Man, the old-school writers used to love batting average. What happened?

Why did you link this in Obituaries, Chris?

-- MWE

Exactly. When stats like HR and RBI WILDLY contradict common sense, always doubt the stats...oh, er, um....

Why did you link this in Obituaries, Chris?

-- MWE

Just a guess, but, maybe this part:

"Thirty years ago, I created the statistic Total Average. Now I’m almost ashamed to have been one of the original baseball geeks. Where did we go wrong?"

You know, his intelligence died?

Also, I'm baffled by this...this is now the 2nd article I've seen that talks about how Albert Pujols won the MVP award "mostly because he had a better OPS and VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) than Ryan Howard". I have a hard time believing more than a handful of the voters looked at VORP.

The funny thing is that Ryan Howard had the worst year of his young career, wasn't even the most valuable player on his own team, finished second in the MVP balloting anyway, and still people are finding time to say he was robbed.

These articles really piss me off. I hate getting worked up about it, but the anti-intelligence thought process that these writers have is absolutely mind-boggling.

But none of it outweighs Howard's RBI total, built on his .320 average with runners in scoring position.

Albert Pujols hit .339 with runners in scoring positions.


Gah. How can people be so mind-numbingly stupid?

Who is this impersonator and what has he done w/ the real Boz?

Also, I'm baffled by this...this is now the 2nd article I've seen that talks about how Albert Pujols won the MVP award "mostly because he had a better OPS and VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) than Ryan Howard". I have a hard time believing more than a handful of the voters looked at VORP.

Exactly.

I'm fairly certain it's more because Pujols hit .357 while Howard hit .251.

I mean, Jesus, when was the last time a player who hit below .270 won the MVP?!

I haven't felt like this since the day Leonard Koppett died.

I'm fairly certain it's more because Pujols hit .357 while Howard hit .251.

But what about those game-changing extra-base hits?!?

I guess it only makes sense

But in a year where every sane person I know agrees that all the award winners this year made at least some kind of sense...we get a slew of articles saying the award winners are all terrible choices.

I always thought it was silly to get worked up over awards. I've never really followed the award season before this year (this lull between the World Series and the beginning of Free Agent signings has always been my week or so to write all my Fall term papers), but it's scary how riled up I am by this. Seriously...can we just get rid of sportswriters altogether?

EDIT: And I say this is someone who at least has some warm and fuzzy feelings for Boswell. He was one of my favourite parts of Ken Burns movie when I was 10.

Why did you link this in Obituaries, Chris?

Mostly because I'm an ahole.

Man, it's been rough reading the guy. He can still turn the occasional phrase, but the fastball's clearly gone.

I get tired of the "Teh BBWAA is teh stoopidest ever!!!" threads (really tired!), but the hollow reasoning of a once-great writer really sorta struck a nerve with me.

and I left out the part from TFA where he (I think) argues for KRod over Pedroia, although I can't be quite sure what he's doing there.

I never read Boswell until about 5 or 6 years ago. I get and accept that he used to write good, smart things about baseball, but man it's hard to imagine how.

Unless it's changed recently, the Washington Post is among several newspapers that do not allow its employees to vote on baseball awards. Boswell is free to use his platform to persuade, but he doesn't get a vote.

I mean, Jesus, when was the last time a player who hit below .270 won the MVP?!

1961

Mr. Gil -- if you ever see a collection of his stories in a used bookstore, pick it up.

He's an optimist, and he loves baseball, so he writes with a wonderfully genuine enthusiasm. He reads as if he's saying "Hey, let me share this cool thing I just found out with you!" and it, for the most part, works.

But that was then.

Boswell is wrong about this, but his opinion isn't much further removed from reality than those that are poo-pooing Howard's season as if it wasn't any good. Howard impacted his team this year more than his OPS or VORP indicates. It's bizarre how Boswell brushes Pujols' great year aside so easily, but I think there is a kernel of truth about how Howard's 2008 is not properly valued by sabermetrics. Boz is way overboard, but there's some truth here if you can get past how far over the edge he goes. VORP says Howard was basically the same value as Troy Glaus this year; if that's all one looked at they'd be more or less as far from the mark as Boswell. OK, Boswell would still be further off the mark. Pujols is a monster and nobody was even close to him.

VORP says Howard was basically the same value as Troy Glaus this year; if that's all one looked at they'd be more or less as far from the mark as Boswell.

(Don't take this personally Ricky, but I'm going to use your post to launch a rare, for me, rant)

I would say no more than a handful of people who frequent this site, and maybe not even that many, look at a VORP list and take that as gospel. We're all to arrogant for that. We all think we know better and use WARP or VORP or Win Shares as a beginning and not an end to our thinking. We actually watch games and have a feel for what wins ball games. We don't think Howard's season was anywhere near as good as Pujols' because it freakin wasn't. He had a good season, even a really good season, but the MVP is supposed to award the BEST season or at least close to the best taking context into consideration. And the irony remains--and remains and remains--that it's the geeks like us who are supposed to lack an appreciation for the subtleties of winning baseball because we're too caught up in stats, but when award time comes around and the BBWAA members get a chance to dazzle us with their knowledge, not only do they simply grab hold of the nearest stat available to prop up whatever narrative they want to pimp, but they grab hold of the shallowest stats possible and bludgeon anything that moves over the head with them. Ryan Howard is more valuable than Chase Utley? Please. Just ####### please. Watch a few goddam baseball games and tell me Howard is a better ballplayer than Chase Utley. WHen you can do that, then we'll talk about Howard vs. Albert Pujols. It amazes me that they manage to crap their pants every year even in a year where they stumble into the right choices. (I know I'm painting with a broad brush here, but I'm irritated. Sorry.)

I'm also depressed Boz has fallen this far. Total Average, in a real way, was my introduction to the new stats. I loved that issue when it came out in the winter.

1961

Ha, and even then just barely. And still solidly higher than Howard's.

Shooty hit the nail on the head. The BBWAA worships the statistics far more than any "stathead geek" that I know.

Watch a few goddam baseball games and tell me Howard is a better ballplayer than Chase Utley.

I've got to agree with Shooty here. I followed the Phillies all season, had Howard on my scoresheet team, etc. etc. The man was HORRIBLE the first three months of the season. In his first 300 PA's for the season he was at .212/.312/.459. His next 400 PA's were .279/.358/.604. Doing that all year would have put him 5th in the NL in OPS, but he didn't do it all year and didn't make the top ten in OPS.

As for the Ribbies.

Howard had 483 runners on base in his 700 PA's (drove in 98 or 20%)
Pujols had 436 runners on base in his 641 PA's (drove in 79 or 18%)

Given equal opportunities they would have been damn near even in non-HR RBIs and Pujols used a lot fewer outs to get there.

And we aren't even considering defense where Howard had more errors than non-1B assists.

Shooty, that was the best rant ever.

Shooty, that was the best rant ever.

Thanks. I don't have many bullets, so I try to make them count. It made me feel better to get that off my chest. Now back to my presidential campaign and creepily ineffective double entendres. Good night guys.

Ryan Howard is more valuable than Chase Utley? Please. Just ####### please. Watch a few goddam baseball games and tell me Howard is a better ballplayer than Chase Utley.

I'll just say that my team plays the Phillies roughly 50 times a year and the reaction to those two players is quite different. Howard is more of a carnival sideshow, sure he'll crush a mistake now and then but mostly he'll just K, lumber around, and butcher a play or two at first. Utley, on the other hand, scares the living #### out everyone. He rakes everything. I can't imagine anyone actually watching the two of them for an extended period and concluding that Howard was more valuable. Of course, I don't expect hardly any of the voters have watched them for an extended period so there you go.

Hmm, I'm not saying that Howard wasn't a lot more valuable than Troy Glaus this year, but is the argument something other than shiny HR and RBI numbers and a good September? Because those arguments move me not at all. Maybe I'm a geek. (Although I don't think it's irrational to think September is more important in this kind of voting, I emphatically do not.)

Don't analyze beyond that. True, Howard can't field (19 errors). And Pujols outhit him by .357 to .251. Howard strikes out a ton while Pujols walks constantly. But none of it outweighs Howard's RBI total, built on his .320 average with runners in scoring position. For what it's worth, Howard wasn't even in the top half dozen in baseball in runners-on-base when he came to the plate. His 146 RBI wasn't a fluke. He's Mr. Multi-Run Homer.

I'm getting sick and tired of not giving any mention of a reason why Howard has that many RBI over Pujols. If you have Rollins and Utley hitting ahead of you vs. Adam Kennedy, Ceaser Izurtis, and Aaron Miles, you're just going to have a better chance of cashing in an RBI with Rollins and Utley.

You cannot blame Albert Pujols for the roster construction of the Cardinals.

But none of it outweighs Howard's RBI total

Yes, Tom, it does.

Howard led the league in percentage of runners driven in at 20.2%. That's a point in his favor.

But Bengie Molina was second (among those with 500+ PA) at 19.3%, and I didn't see him in anyone's down-ballot slots. Why? Because *the rest of his numbers weren't good enough*. Kinda like how Howard's low BA and OBP and therefore much higher number of outs weighs in, too.

Shooty you always shoot bullets.

Let me add to Shooty's rant. I don't even think of it from the POV that Howard is a better player than Pujols or vice-versa. I'm perfectly willing to entertain the argument that contextual performance should be given more weight for MVP voting than context-neutral measures. So, okay, forget the simple fact, seemingly conceded by everyone, that Pujols had the better season. What bugs me is that the writers want to go this route, and then they completely throw context and narrative of the whole freakin' season out the window.

This is not at a kind of situation where Pujols toiled on a team like the Pirates or Rangers. At the beginning of the season Phillie was considered a top contender, even a favorite by some, to win the NL East. The Cardinals, OTOH, were NOT considered a contender, not even in the "surprise" category. Howard opened up the season sucking, and his team suffered for that. Pujols, meanwhile, maintained a high-level of performance throughout the season. And this resulted in his team being in the thick of it all season. I tell you as a Cubs fan, all year I was waiting for them to fade into oblivion, and all year they just wouldn't go away. Finally, the Cubs pulled away and the Astros, after going on a frickin' ridiculous tear, caught the Cards in September. Not thanks to any tanking on Pujols part. The man hit .321/.427/.702!!! My God! The team falling apart around him, and by his mighty bat he still kept them near a shot at the playoffs. These guys bring up "4th place" and "11 games out", and don't seem to notice that they were 86-76. That's not a crappy record at all. It was the 6th best record in the whole damn league! Take away Pujols, and the Cards not only miss the playoffs (by a lot), they probably don't clear .500.

That's value. Value for the team, and value for the fans watching.

Howard, OTOH, sucked every other month of the season. It's not like he was hitting well and then turned it up a notch. He sucked in April, and the Phils languished near .500. He sucked in June, when the team played well, covering his ass. He sucked in August, when the team could have used him to fend off the Mets. Had Howard not sucked in those months, he wouldn't have needed a hot September to push his team over the top; they would have already been there, in the safe upper 90s territory rather than making a mad dash to clear 90 wins.

Basically, these writers want to give Howard the MVP for a hot couple of weeks that pushed his team into the playoffs. But sorry, if you want to use that criteria for MVP, you have to vote for Manny Ramirez.

I mean, that's it in non-statgeek terms, no VORP, WARP, or even OPS+. That's the narrative of the season. But it's too hard, I guess, to follow that. So much easier to just discount everything before September, look at the final standings and vote based on that.

And like others, this disappoints me coming from Boswell.

Here are the two Washington writers who disagreed.

This guy didn't even have him on the ballot. This guy placed him tenth.

Hmm, I'm not saying that Howard wasn't a lot more valuable than Troy Glaus this year, but is the argument something other than shiny HR and RBI numbers and a good September?

Well, let me preface this by saying that I agree with virtually all Shooty said in #20. And I'm definitely NOT someone that thinks Howard deserved the MVP. He wouldn't make my top 5 if I were voting, and probably would wind up in the 8-10 range on my ballot. I guess I'm 75% sabermetrics and 25% Luddite (or whatever). I think Howard, despite a slow start, had a heckuva year.

Check this out:

Howard with RISP: 320/439/589
Howard with Men On: 309/396/648
Howard with Bases Empty: 196/281/442

I've got to believe that's an usually huge disparity in situational performance. Look, there's no doubt at all Howard crapped the bed with bases empty. But given the superhuman hitting with runners on base, I have no doubt his true offensive value in '08 far exceeded his OPS+. OPS+ and, I assume, various other metrics don't know he went from Luis Pujols to Albert Pujols when runners reached base. That context is significant. For that reason, I don't think the massive RBI should be dismissed as superficial like he was Joe Carter 2.0 or something.

Howard led the league in percentage of runners driven in at 20.2%. That's a point in his favor.

I think this is a big point in his favor. I know it isn't a special skill. He'll probably never lead the league in this category again. He may never finish top 10 again. Heck, it may have been blind luck for all I know. That said, these ridiculously pronounced splits with bases empty and runners on, while flukish, really happened. And I think it was valuable in a way that is not going to be reflected in metrics that aren't built to look for such quirks.

Of course, I'm probably wrong about this. :-) And I'm more than willing to go to school on the thoughts and observations of others.

Ricky C., I honestly have no idea if these stats rebut what you've said about his value being due to his excellence with runners on base, but Howard was 23rd in the NL in WPA, 16th in WPA/LI. I bet a lot of that has to do with him being beyond terrible (.158/.306/.337 in 124 PA) in close & late games.

But none of it outweighs Howard's RBI total

I know I've already posted in this thread, and Shooty and CFiJ have said all that really needs to be said, but this sentence just awes me. Because it so exemplifies our vision of the BBWAA. He mocks the "statgeeks" for their blind following of the stats. He says we don't watch games; we just pick the guy with the highest DFASJK. But it's he himself who can't look beyond one simple stat. RBI.

He was inferior in a,b,c,d,e,f & g, but he has more RBI and that is the be-all, end-all!

Astonishing. I know the BBWAA as a whole got it right, but holy man...

As for the Ribbies.

Howard had 483 runners on base in his 700 PA's (drove in 98 or 20%)
Pujols had 436 runners on base in his 641 PA's (drove in 79 or 18%)

Given equal opportunities they would have been damn near even in non-HR RBIs and Pujols used a lot fewer outs to get there.

It would be nice if there were similar stats for when a batter's on base--what the batters did while the player was on base. It would provider a quicker way of explaining why Howard had more total runs scored (and was pretty close on runs/PA) despite having an OBP over a hundred points lower.


That said, yeah. I never thought so many would balk at awarding an MVP to someone with numbers like this.
I mean, I

I think the "saber" number that best captures what we're talking about here is BRAA. You may prefer WPA or WPA/LI; WPA/LI and BRAA are pretty close to the same thing anyway.

BRAA is simply how many runs a player added to his team. For example, in a traditional linear weights analysis, each home run is worth (roughly) 1.4 runs. For BRAA, if a player hits a solo home run, he's credited with one run. If a player hits a bases loaded home run, he's credited for all the runs that scored minus the starting run expectancy. So if the starting run expectancy with a runner on and no outs is 2.3, a player would get credit for 4-2.3 = 1.7 runs instead. If he hits a bases loaded home run with two outs, he would get credit for 4-.8=3.2 runs.

So now we have a metric that takes into account a player's run production for his particular team, not in the abstract - a measure that "properly" rewards a player for hitting bases-loaded home runs, rather than bases-empty home runs.

And at 73 runs for Pujols to 39 for Howard, Pujols absolutely destroys him. Completely and utterly.

While I enjoyed Boz's righteous bashing of people who totally deserve it (take a bow, nerds), his choice of context sucks. It's as if some Emma Goldman type had ignored Kronstadt and instead chosen the occasion of Admiral Kolchak's trial to tell the Bolsheviks that they'd gone too far. Both stathead and traditionalist cases can be made for Howard or Pujols. God knows there are myriad examples of robonerdian interpretations and methods gone far past far too ####### far; it's too bad Boswell (who is well placed and has the credentials to make a serious critique) chose this occasion to kick cheeky people in the teeth.

Try again, Boz! I'm rooting for you! Sure, the geeks here will call for your retirement (the memory hole, the airbrush -- da, comrades?), but your old pal Retardo knows that you and James are rightly horrified at what you've spawned. Save decent baseball fans from your (former) followers!

BRAA is simply how many runs a player added to his team. For example, in a traditional linear weights analysis, each home run is worth (roughly) 1.4 runs. For BRAA, if a player hits a solo home run, he's credited with one run. If a player hits a bases loaded home run, he's credited for all the runs that scored minus the starting run expectancy. So if the starting run expectancy with a runner on and no outs is 2.3, a player would get credit for 4-2.3 = 1.7 runs instead. If he hits a bases loaded home run with two outs, he would get credit for 4-.8=3.2 runs.

I understand the concept, but either you made a mistake in your examples, or I'm misunderstanding them. You said:

"So if the starting run expectancy with a runner on and no outs is 2.3, a player would get credit for 4-2.3 = 1.7 runs instead."

If there's a runner on and no outs, he can't hit a grand slam...Did you mean, if the run expectency with the bases loaded and no outs is 2.3? That would jive with FanGraphs definition of BRAA:

"BRAA (batting runs above average): BRAA is the difference in run expectancy (RE) between the start of the play and the end of the play. That difference is then credited/debited to the batter and the pitcher. Over the course of the season, each players’ BRAA for individual plays is added up to get his season total BRAA."

"So if the starting run expectancy with a runner on and no outs is 2.3, a player would get credit for 4-2.3 = 1.7 runs instead."

Yeah, that should probably read "bases loaded", not "a runner on", because 4 is the number of runs scored on a slam (duh), and 2.3 is the run expectancy with bases loaded no outs...

Evan then, it's still wrong though. You need to add the run expectancy with bases empty, nobody out as well (0.5-ish). So it would come out at about 2.2 total, not 1.7.

Retardo, aren't you a little old to partake in such gratuitous flame-baiting?

Don't bite, fishies.

Both Thought Riot and Fancy Pants Handle are correct. I'm tired.

The larger point still stands, though. Realistically the only way you can say that Ryan Howard had a better offensive season than Albert Pujols is if you give him credit for the contributions of other players, probably better players. (I have no qualms in saying that Utley and Rollins are better all-around ballplayers than Howard; I'd have to at least check a few other things before saying that about Victorino.)

I'm as much for contextualizing statistics as anyone, but Boswell has gone way off the deep end here, in ways that have been pointed out by everyone else. What an embarassment he's become. When it comes to the MVP I thoroughly favor the idea of weighting late season stats, and giving bonus points for players on winning teams, and I can easily defend a top 5 vote for Howard. But those 115 extra outs combined with the chasm in defensive value between Howard and Pujols can't be bridged that easily.

As others have pointed out, Boz used to be a great writer, or I should say a great game day reporter. He could write a minor literary masterpiece on the tightest deadline better than any beat reporter I've ever read. And I've read a lot of them. His downfall began the day that they switched him from reporting to mere opinionating.

But this isn't the first time he's lost it, and lost it badly. When TSN put out their all-century team, Boz's most noteworthy reaction to it was "Who is Oscar Charleston?" What's worse was that he knew full well who Charleston was, and he knew the many good reasons why Ty Cobb was often referred to as "the black Oscar Charleston." It was just a gratuitous comment by someone who should have known better.

I'll play polemical psychiatrist for a second, and say this: Boz is simply jealous that his thunder has been stolen by others who've put in far more effort and study into their work than he has. He's a little miffed that his Total Average concept has been eclipsed.

And Repoz, I hope you're not comparing Boz in any way to Leonard Koppett. Koppett lived to 79 and right up to the end his mind was as open as ever. Boswell's been writing the same column now for about 25 years. At this point, if you're going to make comparisons of Boz to a dead writer, try Scotty Reston, whose career arc provides a parallel that's positively creepy. Those of a certain age should know exactly what I mean.

I wonder what the BBWAA can do about this. They're not the statistical analysts that others are, and they get into a lot of trouble when they try. OTOH there are 16 teams in one league and 14 in the other, so (1) watching each team every day is pretty much impossible and (2) updates from fellow writers who do watch those other teams aren't nearly as regular as when each team faced the other 22 times a year. Just as an example, I don't think I've seen anything written about this game, where Pujols scored the tie-breaking run in the 9th, starting at second base, on an errorless groundout (WPA didn't see it either; it thinks Ankiel had a great at-bat). If you're not hearing about stuff like this, it's hard to talk sensibly about intangibles. So...

At this point the voters are left to intangiblize stats like RBIs and September splits, to pretend something that does show up in the box score somehow explains those things that don't. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. What else can the BBWAA do though? I don't know, but it seems kinda silly to keep doing what they're doing now.

I wonder if Boswell ever thought Dave Kingman should have been MVP? Howard was basically Kingman this year - he excelled at hitting homeruns, and sucked at everything else.

Retardo, aren't you a little old to partake in such gratuitous flame-baiting?

Aw c'mon--you have to admit that it was a fun read.

Agree, disagree--doesn't matter, it's art.

Good seeing you back in the saddle Retardo.

Best Regards

John

Ty Cobb was often referred to as "the black Oscar Charleston."

I bet he killed the guys who said that.

All that golf writing has caught up to Boswell, and now he also spends too much time writing about the Redskins, which is never a very good thing. I still think he can show flashes, but is now more suited to writing about things he likes, rather than critical thinking about current issues.

I miss your Nats blog Chris.

Ah, but the Mets fans will come out and tell you that Kingman never hit a meaningful home run. Kind of like what they said about George Foster. I was going to say the same thing as Shock, essentially, these voters just use blunter stats, but they are really RBI, winning percentage, pennant drive batting average/rbi statheads.

I'm as much for contextualizing statistics as anyone, but Boswell has gone way off the deep end here, in ways that have been pointed out by everyone else. What an embarassment he's become. When it comes to the MVP I thoroughly favor the idea of weighting late season stats, and giving bonus points for players on winning teams, and I can easily defend a top 5 vote for Howard. But those 115 extra outs combined with the chasm in defensive value between Howard and Pujols can't be bridged that easily.

I can understand all sorts of credit for context; I don't agree, but I can understand. What I can't understand is "weighting late season stats," for which there is absolutely no rational argument whatsoever.

I've got to believe that's an usually huge disparity in situational performance. Look, there's no doubt at all Howard crapped the bed with bases empty. But given the superhuman hitting with runners on base, I have no doubt his true offensive value in '08 far exceeded his OPS+.

Offense isn't one-sided. For a player to be MVP material he has to help on both sides of the ball-not only being a finisher but also a starter. An OBP of .267 (Pujols .418) when leading off, for a player with Howard's speed, is abysmal. How many times did the guys coming up behind him fail to get any RBIs because his fat ass was back in the dugout? Then there's the runs scored in an inning when neither player had either a run or an RBI, but was involved anyway-I'll bet bagels to doughnuts that Pujols killed Howard in that category as well, if someone did enough digging.

Oh, and here's the Total Averages, in case anyone was wondering:

Howard: .884
Pujols: 1.278

I'm as much for contextualizing statistics as anyone, but Boswell has gone way off the deep end here, in ways that have been pointed out by everyone else. What an embarassment he's become. When it comes to the MVP I thoroughly favor the idea of weighting late season stats, and giving bonus points for players on winning teams, and I can easily defend a top 5 vote for Howard. But those 115 extra outs combined with the chasm in defensive value between Howard and Pujols can't be bridged that easily.

I can understand all sorts of credit for context; I don't agree, but I can understand. What I can't understand is "weighting late season stats," for which there is absolutely no rational argument whatsoever.

Not in a mathematical sense, perhaps, but again, take this hypothetical case of two teammates on a contending team that's tied for the division lead at the end of August.

Player A hits .400 in September, has 15 home runs, 30 RBI, and a 1.400 OPS. And with two outs in the last of the ninth of the final game of the season, he hits a walkoff grand slam to clinch the division title and put his team into the postseason.

Player B hits .200 in September, has 2 home runs, 6 RBI, and a .450 OPS. And with one out in the last of the ninth of the final game of the season, he watches three straight changeups down the middle, setting the stage for Player A's grand slam walkoff one batter later.

But at the season's end, Player B's overall numbers are still slightly better.

Now obviously Player A would win my MVP vote, and the writers' as well. But would he win yours? And if not, why not?

The problem I have with Howard is that the productivity gap between him and Pujols was way too big to overcome with late season heroics, and while RBI are important, they're also dependent on opportunity. So as I said, my vote would have gone to Pujols without question. I'm not sure where I would have placed Howard, but probably not in the top 5. Defense is also a factor I consider in the case of outstanding or dreadful glovemanship, which upon further study might push Howard down another notch or two.

But in between Pujols/Howard and the hypothetical I described above, there are many real life cases where it's not so clear a call. And yes, whether it's rational or not, I still give a certain amount of leverage to late season performance, and feel no need to apologize for that.

Howard had a weird split this year: OPS 1.044 with men on base, .723 with bases empty. (Pujols's, by contrast, was 1.131 to 1.095.) Looking at guys on bases turned Howard from Jeremy Hermida into Chipper Jones. The upside is that he really was there in a lot, lot of situations where the Phillies actually did score, and he was outstanding therein. The downside for his MVP case, of course, is that even at that, Pujols was better in those situations, and would have had more RBI than Howard given Howard's opportunities. (Howard had 47 more PAs with RISP, in only 15 more games started.)

This remains one of the harder concepts, bizarrely enough, to get across in these MVP debates. If the Phillies had traded Howard even-up for Pujols at the beginning of the season, they would have been a lot better off. (Since they are both first basemen, the imaginary trade is easy to evaluate.) Hence Pujols had, it would seem beyond dispute, more value. Sure, the Phillies won the division, but they would absolutely have won it by more games if that trade had been made.
Edited for (at least some) clarity

take this hypothetical case of two teammates on a contending team that's tied for the division lead at the end of August.

The problem is that you are acting like this situation is random, or uncontrolled. As if the two players just came off the DL and were placed in this position. In such a case, your argument would obviously have merit. However, in reality, this is not the case. The reason those teams are in the situation they are in is directly related to the way the team played in the previous 4 months of the season. That's why those games matter just as much.

If Player A had hit the way he did in August in July as well, then his team would not be in that situation, and he wouldn't be considered an MVP candidate. This is where the argument falls apart.

Had Howard hit consistently the same throughout the year, say, .260/.360/.550, the Phillies would have still won the division, but they would have done so in an undramatic fashion and would have not needed any "late-season heroics." Howard would have been more valuable to the Phils, and the Phils would have won their division by a wider margin, and yet, Howard would have received far less support for MVP.

Now how does that make any sense?

take this hypothetical case of two teammates on a contending team that's tied for the division lead at the end of August.

Player A hits .400 in September, has 15 home runs, 30 RBI, and a 1.400 OPS. And with two outs in the last of the ninth of the final game of the season, he hits a walkoff grand slam to clinch the division title and put his team into the postseason.

Player B hits .200 in September, has 2 home runs, 6 RBI, and a .450 OPS. And with one out in the last of the ninth of the final game of the season, he watches three straight changeups down the middle, setting the stage for Player A's grand slam walkoff one batter later.

But at the season's end, Player B's overall numbers are still slightly better.

Now obviously Player A would win my MVP vote, and the writers' as well. But would he win yours? And if not, why not?

The problem is that you are acting like this situation is random, or uncontrolled. As if the two players just came off the DL and were placed in this position. In such a case, your argument would obviously have merit. However, in reality, this is not the case. The reason those teams are in the situation they are in is directly related to the way the team played in the previous 4 months of the season. That's why those games matter just as much.

First, it's obvious in my hypothetical case that Player B would have performed far better than Player A prior to September, since their overall season totals were nearly identical. Given the facts as I presented them, I didn't feel any need to spell that out. There was nothing "random" about my scenario.

And yes, of course those early season games "matter as much." But the facts as I laid them out above still remain: With a month to go and the division there for the taking, Player A carried the team on his back and Player B hurt his team. To expect voters to overlook that, in a case where the season statistics were as close as I described (which was NOT the case between Pujols and Howard), is to expect human nature to be replaced by a computer, which ain't gonna happen.

Way to completely ignore what I said.

But this isn't the first time he's lost it, and lost it badly. When TSN put out their all-century team, Boz's most noteworthy reaction to it was "Who is Oscar Charleston?"

Boswell also thought that the Yomiuri Giants played in a city named Yomiuri that could not possibly be anywhere near the size of DC, or Boswell would have heard of it.

A few weeks back, in one of his WaPo chats, someone asked him if he had any comments about the Potomac Nationals, the Nats' single-A affiliate who had just won the Carolina League.

I think (hope?) he was joking when he said he'd never heard of them. But sometimes I wonder.

Way to completely ignore what I said.

Yeah, right. You might have begun this exchange by quoting what I said in context, rather than just rebutting what you thought I said. I understand your point completely, but you never addressed the hypothetical I posited. You might simply say whether or not, given the facts as I laid them out, you would still have voted for Player B.

You've already laid out the reasoning for that decision, but what I was trying to determine is whether or not the general point that you and others are making (all games have equal importance) should be applied even in cases as extreme as the one I outlined. IOW are you willing to take your general principle---which none of us here disagrees with in most cases, although Boswell seems to---to a reducto ad absurdum conclusion?

Oh, and here's the Total Averages, in case anyone was wondering:

Howard: .884
Pujols: 1.278

I liked Total Average back in the day, but I have no clue what a good one is anymore. In the early '80s, I thought anything over 1.000 was good, but offenses weren't as high-powered in those days.

What I can't understand is "weighting late season stats," for which there is absolutely no rational argument whatsoever.

I think that this should vary from team to team. I wouldn't weigh more heavily what any Angel did after Memorial Day, for example.

JoePo takes him down a few pegs.

A comment from #61's link:

"im glad i didnt grow up reading boz or idolize him in any way so i dont have to feel guilty about thinking he totally sucks after reading his terrible article. regardless of if he was ever any good, he is a straight up hack now."

LOLZ, and eloquently stated.

Aw c'mon--you have to admit that it was a fun read.

I would if I knew more about the history of socialism and Marxism. I mean RETARDO's post has a positively Repozian Dennis Miller quotient.

JoePo seems to get better with every column, and if Boswell has an ounce of self-respect left (which I'm sure he does), he's got to be embarrassed by how thoroughly Poz dissected him.

And I hadn't even noticed that Boz had also said that K-Rod should have been the AL's MVP! Jesus Motherf*ck*r of Mercy! The only way that makes sense is as a strategy on Boz's part to spread the ridicule around, and to make people move on from the garbage he wrote about Howard and Pujols.

Man, how Boswell has fallen. He's not even the third or fourth best writer on that staff any more. Wilbon, Jenkins and Wise write rings around him, and I'm sure that there's at least one more if I gave it two minutes of thought. It's very sad to watch this from a guy who used to be one of the best.

But the facts as I laid them out above still remain: With a month to go and the division there for the taking, Player A carried the team on his back and Player B hurt his team.

But the facts that are ignored are that in the games before that, Player B had to carry the team while Player A hurt the team. Without Player B, Player A never has a chance to "carry his team." I understand that people will forget this. I just don't get why we reward some one for taking off the first few months and then deciding to play the last month of the season.

You've already laid out the reasoning for that decision, but what I was trying to determine is whether or not the general point that you and others are making (all games have equal importance) should be applied even in cases as extreme as the one I outlined. IOW are you willing to take your general principle---which none of us here disagrees with in most cases, although Boswell seems to---to a reducto ad absurdum conclusion?

Of course it should be applied in the case you described; since the games are equal -- not almost equal, not kind of equal, but exactly equal -- your example is not more "extreme," and there's nothing more "absurd" about it.

It's like discussing murder, and I say that you should be given the same 30 years in prison whether you killed the victim with 1 shot to the head or 10, and then you say, "Well, what if it's 100 shots to the head? Should I get the same sentence then, even in that extreme?" 100 isn't actually any more "extreme" than 10; he's the same dead either way. The games have the same value, so it doesn't matter how you arrange them, whether he has a 1.000 OPS in April and a 0 in September or vice versa. You can't change the facts by making the disparity between the monthly performances bigger.

Is nobody bothered by his suggestion that a guy who pitched about 70 innings not quite as well as 4 or 5 other guys who pitched 70 innings should have been the AL MVP?

At least Boswell sounded good in that Ken Burns thing, Wilbon and Wise have lost a lot of credibility being seen and heard, I think.

Is nobody bothered by his suggestion that a guy who pitched about 70 innings not quite as well as 4 or 5 other guys who pitched 70 innings should have been the AL MVP?

Sure, but we're burnt out making fun of this in other threads.

Alas, 'tis the final gasp of Boz's credibility.

Still, a great stylist.

But at the season's end, Player B's overall numbers are still slightly better.

Now obviously Player A would win my MVP vote, and the writers' as well. But would he win yours?

Yes, but the scenario is wildly skewed.

A more interesting scenario is this:

Player A hits .350 in September, has 10 home runs, 25 RBI, and a 1.250 OPS. And with two outs in the bottom of the eighth of the next to last game of the season, he hits a 3 run home run to take the lead and his team holds on to win, clinching the division title and putting his team into the postseason.

Player B hits .225 in September, has 4 home runs, 12 RBI, and a .675 OPS. And with two outs in the bottom of the eighth of the next to last game of the season, walks when the 3-1 count pitch is a curveball in the dirt- and is on 1B when player A's homer gives them the lead.

But at the season's end, Player B's overall numbers 300/.390/.575 (40-125); are better than A's .280/.360/.540 (35-110).

Who should get the MVP vote

Alas, 'tis the final gasp of Boz's credibility.

Still, a great stylist.

If he holds to recent form, he'll have a column in the paper next week lauding Pujols for his greatness as evidenced by his recent MVP award.

You've already laid out the reasoning for that decision, but what I was trying to determine is whether or not the general point that you and others are making (all games have equal importance) should be applied even in cases as extreme as the one I outlined. IOW are you willing to take your general principle---which none of us here disagrees with in most cases, although Boswell seems to---to a reducto ad absurdum conclusion?

Of course it should be applied in the case you described; since the games are equal -- not almost equal, not kind of equal, but exactly equal -- your example is not more "extreme," and there's nothing more "absurd" about it.

Well, you and your mother may be the only two people on Earth who would take this position on my hypothetical, but your straightforward answer is nevertheless appreciated.

----------------------------------

But at the season's end, Player B's overall numbers are still slightly better.

Now obviously Player A would win my MVP vote, and the writers' as well. But would he win yours?

Yes, but the scenario is wildly skewed.

A more interesting scenario is this:

Player A hits .350 in September, has 10 home runs, 25 RBI, and a 1.250 OPS. And with two outs in the bottom of the eighth of the next to last game of the season, he hits a 3 run home run to take the lead and his team holds on to win, clinching the division title and putting his team into the postseason.

Player B hits .225 in September, has 4 home runs, 12 RBI, and a .675 OPS. And with two outs in the bottom of the eighth of the next to last game of the season, walks when the 3-1 count pitch is a curveball in the dirt- and is on 1B when player A's homer gives them the lead.

But at the season's end, Player B's overall numbers 300/.390/.575 (40-125); are better than A's .280/.360/.540 (35-110).

Who should get the MVP vote

Player A would still get mine, and most of the writers as well. At least I'd imagine he would. But it would be a much closer call, and you're right---this sort of scenario gets us closer to reality than mine does.

And this is what I was trying to do---get someone to suggest cases that were in between the two extremes of my hypothetical and the Pujols / Howard case. I can live with differing opinions in your scenario, but the other two are pretty slam dunk to most non-mathematicians (regarding my hypothetical) and to most writers (regarding the 2008 vote).

And then there's Slide Rule David, the man who would submit Rouault or Charlie Parker to statistical analysis. Don't ever change, my man.

Alas, 'tis the final gasp of Boz's credibility.

Still, a great stylist.

If he holds to recent form, he'll have a column in the paper next week lauding Pujols for his greatness as evidenced by his recent MVP award.

Vegas already has that one down at 8-9.

Aren't all these ridiculous votes and assertions about who was the "real" MVP caused by the instructions to the voters? The slightly legalistic language that's supposed to clarify the issue just allows the writers to use whatever criteria they want in casting a ballot. Look:

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.
2. Number of games played.
3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.
4. Former winners are eligible.
5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

Unless you're casting about for a reason not to vote simply for the best player, this clearly says, "Vote for the player who had the best season, regardless of off-field intangibles. Factor in how much of the season he played in case two players put up similarly outstanding rate numbers in a differing number of games. Now factor in scrappiness, grit and heart if you must. Don't forget guys who've won it before, or who share the same locker room with other good players." That's pretty much it.

Not to provoke an infinitely-long thread, but it's akin to leaving out the part about "a well-regulated militia" when you're debating the second amendment.