DrJ, I think your philly bias is shinning as well(with the real Dr. J. pictured). Bias must be the reason when the evidence is hitting you in the brow like a hurricane, and you still ignore it.
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.
Not familiar at all. I realize you have your strong opinion on this matter and a pompous way of putting it forth, but truth is that no hitter on the NL has done more for his team production-wise than Delgado since late June, and that if the Mets make the playoffs and the Phillies and Astros don't, he will have a very real and very legitimate shot at winning the MVP. I am in NY and have watched virtually every Mets game this season, and what Carlos has done for the Mets these last couple of months is amazing and defines the concept of MVP as it is intended. I just read an article the other day where 10 sportswriters representing all three divisions were polled about who they'd vote for at this point for MVP, and several of them mentioned Delgado is on a very short list depending on how the remainer of the season unfolds. We will see...
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.
Just to be clear, I think Howard and Delgado are the favorites for the MVP this year; I just think it's a shame.
If Berkman can somhow keep the Astros winning the way they have been, a huge if, and they make the playoffs then it will just be ridiculous if he doesn't get the Award. Pujols faces the same situation that Musial and Mantle and Mays faced before him - the voters don't want to give it to the same guy every year even if they know he was the best player. Musial could have won something like 10 MVPs.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Nothing pompus at all, just stating defects in logic.
I watched all the Cub games, and no team has had a super utility player like Derosa who has carried them when Soriano was hurt, and Lee stopped hitting HR. WIth 50 first half RBI, he was a prime factor in building a Cubs lead that was enough to withstand the evaporation of some of their other steady players.
I would be embarrassed by using the writers as evidence for an argument. They have a history of complete contradiction in their voting. Yeah, they vote, but they don't exactly know what they are doing. They are good at constructing sentences, I will give them that...but evaluating baseball is not one of their strengths. Selling stories and making guys buy into them, they are good at too.
Nothing pompus at all, just stating defects in logic.
LOL, that very statement is by definition pompous, so I realize nothing I can say will effectively enlighten you in that regard. That comically pretentious sigline you have is a close second, of course..
What you fail to grasp is that the concept of MVP is subjective in and of itself, as there is no true and absolute formula or definitive method to gauge the nebulous concept of "value" as it pertains to a player's relationship to his teammates and/or his team's fortunes (or lack thereof). If Delgado hadn't struggled and underperformed the first 3 months, he'd be an absolute lock for the MVP. I realize that. But if the Mets make the playoffs (a feat that seemed rather farfeteched back in late June when the Mets were below .500) and the teams with the other MVP candidates don't, I believe he should be considered "most valuable" in the conext that the award is intended. No player in the NL has been more productive during that time, there's no question about that.
We can agree to disagree on this particular argument, but I realize that is difficult for you to accept. At the end of the day, it's all just about sports talk, and such conversation should be taken as lightly and as lightheartedly as it should in the grand scheme of things.
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.
If most valuable is viewed in the way you are, then I can accept that...but that also makes it a trivial award for an individual player, as it thus becomes a team award. So why even bother than awarding it to the individual. Just give the award to the team.
By pointing out a defect in logic, is not pompus, it is pointing out a defect.
Everyone, if hoopster isn't persuading you, please stop and consider that JS agrees with you.
I'm fairly certain that JS is not petitioning for Delgado to win MVP, so that statement is inherently false, at least as far as I'm concerned, LOL!
If the Astros make the playoffs, I'd agree with you that Berkman deserves serious consideration, just as Delgado does if the Mets get in and the Astros don't.
Chipper? I've had him on my fantasy team all year and after a HOT first half+, he's been very good but hardly spectacular production-wise, mainly due to nagging injuries, etc. Regardless, I don't believe an MVP should come from a 4th place team, especially in this particular era of baseball.
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.
Too bad he hasn't done his hitting in meaningful situations more often, or got on base more frequently, as the Phils would be in first already.
As for the Pujols statement? That just smacks of a complete ignorance of baseball. I am not sure what to say, except maybe Pujols should have done a better job of not blowing saves and should have pitched like Lidge more often. Oh wait, he can't control that, how foolish of me.
Grote, you said it best when you said fan is short for fanatic, and bias rules. That is a very accurate statement, and certainly explains why some people just dont' get the obvious.
For the record, when it was assumed that I was a Pujols fan, I couldn't stop laughing. I remember people getting upset with me with my 'dirty' Pujols fan bashing with the man juice thread a while back!
I am sure some of his teamamtes would say they want Howard up with the game on the line...especially all the hitters who are worse than him. It depends on the alternative.
As an opposing manager, I wouldn't mind seeing him up with the game on the line too...he is just one left handed relief pitcher away from being reduced to a .228 hitter with a .312 OB%, and .458 SLG%.
His lifetime OPS is .965. In late/Close situations it is .897. It isn't like he is a monster in those spots.
I can't imagine a sane person in the universe that would take him over Albert Pujols in the situation you speak of...or for that matter, in ANY and ALL situations. LMAO
P.S. Since this group likes to disregard the affect of teammates, and hails Howard as such a great player...you would think with all his run producing greatness that his teams would have won at least 90 games once in a season. Maybe his contributions aren't as important as you think?? I can speak the 'fan' language too
I don't think anyone here thinks that Howard is a better player than Puljos (at least I don't) or Delgado for that matter (even a MUCH bigger disparity there), but when considering whom to vote for MVP, I think you have to look at the end result, which for me is whether that player's contributions resulted in a playoff berth. In this era of expanded playoff format where there are three divisional winner plus a wildcard winner in just one league, I don't think you can award the MVP to a player whose team does not make the playoffs. Is that unfair or biased? Yes, it is. But the nature of this award pretty much encourages such bias.
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.
grote - you're going to have to explain why making it to the playoffs matters. In any given season, well over half the teams do not have the pitching to make the playoffs. Most of the rest are so good, they make the playoffs nearly every year and they could lose any one player and still make it. That leaves this slice of teams, like the Phillies and the Mets, that are in the middle - not so good that they don't need everybody on the team to play well, and not so bad that they have no hope. Why does the MVP have to come from one of those teams. Why does taking a team from 85 to 89 wins deserve an Award when taking a team from 100 to 110 or 50 to 70 wins not deserve one?
skinpinch said it best: if that's how the award is going to work, then the award itself becomes trivial. It's not the Most Valuable Player, it's the Most Valuable Player on a Good, But Not Great, Team. Or Most Valuable Player Relative to Teammates That Aren't Quite Good Enough to Make the Playoffs.
The other problem with all this, of course, is that Howard is nowhere close to the most valuable player on the Phillies. How many times do I have to ask before a Phillie fan explains why they don't appreciate Chase Utley? He steals bases, he plays the infield WELL, he gets on base more - he even hits for more power than Howard and still you're blinded by Howard's place in the batting order! Trust me, there's not a general manager in MLB who would give the Phillies more for Howard than they would for Utley. Other than Pujols and Berkman, there's not an obvious choice for a player in the National League that I'd rather have.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Guess who is now tied for the wild card and a game back from the Mets....
Where have the Cardinals gone.... 5 Straight loses and the great Pujols could do nothing the stem the tide. I guess those "high leverage" performances have very little impact on the W column. LOL.
<< <i>Where have the Cardinals gone.... 5 Straight loses and the great Pujols could do nothing the stem the tide. >>
Babe Ruth at his peak could do nothing to stem that tide, so I guess if the Babe himself came back and played for the Cardinals he would not deserve the MVP over Ryan Howard? No offense, but how am I not supopsed to laugh at your reasoning when it leads to this conclusion? By all means, Ryan Howard for Most Valuable Cleanup Hitter on One of the Four Teams Fighting for a Playoff Spot. Never mind that they would have clinched their division two weeks ago if Pujols had been their first baseman, never mind that they would be so far out of it without Utley that Gehrig couldn't save them at first base, Howard gets to bat cleanup, so he must be the MVP of the entire league even though every single player on 12 of the teams is ineligible by this "logic".
And Howard is MVP because Utley didn't "stay hot"? Huh? Had Utley not BEEN hot for so long, the Phillies wouldn't have a prayer of making the playoffs since Howard was so terrible over the same stretch. So now we've narrowed the players eligible for an MVP even further. It's not enough to be in the small slice of teams that fight for a playoff spot down the stretch, you have to be the best player in the last 30 of those 162 games, which requires whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to convince one's self that the last 30 games matter more than the first 132. I can't do that, and I'm afraid to even try.
In my opinion, Utley has been responsible for winning more games for the Phillies than has Howard. Also, in my opinion, grass is green. I'm more sure about Utley than the grass, though.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Had Utley remained THAT hot he would actually have DESERVED the award; as it is he's just far and away the best Phillie. How Howard's name got into the conversation at all is the mystery.
And yes, it has to be supposition that the Phillies would have won many more games with Pujols. But it is backed up by each and every piece of available evidence. Skinpinch held everybody's hand and walked them through this and I can't do any better. Howard has more RBI than Pujols because he had more men on base to drive in; that is the beginning and end of the story about their RBI. Pujols is better - like Ruth is better than Ron Fairly "better" - than Ryan Howard at everything else.
I will take Pujols and ANY other MLB player good enough to start for an entire season on my team and give you two Ryan Howards; if all else is equal, I will have the better team. In fact, I almost don't need that second player. But every comparison I'm being given involves comparisons that aren't anywhere near "all else is equal"; every argument being put forward boils down to because Howard's teammates are better than Pujols teammates, Howard is more valuable. And they have to, teammates is the single only thing Howard has over Pujols. He doesn't have even that over Utley.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
No Steve the only thing it is backed up with is your opinion.
You have no idea (well you could have an idea) how the Phillies (or any other team) for that matter would have done with Pujols in the lineup. Unless of course you have a crystal ball. The only thing that is certain is how the Cards did with him in the lineup.
The only thing that is certain is how that particular player performed himself, and the rest(winning a division), is up to the rest of the teammates!
Pujols can only control how he does, and the rest of the lineup is out of his control, and only a fool would judge somebody based on what others do, yet that is what people are doing here!
Actually, in this case, the difference between the Cardinals and Phillies is the bullpen.
Winpitcher, you now have a decision to make, either the bullpen matters to such a high degree as you say it does and that is the main reason separating Pujols's team from wining...in which case you cannot hold the Cardinals record against Pujols, BECAUSE THE BULLPEN IS THE MAIN CULPRIT as to why the Cardinals don't have five more wins than the Phillies do! Or, the bullpen does not matter, and it is Pujols's fault that the Cardinals have only five less win than the Phillies....and it is all Ryan Howard's doing for the Phils success, and none of it can be attributed to Brad Lidge.
The only thing that is certain is how that particular player performed himself, and the rest(winning a division), is up to the rest of the teammates!
Pujols can only control how he does, and the rest of the lineup is out of his control, and only a fool would judge somebody based on what others do, yet that is what people are doing here!
Actually, in this case, the difference between the Cardinals and Phillies is the bullpen.
Winpitcher, you now have a decision to make, either the bullpen matters to such a high degree as you say it does and that is the main reason separating Pujols's team from wining...in which case you cannot hold the Cardinals record against Pujols, BECAUSE THE BULLPEN IS THE MAIN CULPRIT as to why the Cardinals don't have five more wins than the Phillies do! Or, the bullpen does not matter, and it is Pujols's fault that the Cardinals have only five less win than the Phillies....and it is all Ryan Howard's doing for the Phils success, and none of it can be attributed to Brad Lidge. >>
Hoopster. You are beginning to sound like a lunatic. Is the political season getting you all wrapped up in excessive flip flopping?
First you rail on and on about high leverage situations and when the proof of what these situations result in (W's and runs). Of course when the results are presented for Pujols ( Losses and lack of RBI), you change your tune and start picking on a bull pen. You then dimiss the importance of 130 RBI seasons which is a relative rarity in most players career, including some of the best hitters of all time. You try to minmimalize actual runs scored quoting OPS, as a better indicator of performance. News flash...if a high OPS does not lead to team wins and runs on the board then it is as meaningless as the Runs and RBIs you try to dismiss.
With another strong week, Howard may all but lock up the MVP.
Dallas knows that, but it is appearant others on here don't. So which is it, does the pen matter, or is it Pujols's fault they are not in the playoffs?
DrJ, I didn't flip flop on anything. The bullpen is an example of how the teamamtes affect the won/loss record. You don't see any of the basic points, like WHY some of the great hitters don't have 130 RBI seasons. And again, you overstated the rarity of that event in this era. 10 guys alone in 1996 did it.
If a player's high OPS does not result in runs or RBI, it isn't meaningless to his value or ability, it is simply the failure of the teammates to do their championship share. I am not sure how you cannot understand this. I knew this concept in third grade.
I have to lay it out step by step as simple as I can for you...it isn't always easy to lay examples out at a first grade level. My apologies if I failed to do so.
I have to lay it out step by step as simple as I can for you...it isn't always easy to lay examples out at a first grade level. My apologies if I failed to do so.
You have explained to us how a player is valued in regards to others on his team and or league.
We get it. The free throw example was right on.
What you do not seem to grasp is that even though we fully understand that player A can have more RBI's then anyone else in the league someone else with less RBI's could be better. We fully understand that. Yet you continue to pound away like we don't. For that you deserve an F
We, like you can have an opinion.
If we want to have the opinion that Howard and his 130 RBI's has value, and we do not care where in the scheme of things that value is placed amongst his peers, we can. If you want to chart it, FINE, some here do not. Some here do not think it is needed.
If the MVP had a certain criteria then one could use your logic, it doesn't thus it is open to interpretation.
There is no one stat that the voters use to determine the MVP.
A person with 130 RBI's who had 500 chances to drive those runs in CAN WIN the award even if someone else drove in 75 with 250 chances. What part of that simple statement do you not get?
As usual you have gone off on too many tangents! You should have stopped with the free throw post!
there you explained yourself very well.
Certain things have been said in these threads by a few guys and they claim it to be fact when in reality it is just their OPINION.
So which is it, does the pen matter, or is it Pujols's fault they are not in the playoffs?
Well the pen certainly matters, is the correct answer (well the hoopster correct answer) a combination of both? Certainly if they do not make it Pujols must share in 1 /25th of the 'blame'
Now if you want to assign 'blame value' go right ahead. I only need to know that they did not make the PO (If they don't).
Hoopster has confused me so throughly with his ramblings that the only thing I am sure of is Buckner would have had a better season in 1986 if it wasn't for his bullpen.
<< <i>Certainly if they do not make it Pujols must share in 1 /25th of the 'blame' >>
Why? Hypothetically, if you put Babe Ruth with 24 good high school players and called it an MLB team (which isn't all that far off from Pujols situation) and the Babe hit a homer each and every time he came to bat, his team would end the season with a record of, say, 30-132 (where all 30 wins came with the Babe pitching a complete game). And you would say that every player on the team shares equally in the blame? I'll answer for you and say "no, of course not", but if I'm wrong about your answer then we can circle around again.
Assuming that we can establish that "blame" does not have to be apportioned equally, then we have a situation where we can actually look at what each player did and apportion blame in accordance with their actual performance. I'm trying to think of a system, or a way of thinking about it, or anything at all that could possibly lead to any other conclusion than that the Babe was "worth" 30 wins to his team. Which would be, by far, the greatest season ever by anyone (he got 500 HR and won 30 games as a pitcher - I hope that is an uncontroversial statement). I can see how Babe could get 0% of the blame, or even a negative percentage of the blame, depending on how you wanted to look at it, but any way of thinking about this where Babe gets some amount of positive "blame" that he must overcome when even the worst player on a team that did make the playoffs gets none makes no sense to me.
That example is overboard, but it differs only in degree from Pujols. Obviously, in my example, any team would have been much better off with Ruth in their lineup no matter which player he replaced. That also differs from Pujols only in degree. Ruth, I assume, would win the MVP after a season like that, and that nobody at all would disagree. So, what is different about Pujols? Why does the player who improves his team the most have to improve them all the way to the playoffs, no matter how bad they are, to get the MVP? Or, since Ruth didn't have to lift a high school team that far but he still deserved the MVP, what is the arbitrary line that defines just how bad a team has to be before we stop demanding that the best player get them to the playoffs? Then, if we do define that line, how does that differ from "defining" MVP?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
An MVP award is part subjective, there is no exact formula
Would it not be best to see what happens in the final games before selecting one ?
Like it or not, a player on a playoff teams probably deserves additional consideration, and regardless of the "value" of various sabremetric evaluations of statistical performance, the traditional triple crown numbers, are quite popular with voters.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
<< <i>Certainly if they do not make it Pujols must share in 1 /25th of the 'blame' >>
Why? Hypothetically, if you put Babe Ruth with 24 good high school players and called it an MLB team (which isn't all that far off from Pujols situation) and the Babe hit a homer each and every time he came to bat, his team would end the season with a record of, say, 30-132 (where all 30 wins came with the Babe pitching a complete game). And you would say that every player on the team shares equally in the blame? I'll answer for you and say "no, of course not", but if I'm wrong about your answer then we can circle around again. >>
Stop making excuses for Pujols. His "high leverage" performance is doing nothing for overall team wins and losses. The Cardinals have only scored 2.5% less runs than the Phillies this season which tells me the lineups are essentially equivalent from a statistical standpoint, and actually one of the better offensive teams in the league. Bottom line is .OPS is being called into question in a major way this season as a way to measure player and team production. Pujols 2008 OPS= Buckner 1986 RBI.
<< <i>An MVP award is part subjective, there is no exact formula >>
Stupidity is different than subjectivity
If players on playoff teams deserve additional consideration above the players own contributions, than you must admit it has a lot to do with who the teammates are
DrJ, The difference between the Cardinals and Phillies runs scored is different than you would expect based on OPS. But it is pretty easy to see the difference comes from extra steals Phillies (of which Howard has one) and more double plays from the Cardinals (Howard has only three fewer than Pujols, despite so rarely putting the ball into play)
Also notice that the Phillies have prevented more runs than you would expect based on the K, BB and HR from their pitching staff. Was this because of the the mediocre defensive firstbaseman or perhaps the good play from the up-the-middle positions had more to do with this
If you give credit for team success and if you give the Phillies hitters even more credit for scoring more than their OPS might indicate and if you give appropriate credit for defense, all that means is Chase Utley has been the Phillies player who should deserve any considered for MVP. And that even Jimmy Rollins and Jason Werth may have done even more than Howard, each in about 25 fewer games
<< <i>Stop making excuses for Pujols. His "high leverage" performance is doing nothing for overall team wins and losses. >>
There, we have now heard the stupidest thing possible on this topic. Thank you, Dr. J. you can stop now, your work here is done. Statisticians here, indeed everywhere, are now laughing at you.
Now, which is it? The criteria for MVP is either undefined, or players on playoff teams get extra credit; you can't, logically, have it both ways. Or is it just the definitions that steer the MVP away from Howard that are out of bounds, while those that steer it towards him are fine?
For the umpteenth time, I agree that Howard is very likely to get the MVP just as Dawson got it before him. Everyone can stop arguing that he is GOING to get it, if that's what you're doing, and please explain WHY he OUGHT to get it.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
If you give blame to players for the games they lost, you need to give credit for the games they won. And the Cardinals have won more than they have lost and are sixth in the NL and 13th in all of MLB
Do you really believe Albert Pujols deserves the exact same amount of credit for all those wins as Aaron Miles and Joel Pineiro?
Again, the season should play out, before the choice is made, its sort of like comparing Maddux to Seaver, while Greg still may perform well, or may suffer greatly, it's best to wait until the final numbers are in.
Anyway, Howard has played in more games then Pujols, this particular season, he is more durable, should that be held against him ? Should he be credited more because he could help provide "value" to his team in 15 more games than Pujols ? Somewhat an extension of the feeling of many, that a pitcher, or even worse a closer, should ever be considered MVP, they dont get in enough innings or games. If the Cards sit home, and the Phils get into the playoffs, could one possibly assume, Pujols lack of durability value, may have hurt his team, while Howard's reliability might have added value to the team ???
Individual runs produced as a percentage of total team runs, currently; Howard = .24.8%, Pujols = 22.6% Runs are the currency of the game, and the "value" in relation to the rest of the team favors Howard. "What if" Pujols played in the games he missed, is hypothetical, the MVP will likely be selected on what actually did happen.
It is my "opinion", that Pujols is a better ballplayer than Howard, however as of this moment, Howard probably deserves the MVP for this particlar, specific season, more so, than Pujols.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Howard most certainly deserves credit for playing in more games
And the extra 14 games is most certainly not enough to make up for how much superior Pujols was in the other 135
You could say the only reason the Cardinals missed the playoffs is because Pujols missed those 14 games. Or you could say the only reason the Cardinals were able to win 85 (or however many) games is because of what Pujols did do when he was in the lineup
You could say the only reason the Phillies were able to make the playoffs (though right now only tied) is because of all the homeruns Ryan Howard hit. Or you could say the only reason they are not even further ahead of the Brewers and Cardinals is because of the 446 outs he made -- and had he made outs at the same rate as Pujols, the Phillies absolutely would have won more
Also, the runs produced percentages seems completely contrived. I am guessing you used the formula RBI+R-HR/team runs. In which case the Phillies "produced" 160% of their total runs?????
Runs may be the currency, but it has already been explained that it takes more than simply the player who crosses the plate and the player who was hitting when it happened. Leadoff batter walks, second hits a double, third batter gets the RBI with a flyball out. Which batter did the most to help create that run? Why do you give the two players without a hit 100% credit for one run, while you give the third player who did get a hit 0%?
Comments
Not familiar at all. I realize you have your strong opinion on this matter and a pompous way of putting it forth, but truth is that no hitter on the NL has done more for his team production-wise than Delgado since late June, and that if the Mets make the playoffs and the Phillies and Astros don't, he will have a very real and very legitimate shot at winning the MVP. I am in NY and have watched virtually every Mets game this season, and what Carlos has done for the Mets these last couple of months is amazing and defines the concept of MVP as it is intended. I just read an article the other day where 10 sportswriters representing all three divisions were polled about who they'd vote for at this point for MVP, and several of them mentioned Delgado is on a very short list depending on how the remainer of the season unfolds. We will see...
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.
To think otherwise is pure folly.
Howard hit another one today and the Phils won.
Steve
If Berkman can somhow keep the Astros winning the way they have been, a huge if, and they make the playoffs then it will just be ridiculous if he doesn't get the Award. Pujols faces the same situation that Musial and Mantle and Mays faced before him - the voters don't want to give it to the same guy every year even if they know he was the best player. Musial could have won something like 10 MVPs.
The winner is yet to be determined.
Steve
Sincerely,
2 Time MVP
Nothing pompus at all, just stating defects in logic.
I watched all the Cub games, and no team has had a super utility player like Derosa who has carried them when Soriano was hurt, and Lee stopped hitting HR. WIth 50 first half RBI, he was a prime factor in building a Cubs lead that was enough to withstand the evaporation of some of their other steady players.
I would be embarrassed by using the writers as evidence for an argument. They have a history of complete contradiction in their voting. Yeah, they vote, but they don't exactly know what they are doing. They are good at constructing sentences, I will give them that...but evaluating baseball is not one of their strengths. Selling stories and making guys buy into them, they are good at too.
Nothing pompus at all, just stating defects in logic.
LOL, that very statement is by definition pompous, so I realize nothing I can say will effectively enlighten you in that regard. That comically pretentious sigline you have is a close second, of course..
What you fail to grasp is that the concept of MVP is subjective in and of itself, as there is no true and absolute formula or definitive method to gauge the nebulous concept of "value" as it pertains to a player's relationship to his teammates and/or his team's fortunes (or lack thereof). If Delgado hadn't struggled and underperformed the first 3 months, he'd be an absolute lock for the MVP. I realize that. But if the Mets make the playoffs (a feat that seemed rather farfeteched back in late June when the Mets were below .500) and the teams with the other MVP candidates don't, I believe he should be considered "most valuable" in the conext that the award is intended. No player in the NL has been more productive during that time, there's no question about that.
We can agree to disagree on this particular argument, but I realize that is difficult for you to accept. At the end of the day, it's all just about sports talk, and such conversation should be taken as lightly and as lightheartedly as it should in the grand scheme of things.
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.
By pointing out a defect in logic, is not pompus, it is pointing out a defect.
I think so
I'm fairly certain that JS is not petitioning for Delgado to win MVP, so that statement is inherently false, at least as far as I'm concerned, LOL!
If the Astros make the playoffs, I'd agree with you that Berkman deserves serious consideration, just as Delgado does if the Mets get in and the Astros don't.
Chipper? I've had him on my fantasy team all year and after a HOT first half+, he's been very good but hardly spectacular production-wise, mainly due to nagging injuries, etc. Regardless, I don't believe an MVP should come from a 4th place team, especially in this particular era of baseball.
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.
HE will break the single season strikeout number....very impressive
BEST EVER in the rally killer we call a K
Dallas is saying that the mope Stalin agrees with them! Great company to be in
hey even stalin can be right once in this lifetime!
Seriously though you and Dallas make great points.
Things that I will prolly not consider but great points non the less.
Steve
pathetic useless stat accumulator accumulating insignifigant RBIs.
<< <i>2 more useless RBIs for howard today, to take the game from 3-1 to 3-3... but the runner wasn't in scoring position and there was noone out.
pathetic useless stat accumulator accumulating insignifigant RBIs. >>
LOL.
44 HR
93 Runs
133 RBI and counting.
Howard is putting the Phils on his back for the playoff run. Something Pujols seems to have trouble doing....
Get the trophy case ready for a landing...
As for the Pujols statement? That just smacks of a complete ignorance of baseball. I am not sure what to say, except maybe Pujols should have done a better job of not blowing saves and should have pitched like Lidge more often. Oh wait, he can't control that, how foolish of me.
Grote, you said it best when you said fan is short for fanatic, and bias rules. That is a very accurate statement, and certainly explains why some people just dont' get the obvious.
For the record, when it was assumed that I was a Pujols fan, I couldn't stop laughing. I remember people getting upset with me with my 'dirty' Pujols fan bashing with the man juice thread a while back!
Steve
I am sure some of his teamamtes would say they want Howard up with the game on the line...especially all the hitters who are worse than him. It depends on the alternative.
As an opposing manager, I wouldn't mind seeing him up with the game on the line too...he is just one left handed relief pitcher away from being reduced to a .228 hitter with a .312 OB%, and .458 SLG%.
His lifetime OPS is .965. In late/Close situations it is .897. It isn't like he is a monster in those spots.
I can't imagine a sane person in the universe that would take him over Albert Pujols in the situation you speak of...or for that matter, in ANY and ALL situations. LMAO
P.S. Since this group likes to disregard the affect of teammates, and hails Howard as such a great player...you would think with all his run producing greatness that his teams would have won at least 90 games once in a season. Maybe his contributions aren't as important as you think?? I can speak the 'fan' language too
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.
skinpinch said it best: if that's how the award is going to work, then the award itself becomes trivial. It's not the Most Valuable Player, it's the Most Valuable Player on a Good, But Not Great, Team. Or Most Valuable Player Relative to Teammates That Aren't Quite Good Enough to Make the Playoffs.
The other problem with all this, of course, is that Howard is nowhere close to the most valuable player on the Phillies. How many times do I have to ask before a Phillie fan explains why they don't appreciate Chase Utley? He steals bases, he plays the infield WELL, he gets on base more - he even hits for more power than Howard and still you're blinded by Howard's place in the batting order! Trust me, there's not a general manager in MLB who would give the Phillies more for Howard than they would for Utley. Other than Pujols and Berkman, there's not an obvious choice for a player in the National League that I'd rather have.
They play 162 games for that very reason.
Steve
Phillie fans LOVE Chase Utley.
Not sure how you can even make that assumption?
Had he stayed as HOT as he was this thread would have been about him.
Steve
Where have the Cardinals gone.... 5 Straight loses and the great Pujols could do nothing the stem the tide. I guess those "high leverage" performances have very little impact on the W column. LOL.
<< <i>Where have the Cardinals gone.... 5 Straight loses and the great Pujols could do nothing the stem the tide. >>
Babe Ruth at his peak could do nothing to stem that tide, so I guess if the Babe himself came back and played for the Cardinals he would not deserve the MVP over Ryan Howard? No offense, but how am I not supopsed to laugh at your reasoning when it leads to this conclusion? By all means, Ryan Howard for Most Valuable Cleanup Hitter on One of the Four Teams Fighting for a Playoff Spot. Never mind that they would have clinched their division two weeks ago if Pujols had been their first baseman, never mind that they would be so far out of it without Utley that Gehrig couldn't save them at first base, Howard gets to bat cleanup, so he must be the MVP of the entire league even though every single player on 12 of the teams is ineligible by this "logic".
And Howard is MVP because Utley didn't "stay hot"? Huh? Had Utley not BEEN hot for so long, the Phillies wouldn't have a prayer of making the playoffs since Howard was so terrible over the same stretch. So now we've narrowed the players eligible for an MVP even further. It's not enough to be in the small slice of teams that fight for a playoff spot down the stretch, you have to be the best player in the last 30 of those 162 games, which requires whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to convince one's self that the last 30 games matter more than the first 132. I can't do that, and I'm afraid to even try.
In my opinion, Utley has been responsible for winning more games for the Phillies than has Howard. Also, in my opinion, grass is green. I'm more sure about Utley than the grass, though.
And Howard is MVP because Utley didn't "stay hot"?
Not sure if that was directed at me, I simply was replying to your previous thread.
I simply said had UTLEY remained HOT like he was in April-May chances are this thread would have been
about him.
Steve
You don't know that, that is supposition at its best. nothing more nothing less.
Steve
And yes, it has to be supposition that the Phillies would have won many more games with Pujols. But it is backed up by each and every piece of available evidence. Skinpinch held everybody's hand and walked them through this and I can't do any better. Howard has more RBI than Pujols because he had more men on base to drive in; that is the beginning and end of the story about their RBI. Pujols is better - like Ruth is better than Ron Fairly "better" - than Ryan Howard at everything else.
I will take Pujols and ANY other MLB player good enough to start for an entire season on my team and give you two Ryan Howards; if all else is equal, I will have the better team. In fact, I almost don't need that second player. But every comparison I'm being given involves comparisons that aren't anywhere near "all else is equal"; every argument being put forward boils down to because Howard's teammates are better than Pujols teammates, Howard is more valuable. And they have to, teammates is the single only thing Howard has over Pujols. He doesn't have even that over Utley.
You have no idea (well you could have an idea) how the Phillies (or any other team) for that matter would have done with Pujols
in the lineup. Unless of course you have a crystal ball. The only thing that is certain is how the
Cards did with him in the lineup.
Steve
The only thing that is certain is how that particular player performed himself, and the rest(winning a division), is up to the rest of the teammates!
Pujols can only control how he does, and the rest of the lineup is out of his control, and only a fool would judge somebody based on what others do, yet that is what people are doing here!
Actually, in this case, the difference between the Cardinals and Phillies is the bullpen.
Winpitcher, you now have a decision to make, either the bullpen matters to such a high degree as you say it does and that is the main reason separating Pujols's team from wining...in which case you cannot hold the Cardinals record against Pujols, BECAUSE THE BULLPEN IS THE MAIN CULPRIT as to why the Cardinals don't have five more wins than the Phillies do! Or, the bullpen does not matter, and it is Pujols's fault that the Cardinals have only five less win than the Phillies....and it is all Ryan Howard's doing for the Phils success, and none of it can be attributed to Brad Lidge.
<< <i>Actually Winpithcer,
The only thing that is certain is how that particular player performed himself, and the rest(winning a division), is up to the rest of the teammates!
Pujols can only control how he does, and the rest of the lineup is out of his control, and only a fool would judge somebody based on what others do, yet that is what people are doing here!
Actually, in this case, the difference between the Cardinals and Phillies is the bullpen.
Winpitcher, you now have a decision to make, either the bullpen matters to such a high degree as you say it does and that is the main reason separating Pujols's team from wining...in which case you cannot hold the Cardinals record against Pujols, BECAUSE THE BULLPEN IS THE MAIN CULPRIT as to why the Cardinals don't have five more wins than the Phillies do! Or, the bullpen does not matter, and it is Pujols's fault that the Cardinals have only five less win than the Phillies....and it is all Ryan Howard's doing for the Phils success, and none of it can be attributed to Brad Lidge. >>
Hoopster. You are beginning to sound like a lunatic. Is the political season getting you all wrapped up in excessive flip flopping?
First you rail on and on about high leverage situations and when the proof of what these situations result in (W's and runs). Of course when the results are presented for Pujols ( Losses and lack of RBI), you change your tune and start picking on a bull pen. You then dimiss the importance of 130 RBI seasons which is a relative rarity in most players career, including some of the best hitters of all time. You try to minmimalize actual runs scored quoting OPS, as a better indicator of performance. News flash...if a high OPS does not lead to team wins and runs on the board then it is as meaningless as the Runs and RBIs you try to dismiss.
With another strong week, Howard may all but lock up the MVP.
You need to tell that to Dallas, I of course know that, it goes without saying.
Next.
Steve
Dallas knows that, but it is appearant others on here don't. So which is it, does the pen matter, or is it Pujols's fault they are not in the playoffs?
DrJ, I didn't flip flop on anything. The bullpen is an example of how the teamamtes affect the won/loss record. You don't see any of the basic points, like WHY some of the great hitters don't have 130 RBI seasons. And again, you overstated the rarity of that event in this era. 10 guys alone in 1996 did it.
If a player's high OPS does not result in runs or RBI, it isn't meaningless to his value or ability, it is simply the failure of the teammates to do their championship share. I am not sure how you cannot understand this. I knew this concept in third grade.
I have to lay it out step by step as simple as I can for you...it isn't always easy to lay examples out at a first grade level. My apologies if I failed to do so.
I have to lay it out step by step as simple as I can for you...it isn't always easy to lay examples out at a first grade level. My apologies if I failed to do so.
lol. what a freaking blow hard.
Steve
You have explained to us how a player is valued in regards to others on his team and or league.
We get it. The free throw example was right on.
What you do not seem to grasp is that even though we fully understand that player A can have more RBI's then
anyone else in the league someone else with less RBI's could be better. We fully understand that. Yet you continue
to pound away like we don't. For that you deserve an F
We, like you can have an opinion.
If we want to have the opinion that Howard and his 130 RBI's has value, and we do not care where in the scheme
of things that value is placed amongst his peers, we can. If you want to chart it, FINE, some here do not. Some here do not think it is needed.
If the MVP had a certain criteria then one could use your logic, it doesn't thus it is open to interpretation.
There is no one stat that the voters use to determine the MVP.
A person with 130 RBI's who had 500 chances to drive those runs in CAN WIN the award even if someone else
drove in 75 with 250 chances. What part of that simple statement do you not get?
As usual you have gone off on too many tangents! You should have stopped with the free throw post!
there you explained yourself very well.
Certain things have been said in these threads by a few guys and they claim it to be fact when in reality it is just their OPINION.
Steve
Well the pen certainly matters, is the correct answer (well the hoopster correct answer)
a combination of both? Certainly if they do not make it Pujols must share in 1 /25th of the 'blame'
Now if you want to assign 'blame value' go right ahead. I only need to know that they did not make the PO
(If they don't).
Steve
<< <i>Certainly if they do not make it Pujols must share in 1 /25th of the 'blame' >>
Why? Hypothetically, if you put Babe Ruth with 24 good high school players and called it an MLB team (which isn't all that far off from Pujols situation) and the Babe hit a homer each and every time he came to bat, his team would end the season with a record of, say, 30-132 (where all 30 wins came with the Babe pitching a complete game). And you would say that every player on the team shares equally in the blame? I'll answer for you and say "no, of course not", but if I'm wrong about your answer then we can circle around again.
Assuming that we can establish that "blame" does not have to be apportioned equally, then we have a situation where we can actually look at what each player did and apportion blame in accordance with their actual performance. I'm trying to think of a system, or a way of thinking about it, or anything at all that could possibly lead to any other conclusion than that the Babe was "worth" 30 wins to his team. Which would be, by far, the greatest season ever by anyone (he got 500 HR and won 30 games as a pitcher - I hope that is an uncontroversial statement). I can see how Babe could get 0% of the blame, or even a negative percentage of the blame, depending on how you wanted to look at it, but any way of thinking about this where Babe gets some amount of positive "blame" that he must overcome when even the worst player on a team that did make the playoffs gets none makes no sense to me.
That example is overboard, but it differs only in degree from Pujols. Obviously, in my example, any team would have been much better off with Ruth in their lineup no matter which player he replaced. That also differs from Pujols only in degree. Ruth, I assume, would win the MVP after a season like that, and that nobody at all would disagree. So, what is different about Pujols? Why does the player who improves his team the most have to improve them all the way to the playoffs, no matter how bad they are, to get the MVP? Or, since Ruth didn't have to lift a high school team that far but he still deserved the MVP, what is the arbitrary line that defines just how bad a team has to be before we stop demanding that the best player get them to the playoffs? Then, if we do define that line, how does that differ from "defining" MVP?
Would it not be best to see what happens in the final games before selecting one ?
Like it or not, a player on a playoff teams probably deserves additional consideration,
and regardless of the "value" of various sabremetric evaluations of statistical performance, the traditional triple crown numbers, are quite popular with voters.
<< <i>
<< <i>Certainly if they do not make it Pujols must share in 1 /25th of the 'blame' >>
Why? Hypothetically, if you put Babe Ruth with 24 good high school players and called it an MLB team (which isn't all that far off from Pujols situation) and the Babe hit a homer each and every time he came to bat, his team would end the season with a record of, say, 30-132 (where all 30 wins came with the Babe pitching a complete game). And you would say that every player on the team shares equally in the blame? I'll answer for you and say "no, of course not", but if I'm wrong about your answer then we can circle around again.
>>
Stop making excuses for Pujols. His "high leverage" performance is doing nothing for overall team wins and losses. The Cardinals have only scored 2.5% less runs than the Phillies this season which tells me the lineups are essentially equivalent from a statistical standpoint, and actually one of the better offensive teams in the league. Bottom line is .OPS is being called into question in a major way this season as a way to measure player and team production. Pujols 2008 OPS= Buckner 1986 RBI.
Winpitcher, you may understand the chances, but everybody does not.
Dallas's above port regarding Ruth(and all his previous posts about narrowing the teams to which an MVP can be chosen from), are spot on.
<< <i>An MVP award is part subjective, there is no exact formula >>
Stupidity is different than subjectivity
If players on playoff teams deserve additional consideration above the players own contributions, than you must admit it has a lot to do with who the teammates are
DrJ,
The difference between the Cardinals and Phillies runs scored is different than you would expect based on OPS. But it is pretty easy to see the difference comes from extra steals Phillies (of which Howard has one) and more double plays from the Cardinals (Howard has only three fewer than Pujols, despite so rarely putting the ball into play)
Also notice that the Phillies have prevented more runs than you would expect based on the K, BB and HR from their pitching staff. Was this because of the the mediocre defensive firstbaseman or perhaps the good play from the up-the-middle positions had more to do with this
If you give credit for team success and if you give the Phillies hitters even more credit for scoring more than their OPS might indicate and if you give appropriate credit for defense, all that means is Chase Utley has been the Phillies player who should deserve any considered for MVP. And that even Jimmy Rollins and Jason Werth may have done even more than Howard, each in about 25 fewer games
<< <i>Stop making excuses for Pujols. His "high leverage" performance is doing nothing for overall team wins and losses. >>
There, we have now heard the stupidest thing possible on this topic. Thank you, Dr. J. you can stop now, your work here is done. Statisticians here, indeed everywhere, are now laughing at you.
Now, which is it? The criteria for MVP is either undefined, or players on playoff teams get extra credit; you can't, logically, have it both ways. Or is it just the definitions that steer the MVP away from Howard that are out of bounds, while those that steer it towards him are fine?
For the umpteenth time, I agree that Howard is very likely to get the MVP just as Dawson got it before him. Everyone can stop arguing that he is GOING to get it, if that's what you're doing, and please explain WHY he OUGHT to get it.
Why Dallas? because it is a team sport and each player must share in the blame. Thus MY OPINION of 1/25th of the blame
One could also mete out blame a different way and assign blame value. And come up with any number of pcts.
One could also say he (Pujols) is without blame, (Fandango)
One could also come up with something entirely different (Hoopster)
The list is endless.
That is 'why'
Steve
For the umpteenth time, Howard is leading the Majors in HR's and RBI's is the reason he/i think he will win it. (ought to win it) my opinion only.
We know that some here think that is ridiculous, no need to explain it again.
It may very well be ridiculous, it is however what it is.
Steve
Do you really believe Albert Pujols deserves the exact same amount of credit for all those wins as Aaron Miles and Joel Pineiro?
its sort of like comparing Maddux to Seaver, while Greg still may perform well, or may suffer greatly, it's best to wait until the final numbers are in.
Anyway, Howard has played in more games then Pujols, this particular season, he is more durable, should that be held against him ?
Should he be credited more because he could help provide "value" to his team in 15 more games than Pujols ?
Somewhat an extension of the feeling of many, that a pitcher, or even worse a closer, should ever be considered MVP, they dont get in enough innings or games.
If the Cards sit home, and the Phils get into the playoffs, could one possibly assume, Pujols lack of durability value, may have hurt his team, while Howard's reliability might have added value to the team ???
Individual runs produced as a percentage of total team runs, currently;
Howard = .24.8%, Pujols = 22.6%
Runs are the currency of the game, and the "value" in relation to the rest of the team favors Howard. "What if" Pujols played in the games he missed, is hypothetical, the MVP will likely be selected on what actually did happen.
It is my "opinion", that Pujols is a better ballplayer than Howard, however as of this moment, Howard probably deserves the MVP for this particlar, specific season, more so, than Pujols.
And the extra 14 games is most certainly not enough to make up for how much superior Pujols was in the other 135
You could say the only reason the Cardinals missed the playoffs is because Pujols missed those 14 games. Or you could say the only reason the Cardinals were able to win 85 (or however many) games is because of what Pujols did do when he was in the lineup
You could say the only reason the Phillies were able to make the playoffs (though right now only tied) is because of all the homeruns Ryan Howard hit. Or you could say the only reason they are not even further ahead of the Brewers and Cardinals is because of the 446 outs he made -- and had he made outs at the same rate as Pujols, the Phillies absolutely would have won more
Also, the runs produced percentages seems completely contrived. I am guessing you used the formula RBI+R-HR/team runs. In which case the Phillies "produced" 160% of their total runs?????
Runs may be the currency, but it has already been explained that it takes more than simply the player who crosses the plate and the player who was hitting when it happened. Leadoff batter walks, second hits a double, third batter gets the RBI with a flyball out. Which batter did the most to help create that run? Why do you give the two players without a hit 100% credit for one run, while you give the third player who did get a hit 0%?