Yes. Utley is the MVP of this series even if he goes 0-for-4 in Game 6.

Utley has been spectacular, but if his play only leads to two wins, how valuable could it have been?

Very valuable because they could have been swept without it.

Barry Bonds was pretty obviously the most valuable player in the 2002 World Series, even if they didn't give him the award.

These are always premature. If Damon has another big game or Rivera pitches two strong innings to close it out you can make a case for either of those guys winning it. Utley is the clear MVP so far though.

Besides Richardson winning the MVP, 1960 must be the strangest World Series ever, in terms of Pythagorean records. The Yankees outscored the Pirates 55-27, yet lost the Series 4-3. Yet NY's P-record was 5.49-1.51.

The team OPS for New York was .911 (Mantle led the Yankees with a 1.135 OPS); the Pirates OPS was .656.

All of the 3 Yankee wins were double-digit jobs. They won by 13, 10 and 12 runs. Their 4 losses were much closer, losing by 2, 1, 3 and 1.

I would give Utley the MVP* for this year's Series, so far. However, by P-record, 2009 is not like 1960. The Yankees lead 3 games to 2 and have outscored Philly 25-24. That gives New York a P-record of 2.59-2.41 through 5 games.

*FWIW, Utley does not have the highest OPS in this Series among the everyday players. His OPS (1.651) is behind that of Godzilla (1.822). Cole Hamels, who had 1 PA, has an OPS of 2.000 (by hitting a single).

Richardson is the only second baseman to win the WS MVP? Knock me down with a feather and call me Mother Goose. I had zero idea.

Mark Lemke was robbed. By someone. Probably in New York.

FWIW, Utley does not have the highest OPS in this Series among the everyday players. His OPS (1.651) is behind that of Godzilla (1.822).

Matsui has started only two games.

Nobody who has apparent problems with the directions on the tube of hair gel should be rewarded with a series MVP.

#6 -- keep in mind that the WS MVP didn't start until 1955. Also note that pitchers have been overrepresented on the MVP list, winning almost half the time (25/54).

Utley has been spectacular, but if his play only leads to two wins, how valuable could it have been?

Which Yankee has personally won three games?

These things are a joke.

Richardson is the only second baseman to win the WS MVP? Knock me down with a feather and call me Mother Goose. I had zero idea.

Mark Bellhorn should have been the second.

Does anyone else love Matsui's hair? I had some English friends that referred to the style as "curtains." It's like he got it done in 1995 and has ever since just told his barber, "the usual."

Matsui has started only two games.

Yeah, 'zilla's not the MVP. I should have noted he has only half the PAs of Utley (10/21). And defensively, there is no comparison.

Which Yankee has personally won three games?

Jesus.

Also note that pitchers have been overrepresented on the MVP list, winning almost half the time (25/54).

They seem to be pretty fairly represented given the huge roles they can play in a single series. For example, last year's WS MVP (Cole Hamels) pitched 13 innings in a five game series. That's the equivalent of 420 IP in a 162 game season, or 30% of his team's innings.

Besides Richardson winning the MVP, 1960 must be the strangest World Series ever, in terms of Pythagorean records. The Yankees outscored the Pirates 55-27, yet lost the Series 4-3. Yet NY's P-record was 5.49-1.51.

The team OPS for New York was .911 (Mantle led the Yankees with a 1.135 OPS); the Pirates OPS was .656.

Mick's OPS was actually 1.345 (.400/.545/.800), .291 above Richardson's. Mantle also holds 2nd place for WS RBIs with 11, same year. Bobby did have a grand slam, 6-RBI game, and 2-triple game, all of which obviously swayed the voters.

#17 -- my bad on No. 7. (I must have been drinking from his water bottle.)

#16 -- I agree. And the other thing which seems to win MVPs is a couple or three home runs in a Series. In that 2nd basemen, Utley notwithstanding, tend to hit fewer home runs as a rule than any other position, it's more understandable why none has been handed that award since B-Rich. (However, Bucky Dent, 1978, .417 Avg, no home runs, was the WS MVP, so there is always hope for the David Eckstein-types.)

Utley has been spectacular, but if his play only leads to two wins, how valuable could it have been?

Very valuable because they could have been swept without it.

Agreed. Value is value. The idea that Utley's contributions would have been more valuable if his teammates had performed better makes absolutely no sense.

The MVP is an individual award. How your teammates perform by your side shouldn't be a factor in the voting.

However, Bucky Dent, 1978, .417 Avg, no home runs, was the WS MVP, so there is always hope for the David Eckstein-types.

Funny, I'd think David Eckstein's WS MVP was a source of greater hope for the David Eckstein types.

FWIW, ESPN has a poll up with the options being Utley, Lee, Damon and Rivera. As for now:

Utley: 58%
Lee: 18%
Damon: 13%
Rivera: 11%

I wonder if a team down 3-2 heading into Game 6 has ever had more than 75% of the MVP vote before.

Also, Utley is winning every state (even NY) except Arkansas. Cliff Lee must have a big family.

I wonder if a team down 3-2 heading into Game 6 has ever had almost 70% of the MVP vote before.

You may want to check your math there, RB.

You may want to check your math there, RB.

Actually, I want to check not inexplicably adding Rivera's total to Utley's.

Also, Utley is winning every state (even NY) except Arkansas. Cliff Lee must have a big family.

After last night he's probably captured the state's most populous county, Pulaski, which of course produced AJ Burnett.

Arguably, Casimir Pulaski was the greatest Polish general fighting for the American cause in the Revolutionary war of any of our great Polish generals, especially among those who spoke almost no English, but could lead soldiers on horseback.

Arguably, Casimir Pulaski was the greatest Polish general fighting for the American cause in the Revolutionary war of any of our great Polish generals, especially among those who spoke almost no English, but could lead soldiers on horseback.

I didn't expect to read that post, and I really didn't expect it to make any sense in context. Bravo, Rich.

CC Sabathia *is* the state's most populous county.

Arguably, Casimir Pulaski was the greatest Polish general fighting for the American cause in the Revolutionary war of any of our great Polish generals, especially among those who spoke almost no English, but could lead soldiers on horseback.

Only because his name is easier to pronounce than Tadeusz Kościuszko

And here I was going to make a joke about Switzerland extraditing him to America.

Polish generals

General Clean? It does have a catchy "postmodern branding" feel to it.

Nobody who has apparent problems with the directions on the tube of hair gel should be rewarded with a series MVP.

Seriously. It's so bad that even Pat Riley called him up the other night and told him to ease up a little.

Kościuszko

Hey, he got a bridge named after him. Don't be greedy.

Hey, he got a bridge named after him. Don't be greedy.

They've got nearby Indiana counties named after them, with only a county named after Steamboat Bobby in between them.

So, which are the most ludicrous World Series MVPs ever? Most of the time the winner seems to be somewhat deserving. The two that stick out in my mind are Livan in '97 (probably should have been Moises Alou) and Manny in '04 (should have been Bellhorn). I remember there was one article after the '04 series which pointed out that Manny, in terms of some WPA-type stat, was actually the LEAST valuable player in the whole '04 series. He was very much "Manny Being Manny" in the outfield for those four games too; I remember some terrible plays out there.

Kościuszko
Hey, he got a bridge named after him. Don't be greedy.

But Polaski has a skyway named after him.

Does anyone else love Matsui's hair? I had some English friends that referred to the style as "curtains."

I call it "Shemp."

Pulaski also has Sufjan Stevens's best song named after him. That evens the scales a bit.

1960 is not relevant to the discussion, frankly, because the MVP votes had to be in to the pressbox prior to the start of the 8th inning - and at the time the Yankees were leading 7-4 and no one expected the Pirates to come back and win, let alone the way that it actually happened. Had 1960 occurred with the way that the voting is handled now there is no question Mazeroski would have been the MVP. Anf there is little question that the MVP in 2009 will come from the winning team.

-- MWE

Manny in '04 (should have been Bellhorn). I remember there was one article after the '04 series which pointed out that Manny, in terms of some WPA-type stat, was actually the LEAST valuable player in the whole '04 series. He was very much "Manny Being Manny" in the outfield for those four games too; I remember some terrible plays out there.

Got that damn right. Bellhorn bailed Manny out in Game 1 but Manny gets the MVP because of a pretty batting average.

God, I have no idea who you are but I want your username.

A-Rod knocks in three runs with, say, a homer in tonight's game, I think even with his first two games he gets the MVP, right or not.

Arguably, Casimir Pulaski was the greatest Polish general fighting for the American cause in the Revolutionary war of any of our great Polish generals, especially among those who spoke almost no English, but could lead soldiers on horseback.

And who amongst us here was TODAY on the Pulaski Memorial Highway? Hmmm? Any guesses? Actually, Pulaski is loved by highway departments everywhere. I was on ONE of those highways today, and I've been on the NJ skyway as well. They aren't close to each other.

1960 is not relevant to the discussion, frankly, because the MVP votes had to be in to the pressbox prior to the start of the 8th inning - and at the time the Yankees were leading 7-4 and no one expected the Pirates to come back and win, let alone the way that it actually happened. Had 1960 occurred with the way that the voting is handled now there is no question Mazeroski would have been the MVP. Anf there is little question that the MVP in 2009 will come from the winning team.

Mike, don't you think that whether Richardson's losing-team MVP happened by accident or not, that the precedent has nevertheless been set? The modern sportswriters who will be voting on this year's MVP have no idea that Richardson only one because of a flukey procedural issue -- all they know is that he won from a losing team, and that therefore an honorable precedent exists for giving the MVP to Utley even if the Phils lose.

I agree that it's unlikely that the MVP will come from the losing team this year (or any year), but just like today's Virginia GOP tidal wave election, we might actually have the perfect storm of elements coming together to make it happen: stunning performance by one player who singlehandedly dragged his team to victory in both their wins so far, a record-tying (maybe record-breaking) home run tally, and no real standouts on the other side. I can see it happening.

the MVP votes had to be in to the pressbox prior to the start of the 8th inning - and at the time the Yankees were leading 7-4 and no one expected the Pirates to come back and win, let alone the way that it actually happened.

The same thing happened during 1975 Game 6 -- Rawly Eastwick was voted WS MVP. Of course, in that case they had another 24 hours to re-vote.

stunning performance by one player who singlehandedly dragged his team to victory in both their wins so far

Obviously somebody forgot that FOX awarded Cliff Lee the Player of the Game last night!

Isn't part of the Legend of Game 6 that the scoreboard not only congratulated the Red Sox, but also flashed its congrats to Bruce Hurst, who had been voted MVP?

Isn't part of the Legend of Game 6 that the scoreboard not only congratulated the Red Sox, but also flashed its congrats to Bruce Hurst, who had been voted MVP?

Yes, but like the rest of "Game 6", its only a legend.

Facts surely available elsewhere but not yet posted in this thread:
--1960 Yankees outhomered the 1960 Pirates 10-4 in the WS, but still lost.

--2009 Phils have outhomered the 2009 Yankees 10-5 thus far.

--Utley has hit as many HRs as the Yankees have in the WS so far.

Yes, but like the rest of "Game 6", its only a legend.

It was reported by Sports Illustrated in their issue of November 3, 1986. If it's a legend, it's one that was fabricated right away.

I see no reason to think it didn't really happen.

It was reported by Sports Illustrated in their issue of November 3, 1986.

It's like that Sid Finch thing.

And who amongst us here was TODAY on the Pulaski Memorial Highway? Hmmm? Any guesses?

Not me, but I did crawl under it on the Borman.

Funny, I'd think David Eckstein's WS MVP was a source of greater hope for the David Eckstein types.

Sadly, there is no hope for the Scott Rolen types.

One way to look at this is to look at series WPA, i.e. the impact of a player's actions on the odds of his team winning the Series. (This is just WPA weighted by the impact on each game as far as the Series goes.) Utley doesn't actually fare very well by this metric, as his GIDP to end the 8th in game 2 is a huge negative. This metric really is "value" in the sense that it's a measure of how much a player contributed over an average player to his team's chances of winning. Here are the leaders by this metric:

Cliff Lee: 9.03%
Alex Rodriguez: 6.44%
Pedro Feliz: 6.10%
Johnny Damon: 5.79%
Hideki Matsui: 4.34%
....
Ryan Howard: -4.09%
Raul Ibanez: -4.49%
Robinson Cano: -6.13%
Cole Hamels: -6.56%
Brad Lidge: -8.51%

This metric is a bit unfair to game 3-5 starting pitchers, since they are being docked for their hitting where they get compared to an average hitter, and it doesn't take defense into account, but with those standard WPA caveats, these are the results. Obviously these are heavily weighted by individual events (Feliz's homer off Chamberlain being the most obvious outlier) but you could certainly argue that this is appropriate.

Where did you find series WPA?

Who is Bobby Richardson, you ask?

You're kidding, right?

And what the hell is going on with Richardson's left ear in that pic?

I just calculated it by hand from the game-by-game WPA on fangraphs.

Pulaski also has Sufjan Stevens's best song named after him.

C'mon Feel the Illinoise is named after Casimir Pulaski?

AS, did you do a smell test on that method? Do the numbers add up to something approaching what the actual odds should be of the team winning the series at this moment? I'm curious.

Oops, good catch. My numbers are all off by a factor of 2. They are relatively correct, but Cliff Lee has added 18% to the chances of the Phillies winning the series, not 9%. (With this, the numbers in my spreadsheet (which exist for all players) do add up to 25% SWPA for the Yankees and -25% SWPA for the Phils, in line with NY's current 75% chance of winning the Series.)

Richardson is the only second baseman to win the WS MVP? Knock me down with a feather and call me Mother Goose. I had zero idea.

Free Brian Doyle!

A-Rod knocks in three runs with, say, a homer in tonight's game, I think even with his first two games he gets the MVP, right or not

Wasn't Reggie pretty awful the few games of the 1977 WS before going nuts?