Phil Sheridan is a merciless homer. Pujols should have won the MVP the time Howard won it too.

All that article did was make me said FJM doesn't exists anymore.

Yes, let's see Phil's column about Howard's winning the MVP in 2006 when the Phils missed the playoffs.

Phire Phil Sheridan sounds like a good blog site...

What's embarrassing is that a guy can cover a team and not recognize that Howard is not the MVP of his own team. So why don't we just rename the award the Most Valuable Player in September for a team that makes the playoffs. Oh, wait, Howard is probably still not deserving, but hey, at least he could be on the ballot.

He makes a nice point about the voters, but...I think he's waaayyyy too biased towards Howard. He's like the pot calling the kettle black. Just a quick peek at the numbers says he's crazy....

Pujols's hit 37 HR's & 116 RBI's while sustaining a .357/.462/.653 batting line and a 190 OPS+.

Granted, Howard hit more HR's (48) and drove in more runs (146), but he was consistently worse at the plate, .251/.339/.543 with a 124 OPS+.

Without even diggin deeper, it's easy to tell that Howard killed a lot of Phillies rally's with his low OBP. But check this out - Pujols K'd 145 times LESS than Howard. Yeah. He also managed to draw 23 more walks than Howard.

Offhand, I don't know who was hitting in front of these guys, and that could've made all the difference in RBI's between them.

Taking a quick look at each hitters stats with RISP, Pujols is still superior. One thing that really sticks out between them with RISP, is that Howard K'd 54 times and Pujols only 12.

Oh, but Howard did have about 50 more plate appearances with RISP. Pujols's strike out rate would've landed him at about 22-25 K's if he'd had as many plate appearances... which is still less than half of Howard's total K's.

Oh, and while I'm at it... the extra plate appearances with RISP definitely shows why Howard was able to drive in 30 more runs - he had 50 more (decent) chances to drive people in.

I'll take the more consistent hitter any day, and that would be what an MVP is, and that would be Pujols.

All that stat research, just took me 16 minutes. Obviously, Phil Sheridan didn't even look because he already had his mind made up.

Until someone defines "valuable" in a concrete, objective way, anyone can complain about the voting results. Since that definition won't come any time soon, we can either accept the lack of direction or do something to get it.

David,

I can't agree that it is an embarrassment for Manny to finish 4th in the MVP balloting. His impact on the Dodger is clearly the reason they won the division. Anybody who voted him first or second is nuts, but giving him some props in the form of a 4th or 5th place vote is fine.

Back to the man of the day, Pujols, this makes 8 straight top ten finishes for him! What amazing consistency. It is one thing to be consistently pretty good, Pujols is consistently great.

Pujols... I usually spell it Gehrig. He's that good.

Not to mention the fact that you could easily make arguments that Burrell, Utley, Hamels and particularly Lidge were all more valuable to the Phillies.

Not to mention the fact that you could easily make arguments that Burrell, Utley, Hamels and particularly Lidge were all more valuable to the Phillies.

To Devon: You make good points...however, MVP is about what really happened, not what might have happened if Pujols was on the Phillies or Howard was on the Cardinals. That kind of extrapolation doesn't matter. What matters is what happened on the field: Howard carried the Phillies to the pennant. That's what makes him MVP.

Nick: you could try to make those arguments abut Burrell, Utley and Hamels and you would be wrong. You might make a stronger argument for Lidge but, again, you'd be wrong.

Joe, could I get you to explain how it is that Ryan Howard and his lead glove and 124 OPS+ is more valuable than Chase Utley and his All-Universe glove and 133 OPS+?

People that understand baseball know that Howard was somewhere in the vicinity of the fourth or fifth most valuable player on his team. Losses in April count the same as losses in September.

NBarnes has it right--if you even begin to factor in defense, even in a crude way, it becomes obvious that Howard wasn't even the most valuable player on his own team. That honor falls squarely to Chase Ultey. In fact, it probably was also Utley last year when Rollins won the MVP, even given Utley's missed time. The guy is an unbelievable talent, and one of the most underrated players in baseball.
-j

For the record, my (hypothetical) vote for NL MVP went to Hanley Ramirez, but Pujols was #2. Howard wasn't on my ballot, but Utley was.

What's odd is the over-reliance on just the finish. The main reason that the Phillies needed such a strong finish to make the playoffs was Howard's awful start to the season. How does one month overcome 5 crappy ones?

NBarnes: I agree - wins in September are just as important as wins in April. You don't argue that Howard carried the Phillies in September, do you? I believe the team finished 13-3. MVP is not for a month, it's for an entire season.

Tom: five crappy months? In fact, except for April, howard was remarkably consistent driving in runs...12, 30, 26, 27, 19, 32. He had 84 RBI pre All-Star break and 62 after.

I think people are putting way too much emphasis on BA, strikeouts and defense. OPS is predictive, not reflective. It does not measure true offensive contribution as it relates to team success.

You can't penalize howard because he had good offensive players surrounding him. The fact is, he drove them in and they drove him in. Whether Pujols would have the same under the same circumstances is conjecture at best and not relevant to which player was more valuable to his team in the real world 2008.

Look, if you want to say Pujols is a better all-around player, I wouldn't argue that point. But that's not what MVP is all about. It's about who helped him team achieve more success. Without Pujols, the Cardinals might have finished in fifth place. Without Howard, the Phillies would not have been in the playoffs.

I

@NBarnes - Everything I look at indicates that Pujols is on another level of absurdity. Awesome glove (even if just at 1B), spectacular offense... I'm glad he won it.

But you can absolutely justify a Ramirez vote if you believe in his defense. I'm not sure that I do...but nonetheless, I had Ramirez 3rd, just ahead of Utley. I (would have) voted Pujols, Chipper Jones, Ramirez, Utley.
-j

You can't penalize howard because he had good offensive players surrounding him.

Not can you overrate him because of those good offensive players, and that's what you're doing by over-emphasizing RBI.

Without strikeHoward Brad Lidge, the Phillies would not have been in the playoffs.

There. Fixed it.

You can't penalize howard because he had good offensive players surrounding him.

Not can you overrate him because of those good offensive players, and that's what you're doing by over-emphasizing RBI.

Without Howard Brad Lidge, the Phillies would not have been in the playoffs.

There. Fixed it.

argue all you want..........in only the 50 some-odd games he played with the Dodgers(stabbed Brooklyn in the back), Manny did more to define what an MVP should be. ARod with the Rangers....Andre Dawson with the Cubs, if you go back that far, were on last place teams and won too...Rediculous if you ask me. Then you get a guy like K.Gibson who won in '88 with the worst stats I can remember for an MVP. It has come time for baseball to award a Player of the Year in addition to an MVP. This debate will rage on endlessly until baseball....or the writers...or whoever...make the change. I don't necessarily have a problem with Albert winning, but when the Tigers won in '84, willie Hernandez was the MVP and Cy Young. This year Brad Lidge was perfect. I remember '84 and what Willie did that year was worthy. I don't know if Brad's year was like Willie's but it's food for thought folks. BTW...I don't have a problem with pitchers winning the MVP.

You can't penalize howard because he had good offensive players surrounding him.

This is absurd. I'm saying that if you look at the elements of Pujols' offensive performance that were under his control, rather than dependent on his teammates, and compare them to the same elements of Howard's offensive game, Pujols is about ten times better at htting than Howard is. The only thing that Howard is better at than Pujols, the one and only thing, is playing for the Phillies and batting behind Jimmy Rollins and Chase Utley rather than for the Cardinals and batting behind Soup De Jour.

Whether Pujols would have the same under the same circumstances is conjecture at best

Ridiculous. You can look at OPS+, EQA, PrOPS, or bog-standard triple slash numbers, all of them say the same thing; Pujols drinks Howard's milkshake. It's not conjecture to say that Pujols is everything Howard is and then some; all the objective measures we have access to say that he is, and they all agree that it's not even close. The idea that Pujols would suddenly fall apart, fall so far as to be worse than Howard, simply because he moved into a context where he got more chances to succeed, is far more of a conjecture than my hypothesis.

jinaz: Oh, I don't mean to snark at people that would vote for Pujols over Ramirez. They are both very legitimate candidates. I just love me some sluggers-that-play-premium-defensive-positions. Pujols is one of the rare first basemen that actually hits hard enough to make up for the fact that he's playing first base (unlike, say, the spectacularly overrated Justin Morneau or, well, Ryan Howard).

NBarnes:

You totally miss the point. MVP is for what REALLY happened, not projections or extrapolations or what-ifs. I don't disagree that Pujols is a better hitter/all-around player than Howard. That's a no-brainer. But this year, 2008, Howard did more for a team that made the playoffs than Pujols did for a team that finished in fourth place.

You say I can't overrate Howard because he has good players surrounding him. I don't have to overrate him -- the numbers speak for themselves. You can't de-value them -- they happened in real live games.

As Leo said, if there was a Player of the Year Award, Pujols would win hands-down. His numbers are through the roof. Unfortunately, he's not surrounded by as many good players as Howard.

BTW, I think you contradict yourself in saying Ramirez was a legitimate MVP candidate based on his two months in the league, but then totally discount Howard's September contributions.

You say I can't overrate Howard because he has good players surrounding him. I don't have to overrate him -- the numbers speak for themselves. You can't de-value them -- they happened in real live games.

This is not an argument you can win. You want to use numbers? Great.

On-Base Percentage: Pujols .462(!), Howard .339
Slugging Percentage: Pujols .653, Howard .543
Total Bases: Pujols 342, Howard 331 (fewer TB in 86 more AB)

I assert that you don't actually care about 'numbers' in a general sense. You care about two, specifically two, and only two numbers; home runs and RBIs. But, unfortunately for your argument, the award is 'Most Valuable Player' not 'Most Home Runs and RBIs'.

You say that Howard did more for his team than Pujols did for his? Could I get you to elaborate on what it is that Howard did that Pujols didn't do? If all it is is 'Put on a Phillies uniform', why are we giving the award to Howard and not Utley? Utley was a much better hitter and fielder than Howard was in 2008, and he did play on a team went to the playoffs. To the extent that you argue that the Phillies wouldn't have gone to the playoffs without Howard, the fact is that in a pennant race that tight, the winning team wouldn't have won without all its star players. At that point, we have to ask ourselves, 'How can we tell which players won more games by their performance than other players?' Which is where we get into argument about OPS+ and PrOPS and VORP. The Phillies wouldn't have been in the playoffs without Howard, that's true. Or without Utley. Or Rollins. Or Lidge. Or Hamels. Or... or.. or... JAMIE MOYER FOR MVP! You've convinced me.

Also, please do read more carefully; I specifically said Hanley Ramirez. I yield to nobody in being a Manny fan, but MVP? Not so much for him this year.

Actually, having checked, the Mets ended the season three games back of the Phillies. If Howard was a true three wins above replacement in 2008, with his should-be-a-DH defense and lousy OBP, I'll eat my hat. And, so, no, actually, I don't accept your baseless assertion that the Phillies would have missed the playoffs without Howard.

Now, I'd be equally willing to bet an eaten hat that Chase Utley very much was three or more wins above replacement last year. So, again, here we are, asking you why you think Howard is the MVP and not either Pujols or Utley.