But here is a shocker: One voter left Howard completely off his ballot.

Again. I have no snark. I give up. I am vanquished.

I know why the reporter for the Nationals left Howard of his ballot, but I can't tell you.

Zolecki is usually pretty enlightened. His beef is that the writer didn't put Howard on his ballot at all; he doesn't come out and say that Howard should have been one of the top two. I don't see a problem with that.

Based on the blurb, that's a pretty reasonable ballot (though Wright at #2 is too high) - better than the aggregated end result.

Based on the blurb, that's a pretty reasonable ballot (though Wright at #2 is too high) - better than the aggregated end result.

Yeah, that's my point. I would have had Howard in my top ten, but near the end of my ballot and it's perfectly reasonable to leave him off completely. To single out this ballot as "shocking" is, in itself, sorta shocking.

YEAH RICH!!! #### Howard! Washington and Lee represents!

To single out this ballot as "shocking" is, in itself, sorta shocking.

In the BBWAA, a good ballot is shocking.

Drinking must have been involved.

Am I wrong, or didn't TWO voters leave Howard off?

He also left Milwaukee Brewers leftfielder Ryan Braun, who finished third, off his ballot.

And 9 voters left Braun off their ballot. How exactly this comes in for special mention is beyond me. Yeah, drinking. Or drugs.

It would seem entirely reasonable to me if Ryan Howard didn't win the MVP award for the right side of the Philadelphia infield.

Damn good player, had a really good year, but I'm missing why I should be outraged.

Am I wrong, or didn't TWO voters leave Howard off?

You are wrong. Did you miss the 10th place vote?

It would seem entirely reasonable to me if Ryan Howard didn't win the MVP award for the right side of the Philadelphia infield.

Indeed - Howard didn't make my hypothetical ballot (though he was close) - Utley did.

I'm not sure Howard would have made my top 15.

It would seem to me that anyone that wants to credit Howard for an awesome September should discredit him similarly for a putrid April-July.

I hope that someone out there somewhere is willing to credit this sportswriter for actually having one of the better, more rational ballots of any voter this year. Hey look, Chase Utley in the top 5! Having Pujols first and Berkman, Utley and Ramirez all in the top five as well seems eminently sensible to me, in fact. It almost as if he cared about the numbers they put up for their teams or something.

You folks do realize that, were it not for this guy, Utley would have finished even lower than his vaunted 15th place, right?

Proefrock is aboard. The Phils announced that general manager Ruben Amaro Jr. had hired Scott Proefrock as an assistant general manager.

Seriously, can we get some educated copywriters out there. This is just screaming for an Eliot reference.

#16 seems fitting, since, metaphorically speaking, the Phillies have never really dared to eat a peach. I hear the mermaids singing each to each, and I do not think they sing for Ruben Amaro, Jr.

#2--So Howard slept with his wife or something? Or tossed a drink at him in the clubhouse? Or called him an ####### in a post-game presser? Granted, there's a long history of personal beefs causing people to not vote for this player or that for a given award, but if you have the privilege of voting for MVP, you should at least be held accountable for said personal grudges, and not be able to say "No comment," when asked about your vote. It makes me wonder if there other players on this guy's personal blacklist...

He could have avoided all of this by simply saying he thought there were 10 players better than Howard in the NL this year. I think you could probably make a reasoned argument that this was the case (even though some in Philly would disagree). But instead he tosses out a "No comment," which does nothing but serve to stir the pot and suggest there's something rotten about Ryan Howard personally that makes him not worth considering for MVP. If, as a beat writer, you're going to start stirring that pot, it seems to me you owe readers the explanation. Because what will rush into the vacuum of his "No comment," is just a lot of innuendo, etc. that Howard will now be asked to defend himself against, while the sportswriter in question can just sit back and say "No comment." It's the perfect way to get back at Howard (I do realize that), but professionally it seems incredibly small and petty.

Now, if Howard did do something like sleep with his wife, or spit on him, or something so outrageous that it's perfectly understandable why a guy would not ever vote for Howard for anything, that's fine, but then the writer (it seems to me) has a duty to excuse himself from any kind of voting process where he can not be objective in his voting.

He could have avoided all of this by simply saying he thought there were 10 players better than Howard in the NL this year. I think you could probably make a reasoned argument that this was the case

Probably?

But instead he tosses out a "No comment," which does nothing but serve to stir the pot and suggest there's something rotten about Ryan Howard personally that makes him not worth considering for MVP.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Who is interpreting it this way?

I took the lead "No comment" quote, plus Larry's comment in #2 to mean that there was a personal beef here. Of course, Larry could have been kidding in #2, in which case I suppose the guy just doesn't feel like defending himself for not putting Howard in his top 10... But I still think the "No comment" is weak--if you honestly feel Howard doesn't deserve a top-10 vote, then explain why. You can make a reasoned argument against giving him a vote (I shouldn't have qualified my comment with a "probably"), so make it, and who cares what the schmos in Philly say about you.

Of course, Larry could have been kidding in #2

Larry was definitely kidding.

This article was the more measured those in the Inquirer this morning. Phil Sheridan was so outraged that Howard didn't win that he wants to strip the BBWAA of the vote on the basis of that mistake.

Ah. OK. Um... let's see... Edit comment not available now for #17... Um, let's just all agree to ignore my ramblings in #17, OK?

Ah. OK. Um... let's see... Edit comment not available now for #17... Um, let's just all agree to ignore my ramblings in #17, OK?

What comment? :)

Of course, Larry could have been kidding in #2

Last season when the Nats let one of their PBP guys go, everyone was wondering why. I had overheard Stan Kasten talking about it in the press box, but I didn't (and don't) feel it was appropriate to pass on something I overheard (I don't even remember what the reason was anymore, either).

Anyway, I posted in a thread that I knew why he'd been fired, but I couldn't tell you. Which was a pretty useless post.

As is this one.