Howard loses out to Pujols/What is an MVP?
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Howard loses out to Pujols/What is an MVP?
David Murphy, Daily News Staff Writer
UPDATE, 2:16 p.m.
It's official. Albert Pujols won his second MVP award, this time by a comfortable margin over Phillies slugger Ryan Howard. Pujols received 18 first place votes compared to Howard's 12. Phillies closer Brad Lidge, who finished eighth, also received a first place vote. Pujols is the first non-Phillie to win the MVP since 2005. Howard edged Pujols in 2006, prompting Pujols to say that a player who doesn't take his team to the playoffs shouldn't be voted MVP.
Below is our break down of who, exactly, should be voted MVP.
Part of the fun of life is the ability to pursue philosophical dilemmas that have stymied mankind's greatest thinkers for thousands of years. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Why does one park in a driveway and drive on a parkway? What happens if a playoff overtime ends in a tie (note to D-Mac: you play another one)?
But king of them all is the question that has prompted hundreds of emails to land in my inbox over the past few days.
What does it mean to be a Most Valuable Player?
Members of the Baseball Writers Association of America -- it's kind of like that group of priests from the Da Vinci Code, except with a little less sado-masochism -- have already decided on their answer to that question, and the rest of us will wait for bated breath for this afternoon's announcement of the National League MVP award.
As you may have inferred from my previous post on the matter, I did not vote for Ryan Howard. In fact, I did not vote for anybody. Each BBWAA chapter -- we meet every other Thursday in the basement of a 17th-century church -- gets a vote for each award. Those votes are then dispersed to each individual member. I voted on National League Manager of the Year. I'm not sure who voted on MVP. But even if I did have a vote, I wouldn't have voted for Howard. That's no disrespect to the big guy. Without him, I highly doubt the Phillies make the run that they did in September. In other words, without him, they don't win a World Series. But in my opinion, he wasn't more valuable than Albert Pujols.
I'll try to explain.
1) There is no doubt that you can build a strong case for Howard. He led the majors in home runs and RBIs. Furthermore, his team won the World Series. The best player on the best team in the league should be a lock, right? Well. . .
2) First, let's take a look at how the dictionary defines "Valuable." One common argument in these debates is that an MVP is not necesarilly the same thing as a "Most Outstanding" player. The argument goes that an MVP measures value to one's team, not necesarilly overall greatness. In other words, the NL MVP should be the player who has the most value to his team. But that's a flawed argument. A Team MVP, which closer Brad Lidge won earlier this year, measures value from the perspective of a team. Beacuse this is a League MVP, it should be a reflection of a player's value from the perspective of the entire league. But the dictionary says nothing about "value" being the possession of a third-party. The value lies within the object itself. The Oxford Dictionary says value is "the regard that something is held to deserve; importance or worth." Webster's says value is "relative worth, utility, or importance." So really, when we're deciding on a Most Valuable Player, we're deciding on the Most Worthy Player. So throw the whole "most valueable to one's team" argument out the window.
3) You might be confused after reading No. 2, because I am confused after writing it. Look at it like this: a dollar bill is worth a dollar regardless of who's pocket it is in. Sure, that dollar means more to a poor person than a rich one. But in the end, it's actual worth is 100 pennies. Our job when picking an MVP is to pick the player who's performance was worth the most pennies. So, essentially, we're picking the best overall player. Period.
4) All of that said, I would argue that a player's contribution and importance to his team should be a factor in the judgment of his overall worth. But it isn't the be-all, end-all.
5) So let's break it down into categories: Home runs, RBI, Runs scores, Batting Average, On Base Percentage, OPS, Clutch Statistics, Defense, Consistency and Overall Importance to Team.
6) Home Runs: Howard - 48, Pujols - 37. EDGE: HOWARD.
7) RBI: Howard - 146, Pujols - 116. EDGE: HOWARD
8) Runs: Howard - 105, Pujols - 100. EDGE: HOWARD
9) BA: Howard - .251, Pujols - .357. EDGE: PUJOLS
10) OBP: Howard - .339, Pujols - .461 EDGE: PUJOLS
11) OPS: Howard - .882, Pujols - 1.115. EDGE: PUJOLS
12) RISP: Howard - .320 BA, .439 OBP; Pujols - .339/.523. EDGE: PUJOLS
13) Two outs, RISP: Howard - .320/.468; Pujols - .326/.592. EDGE: PUJOLS
14) Two out RBI: Howard - 56; Pujols - 32. EDGE: HOWARD
15) Defense. EDGE: PUJOLS
16) Consistency: Pujols hit above .300 in all six months of the season. He drove in at least 20 runs in all but two months. Howard, meanwhile, hit under .240 in all but two months of the season (July and September). But he drove in at least 25 runs in all but two months, and he hit 10 or more home runs in three of the six months of the season. EDGE: PUJOLS.
17) Importance to team: This one is the hardest to quantify. Howard's performance in September was crucial for the Phillies. But the team might not have needed him as much in September if he was more consistent throughout the entire season. The only way I can think to quantify this is to go back and look at Baseball Prospectus' preseason projections. BP predicted the Phillies would win 86 games. They won 92. So you could argue that Howard's performance was a big reason why the Phillies "over-achieved" by six games. But if you are going to do that, you have to consider the fact that BP forecast the Cardinals to win just 75 games. St. Louis finished with 86 wins. EDGE: EVEN.
18) In summation: Pujols dominates in just about every category except run production. Yet this game is all about run production. Howard drove in 18.3 percent of his team's runs. Pujols drove in 14.9 percent of his team's runs. That says a lot. In the end, though, I'd vote for Pujols because of consistency and defense. I think those two aspects of his game make him slightly "more valuable" of a player than Howard.
Hey, it isn't scientific, and I'm sure many of you will pick it apart. So have at it.
For argument's sake, this would be my MVP ballot (if I had one).
1. Pujols, Cardinals
2. Howard, Phillies
3. C.C. Sabathia, Brewers
4. Manny Ramirez, Dodgers
5. Carlos Delgado, Mets
6. Lance Berkman, Astros
^
The Phillies announced today that they have fired minor league field coordinator Bill Dancy, replacing him with Mike Compton. Dancy was the Phillies third base coach in 2005 and 2006. Also, the Phillies announced they have hired Scott Proefrock as their third assistant general manager, a move reported late last night by FoxSports.com. Proefrock will handle a lot of the duties Amaro handled as assistant GM, including contract negotiations.
Keith Law (ESPN) wrote right after the regular season ended what he thought a determining factor of an MVP was, it seemed to make sense to me. If you take Howard and put him on the Cardinals would he have made as much as an impact as putting Pujols on the Phillies for the entire year. Pujols in our lineup is much more potent than Howard on their lineup.— kr1spy- DO we make the World Series with Pujols? Do the Cards make it with Howard? While both are great players, you an't knock in runs (excpet for yourself) if your team mates don't get on base. Edge-Howard batting behind a top of lineup then Pojols— jeff gross
I would trade Howard straight up for Pujols. He would drive in a run a game minimum for this team, and his homers would escalate too. I still am a homer though and hope Howard wins- This the way I see it: The Cardinals had Ryan Ludwick, who hit 37 Hrs (tied for the team-league with Pujols) and had 116 rbi and won the Silver Slugger Award over our second best power hitter (Burrell). They also had good seasons from Skip Schumaker (.302 BA), Yadier Molina (.304 BA), Aaron Miles (.317 BA), Troy Glaus (.270, 27 Hr, 99 rbi) and former pitcher Rick Ankiel hit 25 Hrs. In all they, had two silver sluggers and two 100 rbi guys and one with 99, plus four .300 hitters. How many .300 hitters we had? The Cards also faded at the end, when it counts. Howard took the team on his broad shoulders and the rest is history.— EL Zorro
- How is Sabathia on your ballot but Lidge is not?— RichNC
- To Jeff: chances are if we had Pujols when we didnt hit for 7-8 weeks in July and August that wouldnt have happened because of how consistant Pujols is. to El Zorro: i would say our second best power hitter was Utley since he did hit 3 more homeruns and had higher SLG than Burrell, but i get your point. Just another thing to throw out there: how many pop fly homers did Howard have in our ball park? That should factor against him because nearly every other stadium would have been an out. I'm not trying to root against Howard, his production IS the reason we made the playoffs. I just think that Pujols was more valuble of a player.— kr1spy
- El Zorro bringing the effect of Ludwick into the discussion is perfect. Thanks. Although I get what you're saying, David, and think Pujols is possibly the best player in the NL, a lot of the areas he beats Howard in are merely statistical, not something that affects the outcome of a game. At the end of any game, no matter whether it's ugly or "Spalding Guide," runs count. Runs were generated by Howard at a much greater degree. OBP, RISP, and all the other stats that get generated these days are nice and do measure a player's value, but winning two thirds of the Triple Crown by a wide margin - the two thirds that directly influence the outcome of games - should have a weighted value. That said, I think the best argument made for Pujols is his consistency. I've been thinking for some time that baseball needs to compute a type of "standard deviation" for players, roughly, how well players perform up to their current or final level of play on a monthly basis. In other words, Pujols played like Pujols month to month much better than Howard played like Howard, who for some months played more like Moe Howard. Then, if this "standard deviation" view makes any sense, I ask, who played more like Lidge than Lidge? The guy totally met his standards on a monthly basis. And unlike Howard and Pujols, whom for all I know had some of their best statistical days in games in which their team lost badly, Lidge did all his best work when it counted. I think you'll now agree that Lidge is the NL MVP! :)— frankenslade
- 1— jeff gross
- I don't think you can't win an MVP if you did not lead your own team in RBIs and HRs— Lemur
- Lemur - see Jimmy Rollins last year.— Gary Varsho
Comment removed.- Why ia a pitcher even considered for MVP? It's a players' thing. Pitchers should not be included. How many votes did Howard get for the Cy Young?— brinkmang
- Yo, High Cheese, what 'bout BRAD!? Carlos Delgado is a turd and a fraud, I think you just need to cover DA TEAM litl bit more and you'll see that no Met should be included in any one's top 5 of anything unless it's Top 5 Most Likely to Choke in September, then the list goes: 1) Jose Reyes, Mets 2) Carlos Beltran, Mets 3) Entire bullpen, Mets 4) David Wright, Mets 5) Whoever is manager, Mets— Eddie D
- Under consistency, Dave, you list that Howard had 5 more RBI's per month than Pujols. The lower BA just means fewer hits that put you the batter on base for someone else to knock in. The fact that Howard was producing 25+ RBI's 4 of 6 months (to Pujols' 20+ in 4 of 6 mos.) shows that in spite of a low BA he was productive 4/6 of the season. And you say he scored 3% more of his team's runs than Pujols. I'm happy enough with Pujols winning since consistent hitting is impressive- esp. given he played with injury. However, it looks like Howard WAS consistent in terms of RBIs. But both were valuable, no question. And Albert didn't make the errors at 1B that Howard made (alternatively brilliant and bumbling, on the field and at the plate.) Oh, and Lidge was also valuable.— gbrettfan
- Howard had 298 at bats with runners on base, Pujols had 240. Howard had 175 at bats with runners in scoring position, Pujols had 115. Howard hit .309 and slugged .648 with runners on, Pujols hit .354 and slugged .638 with runners on. Howard hit .320 and slugged .589 with runners in scoring position, Pujols hit .339 and slugged .678 with runners in scoring position. Toss in the fact that Howard plays in a park that favors hitters and Pujols plays in a park that favors pitchers, and it's absurd to suggest that Howard should have won the MVP award because he was a better run producer. Given the same opportunities to drive in runs, Pujols would have put up the same, if not better, RBI totals than Howard.— Reaper66
