Wow. Nothing like a sportswriter taking the moral high ground high above all of his peers and then promptly takes a crap on reason.

Pujols was not an embarrassing selection, not with his excellent numbers, but was still the wrong selection. And that should embarrass the association enough to do what it should have done long ago: get out of the business of voting on baseball’s postseason awards - as well as the Hall of Fame.

This is so ass-backwards that I can't even think of anything snarky to say. I mean...but... Ah #### it.

Am I the only person who's tempted to come up with a new stat every time a writer uses a non-baseball-related acronym in one of these articles?

Surely one of the posters around here with a good PBP database can come up with a way to correct stolen base percentage for catchers faced, thereby giving us Adjusted Steal Percentage, Catcher Adjusted.

...The association seamheads love to throw around stats - OPS, VORP, ASPCA - to make a case for Pujols. That’s all great. Yes, he struck out less and hit for a higher average. But Howard won actual baseball games in an honest-Abe pennant race. He had 11 more home runs than Pujols, scored five more runs than Pujols, and drove in 30 more runs than Pujols.

Notice there are no decimal points involved there, only whole numbers that made a difference in real baseball games.

475, 364. There's 2 whole numbers for you. Outs made. Ryan Howard made 4 whole games more worth of outs.

good satire.

does he write for the onion?

But Howard won actual baseball games in an honest-Abe pennant race. He had 11 more home runs than Pujols, scored five more runs than Pujols, and drove in 30 more runs than Pujols.

Notice there are no decimal points involved there, only whole numbers that made a difference in real baseball games.

Indeed. And look, Howard also made 111 more outs than Pujols.

And got on base 59 times fewer than Pujols.

Counting is fun!

Jesus, this guy should have his writing license revoked. He makes Murray Chass look like Nate Silver. Where's Fire Joe Morgan when you need them...

He's writing for Phillies fans. The sense of entitlement looms large with a WS victory, I guess.

Greetings! I am the Count. They call me the Count because I love to count things.

Sheridan, I will teach you to count.

Howard had one-two-three sub-.800 OPS months. THREE! HA!HA!HA!

Pujols had one sub-1.000 OPS month. ONE! HA!HA!HA!

We want to count too! </bats>

Where's Fire Joe Morgan when you need them...

If this nonsensical meme could just up and die before it actually takes root, that'd be awesome, thanks.

I don't know about ethical considerations or not, but I know this: Too many of these guys couldn't analyze their way out of a Highlights maze. They simply have no analysis skills, don't care to build any. They were chosen to write writerly things, they look for writerly reasons such as carrying the team and an ever more esoteric definition of "valuable" to justify their votes.

Notice there are no decimal points involved there, only whole numbers that made a difference in real baseball games.

So, we can finally throw out BA then?

#13

Yes, I think that's exactly correct. On the way to a journalism degree, a little thing like sports analysis is not often emphasized. Columnists (and many other "personality" types) are only looking to stir the pot, and not really offer insight. That's not what they do. They poop themselves and invite you to laugh.

That won’t happen because the association is as incapable of being embarrassed as is Major League Baseball itself.

Well technically that is correct, an organization can't feel human emotions. Good point.

So I assume in 2006 this guy wrote the same column saying it was absurd that Howard was the MVP over Pujols?

Most of the comments below the article are the stoopid, but some actually make decent points- such as the poster who mentioned that the Cards had more leads after 7 innings than the Phils, but Howard had "no blown saves" Lidge as a teammate and Pujols had gascan Izzy- it's not a sabr argument- but that is the type of argument that sometimes* persuades MSM yahoos.

And I have to say, as Mmets fan, boy the Cardinals had a bad pen, even worse than ours, yikes.

*sometimes not, you will still get the maroons who will acknowledge that Pujols is a better player, but still say that Howard was more "valuable" BECAUSE he had Lidge as a teammate...

But Howard won actual baseball games in an honest-Abe pennant race.

Actually, he had a lot of help doing that.

One could make a pretty good argument that, in the 10-1 stretch which catapulted the Phillies into first place, it was actually the pitching that was the catalyst. Howard did have two key home runs in that stretch, true - a three-run shot off Ben Sheets in the first game of the 11 and the game-winner off Mike Gonzalez in the 8-7 decision over Atlanta that put the Phillies back into first place - and he hit .315/.416/.711 with four HRs and 15 RBI, but with the exception of the Braves game and the 14-8 game against Florida which was the only loss of the stretch, the pitching was outstanding; the opposition scored 20 runs in those nine games, and only three of the wins were really close.

-- MWE

You know, if you're going to be a Phillies homer writer, the sense of outrage here shouldn't be that Howard didn't win, but that Utley only got 30-some votes. Or that Lidge somehow received 2 first place votes...

But Sheridan (and most Philly sportswriters, truth be told) write for the knuckle-dragging set, and so must view moral outrage at these things as their duty. I'm just glad I can easily ignore them and find better writers elsewhere to read. It's still amazing to think that when I was in college this really wasn't possible.

I know I'm probably glaring over something totally obvious, but is there another profession outside of Baseball Writing that so actively promotes and even prides itself on anti-intellectualism? "Decimal points too complicated for me" really??

I know I'm probably glaring over something totally obvious, but is there another profession outside of Baseball Writing that so actively promotes and even prides itself on anti-intellectualism? "Decimal points too complicated for me" really??

Politics?

I know I'm probably glaring over something totally obvious, but is there another profession outside of Baseball Writing that so actively promotes and even prides itself on anti-intellectualism? "Decimal points too complicated for me" really??

Conservative politicians...

EDIT: Damn you shooty, I thought you said you were out of snark.

EDIT: Damn you shooty, I thought you said you were out of snark.

I wasn't being snarky, just factual!

I don't trust anyone who can only think in natural numbers. Seriously, that's like a second grader's view of the world.

I know I'm probably glaring over something totally obvious, but is there another profession outside of Baseball Writing that so actively promotes and even prides itself on anti-intellectualism? "Decimal points too complicated for me" really??

Sales.

I guess he doesn't realize that VORP is a whole number.

I don't know about sales. I think a lot of people are persuaded to buy the item with more technical features, even if they will never use half of them.

MVP voting is out of whack

Hell yeah! Hear, hear! Preach it, good sir!

Ryan Howard was the most valuable player in the National League in 2008.

Whoa. That wasn't where I thought this was going...

It's hilarious how he writes off Pujols because of Ludwick, Ankiel and Glaus. What, Utley, Rollins and Burrell phoned it this year?

I have no problems with non-statistical arguments and considerations for the MVP. They make it interesting, and make it human. I would like, though, for them to make sense, too.

You know who should have won the NL MVP? Kosuke Fukudome. He sucked so bad in the second half, his whole team knew they were playing with just seven hitters in the line-up (eight when Zambrano pitched), and knew they had to take it up a notch if they were going to win the division. When you make your whole team better by virtue of your suckiness, that's frickin' value.

This column reads like a 2008 election postmortem conducted by Operation Rescue. Stupid voters!

ASPCA

If you're trying to make a snarky joke about acronyms, shouldn't you at least be able to spell ASCAP correctly?

If you're trying to make a snarky joke about acronyms, shouldn't you at least be able to spell ASCAP correctly?

I can't figure out if this is a really good joke, or Will isn't familiar with the ASPCA.

I can't figure out if this is a really good joke, or Will isn't familiar with the ASPCA.

I'll let you decide which is funnier.

I can't figure out if this is a really good joke, or Will isn't familiar with the ASPCA.

Neither.

Take it to the PETCO thread.

Reading the title and then just the first two words of the blurb, I was reminded of an IMDb meme: "7.9: your kidding!!?!"

"So, putting Howard 2nd was a mistake, then, given that at least one teammate was better than him."

"NO! He deserved the award you numnuts!"

I am always getting those IMDb post headers backwards too.

You know, if you're going to be a Phillies homer writer, the sense of outrage here shouldn't be that Howard didn't win, but that Utley only got 30-some votes.

Right. I get the urge to have a "winner" get the award. I don't agree with it, but I get it. What I don't get is the urge to then give the award to someone who isn't the best player on the winning team.

By the way, was Pujols asked in the press conference about this statement from two years ago.

“Someone who doesn’t take his team to the playoffs doesn’t deserve to win the MVP,” Pujols snapped in a press conference after Howard received the honors.\

I am hoping at some point since, he has taken the statement back, or softened it somehow. It wasn't a very classy thing at the time to say, it would be not classy X 2 to accept the award without making some sort of apology.

Is this the same Phil Sheridan that used to write get-off-my-lawn columns for Magnet? I know Magnet is based in Philadelphia so it's certainly possible. Even for a hipster indie-rock magazine, he was pretty douchey, ######## about how his eleven year-old daughter only likes crappy music instead of the cool music he's into and the crazy kids with their MTV and American Idol and how R.E.M. hasn't put out a decent record since the Chronic Town EP and why don't they make bands like Uncle Tupelo anymore, anyway?

By the way, was Pujols asked in the press conference about this statement from two years ago.

“Someone who doesn’t take his team to the playoffs doesn’t deserve to win the MVP,” Pujols snapped in a press conference after Howard received the honors.\

I am hoping at some point since, he has taken the statement back, or softened it somehow. It wasn't a very classy thing at the time to say, it would be not classy X 2 to accept the award without making some sort of apology.

He actually apologized for this back in 2006, saying Howard was deserving. And yes, someone did bring it up.

Damn. I like curmudgeonness, but I hate hipper-than-thou indie rock types. I'm conflicted!

I am hoping at some point since, he has taken the statement back, or softened it somehow.

He claimed he didn't say that a player from anon-winner didn't "deserve" to win- he claimed that he said that players from winning teams should be given extra consideration.

It wasn't a very classy thing at the time to say, it would be not classy X 2 to accept the award without making some sort of apology.

No it wasn't very classy, but why would accepting the award now be even less classy- if Pujols really said and believed the 2006 statement he would logically just see this year's award as evening things between him and Howard.

Thanks for the update guys. I am glad to hear he already addressed it and took the statement back. I have heard plenty of good things about Pujols as a person, and that statement seemed out of character for him.

if Pujols really said and believed the 2006 statement he would logically just see this year's award as evening things between him and Howard.

If he really said and believed it, you could call it hypocrisy to say nothing now. However, I understand that when you are given an award, it is not proper manners to criticize those that voted. Since he had already apologized for the earlier statement, there was no need in my mind to bring it up again now.

Conservative politicians...

Well I guess on that note: I forgot liberal "economics".

Too many of these guys couldn't analyze their way out of a Highlights maze.

This is quite possibly the greatest sentence ever written in the English language...

Notice there are no decimal points involved there, only whole numbers

Obviously this guy is a scholar with a particular interest in the mathematical philosophy of the great Leopold Kronecker

Obviously this guy is a scholar with a particular interest in the mathematical philosophy of the great Leopold Kronecker

I do enjoy the obscure references we get around here. I'd never heard of this guy before so today I learned something. Was he actually anti-fraction?

Surely one of the posters around here with a good PBP database can come up with a way to correct stolen base percentage for catchers faced, thereby giving us Adjusted Steal Percentage, Catcher Adjusted

You only got one adjusted in there, but there's two in your initialism. How about:

Stolen base %, adjusted against the run-value of a successful stolen base, re-adjusted for catcher SB% rate.

Also known as SP++

I'm always fascinated by people that are not just wrong, but also steadfastly convinced everyone else is wrong, and wrong to a crazy extent.

You only got one adjusted in there, but there's two in your initialism.

That was intentional - I was trying to match ASPCA.

Take it to the PETCO thread.

Unfortunately, that's no longer possible. Thanks Jim!

So here's an interesting question: had he won, would Ryan Howard have been the worst MVP selection ever? He's a slow, crappy fielding first baseman with an SLG-heavy OPS+ of 124, who wasn't particularly clutch if you happen to care about that; honestly, that's a barely above average player. Dan R the other day mentioned Roger Peckinpaugh as the worst MVP ever, but Howard may well have been worse this year. It's a good thing Pujols didn't miss more time with his injuries, or else we would have seen a major sabre sh!t storm.

He's a slow, crappy fielding first baseman with an SLG-heavy OPS+ of 124, who wasn't particularly clutch if you happen to care about that

He hit .265/.342/.545 in hi leverage situations, and .223/.318/.539 in lo.
He hit .196/.281/.442 with bases empty and .309/.396/.648 with men on- which means that he almost certainly contributed more runs to the Phils than run estimators like RC and Baseruns estimate.

On the other hand he hit .158/.306/.337 when it was "late and close" and .278/.376/.639 in 85 PAs when the score was 4+ runs

95 of his ribbies came when the game was 2 runs or closer, 51 when the score was 3+ runs.
80 of Pujols Ribbies came when the game was 2 runs or closer, 37 when the score was 3+ runs
86 of Wright's ribbies came when the game was 1 runs or closer, 38 when the score was 3+ runs

Remember how people claim AROD only drives in runs when the game isn't close? It's not true of course- its' not true for Howard- but his RBI totals do have a lot padding in them.

So here's an interesting question: had he won, would Ryan Howard have been the worst MVP selection ever?

I don't think there's any question about it.

I don't see how Howard would have been any worse than Pendleton in 91 or Gibson in 88 -- the only real difference would be lower offense years vs. current higher offense yars.

I think that this really does exemplify why it's unnecessary to leave in more units of precision than you really are capable of measuring. I don't think you lose anything from VORP if you round it to whole numbers, and you're able to cut off one avenue of approach for idiot sportswriters to say dumb stuff like this.