1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Howard wins NL MVP

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Chi City 81, Nov 20, 2006.

  1. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Pendleton in '91 was a disgrace. I figure that balances things a bit for at least one of the MVP's Bonds won while he was using performance enhancers (ok, allegedly using).

    The more I look at the stats, the more I think the voters got it wrong. The offensive numbers are pretty even. Howard had more homers and RBI. Pujols hit for a higher average, scored more runs and stole more bases (7-0), while compiling slightly better on-base and slugging percentages.

    Both were on contenders, so if you call the offense even, Pujols should have earned it with his far superior glove.
  2. jagtrader

    jagtrader Active Member

    It's interesting that the voters went for Howard, a DH on a non-playoff team, but won't vote for Ortiz. They also didn't vote for Ortiz over Rodriguez last season. The criteria change depending on which way the wind blows.
  3. beefncheddar

    beefncheddar Guest

    That's about the most ridiculous thing I've read about Howard here (non-Pube division).
  4. Oz

    Oz Well-Known Member

    To be fair the Red Sox never were in contention the last six weeks, after the Yankees' five-game sweep at Fenway, while the Phillies never would have been in contention had it not been for Howard. Non-playoffs, sure, but in the hunt.

    And A-Rod (48-130-21-.321) had a damn good case last season, like Ortiz (47-148-1-.300). You could have argued that one either way -- voters went with the better average, stolen bases and defense there.
  5. suburbia

    suburbia Active Member

    So I guess, by that same argument, David Ortiz should never win the AL MVP, no matter how valuable he really is to the Red Sox.
  6. casty33

    casty33 Active Member

    Isn't it at all possible that we can all agree that we're talking about two valuable players here and not rip the writers who had the extremely difficult task of picking one of them? I can do that but apparently some of you can't. If you bother to read the St. Louis Post-Dispatch this morning you'll see how columnist Jeff Gordon feels bad for Pujols but points out clearly how Howard deserved the award. I could have made a case for either. I don't understand how some of you feel it necessary to make derogatory statements about writers who studied the situation and voted their conscience. When you make it on to a voting committee, then you'll have a say.

    As of now, I'm sorry for your loss. But swallow hard and move on. You'll probably suffer a worse loss some time in your life.
  7. beefncheddar

    beefncheddar Guest

    There are plenty of legitimate reasons to vote Pujols. The his-team-made-the-playoffs argument isn't one of them. The Cardinals wouldn't have finished within five games of first in ANY other division. In fact, the Phils won more games than the Cardinals.
  8. jagtrader

    jagtrader Active Member

    Yeah, but the Phillies didn't make the playoffs and won 85 games. It's not like Howard turned them into some powerhouse. The Red Sox won 86 games.

    I love Howard. He might be my favorite player on the Phillies. But there's a clear double standard here. Howard IS David Ortiz without the clutch hits. The only difference is Howard owns a glove and stands in the vicinity of first base. He's among the worst defensive players I've ever seen.

    If you want to vote based solely on offense, fine. If you want to vote solely on qualifying for the playoffs, fine. But you can't vote for Howard and then vote for Jeter. It's not consistent.
  9. BYH

    BYH Active Member

    All it took was five postseason games to prove what a fraud ARod is/was as the MVP and just how "valuable" he was to the Yankees' success.

    Of course, most of us saw that coming 100 miles away.
  10. Oz

    Oz Well-Known Member

    Of course, you don't vote based on postseason performance. You can be Mr. Regular Season and win awards.
  11. BYH

    BYH Active Member

    Well DUH!!!! :D

    I just meant those of us who saw Ortiz as a legitimately clutch player who lifted the Sox on his shoulders--and saw AFraud as the complete opposite--were rewarded in five games in October 2005. And four games in October 2006. And the final four games of the Yankees' season in October 2004.
  12. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    Wouldn't it prove the opposite? In the season, where the Yankees were successful, Arod was great. In the playoffs, when he stopped hitting, they lost. Being that the award is just for the regular season...
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page