Pujols wins NL MVP, Braun is 3rd

[reillymcshane]

I generally don't care much about bashing Hardicourt, but man, that was an awful ballot he submitted.

 

At least he put it out there and explained it - no matter how faulty.

 

Still, just terrible.

[datrain711]

Pujols 7th? I wonder if that will be noted tomorrow by Keith law or Rob Neyer. I'm embarassed to be a customer of the paper he is representing. someone should ask TH that if Pujols hit .450 and the Cardinals were in last place if that would be a MVP season

[Glennron]

How the hell was Pujols supposed to "elevate his game" in September? He'd practically have to put up Bonds or Babe Ruth numbers to do that.

[cwolf2012]

Brewerguy, no offense, but how can you put David Wright at 2nd in the MVP voting if your criteria are Sept + playoffs? The Mets didn't make the playoffs.

[RU Rah Rah]

That TH ballot is an abomination. Good grief.

 

How can you say that Ludwick and Pujols basically had the same year?

 

Aramis Ramirez? Good year, on a good team, but he shouldn't even have been in the conversation.

 

And, finally: three Brewers in the top nine?

[TooLiveBrew]

someone should ask TH that if Pujols hit .450 and the Cardinals were in last place if that would be a MVP season

 

No way man! He didn't elevate his team enough if they were in last place!

[Invader3K]

Honestly, there are so many different ways to approach voting for an award as vaguely titled as "Most Valuable Player", that I can't really fault Haudricourt for his logic. Many of us disagree with his choices, but it's not like there is a really strict guideline for this stuff.

[RightFieldCoder]

And, finally: three Brewers in the top nine?

Well, the Brewers did win the division by double digits, er, wait a second...

 

Interesting stat: The top four team ERAs in the NL this year; Dodger, Brewers, Cubs, Phillies. Cardinals finished 7th. I think that had more to do with the Cardinals not being in the playoffs than Prince "elevating" his game better than Pujols.

 

Congratulations to Albert. I admire his talent and saddened that he's in the division against the Brewers.

[crewcrazy]

I think Pujols should celebrate by getting that elbow fixed and taking a full year off. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

There's no way Braun should've been third in the voting, or probably even in the Top 10, but it's nice to see him get some recognition. I'm still trying to figure out Haudricourt's ballot, since it looks like he confused "MVP voting" with "Player of the Month" voting.

[mothershipconnection]

Wow, a Brewer was over-rated. We've come a long way boys!

[DougJones43]

I understand that the Cardinals would not have been even close to the wild-card berth without Pujols, but I still like players who elevate their game in crunch time and lift their teams to new heights.

Not going out of my way to continue to bash TH, but he doesn't even seem to be following his own logic. Pujols mashed in August and September, and the Cardinals finished with 86 wins for fourth place in the wildcard hunt.

 

Pujols in the final months:

August: .398 / .491 / .745 / 1.236

September: .321 / .427 / .702 / 1.129

 

That blows Fielder's numbers in those months completely out of the water -- and that doesn't even begin to take into account defense.

 

I really don't understand how somebody could do something as a profession for so long, and yet understand so little about it...

[chuckiehacks]

Pujols 7th? I wonder if that will be noted tomorrow by Keith law or Rob Neyer. I'm embarassed to be a customer of the paper he is representing. someone should ask TH that if Pujols hit .450 and the Cardinals were in last place if that would be a MVP season

KLaw already found it.

 

Link including great comments about TH.

[RU Rah Rah]

What I dislike about the "it's not 'most outstanding player'" argument is the alternative -- the kind of jumbled and inconsistent reasoning that you find with TH. I just don't understand how you can base your judgment of a player's individual performance by giving so much weight to how the other 24+ guys on his team performed (and in the last couple months of the season, no less).

 

Seriously: how can you vote for six guys from the NL Central and not even put Berkman on your ballot?

[SoCal Brew Crew Fan]

I was laughing so hard as I was reading TH's flawed logic, I just knew the bf.net board would be all over him. Thanks for not disappointing!!!

 

As for the previous posts...yes, you are right, TH has no idea what he is talking about in this matter...it really is embarrassing.

[trwi7]

Link

 

 

From some of the e-mails sent to me this evening, I assume I have been under attack from a lot of folks commenting on the Brewers Blog because I had Albert Pujols seventh on my MVP ballot, which I posted earlier today. I wouldn't know because I stopped reading and participating in comments on the blog long ago because so many people prefer personal attacks instead of expressing their opinions in a respectful and decent manner.

I gave my explanations for how I voted in my earlier blog, so I won't go into all of that again. But, I just saw this Associated Press story on Pujols being named MVP and here are the first eight paragraphs:

Associated Press

NEW YORK -- Albert Pujols views MVP voting a little differently these days.

"You have to consider everything. You have to put all the numbers together," the St. Louis Cardinals star said Monday after powering past Philadelphia Phillies slugger Ryan Howard to win the award for the second time.

Pujols won despite the Cardinals finishing in fourth place, the lowest spot for an NL MVP winner since Andre Dawson and Chicago Cubs wound up sixth in 1987. Howard led the majors in home runs and RBIs for the World Series champs.

The result will surely renew a debate that Pujols once raised himself: What qualifies as "most valuable"?

In 2006, a month after leading the Cardinals to the World Series crown, Pujols carped when Howard -- whose Phillies missed the playoffs -- captured the coveted award.

"I see it this way: Someone who doesn't take his team to the playoffs doesn't deserve to win the MVP," Pujols said at that time.

Shortly thereafter, Pujols clarified his remarks and said Howard was certainly worthy of the award.

"I think the writers made the right choice in 2006," Pujols reiterated Monday. "He did deserve it."

Interesting, isn't it, how Pujols flopped on that subject? And the AP seems to think his selection is worthy of debate as well.

I, too, thought it was worthy of debate, one of the reasons I posted my ballot. I respect those who disagree and their opinions for doing so, just as I respect the 18 writers who voted Pujols first and the 11 others who voted Howard first, as well as the two who voted Brad Lidge first. Everybody has their reasons for how they vote. And the criteria established on the ballots are guidelines, not set-in-stone rules as some seem to think.

I choose to not be a slave merely to statistics. If you want to pick the MVP solely on statistics every year, we can hire a statistical outlet to name the winner and just do away with balloting. We can call it "Most Outstanding Statstical Player." And, certainly, Pujols had great statistics, as he always does.

There were so many great candidates this year, so many qualified players, that I also looked at how they elevated their teams, thus being "most valuable." Normally, I wouldn't vote for players who didn't play a full season but CC Sabathia and Manny Ramirez were the primary reasons the Brewers and Dodgers made the playoffs. How much more valuable can you be than that?

Anyway, one of the great things about the BBWAA awards is the debate they sometimes spark, and it looks like lots of folks are debating this one. No one is debating how great a player Pujols is. That would be just plain silly. And, sure, I could have moved him up higher on my ballot, certainly ahead of Carlos Delgado (though I thought he personally tried to fight off the gagging of others on his team).

As for the debate of what makes a player "most valuable," that one will rage on forever. And it certainly looks like I did my part to add to that debate. Enjoy yourselves.

On the first part of the bolded paragraph. No wai! I thought you loved statistics!

 

On the second part of the bolded paragraph. Sounds good to me, it would prevent unqualified voters like you from voting.

[logan82]

Anyway, one of the great things about the BBWAA awards is the debate they sometimes spark, and it looks like lots of folks are debating this one.

 

There is nothing great about the BBWAA awards. The only people who think so are the writers and their inflated egos.

[AdvantageSchneider]

The problem TH has and a lot of other writers have is that they always over vaule the intangibles. I would have no problem with CC being 3rd or so in the MVP balloting, despite pitching for only half a season in the NL. He completely dominated while he was with the brewers AND he pretty much carried them the to the pennant the last two weeks of the season by pitching on short rest. Winning a penant should count for something. If too players are even or close the tie breaker should be I think does the team make the playoffs.

 

TH doesn't realized that Howard and Prince did not come close to what Pujolos did this season so a playoff birth should not move those two guys over Albert.

 

Are you surprised at all that TH didn't say something like, "upon reflection of my vote and the rest of the baseball writers, it appears I voted pujolos too low"

 

I mean if I was out of line by that much from the other 500+ professionals in my field I don't think my first reaction would be to defend my vote. I think my first reaction would be, how was my thinking so far out of line with what everyone else came up with. Not that we want to be conformist in our thinking, but if you respect the other baseball writers opinions I would think that your first move would be to reassess your criteria or methodolgy or weights or whatever.

 

But I guess it's just hard for some people, or a lot of people to admit they might have made a mistake.

[endaround]

Yes Tom there were many great candidates, however you managed to avoid mentioning most of them. You didn't even vote for C Jones, H Ramirez, Berkman, or Utley (hey he was on a playoff team too!)

[MJLiverock]

I guess I don't really care who finished 2nd 3rd 7th, etc. Pujols is a fine choice for the award and 5 years from now no one will be arguing about where people finished after that. Its not like Pujols was a horrible choice and Tom is right that the award is not called the most outstanding statistical compiler, I wouldn't want the award reduced to that formula. A guy like Chipper Jones had a great season but missed a quarter of the games I probably wouldn' t vote for him either. A guy like Utley had a great start but his numbers did fall off from the torrid start, still great for a 2B but not MVP. Those are just two guys that subjective reasons elimate from winning the award.

[endaround]

Yes Jones missed a quarter of the games and was still more valuable than all but 3 or 4 players.

[TooLiveBrew]

On the second part of the bolded paragraph. Sounds good to me, it would prevent unqualified voters like you from voting.

 

100% agree, trwi7.

 

 

"As for the debate of what makes a player 'most valuable,' that one will rage on forever. And it certainly looks like I did my part to add to that debate. Enjoy yourselves."

 

TH can be such an arrogant jerk. That sentence is about as self-congratulatory & condescending as it gets. I need no more reminders why I avoid his work.

 

Yes, Tom, as long as knuckleheads like you cling to the only ways you feel you can understand baseball, & dismiss other more effective methods, the 'debate will rage on forever.'

[Oldcity]

"I choose to not be a slave merely to statistics" really rivals "It's big-boy time." I'm not sure which one I like more.

[Ennder]

I guess I don't really care who finished 2nd 3rd 7th, etc. Pujols is a fine choice for the award and 5 years from now no one will be arguing about where people finished after that. Its not like Pujols was a horrible choice and Tom is right that the award is not called the most outstanding statistical compiler, I wouldn't want the award reduced to that formula. A guy like Chipper Jones had a great season but missed a quarter of the games I probably wouldn' t vote for him either. A guy like Utley had a great start but his numbers did fall off from the torrid start, still great for a 2B but not MVP. Those are just two guys that subjective reasons elimate from winning the award.

 

So players who did less than Chipper in more games are somehow more valuable? Players who stunk for all but the last month of the season and a hot Sept are somehow more valuable tahn Utley.

 

Tom's votes are a big fat sad joke and shows everything that is wrong with how the awards are handled. The sad thing is the guy from the nationals who left Braun and Howard completely off his card probably was the closest to being 'right' and the media is getting on his back for not sticking to group think.

[RU Rah Rah]

TH can be such an arrogant jerk. That sentence is about as self-congratulatory & condescending as it gets. I need no more reminders why I avoid his work.

Well put. You would have thought he had learned his lesson after this summer's debacle.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

I just wish that guys like Haudricourt actually had the courage of their convictions. If Pujols can't be the MVP because the Cards weren't in the playoffs, why does he deserve a 7th place vote? Why isn't he left off the ballot entirely? Why do any Mets appear on his ballot?

 

If somebody had the stones to turn in an all playoff participant MVP-ballot, I would at least admire his/her consistency and intellectual integrity. Now, granted, those admirable traits would be employed in the service of a stupid idea. But as it sits now, with ballots like Haudricourt's, we've got the stupid idea contorting wildly, gyrating this way and that, logic be darned...a staggering showcase of humanity's awe-inspiring inability to clearly think through even the most basic of problems in the most irrelevant and inconsequential arenas.

 

Doesn't exactly provide the basis for much faith we'll get this climate change thing (just an example, feel free to insert your own impending cataclysm, e.g. skynet becomes self-aware and declares war on humanity, etc.) wrangled, does it?