Yes folks, it's true. Albert Pujols was once again screwed over in the Most Valuable Player votings. Ryan Howard has become the new Barry Bonds (except Howard doesn't use steroids, is not a jerk and the world's biggest ####): stealing the MVP away from the real Most Valuable Player. Not getting your team in the playoffs and just having an offense kind of year. What did Albert Pujols do? He led his team to the playoffs while having a career year and winning a gold glove. Don't let me just opinionate you away, let me provide you with some cold hard facts. Pujols had an oblique injury in the middle of the season and that prevented his numbers from being better, but that has nothing to do with the voting. I'm just letting everyone know that before I tell you this stat: Howard played in 16 more games than Pujols. In fact, this was the first year Pujols was on the disabled list..and that's in 5+ years. Ok, so here's the breakdown of the numbers: Howard had 58 homeruns, 149 RBI, 108 walks, 181 strikeouts and had a .313 batting average. Pujols had 49 homeruns, 137 RBI, 92 walks, 50 strikeouts and had a .331 batting average. Howard's slugging, on-base and OPS (On-base + slugging) percentages were: .659/.425/1.082. Pujols numbers for those categories were: .671/.431/1.102. Howard led his team to a second place finish in both the East division and the Wild Card. Pujols led his team to a first place finish, ended a possible third eight game losing streak and to a World Series championship (although, the post season doesn't get involved in the voting). Now who's valuable? Is Howard more valuable because he didn't carry his team to the playoffs while only leading Pujols in three categories: walks (16), HR (9) and RBI (12)? I mean, those numbers aren't really far apart. Howard also led Pujols in strikeouts with 131 more, whereas Pujols had 42 less strikeouts than walks, and thats hard to do. Just look at these blatent facts folks, Pujols was once screwed out of the MVP. Last year, most Cardinals fans thought he would be screwed out of it again because Jones had over 50 homeruns and Derek Lee had the batting title. He won last year, beating out a 50+ homerun guy. He should have done it this year. Heck, I would have rather seen Lance Berkman get the MVP rather than Howard. At least Berkman led his team on a charge to the central title. What did Howard do? Keep a team that was still in tact together? Everyone says he took over the team when Bobby Abreu was traded. Hate to break it to you folks, Abreu wasn't leading the team BEFORE he was traded, it was Howard all year long. Just remember these numbers. The evidence is clear: nuts and bolts, nuts and bolts, Albert got SCREWED!
***I know MVP voting was a while back, but I have been swamped with homework lately, so I never had time to write this. Enjoy and leave comments***
I would have voted for Albert, but Howard was deserving. He kept the Phillies afloat almost single handedly. I think the body of work is in Pujols favor, but that is not the criteria for MVP. It does not say you have to go to the playoffs. I wish it did, but it doesn't. Don't hate Howard for having a great year.
I should have added that. I do not hate Howard, but that doesn't mean I think Albert got screwed, because he did. I wish it said that the player must go to the playoffs, because that was the excuse for giving the award to Bonds was ebcause the Giants always made it into the playoffs. Then, when they didn't make it, the writers changed from going to the playoffs to a good year. Look at 1998. Sosa won MVP because he got his team to the playoffs, when McGwire had a better year and didn't make it and didn't get the MVP. Food for thought.
It's Albert v. The National League. Whether it is Howard, Andruw Jones or Bonds. He will be a contender every year its only a matter or which player will go off for one season to beat him. I love both of them, and to me it was a coin flip as I went back and forth all season with the MVP vote.
Pulen, I'll have an article up soon (by Saturday) on my blog about why crybaby Pujols wasn't the MVP. I'll let you know when it's up. There's too much to spend time writing it in comments.
I respect your opinion, but I tire of hearing the "MVP should come from a playoff team" argument.
The Phillies had two more wins than the Cardinals, who played in the worst division in baseball. Period.
Regarding your selection of Berkman over Howard, I invite you to look at a comparison of their statistics. Click here to compare.
Last edited by UltraMegaOK1988 on December 5th at 5:26 PM.
Hey, Pulen. Long Time, no read. I was just about to jump on and say something about the fact that this blog would probably get a reaction from UltraMega, but I see I'm already too late :) Anyway, I give Pujols all the props in the world, but Howard had a rare year this year. If anything, you can take solace in the fact that Howard may have won the voter's favor because that's how good Pujols is- maybe they figured they'd give it to someone else for a change, as Pujols would probably just win it again next year.
i have to agree with ultra on this one. i dont like the arguement that your team has to make it to the playoffs to be the mvp. i also agree that the NL central was the worst in baseball...and the cardinals couldnt beat the cubs or the pirates, or at least they should have beat them 75% of the time, which they didnt.
other than the high strikeout total for howard, the rest of that statistical comparison is quite minor if you ask me. and (as i believe ultra has probably said more than once) you could argue that howard put up those huge numbers in spite of his lofty K total. remember, a K is an out just like a fly ball or a ground out (and i cant even believe i'm forgiving a guy for striking out a ton).
i also agree with TSI that, voters may have been swayed in favor of howard because of how surprising it was. this may not make sense, but maybe the voters just expected more out of pujols, so what he did accomplish didnt stand out as much as what howard did.
and while i mildly campaigned for berkman, the astros too missed the playoffs, and were behind the stumbling cards in september.
to put it simply, the phillies had a better record than the 'stros and cards, so you could claim that if they were in the same division, the phillies would have made the playoffs.
why not just be happy that your TEAM won the WORLD SERIES, instead of being upset over an individual accomplishment that is obviously awarded based on perception of the voters, not a scientific study?
I'm 18 and I enjoy baseball, as I'll only write about baseball. I'm a business major at Illinois State and I plan on going into baseball for a career. Hopefully one day, beating Theo Epstein's record as the youngest GM ever. My dream job is being the GM of the St. Louis Cardinals.
prevented his numbers from being better, but that has nothing to do with the voting. I'm just letting everyone know that before I tell you this stat: Howard played in 16 more games than Pujols. In fact, this was the first year Pujols was on the disabled list..and that's in 5+ years. Ok, so here's the breakdown of the numbers:
had 42 less strikeouts than walks, and thats hard to do. Just look at these blatent facts folks, Pujols was once screwed out of the MVP. Last year, most Cardinals fans thought he would be screwed out of it again because Jones had over 50 homeruns and Derek Lee had the batting title. He won last year, beating out a 50+ homerun guy. He should have done it this year. Heck, I would have rather seen Lance Berkman get the MVP rather than Howard. At least Berkman led his team on a charge to the central title. What did Howard do? Keep a team that was still in tact together? Everyone says he took over the team when Bobby Abreu was traded. Hate to break it to you folks, Abreu wasn't leading the team BEFORE he was traded, it was Howard all year long. Just remember these numbers. The evidence is clear: nuts and bolts, nuts and bolts, Albert got SCREWED!
