A Strong Argument for the NL MVP

[Migrant Redbird]

The "traditional" definition of MVP is that it's the player who did the most to get his team into the post season.

Under that definition, one could argue that it could also be awarded to a player whose team barely missed the post season, but who almost got them over the top. With the Cardinals now 6 games out of the wild card and 14-1/2 games behind the Cubs, I don't think that Albert meets that criteria.

However, each voter gets to define his own criteria, with extra points going to (1) players who finish strong down the stretch, (2) players who hit the most home runs or put up some astronomical RBI total, and (3) players on the East Coast.

I would have no problem with Ryan Howard winning the MVP this season if the voters were at least consistent. I agree with Pujols that Howard shouldn't have won it in 2006, when he was neither the best player in the league nor on a playoff team. Howard is a formidable hitter, but he's never even been the best first baseman in his league, much less the "most valuable player".

[DrungoHazewood]

He's pitched 4.8% of Philly's innings this year. I don't care if he hasn't given up a hit, you can't be the MVP playing that sparsely, IMO.

If his 50 or 60 innings were all high-leverage and he never allowed a run I guess I could concoct a scenario where he was 10 wins over replacement and deserved the award in a weak field.

But that's not the case, and rarely if ever has been for a reliever.

[DrungoHazewood]

The best argument I saw on the NL MVP goes like this:

Chipper Jones had a 1.086 OPS in the first half. Everyone talked about him in July like it was a foregone conclusion that he was the MVP.

Carlos Delgado has gotten some MVP support because of his 1.016 2nd half OPS.

Manny Ramirez has also gotten some press as an MVP candidate because of his 1.200 OPS in the 2nd half.

But Albert Pujols had a 1.074 in the first half, and a 1.110 in the 2nd half. Including fielding he was better than all of those guys in each of their MVP-ish halves.

It's Pujols, and it's not close.

[beaner]

If his 50 or 60 innings were all high-leverage and he never allowed a run I guess I could concoct a scenario where he was 10 wins over replacement and deserved the award in a weak field.

But that's not the case, and rarely if ever has been for a reliever.

I think Lidge and K Rod will both finish in the top 3, and I wouldn't be shocked if either won.

[Mashed Potatoes]

Brad Lidge

[DrungoHazewood]

I think Lidge and K Rod will both finish in the top 3, and I wouldn't be shocked if either won.

Which just goes to show that the BBWAA award is more about who's the trendy pick, or who led the league in their favorite stat than who won the most games for their team.

[beaner]

Which just goes to show that the BBWAA award is more about who's the trendy pick, or who led the league in their favorite stat than who won the most games for their team.

Understood, and the Mets bullpen failures make Lidge look even better, fair or not. I just think he'll get a lot of votes, and i can't disagree with him possibly winning it. Maybe I'm naive, but I can't think of many guys who have been more "valuable" to his team than Lidge has been to the Phillies.

[Migrant Redbird]

Understood, and the Mets bullpen failures make Lidge look even better, fair or not. I just think he'll get a lot of votes, and i can't disagree with him possibly winning it. Maybe I'm naive, but I can't think of many guys who have been more "valuable" to his team than Lidge has been to the Phillies.

Cardinals fans who saw their bullpen blow an MLB high 30 saves (last I heard) might disagree with you. [Edit: should have been "agree".]

However, I don't believe the MVP award should go to a pitcher or that the Cy Young award should go to a relief pitcher -- although an argument might be made for Gagne's 55 saves in 55 opportunities back in 2003.

[beaner]

Cardinals fans who saw their bullpen blow an MLB high 30 saves (last I heard) might disagree with you.

However, I don't believe the MVP award should go to a pitcher or that the Cy Young award should go to a relief pitcher -- although an argument might be made for Gagne's 55 saves in 55 opportunities back in 2003.

Yeah, I really don't think they should either, but I've been hearing some really good arguments for Lidge in recent days. I just really think that valuable should mean that the team has success, and Lidge has been so good for them all year.

[Lt Melmo]

Lad Bridge

[beaner]

And the momentum continues.. forget MVP, Brad Lidge for President!!

[Lt Melmo]

Does anyone remember the pre-2007 season? There was a decently hot topic on ESPN that I never forgot about: it was just following Pujols' 49-homer campaign at age 26, and there was talk of 2007 being the year that he "breaks out." I remember one pundit saying, "Well, he won't hit eighty home runs, but he will break 73."

I'm still thinking something like this will happen one year, following his surgery. I'll probably be disappointed if he doesn't hit 60+ one of these years.

[TyCobb]

The best argument I saw on the NL MVP goes like this:

Chipper Jones had a 1.086 OPS in the first half. Everyone talked about him in July like it was a foregone conclusion that he was the MVP.

Carlos Delgado has gotten some MVP support because of his 1.016 2nd half OPS.

Manny Ramirez has also gotten some press as an MVP candidate because of his 1.200 OPS in the 2nd half.

But Albert Pujols had a 1.074 in the first half, and a 1.110 in the 2nd half. Including fielding he was better than all of those guys in each of their MVP-ish halves.

It's Pujols, and it's not close.

I think Pujols had the best season, but if I had a vote I would give it to Manny. The guy hitting is unreal right now. A line of .398 /.491/.757 .

[Cubsfan]

Well, you saying the "right" player doesn't usually win means that you think your definition of the MVP is the "right" one and the others are wrong.

There are valid arguments to be made for various interpretations of the MVP award. Its defined as "most valuable" so you could certainly argue that simply having good numbers isn't the end-all of the award, they may have to have a lot of meaning behind them, i.e. been on a team that matters. Or you could argue that all of the performances are valuable, that a guy with massive numbers on a 70-win team is just as valuable as a guy with massive numbers on a 95-win team. One took a 60-win team to a 70-win team, the other an 85-win team to a 95-win team.

Thats really the main debate. Most of the time there is a clear leading candidate for each different "interpretation" of the MVP award, so the debate really isn't about who should win, but who's interpretation is right.

Always an interesting debate.

I've always argued that there ought to be 2 awards, MVP and Player of the Year. The MVP would be limited to players from teams that finish 1st or 2nd and the POY would be picked from all teams.

[mrbig1]

What about David Wright?