There is no point to arguing the past. Once a MVP decision is made by the voters it is here for eternity. We can debate the merits but nothing will change.
This year Pujols has better numbers when it comes to average and on base percentage, but Howard has better numbers when it comes to runs realized. The Phils also had a better record and Howard stepped up his game and drove the team to wins at the end of the season while Pujols and the Cards folded like a cheap suit as outlined throughout this thread. Making the playoffs and late season performance may very well be the deciding factor with the voters. We shall see, but it is not as clear cut as the Pujols fanboys say. >>
I prefer to argue merit, as writers are not good baseball analysts, so there is no way I will ever view their vote as any type of be all end all.
Runs realized? DrJ, you cannot be serious to use that with a straight face. That is a direct result of the guys on base, and guys behind him. I think I already showed that Howard got more RBI because he had more opportunity. Pujols did indeed have a higher BA, OBP, and you forgot SLG% too. Oh, and he also hit better with men on than Howard. The only real difference is that Howard simply had more base runners...which brings us back to the free throw contest....care to partake in that challenge?
DrJ, you go back and forth with your philosophy. On one hand you account for the role of teammates(when it suites your case for Howard)...like the Phillies and Cardinals W/L record in 2006. Then on the other hand, you complete neglect the role of teammates...when you hold Pujols accountable for the Cardinals folding. You simply cannot have it both ways, yet you want to because of pure bias.
I would have a little more regard for your thoughts if you were consistent, and if you did say, "Yeah, Pujols should have won the MVP in 2006 because his team made the post season...just like Howard should this year." Your both way stance is simply exemplifies baseball fans at their worst.
Winpitcher, all I ahve read in this thread is that you have to make the post season to be MVP. That is the recurring theme. I understand what you are saying, but that is not the theme presented in this thread by Howard backers.
How do they justify Stargell sharing the 1979 MVP with Keith Hernandez who ripped the ball all season long. Stargell had a "measly" 82 RBI's which in that lineup in my view wasn't very impressive to be winning an MVP...one could even say non-clutch to some degree...but he was popular, his team won the pennant, and of course they had that "We are Family" tune as their theme song...all of which no doubt swayed the voters. I say Howard should win it anyway, but adding to that he's a popular player on a winning team, and for all those reasons...Howard wins the MVP...there's really no doubt about it if you understand baseball and understand the voting.
SteveK, if all those criteria matter, then it goes way back to what I said in the beginning...it simply trivializes the award.
Winpitcher,
Grote flat out said that in todays expanded playoffs, he views that an MVP must come from a playoff team. You even said, that is why they play 162 games.
Pujols was slightly better in '06, and his team makes the playoffs...and he doesn't win it.
Pujols was tremendously better in '08, but his team doesn't make the playoffs...and he doesn't win it.
Seems that the only thing he would need to do is to be tremendously better, AND make the playoffs. But of course, if they win it by too many games, then he won't win it either because some guy who's team just sneaks in will be viewed as 'more valuable' because his teammates were bad enough to make it close. See the folly?
The way the award is currently viewed and voted upon simply trivializes it...which brings us right back to what I said before. Best is what counts and is really what matters.
<< <i>SteveK, if all those criteria matter, then it goes way back to what I said in the beginning...it simply trivializes the award.
Winpitcher,
Grote flat out said that in todays expanded playoffs, he views that an MVP must come from a playoff team. You even said, that is why they play 162 games.
Pujols was slightly better in '06, and his team makes the playoffs...and he doesn't win it.
Pujols was tremendously better in '08, but his team doesn't make the playoffs...and he doesn't win it.
Seems that the only thing he would need to do is to be tremendously better, AND make the playoffs. But of course, if they win it by too many games, then he won't win it either because some guy who's team just sneaks in will be viewed as 'more valuable' because his teammates were bad enough to make it close. See the folly?
The way the award is currently viewed and voted upon simply trivializes it...which brings us right back to what I said before. Best is what counts and is really what matters. >>
All valid points but I think you may be missing actually the "most important" point of all in a close vote...and that's including what I meant about understanding baseball which obviously guys like you, WinPitcher, Grote15 and others here do....remember that the voting is done by sportswriters and they earn their living and get paid by the media, so in reality, they're gonna vote when possible for the MVP who makes the best story for them, and helps sell more newspapers, and attracts more listeners and viewers to the media outlet they are employed by. Ryan Howard is a popular guy, and Philadelphia winning for the first time in 28 years and only the second time ever, makes for one heckuva interesting story and sells more newspapers in their view, and in reality probably actually does sell more newspapers...and we shouldn't discount that view in trying to predict the MVP voting.
makes for one heckuva interesting story and sells more newspapers in their view, and in reality probably actually does sell more newspapers...and we shouldn't discount that view in trying to predict the MVP voting.
<< <i>makes for one heckuva interesting story and sells more newspapers in their view, and in reality probably actually does sell more newspapers...and we shouldn't discount that view in trying to predict the MVP voting.
I don't think that has anything to do with it.
Steve >>
So you're saying the sportswriter making the best choice for earning money for his family, by in a close vote choosing the player who will sell more newspapers and make his bosses happy, and enabling the sportswriter to earn more money and make a better living... has nothing to do with it? Sorry Steve but human nature doesn't side with you on your opinion.
<< <i>no, my point was each city/paper does not have enough votes to award anyone anything.
If I'm not mistaken 2 writers from each franchised city get a vote.
Do many writers vote for the homer? Ocourse but it has NOTHING to do with selling papers.
The stories they write, well that is another story.
Sorry Steve I just ain't buying it.
Steve >>
Would the newspaper buyers in say California rather read about the interesting story behind the Phillies and Ryan Howard, or someone not as interesting? There is no doubt that type of contemplation from sportswriters goes into the MVP voting equation...and I don't think it's even debatable.
Would the newspaper buyers in say California rather read about the interesting story behind the Phillies and Ryan Howard, or someone not as interesting?
You are kidding right?? First of all it is debatable on what they would find as 'not as interesting'
Steve the MVP voting has nothing to do with selling newspapers per say.
Listen, think what you want. You always do anyway.
Wow, just checked out the stock market, looks like people are anticipating another Pujols second place finish....pampers and puffs plus stock was way up today!
<< <i>Would the newspaper buyers in say California rather read about the interesting story behind the Phillies and Ryan Howard, or someone not as interesting?
You are kidding right?? First of all it is debatable on what they would find as 'not as interesting'
Steve the MVP voting has nothing to do with selling newspapers per say.
Listen, think what you want. You always do anyway.
Steve >>
Steve - you obviously are not that knowledgeable about mass marketing and the media...it's firstly about the money, they are a business, and everything else is second.
Steve - you obviously are not that knowledgeable about mass marketing and the media...it's firstly about the money, they are a business, and everything else is second.
Steve that goes without saying, of course people that work for any entity want to make money.
So what you are saying is that a writer from California is going to waste his MVP on a player thinking that it will sell papers? Even if that player plays for a team 3000 miles away?
Is that what you are saying? Now if you said that writers vote for a guy, that say has one arm, or has some sort of human interest story behind him AND WINS the MVP I'd agree with you somewhat.
You really are stretching this Steve, and fwiw i'm more savvy then you think.
I also have more common sense then you it appears.
I doubt it even enters their minds Steve. They vote on who they THINK was the MVP for that season without thinking how it will effect the papers circulation for that day/week/month.
<< <i>Steve - you obviously are not that knowledgeable about mass marketing and the media...it's firstly about the money, they are a business, and everything else is second.
Steve that goes without saying, of course people that work for any entity want to make money.
So what you are saying is that a writer from California is going to waste his MVP on a player thinking that it will sell papers? Even if that player plays for a team 3000 miles away?
Is that what you are saying? Now if you said that writers vote for a guy, that say has one arm, or has some sort of human interest story behind him AND WINS the MVP I'd agree with you somewhat.
You really are stretching this Steve, and fwiw i'm more savvy then you think.
I also have more common sense then you it appears.
I doubt it even enters their minds Steve. They vote on who they THINK was the MVP for that season without thinking how it will effect the papers circulation for that day/week/month.
Steve >>
Steve - Of course the sportswriter doesn't want to lose credibility, because that would also affect his ability to be known as a competent writer, and have people want to read his column. Eddie Gaedel never got any MVP votes. That being said there is no doubt that the answer is "Yes" if it's a close vote, most if not all sportswriters will take into account how their vote will affect readership...they know that most if not all of their brethren are gonna vote in a similar manner.
<< <i>When the only argument for Howard winning the MVP is 'he carried his team down the stretch' then you know that he's not deserving. >>
How about led the majors in HR, RBI and Runs Realized. No one else in the league can take claim to those facts.
Hoopster can't seem to get his head around the fact that there are multiple inputs which make up the voters decision for MVP. Things are not Black and White and it is blowing his mind.
Heck, Howard being perceived as a nicer or better guy than Pujols goes into the voter's minds as well (though to a small degree). There were many factors in 2006, and obviously the voters decided Howard's performance was more worthy than Pujols'. How can anyone argue that if something similar happens this year it is out of the realm of possibility.
Keep an open mind, and allow the multiple inputs to enter.
Let's put aside for a moment the MVP question and take a quiz:
First, imagine that it is January, 2008.
Now imagine that the GMs of the Phillies and the Cardinals somehow know exactly what Howard and Pujols will do in 2008 - every home run, every walk, every strikeout, every error; how they'll hit in April, how they'll hit in September; how they'll hit with the bases empty, how they'll hit with the bases full; they know EVERYTHING. They don't know how any of their other players will do and they don't know how many games their teams will win or will need to win to make the playoffs.
Now imagine that the two players make exactly the same amount of money, so that is no consideration.
Now imagine that the Cardinals GM offers a trade - one for the other, straight up - and that at the conclusion of the postseason the trade will automatically be undone, with each player returning to his original team. This removes age and any other consideration of future potential or future salary requirements from the equation.
OK, that's a lot of imagining, especially for JS and Dr. J, but I don't think it's much of a burden for the rest of you. Obviously, in the real world this would never happen, but please do not got hung up on that since that is entirely beside the point. Can you imagine it? That's all that matters.
Here's the quiz: Do you think that the Phillies GM would pull the trigger on this trade and grab Pujols for the season, or do you think he would stick with Howard?
Here's the answer: If you think he would stick with Howard then there are only two theoretically possible explanations: either you are an idiot or for some reason you believe that the Phillies GM is an idiot.
And if YOU were the Phillies GM and YOU would stick with Howard, then that leaves only one theoretically possible explanation. And that's a fact.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>Wow, just checked out the stock market, looks like people are anticipating another Pujols second place finish....pampers and puffs plus stock was way up today!
JS >>
I don't agree, but that was a good one, I must admit.
As far as who had the better season, I will side with the players. They voted -
NL Most Outstanding Player - Pujols MLB Player of the Year - Pujols
And just to top it off, he also won the Roberto Clemente Award and the Sporting News Player of the Year.
<< <i>The Sporting news Player of the year is an award that truly shows who was the best player for that year.
The MVP does not.
That is where the problem is as some here think that MVP means best.
Or they want to think it does.
Pujols is the best player, that has never been disputed.
By me anyway.
Steve >>
But it has been disputed by many others.
Now, in regards to what the MVP DOES mean vs what the MVP SHOULD mean - that is where the debate lies. It is my opinion that there is no better way to determine value than to look at what the PLAYER does and not what the rest of his TEAM does. Therefore, I think that it is ok for a player on a last place team to win the MVP. Some may say, "But they came in last place. That team still would have been in last place if they did not have that certain player". True, but does that mean that that certain player didn't have value? Of course not. That team would have certainly lost many, many more games were it not for that player. Sure, the Cardinals did not make the playoffs. However, were it not for Pujols, the Cardinals would have been trying to dig out of the cellar for the entire year. Pujols had them in contention most of the year.
Again, you have to look at the player and not the rest of the team.
Steve - I think for your being in this country just off the refugee boat for a short time, from the country of Kukamania, that you have learned quite a lot of information about the game of baseball. But you still need to learn that walking down the streets of New York in a loin cloth, is still not acceptable public clothing in this country.
<< <i>How about led the majors in HR, RBI and Runs Realized. No one else in the league can take claim to those facts. >>
RBI and runs scored are terrible ways to determine a hitters worth. They are more a function of the team around the player than the player himself. Runs Realized? Really? Please point to any respected baseball stat guy who uses this. Runs Created, however, is deemed by Bill James (who has forgotten more about baseball stats than you or I will ever know) as an 'essential thing to measure'. Make a guess who led the NL in runs created this year? That's right, Pujols. Pujols was #1 (by far) in VORP. That's value over replacement player in case you were unaware. He was also #1 in OPS (over .250 higher than Howard), #1 in SLG, #2 in OBP, and only 2 people struck out less than him. These are all individual stats that don't take into account his teammates.
<< <i>Hoopster can't seem to get his head around the fact that there are multiple inputs which make up the voters decision for MVP. Things are not Black and White and it is blowing his mind. >>
It seems you and the other philly fans can't get your head around that Howard wasn't even the MVP of his own team, let alone the league. As has been discussed, Utley, Hamels, and Lidge were all more important to the Phils' success than Howard was. But people get so caught up in gaudy HR totals they can't see straight.
Pujols' case for MVP has been made, it's not even close. Now it's time for the voters to prove they can make the right choice, to do some research, and dig beneath ridiculous stats like RBI.
Steinman is correct, there are actually people on this board that feel Howard was a better player than Pujols. Silly, but true.
The thing that I do see as black and white is the measurement of a hitter in baseball. In all of sports, there is nothing as concrete as measuring a baseball hitter's offensive value. And no, RBI are not part of that measurement...lol. The play by play data reigns as king.
WHich of these offensive outputs would you prefer to have given to your team?
Which would you expect to lead to more runs for your team? If your answer is Howard, then we need to open another discussion on the topic of baseball hitting. If one thinks that 11 more HR and 4 more triples even comes close to outweighing 23 Walks, 11 singles, 18 doubles, and 111 LESS OUTS MADE, then this sport is probably one you should not be debating about.
Any difference in actual runs scored or RBI is coming from what the teammates did, not the hitter. This would then become a measurement of the players immediately around the hitter, and luck....and NOT the player(which is the entire point that we are trying to measure...the value or ability of said player, NOT the team).
Is it not more valuable to have a player that contributes hitting that gives your team the BEST chance to score runs(like Pujols did)? Whether or not the teammates fail to seize(or succeed upon) the opportunities has nothing to do with the measurement of the player in question.
Yes, I would CERTAINLY want my team to have seized the opportunties like Howard's team did, because that means I would have the better TEAM. BUt if I am isolating what the player contributed, either for the purpose of deciding how much to pay him, or how much credit or recognition I want to hand out, then I want the player like Pujols who indeed performed much better himself.
I would want to recognize the players individual contribution, isolated from what the ability of the teammates are, and isn't that the point of giving an individual award?? The team award is the wins/losses, and championship trophy. Absolutley I want the championship trophy, because I would have the best team. But measuring the best team is not the topic...it is the measurement of the value or ability of the individual!]
I can't imagine a situation where I would deem it more valuable to chose a player from the same position who creates LESS RUNS and choose to have him instead of a better player(attitude aside). Unless of course he is a monster defensively. In this case, he is actually a butcher defensively, just furthering the gap between the two.
The whole most valuable concept that Winpitcher or others are using is certainly extremely subjective. What is objective is that which a player contributed within his power! Instead, what is being used by many is a measurement of the players teammates...and that has been showed ad nauseum as a faulty method to use to isolate any type of individual award or measurement. Text
<< <i>Pujols' case for MVP has been made, it's not even close. Now it's time for the voters to prove they can make the right choice, to do some research, and dig beneath ridiculous stats like RBI. >>
How could Pujols' case have been made? Wasn't it Pujols who crybabied about how the MVP should be from a team that makes the playoffs? I believe those were the tears he shed when Ryan Howard won the award a couple years ago. Last I checked, his team sat at home after 162 games.
If Pujols wins the award this year, will he give it back and really stand behind his words?
You can disagree with that if you wish, but the evidence is not on your side at all
Secondly, you misquoted me. I said, "In all of sports, there is nothing as concrete as measuring a baseball hitter's offensive value."
I would like for you to show me how Ryan Howard hitting a double with a man on 1st makes him a better hitter than Albert Pujols hitting one with a man on 1st. They each hit a double with a man on 1st. They get equal credit. Where is the gray?
Are you going to say, "depends on the score." Fine, that isn't a mystery either. Those can all be measured and accounted for as well.
Are you going to say, "depends on who is up next." Then that becomes a measurement of the team, not the player.
I need you to show me the gray area in there.
Are you going to dispute the value of each event? Are you going to say, "how do you know those 11 extra HR's and 4 extra triples don't outweight all the extra walks, singles, doubles, and LESS OUTS?"
There is nothing that you can provide that will show proof of your gray area...unless you decide to measure areas out of the hitters control(like teammates).
The bottom line is that the good measurements get you 95-99% of the truth of the hitters value. Baseball hitting is very condusive to this accuracy and has been shown time and time again. Nobody has shown your gray area(with any valid study). If you are talking about a QB, then there is lots of grey, but not a hitter, sorry. You need to provide some evidence.
That is another thread, and I will point you to the research if you wish. Point me to your research.
Moving on to the topic,
There is no question that Albert Pujols was simply a better hitter. You are already agree to that(even though other silly posters don't)
Is it not more valuable to have a player that contributes hitting that gives your team the BEST chance to score runs(like Pujols did)? Whether or not the teammates fail to seize(or succeed upon) the opportunities has nothing to do with the measurement of the player in question.
Yes, I would CERTAINLY want my team to have seized the opportunties like Howard's team did, because that means I would have the better TEAM. BUt if I am isolating what the player contributed, either for the purpose of deciding how much to pay him, or how much credit or recognition I want to hand out, then I want the player like Pujols who indeed performed much better himself.
I would want to recognize the players individual contribution, isolated from what the ability of the teammates are, and isn't that the point of giving an individual award?? The team award is the wins/losses, and championship trophy. Absolutley I want the championship trophy, because I would have the best team. But measuring the best team is not the topic...it is the measurement of the value or ability of the individual!
I love your analysis. Why don't people look at the facts we have laid out instead muddying the water talking about how the Cardinals didn't make the playoffs and what Pujols said 2 years ago.
<< <i>Why don't people look at the facts we have laid out instead muddying the water talking about how the Cardinals didn't make the playoffs and what Pujols said 2 years ago. >>
Because you fight with the weapons you have. There are no facts that support Howard in any logical sense, just facts that mean whatever you want them to mean. The Phillies made the playoffs - that's a fact. The Cardinals didn't - that's a fact. Howard led the league in HR and RBI - those are facts. The connection from those facts to why Howard should be the MVP has never been made, indeed nobody has even attempted to make it. I don't know if they realize how silly they'd look trying or not; more likely the concept of connecting cause and effect simply hasn't occurred to them in this context.
So we get mud.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>Let's put aside for a moment the MVP question and take a quiz:
First, imagine that it is January, 2008.
Now imagine that the GMs of the Phillies and the Cardinals somehow know exactly what Howard and Pujols will do in 2008 - every home run, every walk, every strikeout, every error; how they'll hit in April, how they'll hit in September; how they'll hit with the bases empty, how they'll hit with the bases full; they know EVERYTHING. They don't know how any of their other players will do and they don't know how many games their teams will win or will need to win to make the playoffs. >>
I somehow missed this post.
Dallas, that is right on. Knowing exactly what they did, Pujols's hitting performance is much more condusive to creating runs/wins...the only difference was that the rest of the team wasn't up the snuff and did NOT sieze the opportunity of having such an incredible offensive performer on the team.
Like we have said previously, giving Howard the MVP is giving him the award based largely on the performance of his teammates...and all the people who accuse me of being 'blind', continually dismiss this fact.
MVP= most valuabel PLAYER, not MVTeammates. These same people are also glossing over the fact that Utley, Hamels, and Lidge all were responsible for the creation of more runs/wins than Howard.
Do these people desire Howard's schlong? That may be the only explanation.
<< <i>Why don't people look at the facts we have laid out instead muddying the water talking about how the Cardinals didn't make the playoffs and what Pujols said 2 years ago. >>
Because you fight with the weapons you have. There are no facts that support Howard in any logical sense, just facts that mean whatever you want them to mean. The Phillies made the playoffs - that's a fact. The Cardinals didn't - that's a fact. Howard led the league in HR and RBI - those are facts. The connection from those facts to why Howard should be the MVP has never been made, indeed nobody has even attempted to make it. I don't know if they realize how silly they'd look trying or not; more likely the concept of connecting cause and effect simply hasn't occurred to them in this context.
So we get mud. >>
Dallascrybaby,
You have yet to back up any of your analysis as challenged months ago. Lets put this into simple terms for your limited intellect....
1.) Howard Led The Majors in RBIs
2.) Howard led the Majors in HR
3.) Howard led the majors in Runs Realized (true measure of runs on the scoreboard which impact team success).
4.) Howards led his team into the playoffs with a hot bat down the stretch.
These are things Most Valuable Players accomplish. To say he should not be in the MVP conversation shows your incredible bias, and inability to perform logical and accurate analysis. You are sinking fast, stop before your limited reputation is further minimized.
Hey Phillies fans, I was just checking out the original ESPN article from 2006 when Howard beat out Albert for the MVP and Howard certainly had an awesome year. I noticed he hit .313 that year and we all know about this year. I don't recall that season so please enlighten me. What has Howard done differently to see such a drop in his BA? Or is he losing lots of would be hits from the defensive shift?
You have yet to back up any of your analysis as challenged months ago. Lets put this into simple terms for your limited intellect....
1.) Howard Led The Majors in RBIs
2.) Howard led the Majors in HR
3.) Howard led the majors in Runs Realized (true measure of runs on the scoreboard which impact team success).
4.) Howards led his team into the playoffs with a hot bat down the stretch.
These are things Most Valuable Players accomplish. To say he should not be in the MVP conversation shows your incredible bias, and inability to perform logical and accurate analysis. You are sinking fast, stop before your limited reputation is further minimized.
J >>
My quote: "The connection from those facts to why Howard should be the MVP has never been made, indeed nobody has even attempted to make it. I don't know if they realize how silly they'd look trying or not; more likely the concept of connecting cause and effect simply hasn't occurred to them in this context. "
Now I admit to the intellectually abled that this is like shooting fish in a barrel, but I rest my case.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Just to clarify....it's the "Most Valuable Player" award...it's not the "Best Hitter" award and in case some of you "geniuses" here have forgotten, the MVP award has also been won by pitchers which makes any connotation about the best hitter should win the MVP, a mute point.
This thread should reitled "From Here to Eternity..."
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.
When your argument fails, resort to namecalling. Yeah, that gives you a lot of credibility. Or not.
<< <i>You have yet to back up any of your analysis as challenged months ago. Lets put this into simple terms for your limited intellect....
1.) Howard Led The Majors in RBIs >>
So what? RBI is dependent upon his team being successful, not his. And as we've already established, Chase Utley was more valuable to his team's success than Howard.
<< <i>2.) Howard led the Majors in HR >>
So you've reduced the MVP award to whoever leads the league in HR?
<< <i>3.) Howard led the majors in Runs Realized (true measure of runs on the scoreboard which impact team success). >>
Can you please quote any established baseball statistician who uses this 'stat'? Can you please describe in detail what 'runs realized' means?
<< <i>4.) Howards led his team into the playoffs with a hot bat down the stretch. >>
He had a great september but his august was putried. .791 OPS and 7 home runs for the month, while batting .213.
<< <i>These are things Most Valuable Players accomplish. To say he should not be in the MVP conversation shows your incredible bias, and inability to perform logical and accurate analysis. You are sinking fast, stop before your limited reputation is further minimized. >>
What about Pujols being #1 in VORP? OPS? Runs Created? These are all far more valuable pieces of data to which determine which player is most important and 'valuable' to their team's success. Please address Howard being #2 in the league in strikeouts and #30 in the NL in VORP. Otherwise, you repeating HR, RBI, RR proves you are the one who is unable to perform anything resembling an objective analysis.
<< <i>Just to clarify....it's the "Most Valuable Player" award...it's not the "Best Hitter" award and in case some of you "geniuses" here have forgotten, the MVP award has also been won by pitchers which makes any connotation about the best hitter should win the MVP, a mute point.
Ryan Howard will win the MVP - Case closed. >>
OK, let's clarify.
What does Ryan Howard do? I don't mean to be obtuse, so I'll elaborate. A baseball player - assuming he is not a pitcher - does three things: he hits, he runs the bases and he fields. Ryan Howard has negative value running the bases and he has negative value (a LOT of negative value) when he fields. Ryan Howard's value - ALL of Ryan Howard's value - is in his hitting, then offset for his sorry running and putrid fielding.
So the distinction between "Most Valuable Player" and "Best Hitter" is a great one to make; it's a distinction that the Howard backers have avoided making like the plague because it makes a mockery of their case (even more than it already is, if that's possible). Because, obviously, the distinction HURTS Ryan Howard since if he can't at least lay claim to the title of Best Hitter then no serious person could believe that not only was he more valuable than the best hitter, he was more valuable than a better hitter who also ran the bases and fielded better than he did. It actually should pain any baseball fan to refer to Ryan Howard as a baseball "player" since he plays the game so poorly - Ryan Howard is a hitter, that's all he is.
And I'm really confused why the people who are on the right side of this argument are being mocked as "geniuses" when it is we who have been pointing out that Lidge and Hamels were more valuable to the Phillies than Howard was. No, the argument that the MVP should go to the best hitter is a straw man, we never made that argument. (Although, to the best of my knowledge, we are geniuses).
So now it's your turn to clarify. The MVP, as has been pointed out, is undefined, but to leave it at that is ridiculous - to simply state that it is undefined is to say that one is equally content to see Ryan Howard, Eric Bruntlett or even Cloris Leachman get the MVP. If it's undefined then it's a stupid award - period. So can we all agree that it isn't competely undefined:
That the word "valuable" has to have some meaning related to the word "valuable" as the word has always been defined? That the word "most" means that the player who wins it has done something - something of "value" - more than any other player? That the something of "value" means something of value to the player's team? That the player's team cares about nothing - nothing - except winning games? That anything a player does that wins games has "value"? That anything a player does that loses games has negative "value"?
Tell me where you disagree with one of these statements, or tell me how you determined that what Ryan Howard has done was of greater value to the Phillies than what Albert Pujols did for the Cardinals, or what Chase Utley did for the Phillies. Or don't clarify if you don't want to, but understand that only one side of this debtate has been trying - has been taking great pains in fact - to clarify why Ryan Howard is a ridiculous choice for MVP.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>DA, I certainly can't disagree with very much of what you've said. And I'm certainly not in favor of giving Howard the MVP, but it has traditionally gone to players on winning teams. And yes that offends anyone who feels that it then becomes a team award but that is the way that the award has become informally defined over the years. >>
Yes and no. When one part of their brains misfire, the sportswriters give it to someone on a winning team for that reason, but more often the problem is that the only part of their brains that work is the cell or two it takes to count RBI. Usually the RBI leader is on a winning team so it gets cloudy, but it's the RBI total that hypnotizes the writers like bright shiny objects hypnotize Dr. J.
Ryan Howard in 2006, Andre Dawson and Geroge Bell in 1987, George Foster in 1977, Jackie Jensen in 1958 are the ones that come to mind on losing teams that had no business winning an MVP - but they got one because they led the league in RBI. If Howard wins it this year, it will be the RBI total, not that he's on a winning team, that wins it for him, much as Juan Gonzalez collected two MVPs for his RBI and no other reason. There would be no thread, because there would be no serious objection, if we were talking about Chase Utley instead of Ryan Howard. The most valuable player on a winning team was Utley - by a mile and a half - but nobody thinks he's going to win it. I could buy, or at least not get nauseous hearing, all the arguments why Pujols doesn't deserve the MVP if it was at least a good player winning it. I said it earlier, and I'll say it again - Joe Gordon was a better pick for MVP in 1942 than Ryan Howard is this year.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>Just to clarify....it's the "Most Valuable Player" award...it's not the "Best Hitter" award and in case some of you "geniuses" here have forgotten, the MVP award has also been won by pitchers which makes any connotation about the best hitter should win the MVP, a mute point.
Ryan Howard will win the MVP - Case closed. >>
OK, let's clarify.
What does Ryan Howard do? I don't mean to be obtuse, so I'll elaborate. A baseball player - assuming he is not a pitcher - does three things: he hits, he runs the bases and he fields. Ryan Howard has negative value running the bases and he has negative value (a LOT of negative value) when he fields. Ryan Howard's value - ALL of Ryan Howard's value - is in his hitting, then offset for his sorry running and putrid fielding.
So the distinction between "Most Valuable Player" and "Best Hitter" is a great one to make; it's a distinction that the Howard backers have avoided making like the plague because it makes a mockery of their case (even more than it already is, if that's possible). Because, obviously, the distinction HURTS Ryan Howard since if he can't at least lay claim to the title of Best Hitter then no serious person could believe that not only was he more valuable than the best hitter, he was more valuable than a better hitter who also ran the bases and fielded better than he did. It actually should pain any baseball fan to refer to Ryan Howard as a baseball "player" since he plays the game so poorly - Ryan Howard is a hitter, that's all he is.
And I'm really confused why the people who are on the right side of this argument are being mocked as "geniuses" when it is we who have been pointing out that Lidge and Hamels were more valuable to the Phillies than Howard was. No, the argument that the MVP should go to the best hitter is a straw man, we never made that argument. (Although, to the best of my knowledge, we are geniuses).
So now it's your turn to clarify. The MVP, as has been pointed out, is undefined, but to leave it at that is ridiculous - to simply state that it is undefined is to say that one is equally content to see Ryan Howard, Eric Bruntlett or even Cloris Leachman get the MVP. If it's undefined then it's a stupid award - period. So can we all agree that it isn't competely undefined:
That the word "valuable" has to have some meaning related to the word "valuable" as the word has always been defined? That the word "most" means that the player who wins it has done something - something of "value" - more than any other player? That the something of "value" means something of value to the player's team? That the player's team cares about nothing - nothing - except winning games? That anything a player does that wins games has "value"? That anything a player does that loses games has negative "value"?
Tell me where you disagree with one of these statements, or tell me how you determined that what Ryan Howard has done was of greater value to the Phillies than what Albert Pujols did for the Cardinals, or what Chase Utley did for the Phillies. Or don't clarify if you don't want to, but understand that only one side of this debtate has been trying - has been taking great pains in fact - to clarify why Ryan Howard is a ridiculous choice for MVP. >>
i usually don't repeat myself in a particular thread, but this was a very well thought out reply. The big point you're missing is it doesn't matter what "we" think...it only matters what the sportswriters think. If you believe these sportswriters, many of which are focusing on their next drink or their next free meal, are looking closely at every little stat and number to make their MVP selection, then that in my opinion would be quite naive. I have to believe that most of them spend probably about 10 minutes maximum marking the card and making their selections.
I don't disagree at all that Lidge was the most valuable player on the Phillies this season, I don't disagree at all that Pujols is a better hitter, but the question is who will win the MVP award of the NL for this season and the answer is Ryan Howard.
<< <i>The big point you're missing is it doesn't matter what "we" think...it only matters what the sportswriters think. If you believe these sportswriters, many of which are focusing on their next drink or their next free meal, are looking closely at every little stat and number to make their MVP selection, then that in my opinion would be quite naive. I have to believe that most of them spend probably about 10 minutes maximum marking the card and making their selections. >>
Well now we're back to one of this thread's original misunderstandings - "will" vs. "ought". I agree with you that Ryan Howard likely WILL win the MVP - my opinion of sportswriters is that they are idiots and they would have to be to give him the award. But the disagreement here isn't over who will win it but who OUGHT to win it - believe it or not there are people here arguing that Howard deserves the MVP.
<< <i>I don't disagree at all that Lidge was the most valuable player on the Phillies this season >>
No, we do disagree on that. Chase Utley was BY FAR the most valuable player on the Phillies this year. 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. It was possible - and may have happened - in the days when the top reliever pitched twice as many innings as Lidge pitched this year - but even then it would have to happen on a team that wasn't very good. An everyday player with numbers like Utley's is more valuable than a pitcher who gives up no runs at all in 69 innings - it's just not possible to catch him pitching in one inning out of every 21 and never batting.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I don't disagree at all that Lidge was the most valuable player on the Phillies this season >>
Also, if you're not already aware, closer is a BS position...
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.
Comments
<< <i>Hoopster,
There is no point to arguing the past. Once a MVP decision is made by the voters it is here for eternity. We can debate the merits but nothing will change.
This year Pujols has better numbers when it comes to average and on base percentage, but Howard has better numbers when it comes to runs realized. The Phils also had a better record and Howard stepped up his game and drove the team to wins at the end of the season while Pujols and the Cards folded like a cheap suit as outlined throughout this thread. Making the playoffs and late season performance may very well be the deciding factor with the voters. We shall see, but it is not as clear cut as the Pujols fanboys say. >>
I prefer to argue merit, as writers are not good baseball analysts, so there is no way I will ever view their vote as any type of be all end all.
Runs realized? DrJ, you cannot be serious to use that with a straight face. That is a direct result of the guys on base, and guys behind him. I think I already showed that Howard got more RBI because he had more opportunity. Pujols did indeed have a higher BA, OBP, and you forgot SLG% too. Oh, and he also hit better with men on than Howard. The only real difference is that Howard simply had more base runners...which brings us back to the free throw contest....care to partake in that challenge?
DrJ, you go back and forth with your philosophy. On one hand you account for the role of teammates(when it suites your case for Howard)...like the Phillies and Cardinals W/L record in 2006. Then on the other hand, you complete neglect the role of teammates...when you hold Pujols accountable for the Cardinals folding. You simply cannot have it both ways, yet you want to because of pure bias.
I would have a little more regard for your thoughts if you were consistent, and if you did say, "Yeah, Pujols should have won the MVP in 2006 because his team made the post season...just like Howard should this year." Your both way stance is simply exemplifies baseball fans at their worst.
Winpitcher, all I ahve read in this thread is that you have to make the post season to be MVP. That is the recurring theme. I understand what you are saying, but that is not the theme presented in this thread by Howard backers.
One of many. Baseball is a team game, so of course alot depends on what people do in front of you.
Also, and this has not been addressed but Howard does play in a hitters park.
Steve
Winpitcher,
Grote flat out said that in todays expanded playoffs, he views that an MVP must come from a playoff team. You even said, that is why they play 162 games.
Pujols was slightly better in '06, and his team makes the playoffs...and he doesn't win it.
Pujols was tremendously better in '08, but his team doesn't make the playoffs...and he doesn't win it.
Seems that the only thing he would need to do is to be tremendously better, AND make the playoffs. But of course, if they win it by too many games, then he won't win it either because some guy who's team just sneaks in will be viewed as 'more valuable' because his teammates were bad enough to make it close. See the folly?
The way the award is currently viewed and voted upon simply trivializes it...which brings us right back to what I said before. Best is what counts and is really what matters.
<< <i>SteveK, if all those criteria matter, then it goes way back to what I said in the beginning...it simply trivializes the award.
Winpitcher,
Grote flat out said that in todays expanded playoffs, he views that an MVP must come from a playoff team. You even said, that is why they play 162 games.
Pujols was slightly better in '06, and his team makes the playoffs...and he doesn't win it.
Pujols was tremendously better in '08, but his team doesn't make the playoffs...and he doesn't win it.
Seems that the only thing he would need to do is to be tremendously better, AND make the playoffs. But of course, if they win it by too many games, then he won't win it either because some guy who's team just sneaks in will be viewed as 'more valuable' because his teammates were bad enough to make it close. See the folly?
The way the award is currently viewed and voted upon simply trivializes it...which brings us right back to what I said before. Best is what counts and is really what matters. >>
All valid points but I think you may be missing actually the "most important" point of all in a close vote...and that's including what I meant about understanding baseball which obviously guys like you, WinPitcher, Grote15 and others here do....remember that the voting is done by sportswriters and they earn their living and get paid by the media, so in reality, they're gonna vote when possible for the MVP who makes the best story for them, and helps sell more newspapers, and attracts more listeners and viewers to the media outlet they are employed by. Ryan Howard is a popular guy, and Philadelphia winning for the first time in 28 years and only the second time ever, makes for one heckuva interesting story and sells more newspapers in their view, and in reality probably actually does sell more newspapers...and we shouldn't discount that view in trying to predict the MVP voting.
Hoops that goes without saying, the MVP is not always the best player for that year.
Why else do they play 162 games then if not for making the playoffs?
Last I heard it was called a 'championship season'
Grote can be of that opinion. It is NOT the ONLY criteria.
Steve
I don't think that has anything to do with it.
Steve
<< <i>makes for one heckuva interesting story and sells more newspapers in their view, and in reality probably actually does sell more newspapers...and we shouldn't discount that view in trying to predict the MVP voting.
I don't think that has anything to do with it.
Steve >>
So you're saying the sportswriter making the best choice for earning money for his family, by in a close vote choosing the player who will sell more newspapers and make his bosses happy, and enabling the sportswriter to earn more money and make a better living... has nothing to do with it? Sorry Steve but human nature doesn't side with you on your opinion.
If I'm not mistaken 2 writers from each franchised city get a vote.
Do many writers vote for the homer? Ocourse but it has NOTHING to do with selling papers.
The stories they write, well that is another story.
Sorry Steve I just ain't buying it.
Steve
At one time the winner got a Corvette, not sure what they get now.
Also many players have clauses in which they get x amount of dollars for MVP and even MVP votes.
Hardly a trivial award.
Steve
<< <i>no, my point was each city/paper does not have enough votes to award anyone anything.
If I'm not mistaken 2 writers from each franchised city get a vote.
Do many writers vote for the homer? Ocourse but it has NOTHING to do with selling papers.
The stories they write, well that is another story.
Sorry Steve I just ain't buying it.
Steve >>
Would the newspaper buyers in say California rather read about the interesting story behind the Phillies and Ryan Howard, or someone not as interesting? There is no doubt that type of contemplation from sportswriters goes into the MVP voting equation...and I don't think it's even debatable.
You are kidding right?? First of all it is debatable on what they would find as 'not as interesting'
Steve the MVP voting has nothing to do with selling newspapers per say.
Listen, think what you want. You always do anyway.
Steve
up today!
JS
<< <i>Would the newspaper buyers in say California rather read about the interesting story behind the Phillies and Ryan Howard, or someone not as interesting?
You are kidding right?? First of all it is debatable on what they would find as 'not as interesting'
Steve the MVP voting has nothing to do with selling newspapers per say.
Listen, think what you want. You always do anyway.
Steve >>
Steve - you obviously are not that knowledgeable about mass marketing and the media...it's firstly about the money, they are a business, and everything else is second.
Steve - you obviously are not that knowledgeable about mass marketing and the media...it's firstly about the money, they are a business, and everything else is second.
Steve that goes without saying, of course people that work for any entity want to make money.
So what you are saying is that a writer from California is going to waste his MVP on a player thinking that it will sell papers? Even if that player plays for a team 3000 miles away?
Is that what you are saying? Now if you said that writers vote for a guy, that say has one arm, or has some sort of human interest story behind him AND WINS the MVP I'd agree with you somewhat.
You really are stretching this Steve, and fwiw i'm more savvy then you think.
I also have more common sense then you it appears.
I doubt it even enters their minds Steve. They vote on who they THINK was the MVP for that season without thinking how it will effect the papers circulation for that day/week/month.
Steve
<< <i>Steve - you obviously are not that knowledgeable about mass marketing and the media...it's firstly about the money, they are a business, and everything else is second.
Steve that goes without saying, of course people that work for any entity want to make money.
So what you are saying is that a writer from California is going to waste his MVP on a player thinking that it will sell papers? Even if that player plays for a team 3000 miles away?
Is that what you are saying? Now if you said that writers vote for a guy, that say has one arm, or has some sort of human interest story behind him AND WINS the MVP I'd agree with you somewhat.
You really are stretching this Steve, and fwiw i'm more savvy then you think.
I also have more common sense then you it appears.
I doubt it even enters their minds Steve. They vote on who they THINK was the MVP for that season without thinking how it will effect the papers circulation for that day/week/month.
Steve >>
Steve - Of course the sportswriter doesn't want to lose credibility, because that would also affect his ability to be known as a competent writer, and have people want to read his column. Eddie Gaedel never got any MVP votes. That being said there is no doubt that the answer is "Yes" if it's a close vote, most if not all sportswriters will take into account how their vote will affect readership...they know that most if not all of their brethren are gonna vote in a similar manner.
<< <i>When the only argument for Howard winning the MVP is 'he carried his team down the stretch' then you know that he's not deserving. >>
How about led the majors in HR, RBI and Runs Realized. No one else in the league can take claim to those facts.
Hoopster can't seem to get his head around the fact that there are multiple inputs which make up the voters decision for MVP. Things are not Black and White and it is blowing his mind.
Heck, Howard being perceived as a nicer or better guy than Pujols goes into the voter's minds as well (though to a small degree). There were many factors in 2006, and obviously the voters decided Howard's performance was more worthy than Pujols'. How can anyone argue that if something similar happens this year it is out of the realm of possibility.
Keep an open mind, and allow the multiple inputs to enter.
First, imagine that it is January, 2008.
Now imagine that the GMs of the Phillies and the Cardinals somehow know exactly what Howard and Pujols will do in 2008 - every home run, every walk, every strikeout, every error; how they'll hit in April, how they'll hit in September; how they'll hit with the bases empty, how they'll hit with the bases full; they know EVERYTHING. They don't know how any of their other players will do and they don't know how many games their teams will win or will need to win to make the playoffs.
Now imagine that the two players make exactly the same amount of money, so that is no consideration.
Now imagine that the Cardinals GM offers a trade - one for the other, straight up - and that at the conclusion of the postseason the trade will automatically be undone, with each player returning to his original team. This removes age and any other consideration of future potential or future salary requirements from the equation.
OK, that's a lot of imagining, especially for JS and Dr. J, but I don't think it's much of a burden for the rest of you. Obviously, in the real world this would never happen, but please do not got hung up on that since that is entirely beside the point. Can you imagine it? That's all that matters.
Here's the quiz: Do you think that the Phillies GM would pull the trigger on this trade and grab Pujols for the season, or do you think he would stick with Howard?
Here's the answer: If you think he would stick with Howard then there are only two theoretically possible explanations: either you are an idiot or for some reason you believe that the Phillies GM is an idiot.
And if YOU were the Phillies GM and YOU would stick with Howard, then that leaves only one theoretically possible explanation. And that's a fact.
And I'm no idiot.
Steve
<< <i>Wow, just checked out the stock market, looks like people are anticipating another Pujols second place finish....pampers and puffs plus stock was way
up today!
JS >>
I don't agree, but that was a good one, I must admit.
As far as who had the better season, I will side with the players. They voted -
NL Most Outstanding Player - Pujols
MLB Player of the Year - Pujols
And just to top it off, he also won the Roberto Clemente Award and the Sporting News Player of the Year.
Shane
The MVP does not.
That is where the problem is as some here think that MVP means best.
Or they want to think it does.
Pujols is the best player, that has never been disputed.
By me anyway.
Steve
<< <i>The Sporting news Player of the year is an award that truly shows who was the best player for that year.
The MVP does not.
That is where the problem is as some here think that MVP means best.
Or they want to think it does.
Pujols is the best player, that has never been disputed.
By me anyway.
Steve >>
But it has been disputed by many others.
Now, in regards to what the MVP DOES mean vs what the MVP SHOULD mean - that is where the debate lies. It is my opinion that there is no better way to determine value than to look at what the PLAYER does and not what the rest of his TEAM does. Therefore, I think that it is ok for a player on a last place team to win the MVP. Some may say, "But they came in last place. That team still would have been in last place if they did not have that certain player". True, but does that mean that that certain player didn't have value? Of course not. That team would have certainly lost many, many more games were it not for that player. Sure, the Cardinals did not make the playoffs. However, were it not for Pujols, the Cardinals would have been trying to dig out of the cellar for the entire year. Pujols had them in contention most of the year.
Again, you have to look at the player and not the rest of the team.
Shane
<< <i>I disagree.
And I'm no idiot.
Steve >>
Then you think the Phillies GM is an idiot - there is no other theoretical possibility.
<< <i>I disagree.
And I'm no idiot.
Steve >>
Steve - I think for your being in this country just off the refugee boat for a short time, from the country of Kukamania, that you have learned quite a lot of information about the game of baseball. But you still need to learn that walking down the streets of New York in a loin cloth, is still not acceptable public clothing in this country.
<< <i>How about led the majors in HR, RBI and Runs Realized. No one else in the league can take claim to those facts. >>
RBI and runs scored are terrible ways to determine a hitters worth. They are more a function of the team around the player than the player himself. Runs Realized? Really? Please point to any respected baseball stat guy who uses this. Runs Created, however, is deemed by Bill James (who has forgotten more about baseball stats than you or I will ever know) as an 'essential thing to measure'. Make a guess who led the NL in runs created this year? That's right, Pujols. Pujols was #1 (by far) in VORP. That's value over replacement player in case you were unaware. He was also #1 in OPS (over .250 higher than Howard), #1 in SLG, #2 in OBP, and only 2 people struck out less than him. These are all individual stats that don't take into account his teammates.
<< <i>Hoopster can't seem to get his head around the fact that there are multiple inputs which make up the voters decision for MVP. Things are not Black and White and it is blowing his mind. >>
It seems you and the other philly fans can't get your head around that Howard wasn't even the MVP of his own team, let alone the league. As has been discussed, Utley, Hamels, and Lidge were all more important to the Phils' success than Howard was. But people get so caught up in gaudy HR totals they can't see straight.
Pujols' case for MVP has been made, it's not even close. Now it's time for the voters to prove they can make the right choice, to do some research, and dig beneath ridiculous stats like RBI.
Do the right thing, voters.
The thing that I do see as black and white is the measurement of a hitter in baseball. In all of sports, there is nothing as concrete as measuring a baseball hitter's offensive value. And no, RBI are not part of that measurement...lol. The play by play data reigns as king.
WHich of these offensive outputs would you prefer to have given to your team?
Howard is on the left, Pujols the right.
81....Base on Balls.....104
75......singles..............86
26......doubles............44
4.........triples..............0
48.....Home Runs.......37
475 ...outs made......364
Which would you expect to lead to more runs for your team? If your answer is Howard, then we need to open another discussion on the topic of baseball hitting. If one thinks that 11 more HR and 4 more triples even comes close to outweighing 23 Walks, 11 singles, 18 doubles, and 111 LESS OUTS MADE, then this sport is probably one you should not be debating about.
Any difference in actual runs scored or RBI is coming from what the teammates did, not the hitter. This would then become a measurement of the players immediately around the hitter, and luck....and NOT the player(which is the entire point that we are trying to measure...the value or ability of said player, NOT the team).
Is it not more valuable to have a player that contributes hitting that gives your team the BEST chance to score runs(like Pujols did)?
Whether or not the teammates fail to seize(or succeed upon) the opportunities has nothing to do with the measurement of the player in question.
Yes, I would CERTAINLY want my team to have seized the opportunties like Howard's team did, because that means I would have the better TEAM. BUt if I am isolating what the player contributed, either for the purpose of deciding how much to pay him, or how much credit or recognition I want to hand out, then I want the player like Pujols who indeed performed much better himself.
I would want to recognize the players individual contribution, isolated from what the ability of the teammates are, and isn't that the point of giving an individual award?? The team award is the wins/losses, and championship trophy. Absolutley I want the championship trophy, because I would have the best team. But measuring the best team is not the topic...it is the measurement of the value or ability of the individual!]
I can't imagine a situation where I would deem it more valuable to chose a player from the same position who creates LESS RUNS and choose to have him instead of a better player(attitude aside). Unless of course he is a monster defensively. In this case, he is actually a butcher defensively, just furthering the gap between the two.
The whole most valuable concept that Winpitcher or others are using is certainly extremely subjective. What is objective is that which a player contributed within his power! Instead, what is being used by many is a measurement of the players teammates...and that has been showed ad nauseum as a faulty method to use to isolate any type of individual award or measurement.
Text
<< <i>Pujols' case for MVP has been made, it's not even close. Now it's time for the voters to prove they can make the right choice, to do some research, and dig beneath ridiculous stats like RBI. >>
How could Pujols' case have been made? Wasn't it Pujols who crybabied about how the MVP should be from a team that makes the playoffs? I believe those were the tears he shed when Ryan Howard won the award a couple years ago. Last I checked, his team sat at home after 162 games.
If Pujols wins the award this year, will he give it back and really stand behind his words?
Didn't think so.
The thing that I do see as black and white is the measurement of a hitter in baseball
That is where many of us disagree with you. It is IMO not black and white but gray.
Sorry Skip stats only tell part of a story not a complete one that can be said in black and white terms.
Steve
Brian
Actually, they'll just have more to say.
Steve
You can disagree with that if you wish, but the evidence is not on your side at all
Secondly, you misquoted me. I said, "In all of sports, there is nothing as concrete as measuring a baseball hitter's offensive value."
I would like for you to show me how Ryan Howard hitting a double with a man on 1st makes him a better hitter than Albert Pujols hitting one with a man on 1st. They each hit a double with a man on 1st. They get equal credit. Where is the gray?
Are you going to say, "depends on the score." Fine, that isn't a mystery either. Those can all be measured and accounted for as well.
Are you going to say, "depends on who is up next." Then that becomes a measurement of the team, not the player.
I need you to show me the gray area in there.
Are you going to dispute the value of each event? Are you going to say, "how do you know those 11 extra HR's and 4 extra triples don't outweight all the extra walks, singles, doubles, and LESS OUTS?"
There is nothing that you can provide that will show proof of your gray area...unless you decide to measure areas out of the hitters control(like teammates).
The bottom line is that the good measurements get you 95-99% of the truth of the hitters value. Baseball hitting is very condusive to this accuracy and has been shown time and time again. Nobody has shown your gray area(with any valid study). If you are talking about a QB, then there is lots of grey, but not a hitter, sorry. You need to provide some evidence.
That is another thread, and I will point you to the research if you wish. Point me to your research.
Moving on to the topic,
There is no question that Albert Pujols was simply a better hitter. You are already agree to that(even though other silly posters don't)
Is it not more valuable to have a player that contributes hitting that gives your team the BEST chance to score runs(like Pujols did)?
Whether or not the teammates fail to seize(or succeed upon) the opportunities has nothing to do with the measurement of the player in question.
Yes, I would CERTAINLY want my team to have seized the opportunties like Howard's team did, because that means I would have the better TEAM. BUt if I am isolating what the player contributed, either for the purpose of deciding how much to pay him, or how much credit or recognition I want to hand out, then I want the player like Pujols who indeed performed much better himself.
I would want to recognize the players individual contribution, isolated from what the ability of the teammates are, and isn't that the point of giving an individual award?? The team award is the wins/losses, and championship trophy. Absolutley I want the championship trophy, because I would have the best team. But measuring the best team is not the topic...it is the measurement of the value or ability of the individual!
This is where I am at with you in the debate.
I love your analysis. Why don't people look at the facts we have laid out instead muddying the water talking about how the Cardinals didn't make the playoffs and what Pujols said 2 years ago.
Shane
<< <i>Why don't people look at the facts we have laid out instead muddying the water talking about how the Cardinals didn't make the playoffs and what Pujols said 2 years ago. >>
Because you fight with the weapons you have. There are no facts that support Howard in any logical sense, just facts that mean whatever you want them to mean. The Phillies made the playoffs - that's a fact. The Cardinals didn't - that's a fact. Howard led the league in HR and RBI - those are facts. The connection from those facts to why Howard should be the MVP has never been made, indeed nobody has even attempted to make it. I don't know if they realize how silly they'd look trying or not; more likely the concept of connecting cause and effect simply hasn't occurred to them in this context.
So we get mud.
<< <i>Let's put aside for a moment the MVP question and take a quiz:
First, imagine that it is January, 2008.
Now imagine that the GMs of the Phillies and the Cardinals somehow know exactly what Howard and Pujols will do in 2008 - every home run, every walk, every strikeout, every error; how they'll hit in April, how they'll hit in September; how they'll hit with the bases empty, how they'll hit with the bases full; they know EVERYTHING. They don't know how any of their other players will do and they don't know how many games their teams will win or will need to win to make the playoffs. >>
I somehow missed this post.
Dallas, that is right on. Knowing exactly what they did, Pujols's hitting performance is much more condusive to creating runs/wins...the only difference was that the rest of the team wasn't up the snuff and did NOT sieze the opportunity of having such an incredible offensive performer on the team.
Like we have said previously, giving Howard the MVP is giving him the award based largely on the performance of his teammates...and all the people who accuse me of being 'blind', continually dismiss this fact.
MVP= most valuabel PLAYER, not MVTeammates. These same people are also glossing over the fact that Utley, Hamels, and Lidge all were responsible for the creation of more runs/wins than Howard.
Do these people desire Howard's schlong? That may be the only explanation.
<< <i>
<< <i>Why don't people look at the facts we have laid out instead muddying the water talking about how the Cardinals didn't make the playoffs and what Pujols said 2 years ago. >>
Because you fight with the weapons you have. There are no facts that support Howard in any logical sense, just facts that mean whatever you want them to mean. The Phillies made the playoffs - that's a fact. The Cardinals didn't - that's a fact. Howard led the league in HR and RBI - those are facts. The connection from those facts to why Howard should be the MVP has never been made, indeed nobody has even attempted to make it. I don't know if they realize how silly they'd look trying or not; more likely the concept of connecting cause and effect simply hasn't occurred to them in this context.
So we get mud. >>
Dallascrybaby,
You have yet to back up any of your analysis as challenged months ago. Lets put this into simple terms for your limited intellect....
1.) Howard Led The Majors in RBIs
2.) Howard led the Majors in HR
3.) Howard led the majors in Runs Realized (true measure of runs on the scoreboard which impact team success).
4.) Howards led his team into the playoffs with a hot bat down the stretch.
These are things Most Valuable Players accomplish. To say he should not be in the MVP conversation shows your incredible bias, and inability to perform logical and accurate analysis. You are sinking fast, stop before your limited reputation is further minimized.
J
Brian
<< <i>Dallascrybaby,
You have yet to back up any of your analysis as challenged months ago. Lets put this into simple terms for your limited intellect....
1.) Howard Led The Majors in RBIs
2.) Howard led the Majors in HR
3.) Howard led the majors in Runs Realized (true measure of runs on the scoreboard which impact team success).
4.) Howards led his team into the playoffs with a hot bat down the stretch.
These are things Most Valuable Players accomplish. To say he should not be in the MVP conversation shows your incredible bias, and inability to perform logical and accurate analysis. You are sinking fast, stop before your limited reputation is further minimized.
J >>
My quote: "The connection from those facts to why Howard should be the MVP has never been made, indeed nobody has even attempted to make it. I don't know if they realize how silly they'd look trying or not; more likely the concept of connecting cause and effect simply hasn't occurred to them in this context. "
Now I admit to the intellectually abled that this is like shooting fish in a barrel, but I rest my case.
Ryan Howard will win the MVP - Case closed.
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.
Hoop I never said any of the things you mentioned.
I simply stated that stats are a gray area not as black and white as you claim.
That is my only point, no need to create hypothetical questions now.
Steve
I have no idea who will win the MVP in the NL.
I can only say it would not surprise me if Howard takes it.
Steve
<< <i>
Dallascrybaby, >>
When your argument fails, resort to namecalling. Yeah, that gives you a lot of credibility. Or not.
<< <i>You have yet to back up any of your analysis as challenged months ago. Lets put this into simple terms for your limited intellect....
1.) Howard Led The Majors in RBIs >>
So what? RBI is dependent upon his team being successful, not his. And as we've already established, Chase Utley was more valuable to his team's success than Howard.
<< <i>2.) Howard led the Majors in HR >>
So you've reduced the MVP award to whoever leads the league in HR?
<< <i>3.) Howard led the majors in Runs Realized (true measure of runs on the scoreboard which impact team success). >>
Can you please quote any established baseball statistician who uses this 'stat'? Can you please describe in detail what 'runs realized' means?
<< <i>4.) Howards led his team into the playoffs with a hot bat down the stretch. >>
He had a great september but his august was putried. .791 OPS and 7 home runs for the month, while batting .213.
<< <i>These are things Most Valuable Players accomplish. To say he should not be in the MVP conversation shows your incredible bias, and inability to perform logical and accurate analysis. You are sinking fast, stop before your limited reputation is further minimized. >>
What about Pujols being #1 in VORP? OPS? Runs Created? These are all far more valuable pieces of data to which determine which player is most important and 'valuable' to their team's success. Please address Howard being #2 in the league in strikeouts and #30 in the NL in VORP. Otherwise, you repeating HR, RBI, RR proves you are the one who is unable to perform anything resembling an objective analysis.
J >>
<< <i>Just to clarify....it's the "Most Valuable Player" award...it's not the "Best Hitter" award and in case some of you "geniuses" here have forgotten, the MVP award has also been won by pitchers which makes any connotation about the best hitter should win the MVP, a mute point.
Ryan Howard will win the MVP - Case closed. >>
OK, let's clarify.
What does Ryan Howard do? I don't mean to be obtuse, so I'll elaborate. A baseball player - assuming he is not a pitcher - does three things: he hits, he runs the bases and he fields. Ryan Howard has negative value running the bases and he has negative value (a LOT of negative value) when he fields. Ryan Howard's value - ALL of Ryan Howard's value - is in his hitting, then offset for his sorry running and putrid fielding.
So the distinction between "Most Valuable Player" and "Best Hitter" is a great one to make; it's a distinction that the Howard backers have avoided making like the plague because it makes a mockery of their case (even more than it already is, if that's possible). Because, obviously, the distinction HURTS Ryan Howard since if he can't at least lay claim to the title of Best Hitter then no serious person could believe that not only was he more valuable than the best hitter, he was more valuable than a better hitter who also ran the bases and fielded better than he did. It actually should pain any baseball fan to refer to Ryan Howard as a baseball "player" since he plays the game so poorly - Ryan Howard is a hitter, that's all he is.
And I'm really confused why the people who are on the right side of this argument are being mocked as "geniuses" when it is we who have been pointing out that Lidge and Hamels were more valuable to the Phillies than Howard was. No, the argument that the MVP should go to the best hitter is a straw man, we never made that argument. (Although, to the best of my knowledge, we are geniuses).
So now it's your turn to clarify. The MVP, as has been pointed out, is undefined, but to leave it at that is ridiculous - to simply state that it is undefined is to say that one is equally content to see Ryan Howard, Eric Bruntlett or even Cloris Leachman get the MVP. If it's undefined then it's a stupid award - period. So can we all agree that it isn't competely undefined:
That the word "valuable" has to have some meaning related to the word "valuable" as the word has always been defined?
That the word "most" means that the player who wins it has done something - something of "value" - more than any other player?
That the something of "value" means something of value to the player's team?
That the player's team cares about nothing - nothing - except winning games?
That anything a player does that wins games has "value"?
That anything a player does that loses games has negative "value"?
Tell me where you disagree with one of these statements, or tell me how you determined that what Ryan Howard has done was of greater value to the Phillies than what Albert Pujols did for the Cardinals, or what Chase Utley did for the Phillies. Or don't clarify if you don't want to, but understand that only one side of this debtate has been trying - has been taking great pains in fact - to clarify why Ryan Howard is a ridiculous choice for MVP.
<< <i>DA, I certainly can't disagree with very much of what you've said. And I'm certainly not in favor of giving Howard the MVP, but it has traditionally gone to players on winning teams. And yes that offends anyone who feels that it then becomes a team award but that is the way that the award has become informally defined over the years. >>
Yes and no. When one part of their brains misfire, the sportswriters give it to someone on a winning team for that reason, but more often the problem is that the only part of their brains that work is the cell or two it takes to count RBI. Usually the RBI leader is on a winning team so it gets cloudy, but it's the RBI total that hypnotizes the writers like bright shiny objects hypnotize Dr. J.
Ryan Howard in 2006, Andre Dawson and Geroge Bell in 1987, George Foster in 1977, Jackie Jensen in 1958 are the ones that come to mind on losing teams that had no business winning an MVP - but they got one because they led the league in RBI. If Howard wins it this year, it will be the RBI total, not that he's on a winning team, that wins it for him, much as Juan Gonzalez collected two MVPs for his RBI and no other reason. There would be no thread, because there would be no serious objection, if we were talking about Chase Utley instead of Ryan Howard. The most valuable player on a winning team was Utley - by a mile and a half - but nobody thinks he's going to win it. I could buy, or at least not get nauseous hearing, all the arguments why Pujols doesn't deserve the MVP if it was at least a good player winning it. I said it earlier, and I'll say it again - Joe Gordon was a better pick for MVP in 1942 than Ryan Howard is this year.
<< <i>
<< <i>Just to clarify....it's the "Most Valuable Player" award...it's not the "Best Hitter" award and in case some of you "geniuses" here have forgotten, the MVP award has also been won by pitchers which makes any connotation about the best hitter should win the MVP, a mute point.
Ryan Howard will win the MVP - Case closed. >>
OK, let's clarify.
What does Ryan Howard do? I don't mean to be obtuse, so I'll elaborate. A baseball player - assuming he is not a pitcher - does three things: he hits, he runs the bases and he fields. Ryan Howard has negative value running the bases and he has negative value (a LOT of negative value) when he fields. Ryan Howard's value - ALL of Ryan Howard's value - is in his hitting, then offset for his sorry running and putrid fielding.
So the distinction between "Most Valuable Player" and "Best Hitter" is a great one to make; it's a distinction that the Howard backers have avoided making like the plague because it makes a mockery of their case (even more than it already is, if that's possible). Because, obviously, the distinction HURTS Ryan Howard since if he can't at least lay claim to the title of Best Hitter then no serious person could believe that not only was he more valuable than the best hitter, he was more valuable than a better hitter who also ran the bases and fielded better than he did. It actually should pain any baseball fan to refer to Ryan Howard as a baseball "player" since he plays the game so poorly - Ryan Howard is a hitter, that's all he is.
And I'm really confused why the people who are on the right side of this argument are being mocked as "geniuses" when it is we who have been pointing out that Lidge and Hamels were more valuable to the Phillies than Howard was. No, the argument that the MVP should go to the best hitter is a straw man, we never made that argument. (Although, to the best of my knowledge, we are geniuses).
So now it's your turn to clarify. The MVP, as has been pointed out, is undefined, but to leave it at that is ridiculous - to simply state that it is undefined is to say that one is equally content to see Ryan Howard, Eric Bruntlett or even Cloris Leachman get the MVP. If it's undefined then it's a stupid award - period. So can we all agree that it isn't competely undefined:
That the word "valuable" has to have some meaning related to the word "valuable" as the word has always been defined?
That the word "most" means that the player who wins it has done something - something of "value" - more than any other player?
That the something of "value" means something of value to the player's team?
That the player's team cares about nothing - nothing - except winning games?
That anything a player does that wins games has "value"?
That anything a player does that loses games has negative "value"?
Tell me where you disagree with one of these statements, or tell me how you determined that what Ryan Howard has done was of greater value to the Phillies than what Albert Pujols did for the Cardinals, or what Chase Utley did for the Phillies. Or don't clarify if you don't want to, but understand that only one side of this debtate has been trying - has been taking great pains in fact - to clarify why Ryan Howard is a ridiculous choice for MVP. >>
i usually don't repeat myself in a particular thread, but this was a very well thought out reply. The big point you're missing is it doesn't matter what "we" think...it only matters what the sportswriters think. If you believe these sportswriters, many of which are focusing on their next drink or their next free meal, are looking closely at every little stat and number to make their MVP selection, then that in my opinion would be quite naive. I have to believe that most of them spend probably about 10 minutes maximum marking the card and making their selections.
I don't disagree at all that Lidge was the most valuable player on the Phillies this season, I don't disagree at all that Pujols is a better hitter, but the question is who will win the MVP award of the NL for this season and the answer is Ryan Howard.
<< <i>The big point you're missing is it doesn't matter what "we" think...it only matters what the sportswriters think. If you believe these sportswriters, many of which are focusing on their next drink or their next free meal, are looking closely at every little stat and number to make their MVP selection, then that in my opinion would be quite naive. I have to believe that most of them spend probably about 10 minutes maximum marking the card and making their selections. >>
Well now we're back to one of this thread's original misunderstandings - "will" vs. "ought". I agree with you that Ryan Howard likely WILL win the MVP - my opinion of sportswriters is that they are idiots and they would have to be to give him the award. But the disagreement here isn't over who will win it but who OUGHT to win it - believe it or not there are people here arguing that Howard deserves the MVP.
<< <i>I don't disagree at all that Lidge was the most valuable player on the Phillies this season >>
No, we do disagree on that. Chase Utley was BY FAR the most valuable player on the Phillies this year. 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. It was possible - and may have happened - in the days when the top reliever pitched twice as many innings as Lidge pitched this year - but even then it would have to happen on a team that wasn't very good. An everyday player with numbers like Utley's is more valuable than a pitcher who gives up no runs at all in 69 innings - it's just not possible to catch him pitching in one inning out of every 21 and never batting.
Also, if you're not already aware, closer is a BS position...
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.