NL MVP

I wrote one thing, content-wise.

You wrote something else.

 

Fine. What exactly is this "it" you're suggesting Howard didn't get done? Should I assume Pujols managed to do "it," despite the Cardinals pretty much losing every game they played for the last two weeks?

 

Well, considering you'd have to vote 10 players for the NL MVP in the BBWAA voting, Berkman WOULD make your ballot. He's third, at worst. Unless you put Beltran ahead of him. Name one other good hitter on the Astros...

 

Is there any chance of a darkhorse MVP winner? Kirk Gibson won NL MVP in 1988 with decent, but unspectacular numbers.

 

Howard. Without him, the Phillies never make the charge, let alone come close. The Cardinals made the playoffs, sure, but there's no doubt from this past month who deserves it. And last month in the baseball thread, I said Pujols.

 

Oz, you ignorant slut. Everyone on God's green earth knows that Pujols is the best player in baseball not named A-Rod. Now give up the argument before I put my steel-toed boot in your ass again.

 

You know, I didn't even realize Columbo lobbied for Pujols until this season. Whew, I'm glad I came down on the right side of the fence there. Had I actually agreed with him on NL postseason awards ...

 

Don't envy the voters on this one.

I'm usually one of the guys that believes the award should go to a player on a playoff team, but the Cardinals suck. Pujols had a great year but I'd go for Howard, who was a fucking beast as the Phils surged back into contention.

 

Gibson wasn't a dark horse MVP, though. He was a free-agent signee who single-handedly -- well, along with Hershiser's career year -- turned around a team that had won 73 games the previous two seasons. He was the unquestioned leader of a mediocre roster that had no business finishing third in the NL West, let alone winning the World Series.

Seriously, <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/LAD/1988.shtml">look at that roster</a> ... Marshall's the only other decent hitter on that team. Alfredo Griffin hit .199 as their starting SS. Mike Davis hit .196 in 281 ABs. Corner infielders Stubbs and Hamilton each hit under .240. That offense was terrible! The pitching was strong at the back end, but the Timothys, Leary and Belcher, don't strike fear in the hearts of men at the top of the rotation. ... The Mets-A's World Series, which it should have been, would have been an absolute mind-blower. Instead, we got one of the top 3 home runs in history (along with Maz, and Bobby T.) and a monumental Series upset.

Sure, Gibby's numbers don't stand out compared to Strawberry or Will Clark that year -- and Kevin McReynolds(!) inexplicably stole four of Straw's first-place MVP votes -- but Gibson was the clear, deserving winner of the award in '88. His numbers don't even come close to telling the whole story ... and that's before you even get to his postseason.

 

If what Pujols did in the last week isn't the very essence of Most Valuable, they should rename the award right now.

I mean, honestly, make up your mind.

First, you bozos blather on about how it isn't "player of the year"... and then you guys pull out Player of the Year rationale for Howard.

Howard sucked the tailpipe like he was Paris Hilton for the final three weeks of the season.

Even that asshat Oz, who used that struggled-down-the-stretch rationale to disqualify Dan Uggla (actually, Oz picked out seven games, one-third the number that Howard blew chunks in... hilarious little fucker) from rookie of the year (which as he pointed out when he was trying to work the other side of the fence in ripping Uggla, does not carry MVP-type requirements), is going two-face and not applying the standard on Howard.... only because his simple guacamole-filled orb on his neck can't ever allow him to agree with me.

Little lemming.

 

So cute to see people so worked up and confident over something so incorrect. Let's take a deeper look at Pujols' brilliant last week (we'll refute your Howard nonsense in the next post):

9/24 at Hou: 2-for-3, 0 runs, 0 RBIs in a loss
9/25 vs. SD: 1-for-4, 0 runs, 1 RBIs in a loss
9/26 vs. SD: 2-for-3, 1 run, 0 RBIs in a loss
9/27 vs. SD: 2-for-4, 2 runs, 3 RBIs in 4-2 win
9/28 vs. Mil: 0-for-4, 0 runs, 0 RBIs in a loss
9/29 vs. Mil: 1-for-4, 1 run, 3 RBIs in blowout win
9/30 vs. Mil: 2-for-4, 1 run, 0 RBIs in 3-2 win

So, the totals for Pujols' "brilliant" last week: 10-for-26 (.384), 5 runs, 7 RBIs. And ONE MVP moment, the three-run bomb against SD. BTW, his team was 3-4 in those 7 games.

Yeah. THAT'S the stuff MVP's are made of.

 

Because I neither have the time, nor patience to list three weeks worth of games to refute an argument so ridiculous, here are Howard's stats over the final three weeks (That's right, actual data to back up an argument. What a concept, huh?):

24-for-68 (.353)
12 runs
13 RBIs
27 walks
Team's record: 13-6

Yeah, those guys that hit .353 are terrible. Certainly the type of stuff that "sucking the tailpipe" is made of, huh?