Pujols was light years better then any other hitter in baseball this year. Howard will win it though because he's a on a better team and he has pretty HR and RBI numbers for voters to gawk at.
The Cardinals could have not made the playoffs without Pujols. Therefore, he was not particularly valuable in 2008. You can gawk at him all you want.
Jeter in 2006 : 343 average 118 runs 214 hits 14 HR 97 RBI 34 SB Pedroia in 2008 : 325 average 118 runs 211 hits 17 HR 83 RBI 20 SB
Last I checked the MVP was an individual award. Pujols is far and away the best player in the league. Hence, he is the most valuable. Pretty straightforward to me. I'd like to see someone try to make the case that the Phillies or Brewers would not much better teams if they had Pujols at 1b instead of Howard or Fielder.
I'm not going to bother after this post, but wins are even more meaningless than RBI. A pitcher gives up 1 run in 8 innings and the team is shut out: no win. A pitcher gives up 6 runs in 5 innings but the team scores 15: win. It's useless. And when Zito got the Cy Young over Pedro because he had more wins even though Pedro was MILES better in every meaningful category it was asinine. RBI is very similar.
I would rather have the pitcher that gives up more runs because he clearly won because he has the distinct ability to give up a number of runs each night that correlates with the number of runs his team gives up. The pitcher that gave up 6 runs is more of a winner, he's got bigger nuts and he knows how to go out there and get it done goddamnit! I will take old stats over effective any day.
Don't they have a Silver Slugger award for losers like Pujols and Wright? The MVP Award is for winners like Howard.
I get what you are saying... but spare me with your faux Jamesian argument. Halladay is a prime example which refutes your case. Toronto scored 4th worst in terms of runs scored in the [AL] and every time the guy pitches he puts his team in a position to win, regardless of how many runs they are capable of. According to you, why even keep track of wins and losses? Give players merits or gold stars for a good effort. Is it misleading when a good pitcher on a bad team goes 14-11 for the season? In some cases I'd agree, but to say wins are useless, I just can't wrap my mind around that.
The Silver Sluggers are done by position, the MVP is for the entire league. Explain to me the correlation between a teams won/loss record and a players value. Pujols is less valuable then Howard because Howard has better teammates? A players value is absolute, their teams success is relative.
Well get wrapping, because it's true. Like, to the point where it's beyond "faux Jamesian" and into common knowledge for everyone who isn't a purple prose vomiting mainstream media employee. Your Roy Halladay argument actually works against you. He has no shot to win the AL Cy Young this year because Cliff Lee has 22 wins, and while Lee does deserve the award, it should be a lot closer of a race than it will be. 2005: Bartolo Colon wins 21 games with an ERA in the mid-3s and 157 K. In third was Johan Santana, who only had 16 wins (loser!), to go with a 2.87 ERA (2nd in the AL), a WHIP below 1 (1st in the AL), and 238 K (1st in the AL). Would you seriously argue that Colon was, in any way, shape, or form, a better pitcher than Santana?
But Halladay was 42nd in run support in the majors, which is top 3rd (5 starters X 30 teams = 150 starters), so that really doesn't matter. It also ignores the idea of bullpen support. Take Santana for example. How many times did the Met bullpen blow a win for him when he went 7 or 8 strong? The stat depends entirely too much on team performance to be of value when measuring a pitcher.
American League: Cy Young: Cliff Lee (CLE) MVP: Dustin Pedroia (BOS) Rookie of the Year - Evan Longoria (TB) Manager of the Year - Joe Maddon (TB) National League: Cy Young: Tim Lincecum (SF) MVP: Ryan Howard (PHI) Rookie of the Year - Geovany Soto (CHI), altho I think Joey Votto (WAS) is a better player on an awful team. Manager of the Year - Lou Piniella (CHI), had Yost not gotten canned for NO REASON, he'd be the winner hands down.
Although a good point, I can't accept the Mets as an argument for. The way their bullpen blew leads this year is unreal.
^ LOL, touche touche... but pulling the Mets card is too easy. Still though Santana pitched under expectations the first half of the season and he needed to go more than an avg. of 6 innings per outing. Wagner went down, obviously, so that hurt. Plus Manuel was using everyone in the bullpen every night, which perpetuated the problem. But like I said, there are always anomalies for every argument. I consider the Mets one in this instance. Santana some tough breaks the whole season, which is a further testament to his character, that he was able to bounce back and maintain his level of pitching. I can't disagree that Santana's record isn't a good illustration of how he performed but this is why ERA is also an important statistic.
Wow...And you tried to call my baseball IQ out? Are you kidding me? Your a typical Red Sox tool and a dummy when talking about baseball. Your the one who goes crazy posting STAT AFTER STAT (When TRYING to prove someone wrong) And then you go and say something insane and STUPID like... "RBI is useless for the same reason wins are useless for a pitcher" Wow. I lost all my baseball respect for you right there. So I guess 20 wins in a season means nothing for a pitcher? I guess 140+ RBI's are "Uneless" Wow...When did you start watching baseball? After the Red Sox WON their WS in 04?
You're a moron. At this point, it's pretty generally accepted that wins are a fairly meaningless measure of a pitcher's performance. It's not me just making things up like you do, it's a common idea among people who have some idea of what they are talking about. I agree that 20 win seasons are pretty special, but it's due more to the relative rarity of it than anything. Then again, Rick Helling won 20 games one year, so that should tell you that it isn't exactly a great measure.
