"The Mets are a second-half team...

'nuff said there.

P.S.: Note how the Presidential election narrative has the same high level of logic.

Beltran is probably the Mets MVP this season considering he's basically had to catch everything in the outfield this season. This is a team that has basically played converted infielders with no prior outfield experience in left and right and gotten away with it because of Beltran. According to hardball times, Beltran has 100 OOZ plays this season which is more than anyone else since they've kept track of that. He's basically has had to be Kelly Leak the entire year.

This is all plain silly. First, you need to be the best player on your own team. Also, the award should literally be Alberts to lose every year, until he gets old or injured. He should be the yardstick. He's the best player in the league nearly every year, you need to be better then him to have a chance to win it.

Delgado fails on both counts.

Beltran is probably the Mets MVP this season considering he's basically had to catch everything in the outfield this season. This is a team that has basically played converted infielders with no prior outfield experience in left and right and gotten away with it because of Beltran. According to hardball times, Beltran has 100 OOZ plays this season which is more than anyone else since they've kept track of that.

Is this true? Beltran is good, but the two others who have played the most OF innings are Ryan Church (good defensive rep) and Endy Chavez (excellent defender). Also, Mets LF range factor is .09 higher than league average, in RF it's .12 higher than league average, and CF is .12 higher. From that it doesn't appear Beltran is catching a higher % of balls than the average CF.

After reading the comment that "Pujols has slowed down a bit in the last week or two," I never want to hear another BBWAA member argue that they're the most qualified to judge awards because they're closest to the games.

This article makes me want to scream. The award is not supposed to be "Best numbers in August and September on a playoff team." It's 2006 (Morneau) all over again, where a completely indefensible bandwagon begins and results in one of the worst selections of all time. I seriously think Delgado is going to win now.

What bugs me the most is that they're essentially REWARDING players for getting off to a bad start. If Delgado had been consistantly good all year - rather than terrible at the beginning and great at the end - and finished with the exact same numbers that he ends up with, he probably wouldn't crack the top ten. And he'd finish behind Wright, Reyes, and possibly Beltran on his own team.

This is just asinine, asinine logic...

Is this true?

Kelly ####### Leak. We're talking routine fly balls here. Its makes me laugh sometimes how often Evans/Murphy defer to Beltran on the easiest of chances.

And he'd finish behind Wright

No chance. ~.240 with RISP! they'd scream.

If Delgado wins, would he be the worst MVP choice ever? I'm pretty young, but he'd definitely be the worst I could remember.

Steve Garvey, 1974? He wasn't even the best player on his own team.

Jimmy Winn, CF. 150 OPS+. Finished FIFTH in the voting.

This is all plain silly. First, you need to be the best player on your own team. Also, the award should literally be Alberts to lose every year, until he gets old or injured. He should be the yardstick. He's the best player in the league nearly every year, you need to be better then him to have a chance to win it.

Delgado fails on both counts.

What you're failing to understand, Hugh, is that Delgado's OPS+ has surged to 127, while Albert's has plummeted to 193.

I'm glad the HOF and postseason awards are already dead to me so I don't have to be enraged about this.

Steve Garvey, 1974? He wasn't even the best player on his own team.

Looks like he was about equal with Delgado with the bat, but wasn't he a much better fielder?

It'll be amazing if we actually get a worse MVP than Morneau this soon. At least in his case there were only two players on his own team definitely more valuable than him instead of four like Delgado...

First, you need to be the best player on your own team.

Not really. On a nationally televised game in early last season, a Twins player read the line up and made a trying to be comical remark for each player. "Batting [next], our first baseman and Most Valuable Canadian, Justin Morneau!" This is not the sort of thing you say for the first time on national TV, everybody had to know about it and it was a clubhouse source of yucks. If the Delgado for MVP thing comes to pass (ugh), the Mets' designated wag will need another line because Los Dos Carloses hail from Puerto Rico. "Our Most Valuable Aguadilliano" is too clunky.

If Delgado wins, would he be the worst MVP choice ever?

Most likely, yes. Andre Dawson in '87 would be fairly close, but at least he was a Gold-Glove right fielder, while Delgado is a bad 1B. Really, Delgado's been barely above average for an NL first baseman this year.

I will say this though about Delgado, his career probably deserves more recognition than it has gotten.

I'm glad the HOF and postseason awards are already dead to me so I don't have to be enraged about this.

I feel the same way. My life will be longer.

I'm glad the HOF and postseason awards are already dead to me so I don't have to be enraged about this.

I feel the same way. My life will be longer.

I think the award selection process is stupid, but the question isn't what we think; it's what the players and managers and team executives think. I imagine an MVP would mean a lot to Pujols, and to have Delgado rob him is just unfair. It's like watching someone getting mugged from a distance -- it probably doesn't affect me, I can't really do anything about it, but I still care. (Yeah, terrible analogy, but you get the point.)

At least Dawson did something superficially impressive by hitting 49 home runs, more home runs than anybody hit in any other year of the 80s, and the closest anyone had come to 50 in 7 years. And Jack Clark would have been MVP had he not gotten hurt in September. There really is nothing impressive about Carlos Delgado's year.

Still, though, Delgado's resurgence after Randolph's firing is pretty astounding.

Didn't Delgado go 4-40 or something right after Randolph's firing?

you might think that

putting a team no one thought would contend into contention by being by far the best player in the league

might be a better story than

stinking up the joint for a team that was supposed to contend (but you helpd them flail), before coming around to be real good while the rest of the team got hot also

but you'd be wrong wrong wrong

I'll say it here; Pujols STILL wins the MVP award. Mark it down.

This is going get fun when Ryan Howard gets hot and leads the Phillies to a sweep over the Brewers and the Cards falter. It'll be a race between the 11th and 14th most valuable 1B in the NL!*

Seriously, if Delgado is getting this backlash, I can't wait to see what happens if Howard gets his BA over 250, hits 50 bombs, 140 RBI, and the Phillies make the playoffs.

*According to Chris Dial's latest report.

I think Berkman is going to win it if the Astros can stay in the race the rest of the season. He'd be a fine choice.

"It hurts, but I think run production to me is more important than average, and OPS [on-base plus slugging percentage] to me is more important than average—a lot more. I think average is the least important of OPS, RBIs, home runs, runs scored and team record. Those will .overshadow average if the other ones are really high.”

Delgado has a teammate who has a higher OPS than he does, and who has more RBIs and Runs scored. So what this guy really is counting is home runs and that's about it.

Russlan, other than the Cardinals being 1.5 GB the Astros (1 game in the loss column), what possible criteria could lead you to pick Berkman over Pujols?

Still, though, Delgado's resurgence after Randolph's firing is pretty astounding.

Didn't Delgado go 4-40 or something right after Randolph's firing?

The evil force of Randolph, strong it was
Healing time, Delgado needed

You numerical troglodytes obviously don't get it. If the writers allowed alleged "facts", such as Pujols' fantastic play of late, to interfere with the compelling narrative of a surging Delgado racing past a struggling Pujols, we would lose the vital element of subjectivity in awards voting. I mean, do you guys want like HAL to pick the awards or something?!?

I know it's satire, but that's not really the right use of troglodytes. Unless of course you are incorporating into your satire the fact that you're average FOXsports comment writer wouldn't know what troglodyte meant, in which case, well played.

To be fair, I think the argument for Delgado would be: sure, Reyes, Wright, and Beltran sustained their excellent play for the entire season, and as a result ended up with better overall stats than Delgado (while playing excellent defense), but despite all that the team was below .500 in late June. It wasn't until Delgado started hitting that the team started to win. Moreover, his 2nd half numbers (to date) are huge: .295/.387/.628/1.016. Consequently, his performance proved to be more valuable to his team's success than those of his teammates. This does not reward him for a poor start, but simply recognizes the value of his play.

Now, that's not MY argument. But one who interprets "valuable" in that manner could make it.

But Mr November, wouldn't some voters realize that Delgado's rebound wouldn't have meant anything had not Beltran, Reyes, Wright and Santana all been performing at a consistent level of excellence before July?

I guess I have faith that not all the writers are that dumb, and I still believe that as of today, Pujols will win the MVP. If the Cards go something like 4-12 in the remaining games, then that might cost Pujols his award. Even then, I really don't think Delgado will finish higher than 5th in the voting (which would be ridiculous given that he shouldn't even finish in the Top 20).

Weren't the Mets picked to win their division, and the Cardinals were picked to go like 72-90 and finish in 5th place? Isn't the Cardinals record only 4-1/2 games worse than the Mets despite the fact that the Cards will have played a third of their entire schedule against the Cubs, Brewers and Astros, each of whom may end up having a better record than the Mets?

I'd say that, relative to expectations, and taking into account the competition of each division, Pujols' team has far exceeded expectations whereas Delgado's has barely (if it all) met them.

And Pujols' team is still in contention with two weeks to go---with Phils vs. Brewers and StL vs. Pit, the Cardinals could conceivably be 2 or 3 games out of the wild card lead after this weekend.

Lord knows I love Carlos Delgado, but this is insane. I seriously can't believe how little attention Pujols has gotten this year -- he's hitting .360!!

Pujols for NL MVP is, in my mind, the only hands-down simple, obvious pick of all the awards, and it looks like he's not even in the race. Crazy.

Russlan, other than the Cardinals being 1.5 GB the Astros (1 game in the loss column), what possible criteria could lead you to pick Berkman over Pujols?

Berkman is right there with Pujols defensively according to ZR so he's been an excellent firstbaseman. He's played in about 15 more games than Albert (which matters to me) and it's not like he's been a slouch offensively with his 170 OPS+ and Berkman does have the advantage in SB.

Pujols would be my pick but I would not say anyone who picked Berkman was making a bad choice.

I know it's satire, but that's not really the right use of troglodytes.

As it means "cave dweller", it's a great synonym with respect to the mom's-basement cliche.

There's nobody else who's really an overwhelming guy.

I hadn't really looked at stats or anything in a while, so I just checked out BB-Ref. This "Delgado for MVP" is just bizarre. He's probably the 4th-best position player on the Mets from the stats (Beltran, Wright, and Reyes - all of whom play more important defensive positions, and don't they all at least have the reputation for being much better defenders than Delgado?), and the three best hitters in the NL, by a fairly wide margin it looks like, are pretty clearly Pujols, Berkman, and Chipper Jones. As others have pointed out, even if you go by the 'how much have they helped their team' argument, the Cardinals and Astros are probably the two biggest overachievers in the NL this season. How is this not a 2-man battle between Pujols and Berkman, with tips of the cap to Chipper, Wright, Reyes, Beltran, and a few other guys on contenders (Utley, Howard?, Fielder, Braun, maybe Soto)? I think Manny Ramirez might have a better MVP case than Delgado (I'd say Delgado's more valuable because he's played all season, but if you give credit for being there all season there are a lot of guys who would seem to beat Delgado out pretty easily. If you're going to make a "getting hot at the right time" argument, I think Manny has a stronger case than Delgado (at least Manny had nothing to do with the Dodgers' early-season struggles)).

Berkman is right there with Pujols

Sort of....

Looking at Dial's "Offense + Defense" (through 9/2), even accounting for differences in playing time, he has

Delgado at -1.4 runs (a bit above average 1b offensively, below-average defensively)
(his Met teammates: Beltran 32.1, Reyes 30.2, and Wright 29.2)

Berkman at 54.20 (2nd best in the NL)

And Pujols at 70.10

agreed that Pujols should be a mortal lock for MVP.

That said (and maybe I'm missing something, 'cause it differs from what Repoz added): ESPN splits has Albert at 398/491/745 for August and 308/438/846 for September, so his OBP seems to be suffering even tho he's still crushing it when he hits. IIRC his hand or elbow is hurting, right?

Now I'll totally discredit myself to you all: Morneau was not an abysmal choice as MVP. Wrong choice, yes, but not godawful.
(OK, I started to do player-by-player comps, and you can make valid arguments that he deserved it over all the vote leaders-- until you get to Jermaine Dye. Wow, did he get hosed.)

I keep forgetting that Pujols is putting up these numbers while nursing an injury. He should be a unanimous pick.

I don't think Delgado would be the worst choice of all time -- except maybe in a comparative sense. He'd be the worst in terms of, "Lord, how could they choose him when X (Pujols) was available having THAT season????" But his wouldn't be the worst season in an absolute sense to have been honored with an MVP trophy.

I'm assuming that for Delgado to win it, he's going to have to continue over the next 17 games to do about what he's done for September so far, and the Mets will have to win the NL East. If he does that, by the time the month is done he'll have an OPS+ in the low 130s, and around 40 HRs and 120 RBIs, for a division winner. That is a better season than Andre Dawson had in 1987. I don't care what anyone says about 49 damn home runs -- a .328 OBP just is not an MV-friggin'-P.

That's all I got in Delgado's favor. His wouldn't be the very worst season ever by a slugger who got an MVP. Not much of a defense, I admit.

I mean, do you guys want like HAL to pick the awards or something?!?

BODLEY would have been a decent choice 20-30 years ago, but I think he's been running on autopilot for quite some time.

He's played in about 15 more games than Albert (which matters to me) and it's not like he's been a slouch offensively with his 170 OPS+ and Berkman does have the advantage in SB.

But even comparing to (a low level of )replacement, and taking into account SBs, Pujols still appears to have a pretty big offensive edge. BPro has Pujols at 81.2 runs above a replacement 1b. Berkman at 63.8 runs above. Chipper at 63.7 runs above a replacement 3b.

I keep forgetting that Pujols is putting up these numbers while nursing an injury.

He was considered risky in fantasy drafts because of the possibility that he would have to stop playing a few weeks into the season for surgery.

I am usually among those that think East-coast bias is overrated as a force in these discussions, but it seems to be working its magic on this one.

I like Delgado as much as anything. But this has Shannon Stewart overtones- the talk has started circulating, now everyone has to respond to it. And it'll turn out to be the touchstone for the old-school intangibles debate about character and clutch, but in the end hopefully the voters will see the Pujols is better. The MVP would help Delgado's Hall case, but so would him hitting 10 home runs in the playoffs.

Delgado has seemed pretty good on D this year, and the Met infield has been amazing over the last couple of months, which I generally think the 1B has to be given some credit for.

Delgado has seemed pretty good on D this year, and the Met infield has been amazing over the last couple of months, which I generally think the 1B has to be given some credit for.

To my eye, Delgado has very little range, he's slow and has a slow first step, but he is excellent at coming off the bag to save throwing errors and still applying the tag. He's probably a bit below average as a defensive first baseman, but he's not hurting the team there.

By the way, I find this kind of sad, because I have always really liked Delgado, and am really happy to see him revive his seemingly dead career. If it weren't accompanied by this nonsense, it would be easier to appreciate his accomplishments.

If he does that, by the time the month is done he'll have an OPS+ in the low 130s, and around 40 HRs and 120 RBIs, for a division winner. That is a better season than Andre Dawson had in 1987. I don't care what anyone says about 49 damn home runs -- a .328 OBP just is not an MV-friggin'-P.

I'll take a 130 OPS+ from an OF over the same from a 1B.

Isn't the Cardinals record only 4-1/2 games worse than the Mets despite the fact that the Cards will have played a third of their entire schedule against the Cubs, Brewers and Astros, each of whom may end up having a better record than the Mets?

Isn't this a little bit of a stretch? My counting may be off, but I see the Cardinals have played 45 games against those 3 teams, which is like 27% of the schedule. Close enough, I guess.

But the Mets have essentially the same record as the Brewers (.001 better in win pct%) and are 3 games ahead of Houston. And the Mets have a better run differential than either of those teams. I'd be pretty surprised if both Houston and Milwaukee end up ahead of the Mets; at this point I think the Mets will likely finish ahead of both of them.

Pujols is still the MVP.

But his wouldn't be the worst season in an absolute sense to have been honored with an MVP trophy.

You sure about that? Look at those Dial numbers -- he's been a below-average 1B.