The Rundown

Albert Pujols, Kevin Slaten, Ryan Ludwick and the '08 MVP

Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 03:23:50 PM

Well, the writers got it right. Hallelujah.

And yet, even as I celebrate Albert Pujols winning his supremely deserved second MVP Award, I still just can't let go and simply be happy about the results.

jackmvp.jpg
Even thought Jack is wearing this shirt for Kobe, it's still pretty cool. I bet he's a Pujols fan anyway.

I know, I know. "But Aaron," you say, "Albert won the award! You've been going on about this for the longest time now, telling anyone and everyone who will listen what a travesty it will be if Albert is robbed yet again! So how can you possibly be unhappy now that he's won?"

Well, faithful reader, I'll tell you. I'm still not entirely satisfied because I was in my car just a few moments ago. And while in my car, I was flipping through the various sports talk outlets in order to get the reactions from the various members of the media; doing my research, in other words.

And what should I happen upon but a talk show host who shall remain nameless (but his name rhymes with "Mevin Blaten"), arguing, nay, blustering, that the writers have committed yet another grievous error. That somehow, Ryan Howard was robbed of his second MVP.

Now, ordinarily, I do my level best to ignore said talk show host, mostly due to the fact that I can actually feel my IQ falling the whole time I listen, but in the spirit of research, I plunged ahead. Never mind the shouting, the bad Rush Limbaugh impression. I sacrificed myself for all of you out there.

The argument put forth was that Ryan Howard carried his team on his back. He willed them into the postseason all by himself with a huge September, while Pujols' team wasn't even in the playoffs. And so on. Why did this argument upset me so? Because, to be quite honest, there was a grain of sense amidst all the bluster.

The problem, you see, is the whole concept of a Most Valuable Player award. For some odd reason, back in the days of antiquity, the BBWAA (Baseball Writers Association of America), decided that, rather than name their award "Player of the Year," or "Most Outstanding Player," or just the "Dude, did you see that guy? Freakin' Awesome" award, they would call their award the Most Valuable Player award. The problem, of course, is the whole concept of value. Tricky subject, value.

See, Ryan Ludwick and Albert were both very valuable to the Cards this year. Both had outstanding numbers. That said, Pujols' numbers were on a very different plane than those of Mr. Ludwick. However, Albert also made about $15 million this season, while Ludwick made less than half a million dollars. In which case, we have to ask, were the numbers Pujols put up 30 times better than Ludwick's? Clearly not. Therefore, by some measures, Ryan Ludwick was much more valuable than Albert Pujols.

What about playoff teams vs. non playoff teams? The writers always prefer to give the award to someone on a playoff team, the argument being that players on successful teams are much more valuable than players on bad teams. Or something like that. Unfortunately, this is an argument that doesn't really hold up to much argument, but is still clung to like Queequeg's coffin.

Say a team is in a one game playoff for a spot in the postseason. In the eighth inning of a tie game, some no-hit, okay-glove shortstop comes up and hits a pinch hit, two run homer that ends up being the deciding blow. Technically, shouldn't he now be the most valuable player? I'll bet no one else did anything as helpful to their team as he did all year. See, there are just way too many ways to define valuable.

So how do we fix this? Well, until the BBWAA finally decides to give in and change the award's name to something that clearly states, "this award should go to the best baseball player of this past season" we're going to have a problem. But you know what? Enough of all that.

Congratulations, Mr. Pujols. Albert now joins Stan Musial as the only Cardinal player with multiple MVP awards. Pujols has certainly earned the right to be called "The Mang."

So enjoy it, Albert. You've deserved it before and gotten screwed out of it. You deserved it this year, and they got it right.

And as for all of the members of the BBWAA out there, seriously. Can we please just fix this thing? Hey, maybe it's good for circulation, I don't know. But as long as you can make nebulous, definition-of-value based arguments about who should win this award, it's just going to be a headache every year.

For now, though, hooray for Albert!

- Aaron Schafer

Category: Cardinals

3 Comments:

Chris says:

Nice post, i too take this award as serious as you. See other than a world series ring the MVP award is next in line to the most prestigious award a player can win. When Albert enters the hall of fame and they rattle off all his accomplishments an MVP award is something all players would love to have on there resume. So each year Albert gets snubbed whether it be a Gold Glove or MVP award its an empty space that should be filled and frankly that bothers me and its does Albert too you can bet on it. These awards mean something to these players even if the fans understand it or not...Just my take

Nelson Brockabrella says:

Definitely take the MVP award very seriously, and I would've been bothered for decades if Howard had won this year over Albert (or Berkman, Chipper Jones, Wright, Hanley or Manny Ramirez, . . .). I've gotten over Howard's 2006 win over Albert--Howard did bat .313 and was 1 and 2 with Albert by most sabermetric measures. This year, though, it wasn't close: Albert was #1 or very high-ranking in most "traditional" stats and absolutely demolished everybody in almost every sabermetric category. Yes, Howard beat Albert in HRs and RBIs, but among other "power" numbers, he trailed Albert in slugging, total bases, and extra-base hits; furthermore, in the metrics Howard was typically number 20-something.

As for Howard's undeniably great September, that's what Player of the Month awards are for. The Phillies wouldn't even have needed those late-season heroics to overcome the Mets if Howard hadn't performed so poorly three other months of the season (half of 2008!): April .172 BA, .293 OBP, .343 SLG; BA in the .230s two other months, including August, which must be almost as important as September. Albert's August line, meanwhile, was .398/.491/.745, and in his "worst" month, an injury-shortened June, he batted .302. (Thanks to DanUpBaby at VivaElBirdos.com for presenting a table comparing the two players' months.)

I'm not a St. Louisan, so I don't have the hometown feeling for Ryan Howard like many of you, but I do basically like him and think he's a terrific player at times. I would have hated for Albert to lose out this year, making me always have to trot out arguments against Howard. Fortunately, the best Mang won.

Nelson Brockabrella says:

Sorry--in last night's post I said Ryan batted in the .230s in August. He actually hit .213 in August. That must have been holding the Phillies back badly in the division race. Then he had his great September, so there must be another award for that, like Most Improved Player of the Month.

P.s. Aaron, the other Ryan, Ludwick, was indeed more of a bargain in 2008 (or more "value" per dollar) than Albert. Like Luddy himself, I was disturbed to see his name dangled out there in early trade negotiations. So, I may not be the most business-minded fan, but I like the feeling of a team whose good players come back year after year and whose personalities become ongoing components of the team's collective identity and even sense of family. I missed the Musial years, but in the 1970s I caught the end of the Gibson years and most of the Brock years, and there was a strong sense of continuity and history that these players embodied.

I'd like to see Luddy at the core, with Albert, of a rebuilt Cardinal dynasty from 2009 well into the next decade. With Albert and Luddy 1 and 2 in NL slugging this year, think Ruth & Gehrig or Mantle & Maris and their dynasties. The MV3 "playoff dynasty" had its one amazing World Series success--in 2006, of all seasons. That dynasty's been mostly dismantled, but there's certainly the hope and even the potential for a Pujols-Luddy-based dynasty to reach the type of championship heights the Gibby-Brock teams of the 1960s did, or the Ozzie-McGee teams of the 1980s did (only with better WS umpiring than 1985 and 2008!).

There is one big sabermetric measure with the term "value" in its name, anyway, and Albert just smokes everybody here: value over replacement player (VORP, not to mention other "replacement" value measures of varying similarity). Selected 2008 VORPS (these were found at the stat pages of BaseballProspectus.com):
1. Pujols 96.8
2. Hanley Ramirez 80.7; that is, Albert was 20.0% more "valuable" over the next player in the world
3-5. Jones, Berkman, Wright
AL 1 = MLB 6. A-Ron, I mean A-Rod 65.6
NL 10 = MLB 19. Luddy 53.6
NL 29 = MLB 57. Howard 35.3

Post a comment

Comments may not show up immediately after submission. Please wait a minute after posting a comment for it to appear.
All reader comments are subject to our Terms of Use. By clicking "Post", you acknowledge that you have reviewed and agree to these Terms.




Riverfront Times Insiders

  • Local food, music and news blasts
  • Free Stuff