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!