More Howard vs. Pujols

It seems every day I read an article on Howard vs. Pujols and I get more and more angry at how many truly thought Howard was the right choice for NL MVP always citing his HRs, RBIs, and great September as the reasons to go along with the fact that the Phillies made the playoffs and the Cards did not. Here's my favorite argument though:

"I believe that the MVP must come from a contending team. The player on the contending team was under much greater pressure to produce and that needs to be factored in. The standings need to be factored in unless there is no obvious choice from a contending team or someone was worlds better than everyone else. I didn't feel that was the case this year."

There are so many things wrong with this argument I wont get in to all of them. I'll just hit on the points that bother me the most. Fine, I'll buy the pressure thing, but that does not eliminate Pujols who's team was a wild card contender for 5 1/2 months in the toughest division in the league. Second, there was no clear cut winner on the "Contenders." If you consider the contenders to be the four teams that made it plus the Mets and maybe Astros. You could give it to Berkman, but he did not hit well down the stretch when the pressure was at its highest. You could make a case for several Mets with the best choice being Johan Santana, but they missed the playoffs, and Santana's a pitcher (for whatever reason pitchers seem to not be eligible). I guess you could argue for CC Sabathia or Manny Ramirez, but the whole season counts and neither was close to playing a full season. The best full time players on their teams: Aramis Ramirez, Ryan Braun, and Andre Ethier all deserved votes, but really were not close to the best players at their positions let alone in the league so calling them most valuable is quite dumb. That leaves the Phillies, and trying to pick most valuable Phillie all depends what you value. Let me ask you this though: if you were Phillies GM, and you had to get rid of one of the following players, who would it be? Ryan Howard, Cole Hamels, Brad Lidge, Chase Utley, or Jimmy Rollins? Any GM who knows anything would say either Howard or Lidge because they are the easiest to replace, yet those two got more MVP votes than any pair of teammates. And why? Because of the two stupidest statistics ever created: the save and the RBI.

Howard led the majors in RBIs thanks in no small part to the huge number of RBI opportunities he had. Lidge was a perfect 41 for 41 in saves, which is nice, but how did the team set him up for those 41 opportunities. Here are the facts: take Utley, Hamels, or Rollins off that team and replace their offensive and defensive production with Eric Bruntlett for Rollins/Utley, and Kendrick/Eaton for Hamels. There is absolutely no chance that this team holds off the Mets and Marlins for the playoffs. Utley and Rollins are both great hitters for their position, they are both gold glove caliber fielders, and they are both awesome base runners Bruntlett is the very definition of a replacement player. Hamels was one of the top 5 starters in the league whereas Kendrick and Eaton both had ERAs in the 5s. Now take Howard or Lidge and replace them with Dobbs/Madsen respectively. The dropoff is nowhere near as damaging. Dobbs would not produce as much power as Howard, but he would have more hits, play better defense, and run the bases better leading to essentially the same production. There is also the fact that Dobbs would bat lower in the order, allowing Werth/Burrell to move up killing less rallies than the slumping Howard did in the first 5 months of the season, and protecting Utley from lefties. This has value! Madsen would be a drop off slightly from Lidge, so lets say he blows an extra 4-5 saves. It think in all its a wash and they still win the division or at least come close. Howard was the least valuable of these 5 Phillies, yet he got 12 first place votes??? WTF??? VORP just shows how easily Howard was to replace: his VORP of 36.6 is 2.7 times worse than Pujols! This means Pujols's batting gave his team almost 3 times the victories than Howard's gave his.

Someone asked me this week if I really believed that Pujols was 2.7 times valuable than Howard. "You wouldn't trade 2.7 Howards for 1 Pujols would you?

Well, yes, I would.

First, what the hell would I do with 2.7 Ryan Howards? Assuming you were an AL team, you could DH one, and play one at first. If you were an NL team of course, this becomes even worse as one would have to play left full time and the other could platoon in right. Second, you now have 2.7 lefties who are awful against left handed pitching, make lots of outs, strikeout a ton, and are anchors on the bases. Third, it is going to be a hell of a lot easier for me to find replacements at DH/corner outfield than it would be to replace Pujols's production. Pujols is athletic enough to move around the field, while providing solid defense, Howard is not. If anything VORP understates their massive difference as it does not include defense, base running, or situational hitting all of which are areas where Pujols blows Howard away.

Still some people only understand counting stats, so here are some for you to chew on:

Outs
Howard: 475
Pujols: 364

Times on base:
Howard: 237
Pujols: 296

Total Bases:
Howard: 331
Pujols: 342

Runs Created
Howard: 113
Pujols: 160

Only TB is close as that is greatly inflated by Howard's home park and playing time. They do not outweigh the massive amount of outs Howard made to get their killing rallies and costing his team games in the process. Utley also crushes Howard in all of these except TB, where he is only 6 (six!) behind. Utley is really an amazing case as he has been statistically his team's MVP for each of the past two seasons and has not finished in to top 3 Phillies in the voting.

The case for Curt Schilling and Mike Mussina

In previous posts I have discussed which current players I see as HOF locks, who's on the bubble and who is out. This week, one of my bubble guys, Mike Mussina, has retired leading to numerous articles making the case for or against him as a HOFer. Another pitcher, Curt Schilling, whom I see as a HOFer has indicated that he may come back and pitch a partial season.

There are four current (depending on your definition of current) pitchers that are absolute locks for the Hall: Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, and Tom Glavine. The first 3 rank 2, 4, 7 on my all time pitching rankings while the third has 300 wins and 2 Cys making him a lock. Roger Clemens was also a lock until the Mitchell Report, and is now a question mark. That leaves John Smoltz, Mariano Rivera, Schilling, Mussina, and Trevor Hoffman as question marks. I can't see any good reason to leave Smoltz off with his unprecedented starter-closer-starter dominace plus 1 CY, 1 WS ring, a great playoff record, and 3000 Ks. If there was ever a reliever who deserved it more than Rivera, I have never heard of him so we are down to Schilling, Mussina and Hoffman. Therefore, I will compare the cases of Schilling, Mussina, and Hoffman using the Keltner List:

Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?
No. None of them were ever considered to be the best player in baseball or even the best pitcher. Though Schilling came the closest.
Schill: 0
Moose:0
Hoffman:0

Was he the best player on his team?
Both starters were for a few years. Schilling with the 97 and 98 Phillies, and Moose with the 92 and 94 O's. Hoffman was not IMO.
Schill: 1
Moose:1
Hoffman:0

Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?
No, but you see there were these two guys: Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson who were. That would have been the case for just about anyone in history. If you consider closer a seperate position from pitcher, Hoffman may have been at least the best in the NL if not all of baseball for a few years. I don't consider closer to be a seperate postion though.

Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
Schilling definitely did. 93 Phillies, 01 and 02 DBacks, 04 and 07 Red Sox. Mussina, not so much. We'll give Hoffman credit for 1998 although most of that should go to Kevin Brown.
Schill: 2
Moose:1
Hoffman:1

Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?
All had good to great seasons in their late 30s, so yes.
Schill: 3
Moose:2
Hoffman:2

Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
No

Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?
More of Mussina's comparables are in including Marichal and Palmer, but Schilling compares better to his HOF comparables. Only Sutter was for Hoffman and his HOF merit is debateable. We'll chalk up a yes for both of the starters and no for Hoffman.
Schill: 4
Moose:3
Hoffman:2

Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
Both starters make it on 3 of the 4 Bill James HOF numbers. Mussina makes in on Monitor, Career Standards, and Grey Ink, while Schilling makes in on Monitor, Grey Ink and Black Ink. The only large difference between the two is Schilling's huge lead in black ink where he has almost 3 times the points. Hoffman only passes the Monitor. This is a definite for Schill, and close enough for Moose, but no for Hoffman.
Schill: 5
Moose:4
Hoffman:2

Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
Mussina's wins may be a bit affected by playing on so many good teams, but probably not quite enough to count it against him. I believe some of Schilling's ERAs are much higher than his actual performance. This is due to playing his best years in the BOB which yielded large amounts of home runs. Playing for a lot of bad Philly teams also hurts his career W-L record. We'll give him a yes. Hoffman played the last few years of his career in the best pitchers park in baseball for a team in one of the worst divisions in baseball. He was also rarely used for more than 1 inning once he turned 30 I'm going to take away .5 points for this.
Schill: 6
Moose:4
Hoffman:1.5

Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?
All not eligible. All not as good as about 5-7 other not eligible pitchers.

How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
Mussina had none where he was close. Schilling had several, but did not get a lot of votes because: a. writers don't vote for pitchers and b. he was never the best pitcher in the league. He does have 4 runner up finishes for CY Young all lost to probable HOFers. Mussina has one. Schilling also has twice the career CY share. Mussina has 1 more first place vote, but that is due entirely to who he was up against, not how he pitched. Hoffman has 2 Cy runner ups and a bigger share than Mussina but thats stupid as 1 inning pitchers should not win the Cy Young or MVP.
Schill: 7
Moose:4
Hoffman:1.5

How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?
Schilling had 6, Moose had 5 both pitched in 3. Hoffman had 6, pitched in 6, took the loss in one. Not a good indicator either way.

If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?
Mussina/Hoffman: No. Schilling basically was the best on the 93 Phillies that did win the pennant though cases could be made for John Kruk, Darren Daulton and Lenny Dykstra. Schilling was the NLCS MVP and there's no way they win the series without him. Schilling was also a vital player on the WS winners in 2001, 2004, and 2007, but I don't think you can call him the best player on any of them.
Schill: 8
Moose:4
Hoffman:1.5

What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?
Again a no on Mussina. Schilling can be given a lot of credit for ending the Yankees 1990s dynasty and for breaking the curse of the Bambino. He is the last pitcher to go 1-4-7 in a world series, and may be the last ever to complete 15 games. His bloody sock will be an image shown in October for the rest of time. Hoffman can be given a lot of credit for popularizing the change up as it is used today. Credit can also go to Pedro, but it has lead to the change being used as a legit out pitch for guys like Cole Hamels and Johan Santana. This is similar to Sutter with the splitter.
Schill: 9
Moose:4
Hoffman:2.5

Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?
Both starters have been perceived as cocky and smug at times, especially Schilling. Schilling has also been very outspoken about steroids and players who he believes used them. I don't think there is a credit or demerit to hand out here. Hoffman gets sizable a boost as he is a renowned good guy.
Schill: 9
Moose:4
Hoffman:4

I think the case for Schilling is better because he was clearly more dominating at his peak. He is IMO the best playoff pitcher ever, and there is no one I would rather have on the mound in game 7 of the world series. 3 WS rings all of which I don't think there's a chance his team would have won without him. 2 post season MVP awards, 3116 strikeouts (15th all time), and first in the modern era with 4.38 K/BB. A Hall of Famer in my book.

Mussina's got a case, no doubt about it, but it all boils down to him being the 8th best starting pitcher of the ERA, and 9th best if you count Rivera. Is there a class of 9 contemporary pitchers in the Hall?

Hoffman also has a case, although I think its even worse than Mussina. Back to my feeling in general of closers: if they are so good, why don't they start?

Howard "deserved" the MVP

The BWAA finally seems to be making progress after two decades of head scratching. Well, at least they seem to be progressing with their Award Winners. Can't say the same about the runners up. How else can you explain Hanley Ramirez and Chase Utley not finishing in the top 10? Maybe its a one year aberration and they will return to form in 2009. Anyway, Phil Sherridan for one will not stand for this new found intelligence:

Phil Sheridan: MVP voting is out of whack

No Arguement here. Writers take the V part way too literally. I guess we agree after all.

Ryan Howard was the most valuable player in the National League in 2008. That he was not voIted MVP by the Baseball Writers' Association of America says more about the association than about Howard, Albert Pujols or America.

What I said before? Yeah, scratch that.

Pujols was not an embarrassing selection, not with his excellent numbers, but was still the wrong selection. And that should embarrass the association enough to do what it should have done long ago: get out of the business of voting on baseball's postseason awards - as well as the Hall of Fame.

Pujols certainly was 100% the correct decision and the world of smart baseball fans agrees. No argument about writers getting out of the voting process though.

The arguments against the writers' participation in the voting are well-established and have been covered here before. It is ethically indefensible for the journalists who cover baseball to vote for official awards that have an impact on players' financial rewards.

Imagine Howard's 2009 arbitration hearing. It will be different because he finished second in this voting as opposed to first. That alone is reason enough for the association to recuse itself from this annual charade.

Damn shame, I think we can all agree that Howard's 2008 salary of $10M was far too low for an all hit, no field, no run firstbaseman. He should be getting at least as much as (WS MVP) Cole Hamels! OH wait Hamels made $500k.

It is similarly impossible to justify the association's giving thumbs up or down to players from the steroid era who become eligible for Hall of Fame voting. (Disclosure: I belong to the association because membership streamlines the credential process and because the organization works to improve conditions and access for reporters; I don't vote on anything.)

When I've written about this in the past, earnest members of the association have taken time out of their busy days to explain my ignorance to me. Their best argument goes something like this: If not us, then who? Who is better qualified to get it right than the (mostly) men who cover the game every day?

Uh, maybe broadcasters who actually watch games for six months? Or GMs who take actual value to heart when making personelle decisions?

That argument is completely beside the point, of course. It is not a journalist's concern whether MLB gets its awards right or the Hall of Fame right. It should be much more of a concern that the same group that rewarded Barry Bonds with four consecutive MVP Awards in this decade will sit in judgment of whether his alleged cheating should keep him from the Hall.

Alleged. That's a good one. And it is the journalist's concern to get it right because they are the ones who vote for it!

If the MVP is the player with the best all-round statistical season, a computer could figure that out. And a computer might well have spit out Pujols' name this season. He was terrific.

It almost certainly would have spit out Pujols despending on what it was programmed to value, but how's that different than your arbitrary evaluation process? Is it too subjective?

But Howard got hot in September, hitting 11 home runs and driving in 32 runs to carry the Phillies into the playoffs. That's the very definition of valuable.

Actually, the definition of valuable is overall value added. This includes the first 5 months of the year, and his playing absolutely awful for 3 of the first 5 months is what set them up to need carrying into the playoffs in the first place. The guy hit .172/.297/.343 in April which is historically bad for anyone but a pitcher. But thats not all, he was also awful in June and August and really only hit like an above average first baseman in July and September. He does not get extra points for sucking for 5 months and turning it on for the last month. That would be like a pitcher going 7 innings and giving up 8 runs but pitching shutout ball for the last two and waiting for his teammates to bail him out. The pitcher is not the player of the game is he?

The group-think association argument for Pujols, if I'm smart enough to get it right, is that he single-handedly kept the Cardinals in the wild-card race. That is brilliant, except it ignores the presence of Ryan Ludwick, Rick Ankiel and Troy Glaus (so much for "single-handedly"), and the fact that the National League wild-card race was a watered-down farce.

And Howard's supporting cast of Utley, Rollins, Burrell, Werth, Victorino, Hamels, and Lidge all laid down in September when Howard "single-handedly" did his carrying. For the record, the Cardinals won 86 games (6 worse than the all mighty Phillies) and blew something like 30 saves.

The Cards finished fourth in their division, 151/2 games behind the Cubs. Replace Pujols with an average NL first baseman and what happens? Do they drop all the way to fifth?

Replace Howard with an average first baseman and what happens? Oh wait, Howard was an average first baseman, so nothing changes! The Cardinals however go from 86 wins to mid 70s - 10 game swing.

The association seamheads love to throw around stats - OPS, VORP, ASPCA - to make a case for Pujols. That's all great. Yes, he struck out less and hit for a higher average. But Howard won actual baseball games in an honest-Abe pennant race. He had 11 more home runs than Pujols, scored five more runs than Pujols, and drove in 30 more runs than Pujols.

Wait, stop. ASPCA? WTF is that. A quick google finds that ASPCA is the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Us "seamheads" sure are great people. Great understatement by Phil: "Yes, he struck out less and hit for a higher average". Let's examine the ever so slight differences there:

Ks -Howard: 199, Pujols: 54. Howard struck out 369% more often.

BA - Howard: .251, Pujols: .357. Howard got hits at rate 30% less than Pujols. The differences in HR, R, and RBI pale in comparison and all are products of Howard's environment.

Notice there are no decimal points involved there, only whole numbers that made a difference in real baseball games.

That takes care of the logic. Now let's look at the process.

It's been said that 5/4 of people have a problem with fractions and I guess old Phil is one of the 5. And his "logic" is clearly lacking in the logic department.

Of the 32 MVP voters (two from each chapter, which means two from each NL market), only one failed to put Howard on his ballot at all. Rich Campbell of the Fredericksburg (Va.) Free Lance-Star was contacted by my astute colleague Todd Zolecki. He had no comment.

Howard's next-lowest spot - 10th out of 10 - was on the ballot of Mark Zuckerman of the Washington Times. Zuckerman and Campbell both cover the Nationals. They both cast ballots utterly out of step with the norm, at least regarding Howard. If that's a coincidence, I'm Red Smith.

And I greatly commend the Washington beat writers for having the courage to place Howard where he belonged. They should have spread the word. I would have loved to receive the call from Mr. Zolecki because I would have let him have it!

What would have happened had 1994 been played out?

August 12, 1994. The MLBPA stands their ground and goes on strike for 8 and a half months wiping out the conclusion to the season, the playoffs and the World Series. It solved nothing, it alienated fans, and it wiped out was was becoming one of the greatest seasons ever. Baseball still has not fully recovered especially in the World Series TV ratings. The strike killed career years for Greg Maddux, Tony Gwynn, Jeff Bagwell, Matt Williams, Frank Thomas, Albert Belle, Ken Griffey Jr., Paul O'Neil, Kenny Lofton, and Steve Ontiveros among others. Some like Belle and Maddux rebounded nicely to post even better seasons in 1995. Others, like Ontiveros and Williams never reached that level again. To top it all off, the Montreal Expos, a team that had only made the playoffs once and it was due to the 1981 strike, had the best record in baseball. The Yankees had returned to form after a decade in the doldrums and the Indians had finally come out of their 40 year funk and had an exciting, talented, young team.

So how would the season have played out? Would Gwynn hit .400? Would Maddux throw 300 innings? Would Williams or Griffey hit 60 homers? Would Kenny Lofton make a run at 100 steals? Would Frank Thomas, Albert Belle or Jeff Bagwell win the triple crown? And would the Expos win it all? All I can do is speculate and I will do so... right now.

Gwynn
Tony was hitting .394 when the season ended, but he had hit .423 since the break and .475 in a small sample in August. Assuming Gwynn would have continued to receive days off against tough lefthanders and continued to tear it up in August, he likely would have entered the last week of the season within pissing distance of .400. Batting average is quite volatile however, and a couple of lucky bounces would have been the difference between .400 and .390. My guess is no.

Maddux
Maddux was in a league of his own and likely had the perfect storm to throw 300 innings in a 5 man rotation. He made 25 starts in 1994 and threw 202 inning, an average of 8.1 innings per start. He likely would have made 11 more starts which at the same pace would put him at 291 innings. However, Maddux was in the zone late in '94 and in his last 7 starts he had averaged 8.7 innings with a 1.03 ERA. Keeping that up for 11 more starts would put him at 296 innings. But here's the real kicker: the Braves were fighting for their playoff lives and Glavine, Smoltz, and Avery were struggling with ERAs around 4.00. Maddux was the Braves savior and with his efficient pitching style and great mechanics likely would have made a few starts on short rest down the stretch something he had been called on to do in the past with much success. Throw in the possibility of a one game playoff and its not a stretch to think Maddux would have made 37 starts, a number that almost certainly would have put him over 300 innings. Despite all of this, its possible that he would have thrown fewer pitches in 300 innings than Carlos Zambrano does in a typical 220 inning season. I have Maddux finishing at 24-6 with about 240 strikeouts, only about 40 walks, and an ERA well under 2.00.

Williams/Griffey
At the date of the strike, Williams had 43 homers, Griffey had 40. Bagwell had 39, Thomas 38, Bonds 37, and Belle 36. A streak by any of them would have them in the 50s by mid September, but lets focus on the league leaders. Williams was on pace for 62 while Griffey was headed for 58. Williams was red hot since the break with 10 homers in 26 games. He had cooled off a bit in August with "only" 3 in 9 games. Williams was also a free swinger and prone to long slumps. Griffey on the other hand had cooled off after a great first 3 months including 15 homers in May. Griffey was a much more consistent hitter than Williams though and probably would have hit another 15 or so homers to finish around 55. Of the others, I think Belle was most likely to make a run. He was a notorious second half slugger and picked up right where he left off the following year. Still, its doubtful anyone would have reached 60, let alone 62.

Lofton
Lofton was the preeminent base stealer of the 90s and the best since Henderson and 1994 had been his best year. He was getting on base at an alarming rate and stealing bases with remarkable efficiency going 17 for 18 in July. He stood at 60, on pace for 87 which would have been the most since Henderson's 93 in 1988. It's very unlikely that Lofton would have gotten enough green lights the rest of the way, not with the likes of Baerga, Belle, Thome, Ramirez, and others hitting behind him. Still approaching 90 with an 80%+ success rate is excellent.

Triple Crown
The Triple Crown surprisingly has not happened since Yaz in 1967, and there are several reasons for that: 1. in this day and age, the big home run hitters strikeout so much that there is no chance of them hitting for a high average. The best homerun hitter in baseball today is Ryan Howard and he will win two legs of the triple crown almost every year, but will never come close to winning a batting title because he will strikeout almost 200 times a year. 2. RBIs are largely dependent on luck. The best hitters often have far fewer opportunities to drive in runs than the league RBI leader has. To me the triple crown should be AVG/OBP/SLG because that basically means you're the best hitter in the league. The pitching triple crown categories of W/ERA/SO are much better indicators of good performance. Anyway...

Bagwell stood at 2nd in the NL in HR and AVG and first by a lot in RBI. Finishing strong, he had a great chance to catch and pass the streaky Matt Williams for the HR title. Problem is that there is no way he would have caught Gwynn for the batting title unless Gwynn's season had ended right away and he fell short of 502 PAs. Even if Gwynn had been short, his lead was so large (.394 vs. .367) that the 0fer rule (adding ABs to get to 502 and dividing them by hits) might still have won him the award.

Belle and Thomas both had a decent shot, but it would have taken a great final month and a half to do it. They stood at 2 and 3 on the batting race 2 and 6 points respectively behind leader Paul O'Neill. They were tied for 3 in RBIs 11 behind leader Kirby Puckett, and they were 2 and 3 in the HR race with Thomas 2 back of Griffey, and Bell 4 back. Had Belle ended the season like he did in 1995, he would certainly have won the crown, but its quite unlikely he would have. It's also not likely either would have been able to keep up with the consistant Griffey in the HR race. I'm calling this one a no, but it would have been great to see.

Expos
The Expos certainly would have made the playoffs (and might still be in Montreal), but then they face the October crapshoot. The good news for them is they had all the ingredients of a good October team. They had 4 good starting pitchers led by Pedro Martinez and Jeff Fassero. They had a solid lineup 1-8 led by studs Larry Walker and Moises Alou. They had a deep bench with 4 legititmet pinch hit threats that would have filled in well had any of their regulars gone down. And perhaps most importantly, they had a great bullpen with live powerful arms led by John Wettland and Mel Rojas. It likely would have come down to them and Greg Maddux's Braves for the NL pennant, and while it could have been a very hard fought series, the Braves playoff history bodes well for the Expos. The AL team would likely have been New York, Chicago, or Cleveland all of whom would pose substantial threats for the Expos. These were not quite the late 90s Yankees and likely would have bowed out to the powerful lineup of the Indians or the great rotation of the White Sox. No matter who they faced, the Expos would have to be the favorite as they had no holes. Maybe they would have been bludgeoned by the Indians lineup or shut down by the Sox starters, but betting against a team with the Expos level of talent would not be smart. I think they would have won it all.

50 greatest players: 10-1

#10: Greg Maddux
Score: 1105.1/1399.5/24.3/0/2528.8
The #2 pitcher on the list truly has it all: great longevity, better peak, a world series ring, 4 Cy Youngs, and is a member of virtually every number "club" pitchers have. All this despite throwing considerably softer than any of the other great pitchers of his generation. Maddux threw low 90s when he was posting ERAs below two and 19/20 win seasons left and right. The only real knock on him is his lack of postseason dominance, but that's nit picking because without his regular season success, there would be no playoffs. Maddux didn't even make TSN's top 50 back in 2005 somehow ranking behind Nolan Ryan, Bob Feller, Carl Hubbell Bob Gibson, and Steve Carlton among others. WTF??? Did he not strikeout enough guys? Maddux vs. Ryan isn't even remotely close. I would take any of about 7-8 Maddux seasons over any of Ryan's seasons. Maddux has more wins, fewer losses, better ERA, waaaay better ERA+, and a better WHIP. Maddux is also hurt be the fact that his two best seasons occurred in strike years which prevented him from having gaudy counting stats

#9: Stan Musial
Score: 1383.0/1096.5/120.4/12/2538.4
Stan the Man is often overlooked because he only had good but not great home run power. He doesn't have 500 homers and he was overshadowed by Ted Williams who played in almost the exact same years. Still Musial has plus power, great contact, and good discipline and deserves to be in the top 10.

#8: Rogers Hornsby
Score: 1320.0/1372.1/89.2/0/2684.5
The last man not named Ted Williams to hit .400, and the last right handed hitter to do it. Hornsby is probably the greatest right handed hitter of all time and certainly the best hitting middle infielder. He was the first national league player to hit with regular homerun power and served as the NL version of Babe Ruth during the 1920s.

#7: Willie Mays
Score: 1410.1/1182.7/156.6/0/2686.3
Mays is in the top 2-3 of almost every list, but he simply did not have as great a peak as the guys ahead of him. He would likely move up if his fielding were more quantifiable.

#6: Walter Johnson
Score: 1397.3/1321.9/19.0/0/2738.2
Without question the greatest pitcher ever. He is the only pitcher to rival the peaks of Pedro and Maddux and has the best all around career numbers. He managed to post ERA+s of over 240 at an era where the league average was below 3.00. Now that's impressive

#5: Barry Bonds
Score: 1235.3/1477.7/145.2/-20/2764.4
Yes the steroids certainly boosted him from about 10 to here, but you can't take away all the great years he put in during the 1990s, and his steroid years, when everyone was on steroids, are much much better than anyone else's were. His 2001-2004 seasons were absolutely ridiculous. I guess that's what happen when you take the most talented player in the league and load him up on PEDs. I wonder what Williams and Ruth could have done with that kind of help. Bonds is the highest ranking player who was not a member of the all century team. Had the vote been held 2 years later, he certainly would have been on it.

#4: Ty Cobb
Score: 1488.5/1297.8/85.2/0/2768.4
The best player of the dead ball era and still the all time leader in batting average was also a very good centerfielder in the days of enormous outfields. Some of his other records have been broken, but its going to be hard for anyone to top a lifetime .366 average.

#3: Babe Ruth
Score: 1428.0/1347.8/96.6/0/2774.7
No one is going to like this. Ruth is 1 on just about every list you see, but he played against vastly inferior competition to the two guys in front of him, and he played a less than premium defensive position. Still it was very very close between the top 6.

#2: Ted Williams
Score: 1419.8/1302.0/126.7/20/2785.3
The best damn hitter who ever lived. The last man to hit .400. The all time leader in OBP. And he missed 5 years due to wars, 3 of which where he might have topped his 1941 season of .406/.553/.735. He likely would have 3500 hits and 700 homers with 5 more seasons of being Ted Williams. His lifetime on base percentage of .482 ranks first all time and is better than the career high of any current player other than Frank Thomas or Barry Bonds. It has only been topped 8 times since WWII by someone other than Williams. It would be a stretch for anyone to ever break it.

#1: Mickey Mantle
Score: 1344.9/1403.5/130.0/0/2796.2
Somebody want to explain to me how he was 19th on TSN's list? I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no argument for having Dimaggio ahead of the Mick. He is one of only 7 players with 3 OPS+s over 200 and the only one to do it post color barrier while playing a premium defensive position. If I could choose any season to have on my team in would be Mantle in 1957. 16 all star games, 7 rings, 3 MVPs. Mantle may well have been the most talented player in history but his career was hurt by an early injury that took out much of his speed, and later due to too much booze. Mantle didn't have performance enhancing substances, he had performance hindering ones. He had to overcome his drugs.

Interesting notes on my list:

Number of players on the list by primary position:
P - 16, CF - 7, RF - 6, 2b - 5, 3b - 4, LF - 3, SS - 3, C - 3, 1B - 3.

Not surprisingly, the Yankees are the most represented team with 10 players: Mantle, Ruth, Clemens, DiMaggio, Gehrig, Randy Johnson, ARod, Berra, Rivera, and Boggs. The Red Sox are next with 9 with Ruth, Boggs, and Clemens represented on both. There are no representatives for the Rockies, Marlins, and Brewers although Milwaukee can lay claim to a number of Braves.

Pujols is the youngest player on the list at 28, while Cy Young is the oldest at 141. The oldest living member is Stan Musial at 88. 21 players on the list are deceased, most recently Warren Spahn in 2003.

Every player on the list that is eligible is in the Hall of Fame, but it will be interesting to see what happens to Bonds and Clemens. Pete Rose and Joe Jackson will likely never make the Hall.

There are 9 players on the list who have not officially retired from baseball, but Clemens and Bonds both did not play in 2008. The next HOF eligible player is Mike Piazza who retired after the 2007 season and will be on the ballot in 2013. He will likely be elected in his first year of eligibility.

Pete Rose and Roger Clemens had the longest careers at 24 seasons, while Sandy Koufax had the shortest at 12.

Mariano Rivera and Pedro Martinez are the only two non americans on the list although that will certainly change.

The players who enjoyed the best peak years were Pedro and Maddux for pitchers and Bonds and Mantle for hitters. While the best longevity was enjoyed by Cobb and Ruth for hitters and Johnson and Young for pitchers.

16 of the players won at least one gold glove, and award that began being awarded in the 1950s after a good portion of the players had retired. Maddux leads the way with 17 gold gloves, with Mays topping the position players with 12. Schmidt, Griffey, and Bench all have 10.

42 of the players on the list won at least 1 world series including all the pitchers. Berra has the most with 10, DiMaggio follows with 9, 7 each for Mantle and Ruth, and six for Gehrig. The most by a non Yankee is Eddie Collins with 4. Williams, Cobb and Bonds are the only players in the top 20 with no ring. A Rod, Griffey, Carew, and Lajoie are the only players not to play in a World Series, and Lajoie the lone player not to play in the postseason.

50 greatest players: 20-11

#20: Randy Johnson
Scores: 1116.9/1146.6/19.0/0/2282.5
The Big Unit is the greatest strikeout pitcher ever. He has by far the highest number of K/9, and made numerous runs at Nolan Ryan's single season record of 383. He did so despite pitching 60-80 innings less than Ryan due to being in a 5 man rotation. There's no doubt in my mind that Johnson could have been in a 4 man rotation if given the chance. His career totals may be lacking, but much of that is due to the fact that he didn't harness his ability until he was on the wrong side of 30. Still, Johnson had 10 years that are among the greatest of all time, and he did it at the height of the steroid era. Probably the greatest pitching talent in history.

#19: Jimmie Foxx
Scores: 1105.2/1180.8/98.7/0/2312.3
Foxx was often overshadowed by Gehrig and Ruth, but he put up some serious numbers. His 1932 season is among the greatest ever.

#18: Lou Gehrig
Scores: 1160.4/1170.4/94.7/0/2349.1
Only slightly less good than Ruth, Gehrig was actually better for a few of his seasons with 1927 being his peak. Unfortunately ALS kept him from establishing truly great career totals.

#17: Joe Dimaggio
Scores: 1096.5/1199.8/111.6/12/2351.9
Joe will always be remembered for his hitting streak, but it was his unique combination of power, speed, and contact that made him so great. He almost never struck out or walked. He has nowhere near the longevity or even the peak of Cobb, Mantle and Mays, but he's the best of the second tier centerfielders.

#16: Christy Mathewson
Scores: 1199.6/1160.1/12.0/0/2371.7
Matty may well have been the greatest ever when he was on specifically his 3 shutouts in 5 games of the 1903 fall classic. His career was relatively short, but that didn't stop him from winning 373 games the third highest total in history.

#15: Cy Young
Scores: 1295.7/1072.8/19.0/0/2387.5
One record that will never ever ever be broken is 511 victories. On the other side of the coin his record for losses will also never be broken. Cy's peak was solid, but its his longevity that earns him a spot in our top 15.

#14: Hank Aaron
Scores: 1262.9/1059.8/127.8/0/2388.7
The Hammer and all time homerun king is a strange case because he has an 18 year peak where no year was anything but very good. No truly incredible seasons, but no seasons that would be considered anything less than very good. This is why Aaron is second in HRs, 1st in RBIs, and 3rd in hits, but nowhere to be found on the % stats.

#13: Pedro Martinez
Scores: 1038.4/1449.4/15.0/0/2502.8
At his peak in 1999 and 2000, Pedro threw the two greatest pitching seasons ever period. He made hitters look silly at the absolute peak of the steroid era, while playing half his games in a notoriously good hitters park. His 0.74 WHIP in 2000 is the all time record. His stuff was unhittable, his control unparalleled, and his attitude downright scary. I don't think many could hit him with a tennis racket. His career numbers will pale in comparison to many, but his peak is far and away the best ever.

#12: Roger Clemens
Scores: 1196.6/1307.2/22.0/-16/2509.8
I think many will end up misremembering Clemens career because of the soap opera he has become and that's sad. Clemens 7 Cys is a record that should stand for many years. Many had him ranked 2nd or 1st all time among pitchers prior to the Mitchell report.

#11: Honus Wagner
Scores: 1229.4/1304.1/81.5/0/2523.0
The greatest shortstop of all time and one of the first superstars of the American Pastime will be remembered for ever if for no other reason than the fact that he is on the most valuable piece of sports memorabilia in the world.

50 greatest players: 30-21

#30: Frank Robinson
Scores: 950.9/1065.3/100.4/0/2058.5
Though Robinson was overshadowed by Mays and Aaron, he was arguably as good as they were for the first 10-15 years of his career. His decline was sharper and he didn't hit near as many homers, but he was great at getting on base, hitting for average, and hitting for extra base power.

#29: Lefty Grove
Scores: 972.1/1115.8/14.0/0/2101.9
Perhaps the best pitcher between Walter Johnson and Sandy Koufax. Grove dominated baseball during the first offensive boom in the years of Ruth, Gehrig, and Ott. He helped lead Connie Mack's A's to 2 titles and likely would have been many more without those pesky Yankees in his way.

#28: Warren Spahn
Scores: 1160.5/936.6/17.0/12/2126.1
The most long lasting, durable pitcher since the dead ball era ended has what many consider to be the "real" record for victories at 363. Spahn lost the first few years of his career due to war and likely would have reached 400 wins with the extra years.

#27: Tom Seaver
Scores: 1088.6/1030.2/19.0/0/2137.8
The man who made the Mets matter is easily one of the top 10 pitchers ever, and could arguably be in the top 5. Why oh why did the Mets let him go? Seaver holds the record for highest percent of the vote in HOF ballot history. As a side note, the late 70s Reds check in with 4 top 50 players, most of any team.

#26: Grover Cleveland Alexander
Scores: 1080.5/1050.4/19.0/0/2149.9
Tied for 3rd on the wins list with Christy Matthewson, Alexander had great longevity but not near the peak of the best pitchers ever.

#25: Mike Schmidt
Scores: 970.2/1157.9/129.5/0/2206.3
Unquestionably the greatest third baseman of all time. Schmidt was both a great hitter and a great fielder, second only to Brooks Robinson with the leather at the hot corner. His 48 homers in 1980 were the best for the position until ARod broke it a few years ago.

#24: Mike Piazza
Scores: 852.7/1306.1/123.5/0/2227.0
Like Schmidt, there is no debate at who the best hitting catcher ever was. Piazza tends to be underrated in most people's minds because he was notoriously bad at throwing out runners. They overlook the fact that he was a good game caller, good receiver, and not horrible at fielding the ball. What no one should ignore is that for a 10 year run of 1993-2002 Piazza was one of the best hitters in all of baseball smashing 40 HRs twice and hitting over .300 9 times with a peak of .363. Terrific numbers for a first baseman or a DH, but absolutely incredible for a catcher.

#23: Nap Lajoie
Scores: 988.5/1257.6/76.5/0/2242.7
One of the kings of the dead ball era, Lajoie holds the record for batting average in a season at .426. He also hit a lot of doubles, and in smaller parks these could have become homers.

#22: Alex Rodriguez
Scores: 1058.6/1141.2/120.3/0/2261.2
The top active position player is also the only player on the list with a legit chance at moving into the top 10 in the next few years. Alex may finish with 800 homers and close to 4000 hits and still miss the top 5. It's that competitive.

#21: Tris Speaker
Scores: 1100.5/1173.6/80.6/0/2275.2
Another guy who seems to be overlooked in lists. This is perhaps due to playing most of his career in Cleveland at around the time the Babe was taking baseball over, but Speaker was a great player in his own right and still holds the record for doubles at 792 a number not likely to go down anytime soon.

50 greatest players: 40-31

#40: Mel Ott
Scores: 926.2/983.6/98.6/0/1954.8
Ott was sort of the bridge from Ruth to Williams as the best pure hitter in the game, yet his name never comes up in the same breath as those two giants. I think much of this has to due with his somewhat lackluster batting average as well as his playing for that "other NY team."

#39: Mariano Rivera
Scores: 793.8/1240.6/18.0/0/1958.0
The first of 4 pitchers on the list who could lay claim to being the greatest postseason pitcher ever. Rivera has also been spectacular in the regular season and has been perhaps the key player on the Yankees for the past 13 years.

#38: John Smoltz
Scores: 931.2/1019.2/13.0/0/1963.4
An unprecedented starter-reliever-starter run Smoltz is the only player with 200 wins and 150 saves. He won the Cy as a starter and finished 3rd as a reliever. He also has 3000 strikeouts and incredible postseason numbers.

#37: Bob Gibson
Scores: 859.9/1112.4/14.0/0/1986.3
The man with the single season ERA record had more longevity than Koufax, and at his peak may have been even more dominating. His peak was not quite long enough to put him up with Spahn/Seaver and he might be a bit overrated because of 1968, but he's a solid top 50 player.

#36: Yogi Berra
Scores: 870.5/1059.4/111.0/0/1991.6
The master of quotations comes in at the third highest rated catcher Berra is certainly helped by having more rings than anyone in history, but he was a big reason why he has all those rings.

#35: George Brett
Scores: 787.8/1158.8/105.3/0/1999.2
Helped more than just a little by 1980, Brett is probably rated a bit too high, but that does not change the fact that he was perhaps the best pure hitter of the 1980s.

#34: Johnny Bench
Scores: 782.0/1130.5/131.6/0/2004.4
The #2 catcher on the list and tops from the Big Red Machine is the first player to crack 2000. If defense were more quantifiable, he could rank as high as top 20 and would easily rank the highest of any catcher ever.

#33: Eddie Collins
Scores: 901.9/1112.6/71.9/0/2016.2
The #2 2nd sacker was a great hitter, baserunner, and fielder. Although he was on the 1919 Black Sox team, he was not one of the 8 men out and a as a result went on to have a productive HOF career. Lifetime .333/.424/.429 with 3315 hits and 744 steals.

#32: Ken Griffey Jr.
Scores: 833.8/1090.7/132.4/0/2017.0
It's true that Griffey was a truly great player at his peak both at the plate and in the field, but it is a complete fabrication of the truth to believe he would be a top 10 player had he stayed healthy. He was never as good as Mays, Mantle or Cobb, and would quickly have been surpassed by ARod had both stayed in Seattle. Griffey to me may have had a top 10 talent, but I don't believe he ever worked hard enough to keep himself healthy and reach his full potential. 0 WS rings, 0 180+ OPS+ seasons, and peaked during an unprecedented era of offense.

#31: Shoeless Joe Jackson
Scores: 833.5/1192.1/85.0/0/2045.4
Jackson is tough to rank because he was banned when he was near his career peak so his counting stats are a bit low, but his % stats are high because he had no decline phase. Still, there's no doubt in my mind he'd have ended up close to 3500 hits with a lifetime .330 average and could potentially have developed into a power hitter as the dead ball era ended.

50 greatest players: 50-41

The Mission:
Upon reading lists of greatest player rankings by TSN, Bill James, and ESPN among others, I found myself frustrated by their lists as they often overrate guys who played forever like Aaron and Ryan, and underrate guys like Pedro Martinez and Mickey Mantle who were better, but did not last quite as long. My opinion has always been that 3-4 absolutely super years should trump 10 very good years. The reason for this is that the truly great years are extremely rare, and the unique ability to produce one should be rewarded. After some thinking and tinkering, I have developed an unbiased system for ranking the all time greats.

Methodology:
Positions:
First to make sure the difficulty of the position was taken into account, I created a position adjustment divider that all numbers were subjected to. This is based on which positions produce the most offense. The lower the number, the harder the position. Primary position was used except for cases where the primary position was unclear, in which case a weighted average of the adjustments was used. Anyplayer who played a considerable amount of games at positions on both halves of the spectrum was given a neutral rating of 1.00. The position ajustment does not apply to pitchers as their hitting was not taken into account. The adjustments go like this: C - 0.850, SS - 0.920, CF - 0.980, 2B - 0.981, 3B - 1.000, RF - 1.130, LF - 1.134, 1B - 1.160, DH - 1.250.

Career Value:
I took Bill James 4 HOF measuring categories (HOF Monitor, HOF Career Standards, Black Ink, Grey Ink) and coupled them with career OPS+ (or ERA+ for pitchers), All Star Game Apearences, World Series Rings, and career offensive winning % (or WHIP for pitchers) to come up with a career value stat. Ty Cobb had the highest value for this stat at 1488.5, but anything over 1000 is very very good.

Peak Value:
The heart of this number concentrates on the players 3 best full seasons of work. It takes into account the 3 highest OPS+/ERA+ years, weighting them 2.5, 2.0, and 1.5 for the 1st/2nd/3rd best. It also factors in career MVP and Cy Young shares (admittedly not a great measure of dominance, but usually you have to be pretty good to get votes in either category. Being on winning teams certainly helps, but again that's a measure of greatness. These numbers are weighted to count the same as career value. The highest number recorded was Steroid Bonds at 1477.7 with Pedro not far behind at 1449.4.

Position Dominance:
A very small part of the overall value factors in All Star Teams, OPS+/ERA+, Gold Gloves and Silver Sluggers for hitters/Years Above average (years above 100 ERA+ for relievers, and above 90 for starters) for pitchers. The highest value here was Willie Mays at 157.

Other Adjustments:
Finally an adjustment was made for war credit or steroid demerit of +4 points for each year missed due to war, and -5 points for each year that was obviously steroid enhanced. This tended to help the war vetrans more than it hurt the juicers. The hitters overall numbers came out higher than the pitchers and were adjusted to make it a level playing field.

Overall anything over 1500 is HOF material, anything over 2000 is an all time great, and anything over 2200 is a true immortal.

Everything is not apples to apples as there was no All Star game until 1933, no MVP in the early days, no CY until the '50s when there was only one, no gold gloves until the '60s, not silver sluggers until the '80s, but there were also far fewer good players so it was easier to score highly in the 4 James stats as well as OPS+/ERA+ so it about evens out. One thing that I'm not satisfied with are the lack of fielding statistics which causes players such as Mays, Johnny Bench, Brooks Robinson, and Roberto Clemente to be under valued. I also don't love OPS+ because it tends to underrate guys with less power such as Rickey Henderson. Rickey is also hurt by playing primarily leftfield, and sticking around for 4 awful years at the end of his career when his power and speed were gone. But he wasn't hurt.

In all I'm pretty satisfied with the way things turned out and I doubt things would be much different if I was ranking things subjectively. There are also no negro league players because statistics were not available.

The "bottom" 10 (scores read career value/peak value/position dominance/credit or demerit/overall):

#50: Albert Pujols
Scores: 790.8/1018.8/97/0/1857.5
Albert will certainly climb much higher in the next 10 years or so, but the fact that he's already top 50 and he's not ever 30 yet is truly a marvel. Pujols was the only player under 30 to come close to the top 50 with Johan Santana a distant second.

#49: Duke Snider
Scores: 769.8/1077.8/91/0/1885.5
The 3rd best NY centerfielder of the 1950s pales in comparison to the other two, but he comes in solidly in the top 50.

#48: Wade Boggs
Scores: 796.1/1029.6/107.5/0/1887.6
The 1980s may have been the doldrums for hitting and pitching stars, but it was the golden age of third basemen as Boggs is the first of 3 on our list. Great hitter, great on base guy, a lack of power keeps him from being one of the all time greats.

#47: Sandy Koufax
Scores: 867.6/1030.1/10.0/0/1907.7
Some will argue that Koufax at his peak was the best ever, and they have a valid point as the last 4 years of his career were incredible both in terms of quality and quantity. The problem with this of course is that the occured in the modern peak of pitching. In the late 60s, hitting reached its worst period since the dead ball era and Koufax capitalized with the higher mound and bigger strike zone. Still great years, but not as good as those by the top pitchers of the steroid era.

#46: Joe Morgan
Scores: 741.1/1118.9/102.3/0/1912.8
Good thing this doesn't take into account his broadcasting skills or he'd be WAY down. Morgan is the first of 3 Big Red Machine players on the list and he was perhaps the best hitter of the bunch during his peak.

#45: Rod Carew
Scores: 834.6/1022.5/110.5/0/1921.7
Carew seems a bit high, but the numbers play out as he was a very good hitting second baseman and later first baseman with 3000 hits, a lifetime .328 average, good on base skills, and gap power. Had he stayed at second his whole career, he'd be even higher, but his defense likely would have been awful.

#44Eddie Matthews
Scores: 810.0/1066.2/101.5/0/1927.1
For the ealry part of their careers, Matthews was acutally better than teammate Hank Aaron, and later became his version of Lou Gehrig. Aaron of course lasted much longer than Matthews and would post better years, but Matthews 2nd, 3rd, and 4th years in the league are as good as anyone ever.

#43: Cal Ripken Jr.
Scores: 811.1/1036.7/120.9/0/1927.6
The Iron Man definatly does well in the longevity, but he had an underrated peak durning the late 80s and early 90s when he was one of the top 5 players in all of baseball. He can also be credited for bringing offense back to shortstop as he was the precurser to big, strong players like Rodriguez, Garciaparra, and Tejada.

#42: Steve Carlton
Scores: 939.7/975.3/19.0/0/1934.0
Lefty Carlton is hurt mightily by hanging on too long. At the latest he should have retired after 1985 when he was 1-8 at age 40. Instead he hung on for two excruciating seasons wtih 5 different teams that drove his career ERA and WHIP up while not helping him anywhere. Without those years, he'd likely rank in the top 25. Still the last pitcher to throw 300 innings had one hell of a career.

#41: Pete Rose
Scores: 907.6/968.6/107.0/0/1934.9
The all time hits king is the second highest ranking player not in the hall. Rose Longevity is second to none among everyday players and his will to win is unquestioned. What hurts him is his lack of truly great seasons. He never hit over .350, never OPSed over 1.000 and never came close to 350 total bases.

NY CY and other awards

Congratulations baseball writers, you have sunk to a new low. Edinson Volquez somehow managed to finish fourth in the NL Rookie of the Year voting despite NOT being a rookie!!! How hard is it to look something like that up before voting?!?!?! Rookies are defined as players who have accumulated fewer than 130 plate appearences, 50 innings pitched, or 45 days on an MLB roster. If you have passed any of those thresholds, you are not a rookie. In 3 previous MLB seasons, Volquez's IP are as follows: 12.2, 33.1, 34. Would you like a calculator? The three guys who voted for Volquez have been identified as: Jeremy Cothran of the Newark Star-Ledger, John Klima of the Los Angeles Daily News, and Jay Paris of the North County Times in San Diego. None of these guys should ever again be permitted to vote for anything. This includes but is not limited to: Hall of Fame, MVP, Cy Young, ROY, Manager of the Year, Gold Gloves, the All Star team, President of the United States, US Senators, US Representative, an ESPN Poll asking if Utah should be in a BCS game, and American Idol. They should probably just be fired.

As if that wasn't enough, the voters saw fit to place Brandon Webb and Brad Lidge 2nd and 4th in the NL Cy Young award. It was clear to at least 27 of the 32 voters that the two best pitchers in the NL BY FAR were Tim Lincecum and Johan Santana. I myself would have voted for Santana who had an absolutely terrific season leading NL pitchers in ERA, Innings, and VORP and dominating down the stretch to keep an otherwise crumbling Mets team in the race until the last hour of the season. His complete game on the second to last day of the season on three days rest was the stuff legends are made of. All that being said, Lincecum was not a bad choice as he was dominant for a piss poor Giants team with almost no offense.

Then you have people like Mike Wilbon spouting off on TV that Lincecum would have been 5th on his CY ballot. That is idiotic. Mike Wilbon has probably never seen Lincecum throw and assumes he can't be as good as the guys who grabbed the big headlines. Lincecum struckout 265 guys! Thats not something that happens every year, and the list of guys with more Ks than that in a season in the past 50 years reads like a section of the Hall of Fame: Randy Johnson, Schilling, Pedro, Smoltz, Ryan, Koufax, Carlton, Seaver, Gibson, Clemens to name a few.

Webb and Lidge had very good years, but not near the lever of Santana and Timmy. Webb's 22 wins are nice, but he faltered down the stretch and his other numbers are not close to the two studs. Lidge had good stats, but threw less than an inning per appearence and only threw 69 innings total. How can you put him behind Sabathia who pitched almost twice the innings, pitched better in terms of WHIP and ERA, and was under the most pressure of anyone even Santana down the stretch. He was basically a one man pitching staff that got the Brew Crew to the playoffs. If you count his AL stats, he's right there with Santana, Lincecum, Lee, and Halladay for the best pitcher in all of baseball for 2008. Hamels with no votes would have been a solid 3rd choice if you want to exclude Sabathia for his lack of NL innings.

It will be interesting to see how badly they botch the MVPs.

Legit contenders for the AL MVP consist of Youkilis, Pedroia, Mauer, Lee, Sizemore, Halladay, and ARod.

Legit contenders for the NL MVP consist of Albert Pujols.

Others who should get votes in the NL consist of Ramirez, Santana, Berkman, Jones, Utley, Lidge, Ramirez, Sabathia, Lincecum, and Ludwick. Ryan Howard should officially get 0 votes for MVP because he was not the most valuable: Player on his team, player on his side of the infield on his team, player in his division, 1st baseman in his division, large lefthanded black man in his league, or king of strikeouts in his league.