Deja Vu In The National League?

I think the home parks make MORE than the difference in ERAs... Citizen's is a bandbox and Shea is a canyon. What is their road ERAs???

That's a fair point. I can't find the stats for starters ERAs on the road, but you're right, that's probably closer.

Phillies:

Home ERA: 3.72, Road, 4.12

Mets:

Home ERA: 3.67, Road, 4.37

That's for the entire team. We were just looking at starting pitching. The Phillies bullpen is head and shoulders better than the Mets, so obviously the overall ERA will be close.

Fair enough, I can do that.

But if Howard gets MVP consideration, that's ridiculous. He'll get consideration...

I know he probably will, and it remains ridiculous.

the home run and RBI leader getting MVP consideration is ridiculous?

When that's all he brings to the table, yes. He hits home runs...and that's it. His RBIs are so high because of the guys in front of him.

who are Jose Reyes and David Wright again?

What's your point, that Beltran's (or, more likely, Delgado's) RBI totals are inflated? I agree...Delgado and Howard are having similar seasons, Howard probably being slightly better overall.

But neither should deserve MVP consideration.

I'm on the fence as far as Delgado versus howard for MVP I agree that Pujols is the guy, but given his team's fading status, its hard to see what will happen...

See...that's what I hate about the MVP. The writers (almost) always vote for a player who's team makes the playoffs. And hands-down, Pujols has been the best (and, by extension, most valuable) player this year in either league.

Agreed

But I do disagree about Valuable and best

I also think its generally easy to find the most valuable player or a team...and if we did this, we could then weigh said value against other teams' MVPs.

And then its how you determine value (wins?) and parts of wins. I know there's a win/share total (ratio?) but are you really comfortable with giving it to players on potentially terrible teams?

and then there's the whole MVP of the league issue...its sort of an ambiguous term...

Damn, a lot of chatter since I last checked. To address a few of TMIL's points...

Myers, Hamels and Moyer pitched on three days rest because that's what you do when you're in must-win situations in September, and I give Charlie Manuel credit for having the balls to do it. If Ned Yost did it with Sabathia, he might still have a job.

The Mets rotation after Santana and Pelfrey is thin. You can argue that the Phillies rotation is equally thin, but their starters have been bashed all season, while I keep hearing how solid the Mets are. Again, it's probably because the Mets bullpen is so pathetic, maybe the worst in the league, that people tend to overlook the holes in their rotation.

Ryan Howard probably won't win MVP, but he certainly merits serious consideration. When you lead the majors in home runs and RBI and it's not even close and your team surges in to first place in September, you get consideration. Face it... awards like this are won in September, so talking about what he did in April and May is pointless. By the way, NOBODY hits more home runs that tie or win games than Ryan Howard.

Yes, Jimmy Rollins hasn't played well most of the season, partly because he wasn't healthy. But if he wasn't so hot now, the Phillies wouldn't be in first place!

Your logic is so convoluted and your stats have been proven to be insignificant. Division titles are won in September. Awards are won in September. As a Mets fan, you should know that by now!

I'm going to throw some numbers at you.

OBP: .335/.461 SLG: .537/.645 HR: 45/33

The first guy is Howard, the second is Albert Pujols. Despite the 12 more HRs, Pujols' SLG% is over 100 points higher. Pujols is a Gold Glove 1B, and Howard is a butcher. I can't make a compelling case for anyone besides Pujols, but I can make a case for David Wright, Ryan Braun, and Chase Utley before I can for Howard.

Hey, TMil, maybe Pujol's numbers are better because he strikes out less?

There was an article in the Philly Inquirer about that... Howard may be the first guy to lead the league in home runs and RBIs and not be in the top ten in slugging...

So...lemme see if I have this right. He's hitting homers and driving in runs - at a time when his team would be totally out of a pennant run without him - and it's not even in the realm of consideration that he is an MVP candidate? The season would have been long over in Philadelphia without his late season hitting. And he may be a butcher in the field, but who wins MVPs based on fielding? Barry Bonds? Sammy Sosa? Alex Rodriguez?

Where's his early-season batting? For me...I think games played in April (when Howard had a .640 OPS) count too. If they had a September MVP award, then we could talk. And fielding should count. It's an important part of the game. If we're talking about what the voters will do...sure, they'll give Howard consideration. But I don't think they should.

Oh, and by the way, Alex Rodriguez won the MVP in 2003...he also won the Gold Glove at shortstop.

His early season numbers are similar to his late season numbers: (5/12, 10/30, 5/26, 10/27, 7/19, 8/22). Pujols: (5/20, 9/17, 3/10, 4/20, 8/22, 4/12). I'm not saying that Pujols isn't a viable candidate - far from it. I'm just intrigued that Howard has been dismissed because his OBP and SLG aren't as good. I've been frustrated with Howard as a Phils fan, but not lately - he's been amazing lately. I don't know - perhaps Howard isn't the best choice, but I think that dismissing him from the discussion isn't being realistic.

Oh please, Delgado is a poor man's Howard. PLus he's over the hill.

If Albert was really an "MVP" he would be able to get his team into the playoffs, such as Howard did last year, carrying his team into the play offs and their first division crown in 15 years

Howard may not be MVP this year but he deserves more consideration than anyone is wiling to give him.

The argument is, Howard has a worse (back to normal) Rollins, A 1st half MVP Utley and a typical streaky burrell in around him (not to mention a out-of-his-skill Jayson Werth) while Poo-holes has...

skip schumacher?

Well, this year he has Ryan Ludwick, but Pujols can't pitch. The Cardinals have a ridiculously high amount of blown saves. And their starters (Wainwright, Carpenter, etc.) have been hurt. You can't blame Pujols for his poor teammates. Without him the Cardinals would be among the worst teams in the NL this year.

It is obvious after years of arguing about the MVP award that it surely goes to the player with the best numbers. Howard leads the league in home runs and runs batted in. So please explain how Delgado is more deserving?

To each his own, Romi. Stats are great, they really are, they give you a basis for comparison between players, among other things. The key is to use the right ones. If you go by pitcher wins, saves, RBIs, etc. then you're in trouble. But if you use OBP, OPS, ERA+, then you can start comparing players in a meaningful way. I'm not saying that statistics are the only way to evaluate players. It's the way I do it, because it's the fairest way I know and I don't get to see much live baseball.

I know. Stats ARE "cool", but, you can turn stats into whatever you want them to be. Stats is not the only thing I rely on when it comes to determining how good a player is. You're right, some stats could be more reliable than others, but it's only when you're talking about a certain case. In this case, I guess stats are needed since you can't watch live baseball that much. You should though... it's fun. And you get to learn more about the game and the players. That way, you can make a better and more compelling argument over why Ryan Howard should not win the MVP.

If you use the right stats consistently, instead of cherrypicking ones that suit your case, then I argue that as long as you back them up with solid reasoning, you can use stats to prove your argument. It's much more objective than saying that guy has the heart of a champion because he was a college punter or something like that.

I'm a baseball traditionalist, and I can safely say that I have NEVER had an argument with anyone over who is the greatest player in terms of OBP or SLG. Delgado? He's about even with Howard (for OBP and SLG). Berkman's OBP and SLG are comparable to Pujols. So I guess it's between Berkman and Pujols if you're going by OBP and SLG. If you're going by homers, RBI, runs...it's Howard. Which is more valuable to a team? I can't say that I can answer that.

How would the Phils do without Howard? I'm am VERY sure they'd miss those 136 RBIs and 45 HRs right? Howard can change a game with one swing. I do not doubt that PuJlos is a better pure batter but I do not think he is as valuble to his team as Howard is.

please make a case for MVP using no stats...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You're absolutely right, Kelsdad. Stats are just numbers. Mark Twain once said, "There are lies, damned lies and statistics." You can use them however you'd like to support your argument, and whoever has the best numbers just might win a special award at one point in time, whether that would be winning an MVP award, breaking a record... whatever.

But what does winning the MVP award really mean? It means that the majority of the votes to a certain player came to that player for being the most valuable player not only compared to the other players on his team, but the entire league. Breaking a record: what does that mean?

Stats are just numbers that show a result of what an athlete did. People say that hits and batting average go well together, don't they? Dave Winfield has a .283 batting average and is in the 3000 hit club. Those two don't really match. What does that mean? Is he a good hitter, a lucky hitter, a hitter with a lot of endurance? What?

Mark Bellhorn had an OBP of .373 in 2004 with the Red Sox. Was he a good player? I'd hate to think anyone would think he was...

See my point? You can make anything with numbers...

Dave Winfield played for 22 years. You can get 3000 hits if you hit .283 over the course of 22 years. Mark Bellhorn's .373 OBP means that he was a good hitter in 2004. His career OBP of .341 proves that he wasn't for the rest of his career.

The MVP is messed up. In 1927, Babe Ruth had 60 HR, 164 RBI, batted .356, an OBP of .486 and an SLG of .772. He wasn't even in the top 25 for MVP that year.

I will absolutely agree that the MVP is messed up.

Babe Ruth wasn't in the top 25 for MVP in 1927 because he had already won the award in 1923 and the rule then was - "Previous winners are not eligible." That's why he wasn't in the top 25 for 1924, 1925, 1926, and 1928 as well! They eliminated the MVP award in the AL in 1929. That's why there was no winner in '29 or '30. They changed the rule in 1931 and brought the "MVP" award back.

Truth is dumber than fiction. That may be baseball's dumbest rule.

There was no all-star game then, either... it was different times and a different world, for sure. Ruth would have won it every year otherwise... it's kind of like when the NBA MVP voters got sick of Jordan and made Karl Malone the MVP.

If you look back through baseball history there has been MANY MANY "dumber" rules than that!

Batters used to be able to tell a pitcher whether to throw the ball high or low.

Umpires used to sit in rocking chairs.

Each position player had to war a different colored uniform (which made substitutions a BITCH)

At one time it was 5 balls to walk and 4 strikes to strike out (you thought games are long now?)

If a foul ball was hit into the stands the fans would get fined -by police! - if they didn't throw the ball back into the game.

Before there was outfield fences, there was just people standing around the field. If the ball was hit into them, the outfielders would have to find the ball - many times they would give extra balls to fans before the game so if a ball was hit into the crowd, they could grab an extra ball and throw it into the infielders. Sometimes the fans would grab and jump on visiting outfielders in those instances.

It used to be legal to grab baserunners by the belt as they ran the bases (until some players stopped buckling their belts)

Harvard physics professors believed that curveballs didn't curve, but that it was an illusion...

Gambling on baseball didn't get you banned for life - or even punished!

Spitballs was legal but scuffing them wasn't because there was only so many balls per game. When the balls started getting tattered... too bad - play ball! Because there was no lighted stadiums, pitchers would purposely rub dirt and shoe black all over the balls if they were ahead so the umpires would call the game - if not, the batters wouldn't be able to see the pitch anyway.

And there only used to be one umpire per game, so when balls were hit into the outfield and the umpire wasn't looking, runners would go straight from second to home right by the pitcher's box.

My favorite one was the loose substitution rules. One time when King Kelly was managing his team, a pop up came over by the dugout - Kelly screamed at the ump "Kelly now catching for Hapenblap" (or whatever the catcher's name was) and caught the pop up with his bare hands for an out.

Hey, that's why we have the rules we have today!

Now Tmil... you see what I mean. The point I was trying to get through was that some people may look at stats and think differently about the player.

Barry Bonds has a .298 average and he's not in the 3000 hit club.

Mark Bellhorn has a .341 career OBP? That's better than Torii Hunter's, Jermaine Dye's, and Andruw Jones' career OBP (as of right now). So does that mean that he's as good of an offensive player as those guys? I'd much rather have someone like Torii Hunter or Jermaine Dye on my team than Mark Bellhorn.

I know, you could add some more stats to make an argument that Bellhorn isn't that great of a player besides OBP, but that was just one example of how people could interpret that Bellhorn was good in 2004. He wasn't. He was in a lineup where his team scored 949 runs (1st in the MLB, and 52 more runs than anyone else in the MLB).

(It's ironic that I'm using stats to help my argument.)

I was just trying to get my point through. We can go back and forth about how some stats matter, and some don't. But all in all, stats are just numbers that we (or most of us) consider "facts". We throw them out at people showing how good a player is. Sure, numbers can help a player win an MVP, and if you have good numbers, all around, chances are you're a good player. But when looking at a player and saying, "Oh, this guy's good. He hit 40 homers last season," or "Oh, this guy's pretty good. He has a decent OBP," I just say "those are numbers," and you can turn anything quantitative into something to support your argument.