's team does in the standings", you have to mean "whether a player's team came in first", because there is no reasonable way to argue that Pujols, and many others, didn't improve their teams' W/L records more than Howard did. So you're not talking about improving a team's record the most - which is something the best player will do - you're talking about improving the best team's record the most. But it goes beyond that: the Phillies weren't the best team - at least they didn't have the best record - and they weren't the only team to win a division. Aramis Ramirez was on a division winning team and it was the team with the best record. Aramis Ramirez was also better than Ryan Howard. So there must be more......
2. The second thing we have to assume to make your argument work is that a win in September is worth more than a win in any other month. Because even if we get around Pujols being the best player and Ramirez being the best player on a division winning team, we're still faced with the Chase Utley hurdle. And that's where words like "random" and "meaningless" have to come in. Because it simply isn't true that Ryan Howard's carrying the team in September contributed more to the Phillies division win than Chase Utley's carrying the team for the five months before that. But since we MUST assume that it did for your argument to work, we're trapped in a logical fallacy and whatever comes out the other end - a Ryan Howard MVP, for example - must be either fallacious or, at minimum, random.
Bottom line, there is no way to define MVP that makes any sense that gets Ryan Howard the award. He wouldn't have been on my ballot anywhere, but there are ways that are at least logically consistent that get him to 5th or 6th. But even introducing every bias and Phillie-centric argument one can concoct, there is no possible way to get him past Utley. That is, without introducing the silliness - or randomness, if you prefer - of weighting performance by calendar month. Weighting it by day of the week - Ryan Howard was AWESOME on Thursday's, for example - would make precisely as much sense; we'd just be left wondering why Thursday's matter most instead of why September matters most. Well, not actually wondering since we know for certain that neither one is true, but you get my point. >>
Well you rambled a bit on this and I don't mean that in a bad way, and I do get your point.
A point I was trying to imply is that clutch hitting can be more "valuable" than the "best" player who has better stats - if/when the players appear to be basically equal for the most part. It goes without saying that a player who gets clutch "meaningful" hits is better than a stat collector who say hits a lot of home runs with his team up or down by 10 runs in the 9th inning - of course that is just a general categorization, and I'm not saying that Pujols isn't a clutch hitter, but I do know for sure that despite his strikeouts, Ryan is a clutch hitter and that makes him very valuable, and I think you may not be factoring this enough into the MVP equation.
You may think I'm biased because Ryan is a Phillie - that would be incorrect. Mike Schmidt is one of my favorite players but I never considered him to be a clutch hitter compared to his stats - it wasn't an accident why he got booed a lot in Philly despite him being the greatest third baseman of all time.
Ahhh the award was never for the 'best player' it has never been said what exactly is an MVP.
Steve
Steve K,
Howard actually did his best hitting when the margin of the game was greater than four runs. .278/.376/.639. OPS of 1.1015.
Howard actually did his WORST hitting in Late/Close situations. .158/.306/.337. OPS of .643.
How Chase Utley only received 30 points in the voting shows a COMPLETE lack of understanding of baseball by the sportswriters.
<< <i>Howard actually did his best hitting when the margin of the game was greater than four runs. .278/.376/.639. OPS of 1.1015.
Howard actually did his WORST hitting in Late/Close situations. .158/.306/.337. OPS of .643.
>>
Which is why nobody will ever convince me that a fan watching games and telling you what he saw is worth one tenth what the statistics say. Ryan Howard was NOT a clutch hitter; so since that was the only remaining rationalization for giving him the MVP, I can say for absolute certain that the case is now closed. Not that people won't keep arguing otherwise, just that the case is, in fact, closed.
Kevin (Philly): Hey Rob, what do you think of the underhanded tactics employed by some Pujols voters to ensure that he won the MVP award? Knocking Howard way down on their ballots, or even leaving him off completely so he can't close the first-place gap with secondary votes... I think it's disgraceful. Such writers should have their voting privileges revoked.
Rob Neyer: Ummm, do you have some sort of proof of this, Kevin? Because a reasonable person could make a reasonable argument that Howard wasn't one of the 10 best players in the league. I'm just saying.
More:
Kevin (Philly): What exactly is the case that a "reasonable" person makes to leave Ryan Howard off their top 10 list?
Rob Neyer: Low on-base percentage, poor defense, sub-par baserunner, million strikeouts. Is that enough?
Still More:
Andre GA: A reasonable argument that Ryan Howard doesn't make the top ten is Albert Pujols, Lance Berkman, Carlos Beltran, Hanley Ramirez, Chase Utley, Brad Lidge, David Wright, Jose Reyes, Ryan Braun, Carlos Delgado or Aramis Ramirez ... and I'm not even counting CC Sabathia, Manny Ramirez or Johan Santana.
Rob Neyer: Right. There's that, too.
<< <i>Winpitcher, Dallas knows it is not voted for the best player, he is just pointing out obvious foolish and faulty rationale that is used to determine it! Every rationale put forth has been logically shot down by Dallas. Nobody has given a good answer to refute what Dallas has been saying when he has pointed out the severely flawed rationale.
Steve K,
Howard actually did his best hitting when the margin of the game was greater than four runs. .278/.376/.639. OPS of 1.1015.
Howard actually did his WORST hitting in Late/Close situations. .158/.306/.337. OPS of .643.
How Chase Utley only received 30 points in the voting shows a COMPLETE lack of understanding of baseball by the sportswriters. >>
Those stats can be very misleading to show a clutch power hitter who generally get hits in streaks. He could get a clutch hit, blow the game open especially with the Phillies offense, and he keeps getting hits throughout the game to bloat the stats the way they are presented in your post. If you were a Phillies fan, and watched a good number of games, and saw the relevant situations which occurred when Howard came to the plate, then you would know that Ryan Howard is a clutch hitter, and all of Philly knows that, and 12 sportswriters know that. Case closed.
<< <i>
<< <i>Howard actually did his best hitting when the margin of the game was greater than four runs. .278/.376/.639. OPS of 1.1015.
Howard actually did his WORST hitting in Late/Close situations. .158/.306/.337. OPS of .643.
>>
Which is why nobody will ever convince me that a fan watching games and telling you what he saw is worth one tenth what the statistics say. Ryan Howard was NOT a clutch hitter; so since that was the only remaining rationalization for giving him the MVP, I can say for absolute certain that the case is now closed. Not that people won't keep arguing otherwise, just that the case is, in fact, closed. >>
Perhaps the dumbest comment I've ever read on Sportstalk, possibly anywhere. To illustrate further...in a powerful lineup such as the Phillies...you think Charlie Manuel is stupid? You think Charlie Manuel would keep a stiff batting 4th in the lineup if he wasn't producing and wasn't a clutch hitter? You can think and believe whatever you want, but those points are absolutely ridiculous that some sportswriter voting looking over some statistics or anyone else looking at statistics who only sees the Phillies games occasionally, would know more about this than the fans who watch every game.
A famous old saying is there are..."Lies, damned lies, and statistics" and it was written to point out misleading statistics such as these on this topic.
PS: No offense - you're a good poster here and I respect your viewpoint, no matter how dumb and how wrong.
Skip, I know Dallas knows it is not voted for the best player.
Steve
<< <i>Which stats are misleading? In what way? >>
I'll tell you in what way - Philadelphia sports fans are widely acclaimed at being perhaps the most knowledgeable sports fans in the country.
Hope that answered your intuitive question.
You Pujols fans and Philly bashers, got your wish...your boy got the MVP and Ryan didn't. But we got the 2008 ring so Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! - It's great to get the last laugh
<< <i>Ok, because SteveK says so, LOL! >>
See now you're learnin' - It's great to see that you're finally taking my viewpoint as gospel.
Hey - just having some Sportstalk smack fun here. I only respond to those I like or respect - those I truly think are "dumb" I ignore.
and one more thing....
PHILLIES 2008 WORLD CHAMPIONSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
For your sanity, I hope the Phillies don't think like you...and let Utley get away, while keeping the most overrated player in MLB at what will be high salary.
My question to you is- will you boo Howard next year when his luck with men on base hitting reverts to normalcy, which will then make his awful OB% and slipping SLG% show their true colors?
<< <i>SteveK,
For your sanity, I hope the Phillies don't think like you...and let Utley get away, while keeping the most overrated player in MLB at what will be high salary.
My question to you is- will you boo Howard next year when his luck with men on base hitting reverts to normalcy, which will then make his awful OB% and slipping SLG% show their true colors? >>
Sorry man, too hypothetical to me, and I know you meant it rhetorically, but that's too much negative thinking for me after a great World Series, that I'll always fondly remember. I'm gonna presume and hope that Howard actually improves, gets better, which at his age certainly is entirely possible, and then take it from there.
I'm already looking forward to next season - Once you've had a taste of honey, you want more.