***Stupidity causing blood to boil***

In this run environment, a 50 HR, 140 RBI season is deserving of consideration.

(Runs far, far away)

For much of the season, Howard couldn't seem to satisfy anyone, probably because he set the bar so high in 2006. That season, his first full year in the bigs, he popped 58 homers, breaking Mike Schmidt's franchise record by 10, while driving in 149 and batting .313.

No Phillies player since Chuck Klein in the 1930s put up numbers like that.

Except for Mike Schmidt, Jim Thome, and Dick Allen.

The numbers speak for themselves,” Phillies manager Charlie Manuel said. “Who’s close to him?

In HR and RBI? No one. In terms of actual value, Howard is nowhere close to the real MVP candidates.

So, how will this eventually shake out? The Phillie voters giving their two votes to Howard, the NY voters to Delgado, the LA voters to Manny, the Milwaukee voters to Braun, the Houston voters to Berkman, the Atlanta voters to Jones...? Pujols still wins by getting nearly all of the second place votes.

I would love to see the race come down to Delgado and Howard. They are the 2 most deserving candidates.

It didn't hurt to write that sentence nearly as much as I would have thought.

I was surprised that Howard's OPS with runners on is "only" 1.008. So even if you give Howard extra credit over his 118 OPS+ for his "production", he's still << Pujols with runners on (1.109). The delta is even bigger for RISP.

It's clear that writers like to frame stories around the MVP and then start believing that their stories have real merit.

Talk radio in Philly this week had narrowed it down to either Howard or Delgado. I've become convinced that whichever of the two that wins the East will win the award. K-Rod is a shoo in in the AL. I don't expect it to be particularly close especially with the Twins faltering.

Before this thread degenerates into complete mockery, please remember that, as far as I can tell, Delgado has never put his own name forward as a legitimate MVP candidate, and that it's not his fault that the writers have decided to tout him.

To a lesser degree, the same can probably be said for Howard.

Before this thread degenerates into complete mockery, please remember that, as far as I can tell, Delgado has never put his own name forward as a legitimate MVP candidate ...
Ryan, I can only speak for myself, but my mockery is strictly for any writer who would give either of those two a first place vote. Occam would need a very large razor to bring sense to these guys.

my mockery is strictly for any writer who would give either of those two a first place vote. Occam would need a very large razor to bring sense to these guys.

I agree with you completely. I've just been around here long enough to know that, sooner or later, people are going to start attacking the players, rather than the stupidity of the writers, even though the players are neither voting for or promoting themselves.

For an example, please see almost any thread involving Jim Rice or Jack Morris, which all seem to eventually degenerate into "He was the 8th best OF on his team" or "He couldn't have even broken into the rotation for <fill in the blank> team".

Talk radio in Philly this week had narrowed it down to either Howard or Delgado. I've become convinced that whichever of the two that wins the East will win the award. K-Rod is a shoo in in the AL.

If K-Rod and one of Delgado/Howard wins the MVP, where will that rank on the "worst choice in both leagues in the same year" scale?

Always channeling Turk Farrell, I will say that you have to be a heck of a ballplayer to hit .244, strike out 190 times, and even be mentioned in an MVP conversation. Howard is having one of the better off-years anyone has recently enjoyed.

What I can't understand is why more people in Philly aren't promoting that Ottley fellow.

It's funny.

There are points in history where, if Albert Pujols was born X years ago with his hitting skills intact, he'd have 5 or 6 MVPs by now.

In reality? One.

For an example, please see almost any thread involving Jim Rice or Jack Morris, which all seem to eventually degenerate into "He was the 8th best OF on his team" or "He couldn't have even broken into the rotation for <fill in the blank> team".

The difference of course is that Rice and Morris truly do promote themselves as deserving, and are often openly contemptuous of the voters who have failed do do so already.

If K-Rod and one of Delgado/Howard wins the MVP, where will that rank on the "worst choice in both leagues in the same year" scale?

Below 1987 at least.

But hey, this other guy also only won a single MVP despite finishing in the top 5 a bunch of times; I think Pujols would take his career.

Occam would need a very large razor to bring sense to these guys.

William of Occam's (yay wikipedia!) ghost is going to use a normal sized razor on his wrists if Howard/Delgado win the MVP given that they are each probably 3rd best player on their own team this year. Irony being that it's in part because some of those other players are that good that Howard/Delgado are getting the RBIs which smoke-and-mirrors their candidacy.

I still think Pujols is going to win it; John Donovan and Jon Heyman at SI.com have both said they think he is the favorite recently, and I trust them to have a decent sense of the pulse of the voters. There is a selection effect in just looking at articles discussing NL MVP candidates, since I suspect that most people who think Pujols should win it don't see enough there for a good story ("Pujols Head and Shoulders Above Competition. Again.")

I still think Pujols is going to win it; John Donovan and Jon Heyman at SI.com have both said they think he is the favorite recently, and I trust them to have a decent sense of the pulse of the voters. There is a selection effect in just looking at articles discussing NL MVP candidates, since I suspect that most people who think Pujols should win it don't see enough there for a good story ("Pujols Head and Shoulders Above Competition. Again.")

I agree. I'd be really surprised if Pujols doesn't win it.

I think these are just shot in the dark kind of articles, with few produced by guys with a vote.

that they are each probably 3rd best player on their own team this year.

Which of Wright, Reyes, and Beltran would you not put ahead of Delgado?

here is a selection effect in just looking at articles discussing NL MVP candidates, since I suspect that most people who think Pujols should win it don't see enough there for a good story ("Pujols Head and Shoulders Above Competition. Again.")

I hope you're right, but the writers have also shown a historical love for the surprise candidate. Besides, they've had multiple opportunities to give it to Pujols, and they always seem to find a way to justify giving it to someone else, much like A-Rod before he finally broke through in the MVP with Texas.

I hope you're right, but the writers have also shown a historical love for the surprise candidate. Besides, they've had multiple opportunities to give it to Pujols, and they always seem to find a way to justify giving it to someone else, much like A-Rod before he finally broke through in the MVP with Texas.

They were frequently finding ways to give it to Bonds, who was actually better. The Howard selection is probably the only MVP that genuinely should have been Albert's, while he also won one that arguably should have gone to someone else (Lee).

Albert's numbers are phenonenal. But his MVP count, to date, is actually about right.

Albert's numbers are phenonenal. But his MVP count, to date, is actually about right.

Yes, it's within one or two.

Yes, it's within one or two.

Are you saying he should have one or two, or his MVP total is within one or two of being right? Because I can't see a real good case for a third (until now, that is).

Pujols wasn't even robbed in 2006. He was better than Howard, but Carlos Beltran was the best player in the league.

Looking at the votes, I can't make a very strong case that Pujols has been robbed. I guess if you think Barry Bonds shouldn't have won any, Pujols should have 2 more, but really the votes all seem pretty fair. Agreed that Beltran probably should have won in 2006.

What is incredibly ironic about Delgado's MVP candidacy is that it owes itself, in part, to his crappy first half (you could probably say the same for Howard). If Delgado had, say, an .850 OPS in the first half and a 1.000 in the second, he'd be having a better season, but he wouldn't be in the MVP discussion because his improvement wouldn't look so dramatic. This is getting really nutty - and I'm a Mets fan!

So, Delgado's not the MVP. Is he a HOF'er? Or likely to be one when he retires? He's going to have ~ 470 HR after this season. Nearly a lock for 500. No steroid odor about him. Some nice peak seasons. Classy, quiet, well spoken.

If Delgado had, say, an .850 OPS in the first half and a 1.000 in the second, he'd be having a better season, but he wouldn't be in the MVP discussion because his improvement wouldn't look so dramatic. This is getting really nutty - and I'm a Mets fan!

If he had an .850 OPS in the first half, he'd likely have added an extra 10-20 RBI, and extra 5 HR, and an extra 10 runs, which would put him as top 2 in the first two, and around the top 10 in the third. In that case, the writers would still be touting him as an MVP candidate, as the writers have shown a consistent love for RBI guys.

With that being said, even if Delgado did hit like that, Pujols should still be the MVP.

So, Delgado's not the MVP. Is he a HOF'er? Or likely to be one when he retires? He's going to have ~ 470 HR after this season. Nearly a lock for 500. No steroid odor about him. Some nice peak seasons. Classy, quiet, well spoken.

I think he should be but, like fellow ex-Jay Fred McGriff, I think he'll end up just outside the hall, or be facing a 10 to 15 year wait.

I've just been around here long enough to know that, sooner or later, people are going to start attacking the players, rather than the stupidity of the writers,

For an example, please see almost any thread involving Jim Rice or Jack Morris,
...or Jimmy Rollins.

What I can't understand is why more people in Philly aren't promoting that Ottley fellow.

Mostly because Utley isn't hitting bombs and driving in runs seemingly every night during a pennant race. The people in Philly are watching the games.

I think he should be but, like fellow ex-Jay Fred McGriff, I think he'll end up just outside the hall, or be facing a 10 to 15 year wait.


Someone is going to have to be the first guy (steroid-tainted players excepted) with 500 HR not to make the HoF. Delgado seems a decent bet to be that player.

Someone is going to have to be the first guy (steroid-tainted players excepted) with 500 HR not to make the HoF. Delgado seems a decent bet to be that player.

Assuming he gets there, there's also Adam Dunn, for whom the writers are already building their "No" case.

Someone is going to have to be the first guy (steroid-tainted players excepted) with 500 HR not to make the HoF. Delgado seems a decent bet to be that player.

It will probably end up being Sammy Sosa.

Dunn I can agree with. He's valuable sure, but not much peak there. He's Dave Kingman with more walks. Delgado has had many seasons better than Dunn's best.

that they are each probably 3rd best player on their own team this year.



Which of Wright, Reyes, and Beltran would you not put ahead of Delgado?

Which of Johan, Wright, Reyes, and Beltran would you not put ahead of Delgado?


And it looks like Delgado's counting stats and power numbers may be better than McGriff's if Carlos can keep it going for another 2-3 years. What's the over/under on his career HR total? 535?

It will probably end up being Sammy Sosa.

Two things:
1) Sosa is steroid-tainted, in that a serious majority of writers appears to believe that he used, even though there's no evidence other than a performance spike.
2) Sosa has 600+ HRs. He's going in.

...or Jimmy Rollins.

Cite?

his MVP total is within one or two of being right?

This. I'm not saying he should have won two more. But he's got one, and maybe there is an argument for one or two more.

37,
I believe that refers to a threat a couple days ago where some moran started talking about how he'd rather have Clint Barmes than Jimmy Rollins

No!! Not Clint Barmes over Jimmy Rollins! Here, you can have my wallet. :-)

I think Pedroia has the AL MVP sewn up. I'd love to see Howard win it -- he might well finish with a lower OPS+, fewer HR, lower SLG, only a couple more RBI and the same OBP as Dawson in a much higher offensive environment.

And finally everybody can quit ######## about Dawson's MVP.

#41 - Walt, did you just say you'd like to see Howard win the AL MVP over Pedroia? That'd be a travesty even beyond what the writers are capable of. You know, Howard not being IN the American League and all...

Also, is this season really a "much higher offensive environment" than 1987? I'm too lazy to look up the numbers, but I do remember that 1987 was the biggest homerun season of all time until the mid 1990's. And offense in today's MLB seems to have dropped a bit from what it was 10 - and maybe even five - seasons ago. Anyone care to run the numbers from the last five years or so, as well as 1987 just for comparisons sake?

I'm not sure it counts as "running the numbers," but the 1987 and 2008 NL both score 4.52 RPG. (Oddly, ERAs are 0.21 higher this season. How much is improved defense and how much is skewed official scoring?)

Below 1987 at least.

I'm not sure 1987 is worse than that hypothetical. It'd be pretty close.

If Howard wins, rename the award "Most Valuable Phillie".

If Howard wins, rename the award "Most Valuable Phillie".

Funny.

It's too bad he's not even that.

Did you know: Jimmy Rollins' .296 BA last year was the lowest rate for an MVP since Kevin Mitchell in 1989? Howard would blow that one out of the water!

I'm positive it's all official scoring. There are no more good-field, no-hit players, after all, or at least very few, so defense isn't likely to be better.