Albert Pujols rightfully won the National League MVP this past season, but there is still a raging debate and many people think Ryan Howard deserved the award. The overwhelming majority of those people are Phillies fans, who think their team is entitled to every single award due to their World Series victory (Howard is the MVP! Brad Lidge should win Cy Young! Charlie Manuel is manager of the year!!) and older writers who can't evolve past their own stubbornness. Murray Chass, famed baseball writer from the New York Times, falls into the latter group. His argument centers around the fact that Howard carried the Phils into the playoffs and Pujols didn't accomplish the same feat with his Cardinals. He also accuses Pujols supporters of not being able to grasp the concept of value, and instead being obsessed with stats. Of course, later he uses September stats to explain why Howard was more valuable down the stretch.
Where I unequivocally disagree is the claim that Pujols backers don't understand value. Isn't this just a pompous claim, by the way? If someone disagrees with you, you just assume they are ignorant and don't understand the intricacies of "value" the way you do.
Let's discuss value.
- The Phillies went to the postseason for many reasons. Ryan Howard was one of them, but only on offense. He's a defensive liability. Chase Utley, his teammate, plays better defense and had a higher OPS, so you could argue Howard wasn't even the most valuable position player on his own team. The Phillies bullpen was lights-out, so they rarely blew leads after the seventh inning. That's incredibly valuable for one aspect of the baseball team. Did Howard have a hand in that?
- The Cardinals did not go to the postseason for many reasons. None of them had anything to do with Albert Pujols. Their entire pitching staff battled through injuries all season, and the bullpen was particularly atrocious. They were also stuck in a very competitive division. All Pujols could do to help is obliterate opposing pitchers and play stellar defense. Statistically speaking, he was the best hitter and the best defensive first basemen in the league.
The suggestion that people can read those two paragraphs and still claim a Pujols supporter is blind to the concept of value is offensive to me. It's that absurd a claim. Chass wants to argue about the September Howard put together -- which was quite impressive -- but what about his pathetic April? Utley carried the Phillies in April while Howard was little more than an albatross. There are 162 games in a baseball season, and they all count equally. Your MVP shouldn't be a guy who was harming his team for a significant chunk of the season. He was actually a below average hitter for three different months of the season (April, June, and August). And he's the most valuable player in the league?
Pujols, on the other hand, was steady. He dipped below 1.000 OPS only for one month -- a .978 clip in July, which would have been Howard's second-best monthly figure.
If you want to talk about value, picture both lineups without the players in question compared to with them. The Phillies would still have had Utley, Jimmy Rollins, and Pat Burrell with several capable others. The Cardinals all of a sudden would be left with just Ryan Ludwick in the middle, who likely had a career year simply because of the presence of Pujols next to him in the lineup. And this was a team who would have won the NL West by two games had they been fortunate enough to reside in that division.
Would Pujols have gotten credit for being valuable enough, then, Murray?
Look, you can feel free to disagree with the decision -- even though it was, you know, the absolutely correct one -- to crown Pujols the MVP, but dismissing the vote as some sort of a misunderstanding is just plain stupid.

















Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
11-20-2008 @ 2:34PM
Donut King said...
When Cubs fans agree with what Cardinals fans saw all along, you know Armageddon is nigh. So bring on the bombs!!!!!
Murray Chass - cited by Matt - and Phil Sheridan - http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/phil_sheridan/20081118_Phil_Sheridan__MVP_voting_is_out_of_whack.html - must not have been paying attention when every other high-recognition award was presented to Albert. It might have been a clue . . . like "Hey, this guy might have been really friggin' good this year!"
I'd also be curious to find out if Chass and Sheridan (if they had a vote) voted for Howard over Pujols in '06 - when Pujols' team made the playoffs (and, in fact, won the coveted "RING!") while arguably having the season of his career statistics-wise all while missing about 15 games due to injury, while Howard had a massively-productive season for a team that ended up a handful of games out of the playoffs. Howard won the MVP in virtually (but not exactly) the same circumstances that Pujols won the award this year.
So come on, Philly . . . cheer up. You just won a CHAMPIONSHIP! Life isn't all that bad! (yeah, that's going nowhere.)
Reply
11-20-2008 @ 3:18PM
Phil's are # 1 said...
I am and always will be a Philly sports fan but I have to say that Pujols is the MVP as he had a better year they Howard. I don't like to say that but it is true. Ryan struck out too many times and his batting average was horrible.If Ryan had a 300 batting average then I would have to say he would have won the MVP, but he didn't. Pujols did it all for the Cards and he didn't have anywhere near the help Howard had. The Phils are going to be one of the best teams next year, in fact I think they are on there way to a repeat as they only need to fill in for Burell and a couple other spots and if Ryan can do everything the same and push his batting average above 300 I think he will win be the MVP next year. But for now I have to agree with you Matt and say Albert Puljos is the MVP.
Reply
11-20-2008 @ 3:28PM
alex said...
Chass is one hundred percent correct. If more sportswriters actually tuned into the phillies games, they would know what he is talking about. This is not to take away from Albert Pujols, who was a very derserving MVP candidate, but Howard really did carry this team. Utley was horrible the latter months of the season and so was Burrell. I have never seen someone do more for his team when it mattered most on top of doing it all season then Howard did for the Phillies. He not only hit homeruns, but hit them when they most needed him to do so. it was uncanny how he would come through in nearly every pinch he could that last month of the season. He led the league in homeruns and RBI's and as awesome as Pujols season was, the award should be based on value and not stats. Personally if it were based on stats, Hanley Ramirez should have got the award anyway.
Reply
11-20-2008 @ 4:50PM
G said...
Chass is an imbecile. If you're arguing "value" v. "stats", you don't get to use HR or RBI. If you use HR or RBI, you must accept the evidence of all the other numbers - where Pujols wins.
And on your argument, if you look at RBIs in September (which include HRs), Howard's RBIs made a win out of a tie/loss in only 5 games out of the Phillies' 17 wins. They made a win out of a loss in only one.
For the last time, despite what you (or Chass) might think anecdotally about Howard "carrying" the Phillies in September, he did NOTHING OF THE KIND. The pitching did.
As for stats, Ramirez did this: .301/.400/.540, 33 HR, 67 RBI, 122 K, 92 BB, 79.4 VORP, .320 EqA, 10.9 WARP3
Pujols did this: .357/.462/.653, 37 HR, 116 RBI, 54 K, 104 BB, 98.7 VORP, .372 EqA, 13.5 WARP3
Ramirez is an average at best defender. Pujols is the best defensive 1B in the NL.
Pujols beats Ramirez. Period.
11-20-2008 @ 5:20PM
Wade said...
Snyder- Good work. Idiotic claims deserve to shot down.
Makes me miss a certain (FJM) website that lived for articles like this one.
Reply
11-20-2008 @ 6:24PM
Steven Neiger said...
Howard was mediocre in the playoffs...He Reminded me of Alex Rodriguez never hitting in clutch situations, how can he be considered an MVP?
Reply
11-20-2008 @ 11:10PM
maggiemac said...
Phillies fan forever, but Howard did NOT deserve the MVP. My only problem with Albert winning it is the about face he's done with regard to his jealous, whiny child comments from 2006: "I see it this way: Someone who doesn't take his team to the playoffs doesn't deserve to win the MVP."
Reply
11-21-2008 @ 6:09PM
bernie said...
Last time I looked MVP stood for Most Valuable Player. Not best player! Without Howard the Phils do not go to the playoffs. Without Albert the Cardinals finish...what..... 5th?
It's Howard!!!
Reply
11-22-2008 @ 11:10AM
Snee said...
Answer me these questions, honestly, and you'll have your answer.
1. The guys are about the same age. Who would you rather have on your team if you're a GM?
2. If you're an opposing pitcher, who would you rather face in a big spot?
I'm a Cubs fan and Pujols scares the living daylights out of me. I am surprised every time we get him out. He is the MVP of an atrocious team that he somehow kept in the race until mid-September.
Reply
11-22-2008 @ 11:35AM
Donut King said...
I think I read something somewhere that noted . . . without Pujols, the '08 Cardinals would basically be the Pirates.
As a fan that saw the team all year, I disagree with that assessment. The '08 Cardinals would have been the Bad News Bears had they not had Albert. This team was dreadnaught awful with one shiny spot . . . with a few good stories mixed in.
So it helps when rivals give him such praise. So thanks much, Snee!
11-28-2008 @ 9:49AM
I Live For This said...
I'm sorry,.....did Murray Chass vote in the 2006 season ?
Lets see if we can jog his memory. Pujols and the Cardinals win the world Series, largely on the back of Pujols.
Phillies finish 2nd in their division, and miss the playoffs.
Oops,....Ryan won the league MVP. Pujols,....2nd.
What a travesty that was. Could it be that this was payback ?
Reply