Albert Pujols deservedly won the NL MVP this year and for some stupid reason fans from all over the place are trying to argue he didn’t deserve it. First of all, I’ve seen several say that Ryan Howard should have won so let’s look at a few things.
OFFENSE
Albert Pujols: .357/.462/.653
Ryan Howard: .251/.339/.543
DEFENSE
Pujols: .840 RZR, 52 OOZ
Howard: .743 RZR, 32 OOZ
BASERUNNING
Pujols (net gain from BJOL): 0
Howard: -23
OK, defensively Pujols was so much better it’s funny. He made 20 more plays on balls out of zone and about 15 or so plays on balls in zone. Pujols was average running the bases while Ryan Howard was atrocious. Offensively, there’s no comparison whatsoever. Ryan Howard’s OBP was .339 for crying out loud. .339. Three Thirty Nine!
But, let’s check out some of the unbelievably stupid comments from around Al Gore’s interweb today.
From BCB, of course.
I think that Pujols had a very very good year, but he wasn’t even the MVP of the Cards…
I think Ludwick & Loshe were probably more of the reason that the Cards were competitive most of the year for the division title. I think maybe the MVP should have gone to Howard.
Jimmyeatworld
by Jimmyeatworld on Nov 17, 2008 3:05 PM CST to parent up reply reply 0 recs
Sorry Jimmy, but you’re one of the dumbest people on the planet.
From some guy who actually writes for a newspaper in Wisconsin and is proof that the current system needs fixed as this dumbfuck voted had Pujols not 2nd, not 3rd, but 7th!!!
I had an MVP ballot and voted for Howard first because he almost single-handedly carried the Phillies to the playoffs by batting .352 with 11 homers and 32 RBI in September. I like to weight my voting to teams in the playoff hunt because I think that puts more pressure on players and separates the men from the boys. There’s little pressure on players having big years if their teams aren’t playing for anything at the end.
Tommy, you’re just not a very bright man.
From Hugging Harold Reynold in the comments on WV23.
Here’s how I see it in a nutshell…StL could have finished 4th with or without Pujols. Where, then, is the value? If you want to tell me he was most valuable to them finishing 4th, then I have no argument.
Yeah, they could have finished 4th with our without Pujols, but they wouldn’t have finished 4th without him. And they sure as shit wouldn’t have found themselves in contention until mid-September despite an overall shitty team behind Pujols. Let’s not give Pujols the award because the rest of the team wasn’t very good. Yeah.
From Rob on GROTA who actually is confident enough to claim they got it wrong again in the title of his post. Rob actually argues why a team in last place was deserving of an MVP member (Dawson) while Pujols isn’t. Ok. Whatever. To his credit, however, he doesn’t say Ryan Howard should win the award. Nope, he says Brad fucking Lidge should have won it.
Some of you may know where I’m going with this, so hang on. But first, Brad Lidge was the MVP of the National League this past year. He saved every game he was asked to. Without him, the Phils do not win the East, let alone the whole bowl of chips. I understand the voting took place before the playoffs, but as we well know here in Cubland, a bad closer equals lots of games pissed away equals a poor record and no postseason play. Lidge was the Beast from day one to day last, and he should have been the MVP this year.
I don’t know why this is so hard. I certainly don’t understand how so many people are as dumb as they are. Most Valuable Player is not open for discussion. There’s no interpreting that goes on. Value is value. Here is the definition of valuable:
val·u·a·ble (vly—bl, vly-)
adj.
1. Having considerable monetary or material value for use or exchange: a valuable diamond.
2. Of great importance, use, or service: valuable information; valuable advice.
3. Having admirable or esteemed qualities or characteristics: a valuable friend.
So, most valuable would be the most “considerable monetary or material value.” Or of most “importance, use or service.” Or most “admirable or esteemed qualities or characteristics.” Since not one of these people knows jack shit about what kind of qualities or characteristics these guys have beyond what they do on the field, most valuable players means only one thing: the player who had the most value to his team. The player who most helped his team. The player who was most valuable to his team regardless of where that team finished. There is no rule that it has to be a team in 6th place, but not 4th place or it that it can’t come from a team in 2nd place, but only 1st place and 6th place. One definition. ONE.
How on earth do so many people not understand this? It’s not up for debate, people. Most valuable player is the player who most helped his team in 2008. I don’t give a crap about knees or wrists or any lies that people may have. It’s easy. It’s the least complicated thing around. It’s so easy that I’d think if you knew not to inhale water that you should know what it means. Jesus god damn dancing fucking christ.
Albert Pujols was the best player in baseball. There is no debating this fact. He was twice as good as who some of these morons think should win it and infinitely better than some damn closer for the Phillies.
What the fuck is wrong with people? Why are people so stupid? I don’t understand how so many people can not get something that requires no “getting”. It’s right there in the name of the award. MOST VALUABLE PLAYER. We know what valuable means, and hopefully the rest of you now know as well and I assume we all know what “player” means. I shouldn’t assume anything though.







