In Which Tom Boswell Argues For, Sigh, Ryan Howard

Text Size A A A

And so the Albert Pujols-Ryan Howard MVP debate rages on. You already know the sides at work here: Smart people who understand baseball on one side (Pujols') and Phillies fans on the other. Plus, of course, Murray Chass; he thinks Ryan Howard should have won too. Of course he does.

So, unfortunately, does legendary Washington Post writer Thomas Boswell. If Boswell's legacy wasn't so well entrenched, it would have just about undone it with circular logic like this:

This week, Albert Pujols won the NL MVP Award. Why? Mostly because he had a better OPS and VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) than Ryan Howard. Say what? Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Phils' first baseman had 48 homers and 146 RBI to Pujols' 37 homers and 116 RBI.

You can imagine where it goes from there: Numbers are bad, except these numbers, which for Boswell happens to be RBI. That's literally his only stat -- RBI. The most team-dependent statistic in the history of ... you know what? Nevermind this. Far smarter writers have already written takedowns of Boswell's post, guys like Jonah Keri and Joe Posnanski, who are clearly baffled and sort of saddened by the whole mess. I suppose that's a fair reaction. In the meantime I'm going to go read more of the comments on Boswell's post. Now that's entertainment.

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

11-21-2008 @ 1:05AM

CJ said...

I'm not sure why people are so entrenched on this one. While Pujols has the vote of the sliderule, Beane-set, Howard did lead his team to the playoffs and Pujols didn't. Howard's home and away splits weren't nearly as imbalanced as many seem to think as Citizen's Bank Park wasn't the launching pad for Howard as advertised. In the end Pujols deserved it but not by a wide margin. That seems to comport with the way the voters saw it as well.

11-21-2008 @ 8:54AM

Matt Snyder said...

With all due respect, dude, it's a really, REALLY wide margin.

This award is for a whole season. A regular season. Ryan Howard was a stud in one month, embarrassing in three, and serviceable in two.

Albert Pujols was the best player in the league for six months.

It's not close. I don't care what their respective teams did.

11-21-2008 @ 1:48AM

G said...

For the last damn time, Howard did NOT LEAD HIS TEAM TO THE PLAYOFFS. Howard did NOT CARRY HIS TEAM IN SEPTEMBER.

Every single person repeating this idiotic meme depends on Howard's RBI numbers. Fine. This'll be the third time I've done this. In September, the Phillies won 17 games. In those 17 games, subtracting Howard's RBI changes a win to a tie or loss in only 5 games. In those 17 games, subtracting Howard's RBI changes a win to a loss in only 1 game.

In September, the Cardinals won 12 games. In those 12 games, subtracting Pujols's RBI changes a win to a tie or loss in 5 games. In those 12 games, subtracting Pujols's RBI changes a win to a loss in 3 games.

That means Pujols did MORE than Howard in September to carry his team to wins, using the completely useless stat known as RBI, which is a testament to the batters in front of a player as much as it is to the player's ability to drive in runs.

It's not the "vote of the sliderule, Beane-set," you dismissive Luddite. It's the vote of reality, objectively measured and capable of withstanding peer review.

If you choose to look at any stats (HR, RBI), you must look at all of them. By those numbers, it's a wide margin on offense alone. Bring defense into this equation, and Howard's not in the top three in the NL. Yes, you heard me.

11-21-2008 @ 7:43AM

Donut King said...

Tom Hardricourt . . . Phil Sheridan . . . Murray Chass . . . Tom Boswell . . .

How many more are we going to add to the "Burn Barrel O' Morons" by the time we're through? Have I even counted all of the CURRENT ones yet? (Note: I doubt it)

This will make my winter even more fun, I'm sure. In the immortal (words?) of Dr. Howard Dean . . . YEEEEEAAAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!

It's funny: by all accounts, this could have been Albert's 4th, perhaps 5th, award. It's only his 2nd, and both times more than several writers and a bunch of individuals have bitched about it.

Sorry guys, he doesn't play on the East Coast, and he's not an exciting person . . . but that doesn't mean that he didn't just OWN your whole league!

11-21-2008 @ 8:42AM

I did say that Pujols deserved the award, didn't I? But here's the thing: huge stats are empty if they go for naught. The argument against Howard isn't that his contribution to the team's success wasn't as great as Pujols, but that he didn't do much for the April-August portion of the season. If the effort to determine the MVP is exclusively stat-based, then why doesn't MLB just go to baseball-almanac.com, sort by OPS or OPS+, and then mail the award to whomever appears at the top of the list?

Without running the numbers, I'm sure as strong a case can be made for Manny or Chipper Jones as it was for Pujols.

Howard shouldn't have won because he wasn't even the best player on the Phils this year (Hamels, Lidge and Utley were all better over the course of the entire season) but to say that this should have been a slam dunk for Pujols is a joke.

11-21-2008 @ 12:43PM

What is your argument that Pujols's stats "[went] for naught"? Without Pujols, the Cardinals are the Pirates. Pujols's "huge stats" were a big part of the difference why the Cardinals managed to actually be in first or second place in the NL Central for about half the season, and in wild card contention until the last few weeks. Defining "missing the playoffs" as "go[ing] for naught" is as shortsighted a view of value as is limiting stats considered to HR and RBI.

Not a single person arguing for Pujols has said that "the effort to determine the MVP is exclusively stat-based." Not one. What has been said is that because Pujols so completely demolishes Howard in just about every stat except HR (which, granted, Howard is a better HR hitter; Pujols is a better hitter, period) and RBI (which is a useless statistic, for reasons explained ad nauseam), especially those which have been shown to be the most statistically significant to offensive success (OBP/SLG) and because Pujols is clearly a better defender than Howard (with or without stats, that's an easy call), Pujols clearly - and it is NOT close - is more valuable than Ryan Howard.

Even assuming "the effort to determine the MVP is exclusively stat-based," your question is an illegitimate strawman. Not a single person has based their judgment on OPS or OPS+ alone. Nor would any person seriously considering statistics as a part of the analysis do so. Suggesting that any of us do is flat wrong.

"Without running the numbers, I'm sure as strong a case can be made for Manny or Chipper Jones as it was for Pujols." See, that statement right there demonstrates how ignorant such a position is. That is no different than saying "without running the numbers, I'm sure as strong a case can be made for getting into space by firing people out of a cannon or launching them from a slingshot as using a carefully-designed and tested vehicle."

Pujols over Howard is a slam dunk because looking at what actually is, as opposed to what some person thinks is there tells any objective observer that between Pujols and Howard, there is no question AT ALL. Between Pujols and Berkman, there's some argument. Howard does not enter into the equation. Period.