MVP...as long as you hit lots of Home Runs, right? | pikesteve22's Blog

All this debate about who the NL MVP is really makes me wonder what people think MVP really means. According to Philadelphia fans, it should be changed to PWHTMHR (Player Who Hits The Most Home Runs). For Mets fans, it's PWFSUATM (Player Who Finally Showed Up After Two Months). Silly me, though. I thought it stood for Most Valuable Player, i.e. the person who did the most to help his team win.

And obviously I'll have a little bit of a bias, being from St. Louis. But nobody, over the course of the entire season, did more to help his team win than Albert Pujols.

I recently saw this article online, saying why Howard should win:

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20080930/SPORTS0101/809300339/1007/RSS02

Essentially, the argument comes down to the fact that Howard helped the Phillies make the playoffs, while the Cardinals missed out. I'm guessing this same writer said that Howard deserved the MVP in 2006, when the Cardinals won the World Series and the Phillies stayed home, even though Albert put up better across-the-board numbers than Howard that year, save for HR and RBI.

Any one of the candidates mentioned has had a strong season, but it's hard to say anyone's meant more to his team than Albert. Runs created. Wins created. Value over replacement player. Pujols is the tops in each of these categories, which are designed to determine which player holds the most value.

To be somewhat objective, if Manny Ramirez had been with the Dodgers the entire season and put up the stats at the pace he did, it'd be hard to give the award to anyone but him. He rejuvinated their lineup, and his stats project to roughly a .396 average with 51 HR and 159 RBI over a full season, to go with a .489 OBP and .743 slugging percentage. Monster numbers.

But this was one of Albert's best all-round seasons, and I think he deserves it even more than he did in '05 when he won.

As for the rest of the awards, I'd pick Tim Lincecum to win the Cy Young. Second lowest ERA, by far the most strikeouts, and had his bullpen not blown five saves for him, he'd have twenty wins, all for a subpar team. Sure, Webb had more wins and Santana had a (barely) lower ERA, but Lincecum did it with one of the worst offenses in the league (name two hitters in their starting lineup you'd be afraid to pitch to). Geovany Soto wins rookie of the year, even though he's a damn Cub. AL MVP should be Pedrioa (would have been Quentin had he not decided to hit his own wrist with a bat), and Cliff Lee for the Cy Young. Rookie of the year to me can't be anyone but Evan Longoria.

Thoughts? Comments? "Steve, you're an idiot" insults? Let me know.

Comments (3) Add A Comment

September 30, 2008 12:06 PM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

Steve - as you know....I am biased like you toward Albert, but if you look at AP's On-base % and slugging percentage.......he finished far ahead of everyone else. The fact is, the Cards contended all year, finishing only 4 games out of the WC. Without Albert, the Cards probably would have been 10-15 games under .500. He's clearly the MVP.

I tend to agree with your pick of Lincecum, although I think Webb will win the Cy. Lincecum definitely paid for the Giants' feeble lineup.

I think K-Rod will get some MVP consideration, too, as well as Cy Young. I'd like to see Halladay get some Cy Young votes too. He deserves them, but typically gets overlooked.

TenRingsSTL

Total Comments (4218)

September 30, 2008 12:39 PM ET

I am not biased towards Albert Pujols -- and it still isn't even a close race for me. Pujols is the N.L. MVP, whether or not they give him the award won't change that.

dch822

Total Comments (95)

September 30, 2008 04:44 PM ET

I'm definitely on board with Pujols. I never thought the team had to make the play-offs to win individual awards. It would be a lot easier if they just gave an MVP to the best player on each team, most likely there would be less debate.