2008 NL Most Valuable Player (BBWAA)

Pujols wins, but by far less than he should have. David Wright comes in seventh with 115 points; Carlos Delgado finishes ninth with 96 points; Johan Santana is 11th with 30 points (including a second-place vote); Carlos Beltran finishes 19th with 10 points; Jose Reyes picks up an eighth-place vote.

At least everyone who received votes was actually eligible for the award.

11 months ago Eric Simon 55 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Voltron was 19th?!?!

Huh. That’s more than a few spots lower than I would have had him.

Well, still, congrats to Pooholes. The dude deserves it.

'Catsmeat!' he cried. 'I see it all. It was that chump, Catsmeat.'

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Nov 17, 2008 2:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

im glad im not the only one

calling him pooholes.

by kendynamo on Nov 17, 2008 5:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's too damned catchy not to.

'Catsmeat!' he cried. 'I see it all. It was that chump, Catsmeat.'

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Nov 17, 2008 7:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Howard almost won...

uh, yep.

Who's world is it? It's yours.

by BlackOps on Nov 17, 2008 3:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I'm beginning to wonder...

Why is a player valuable if he didn’t assist the team in getting to the pinnacle of the sport’s main goal?

It’s almost the same as Lou Pinella winning the NL Manager of the year award. Correct me if I’m wrong, didn’t his team lose in the 1st round of the playoffs…again?

I ain’t mad at Pujols and I respect his talent, ability and dominance, but truly, how valuable was he to the team’s ultimate goal? His efforts helped to keep the team in contention for the playoffs. If you call 4th place / 11.5 games out of 1st contention. Maybe my thinking on this is a tad eschew. Maybe I just don’t understand the criteria for the award.

Regardless, congrats Albert…I think?

" Use it up. Wear it out. Make it do. Do without. " - Common adage of The Great Depression

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Nov 17, 2008 4:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Well

Voting occurs before the playoffs, so the Cubs’ failure to get past the first round isn’t accounted for. And, frankly, I think Lou was a deserving winner this year.

Pooholes was insanely good on a terrible team that finished only four games out of the WC spot. St. Louis wasn’t anywhere close to contending for that last playoff spot without him. I think it was hard for the voters to ignore his performance on both sides of the field this year when he was saddled with such a challenged supporting cast. But, hey, it’s a subjective award that has been imputed to mean “most outstanding player” as much as “most important player.” A winning team helps but it’s not necessarily determinative for the voters (cf. Rollins, Jimmy 2007).

Had I a vote it would’ve been for either Berkman or Pujols. Did you have a preferred candidate, Lou?

'Catsmeat!' he cried. 'I see it all. It was that chump, Catsmeat.'

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Nov 17, 2008 4:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Manny Ramirez

HR – 37
RBI – 121
AVG – .332

Somewhat comparable stats. Were it not for Manny, the Dodgers would have not made the playoffs. To me, his value cannot be measured. If Manny would not have been there the team would not have even sniffed the playoffs.

Appreciate the explanation CPP. Still trying to get comfortable with all the nuances of baseball awards. I guess my vote for Delgado didn’t count. ;-)

" Use it up. Wear it out. Make it do. Do without. " - Common adage of The Great Depression

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Nov 17, 2008 11:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Manny

Actually, he hit .396/.489/.743 with 17 homeruns and 53 RsBI. The batting line is tremendous, but it’s hard to justify giving him the MVP award when his counting stats — and his games played (just 53) — fall woefully short of any of the other viable candidates.

And, no, he doesn’t get any credit for his Boston stats; this is a National League award.

by Eric Simon on Nov 17, 2008 11:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ah!

but yet he got votes.

is it possible for a person who finishes in the NL to win the AL MVP award and vice versa?

…Oh great, Larry King and the pregnant man. Time to go to sleep.

" Use it up. Wear it out. Make it do. Do without. " - Common adage of The Great Depression

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Nov 17, 2008 11:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Of course he got votes.

Hell, Howard, ManRam and Sabathia were all among the top six vote-getters. The writers tend to be blinded by one or two good months, as long as those months are August and/or September. I imagine this is one of the reasons why a player is unlikely to ever win an MVP for the league where they started the year before being traded to the other league — they miss all the late season bonus points for stats compiled after the trade deadline.

'Catsmeat!' he cried. 'I see it all. It was that chump, Catsmeat.'

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Nov 18, 2008 12:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"cannot be measured" is a cop-out

There are a ton of different ways (of varying levels of complexity and accuracy) to measure the value of a baseball player.

by JoshNY on Nov 18, 2008 10:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This is by far my favorite answer.

" Use it up. Wear it out. Make it do. Do without. " - Common adage of The Great Depression

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Nov 18, 2008 8:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

...

1) The voting for postseason awards takes place before the playoffs, so postseason performance by any player (or his team) is irrelevant.
2) It’s an individual award, not a team award, so IMHO the performance of a player’s team independent of that player’s individual performance shouldn’t be a consideration for the award.
3) !@#$ the heck?

by Eric Simon on Nov 17, 2008 4:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hmmm..

1) if the voting takes place before the playoffs, why does it take so long to determine who won?

2) individual award? THERE AIN’T NO “I” IN TEAM! :-)

3) what the #!&*@ Mark Cuban?

" Use it up. Wear it out. Make it do. Do without. " - Common adage of The Great Depression

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Nov 17, 2008 11:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Eh

1) It doesn’t. MLB waits until after the playoffs so as not to draw any attention away from postseason games.

by Eric Simon on Nov 18, 2008 1:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You just stated in the post above mine that...

…and I quote: “THE VOTING FOR POST SEASON AWARDS TAKES PLACE BEFORE THE PLAYOFFS…”

are you trying to Wakefield me?

" Use it up. Wear it out. Make it do. Do without. " - Common adage of The Great Depression

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Nov 18, 2008 8:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What is this, Abbott and Costello?

Voting takes place before the playoffs. Results are announced after the playoffs. What’s on second, I Don’t Know is on third. Shortstop? I DON’T GIVE A DARN!

'Catsmeat!' he cried. 'I see it all. It was that chump, Catsmeat.'

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Nov 18, 2008 8:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"giggle"

" Use it up. Wear it out. Make it do. Do without. " - Common adage of The Great Depression

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Nov 19, 2008 1:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Most valuable

The most valuable player is the guy who contributed the most wins for his team. Playoffs have nothing to do with it. It is a regular season award, and if you’re taking it to mean the player has to be on a team that makes the playoffs, you have to take it to mean that the player has to be on a team that wins the World Series. After all, that’s what counts, right? Does anyone really want the MVP to have to come from one specific team.

Furthermore, if voters thought the MVP had to come from a playoff team, Albert Pujols should not be getting any votes at all. They actually realize that the playoff argument is ridiculous, otherwise no player not on a playoff team would be getting any votes at all. After all, Pedro Feliz was a positive contributor to a team that won the WS. That would make him more valuable then Pujols.

by yellomellojello on Nov 17, 2008 4:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Personally

I thought Lou (Piniella) getting Manager of the Year was horrible. When you have Soriano, D-Lee, A-Ram, the league’s two best rookies, Zambrano, an incredible bullpen, and a great bench, what exactly is there to prove? How is their regular-season success a reflection of his work? Lou’s a great manager, but they definitely would have won the division with someone else.

"I just want to thank you for being such a goddam prince, that's all." - Holden Caulfield

by Prince on Nov 17, 2008 5:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's hilarious to me

That Howard finished 13 spots ahead of Utley.

by Gina on Nov 17, 2008 5:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

if they switched

their Aprils and their Septembers, Utley would have won the award going away, and Howard probably wouldn’t have gotten a single vote.

by cjmulrain on Nov 17, 2008 6:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Utley

Utley is the most underrated player in the game. He is hands down the best player in Philadelphia.

Howard finishing 2nd in the voting is a total joke. At least Pujols actually won it like he should have.

Vote change: DePodesta/Acta in 2009!!!

by Greenpoint Ian on Nov 17, 2008 8:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Right

History will only remember that Pujols won; it won’t give a shit that the BBWAA were silly enough to almost select Howard.

by Eric Simon on Nov 17, 2008 8:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

what about the real most valuable Phillie

I am normally not a fan of giving pitchers MVP award for the simple reason that they have their own award in the Cy Young. But it is hard for me to see why the most valuable Phillie isn’t clearly, slam dunk, Brad Lidge. And the guy only finnished fourth in Cy Young and was a non factor for MVP. Makes no sense to me. Without Lidge Mets are in the playoffs and Phillies are home. The guy was perfect when only perfection would have sufficed. A closer who blows three or four saves out of 40+ chances has had a pretty darn good year. If Lidge had blown that many he’d have been crying on the golf course.

by Endys Game on Nov 18, 2008 2:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

69.1 IP

Sorry, but no (modern) closer should ever come close to the MVP, or the Cy Young. They don’t pitch enough innings, plain and simple. On the VORP list, Lidge is sandwiched between Jered Weaver and James Johnson for 73rd. (Johnson is a RP for the Orioles)

By VORP, a list of Philles more valuable than Lidge: Utley, Rollins, Howard, Burrell, Victorino, Werth, Hamels, Moyer. I know VORP isn’t perfect, but we’re talking about a guy who impacts 1/9 of a game every other game.

by yellomellojello on Nov 18, 2008 5:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Without X, the Phillies are home and the Mets are in the playoffs.

X could be at least 15 of the Phillies players this year.

Utley was far and away the most productive Phillie this year.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 18, 2008 8:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

the way I see it

is if you trade player X from the Phillies for the player who played the same position on the Mets, the only 2 guys who you could argue would have been the difference between who won the division are Utley and Lidge. With Utley at 2nd for the Mets and the Castillo/Easley/Argenis crapfest at 2nd for the Phillies, the Mets probably would have finished ahead of the Phils, though I don’t think it’s definite. With Lidge on the Mets and Wagner/everyone else who “closed” for the Mets on the Phils, the Mets win the division by 8-10 games, and I don’t really think that’s disputable.

I’m not saying Lidge should have been MVP or even Cy Young, but from the perspective of a team with a brutal bullpen, a 100% closer is pretty god-damn valuable.

by cjmulrain on Nov 18, 2008 11:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why should the NL MVP hinge on relative strengths/weakness of the Phillies/Mets?

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 18, 2008 11:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't say it does

hence why I wouldn’t vote for him. But you were the one who said “without X, the Phillies are home and the Mets are in the playoffs” which is a simplistic way of saying it. I think a better way to look at it isn’t just taking X off the Phillies, but swapping him with his Mets counterpart, and in that scenario Lidge was the most valuable Phillie, at least in relation to the Mets.

If I were voting for MVP, I would do something similar. First, I’d look at teams who were in playoff contention. I don’t think the MVP has to come from a team that actually made the playoffs, but he should come from a contender. Basically, no ARod in 2003. Then, from those teams, I’d try to find the player whose team would suffer the most if he were traded for a league average player at the same position. And by that criteria, I would have voted for Pujols this year (and in 2006).

by cjmulrain on Nov 18, 2008 11:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm wary of that point of view.

Sure, a position by position comparison will show you relative team strengths, but it’s not a good way to judge an individual player. If Jimmy Rollins goes down with an injury, the Phillies don’t get Jose Reyes. They get a crappy replacement. Crappy replacement should be the baseline for valuation.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 19, 2008 7:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

fair enough

and like I said, that’s how I view the MVP vote. I’m just used to arguing with Phillies fans that the only reason the Phils won and the Mets didn’t is b/c of the bullpen. Their lineups and rotations were very comparable (and I think the Mets come out slightly ahead in both), but the bullpen vastly shifted the balance of power to the Phillies. So when arguing with them I usually proposition it as: trade their bullpen for the Mets bullpen and the Mets win by 10 games.

by cjmulrain on Nov 19, 2008 10:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

while that may be true...

it doesn’t necessarily prove that the bullpen was the most “valuable” part of the Phillies’ team (as opposed to the rotation, etc.). put the Phillies’ bullpen on the Mets, but also the Mariners’ infield, and the Mets win fewer games than they actually did this season.

by JoshNY on Nov 20, 2008 9:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yea

but again, the Phillies weren’t competing against the Mariners. They were competing against the Mets primarily. The bullpen is what made them a better team than the Mets, as both teams were constructed this season.

by cjmulrain on Nov 20, 2008 10:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No, I understand that

But the fact that the Mets’ bullpen was crappy doesn’t make Lidge more responsible for his team’s success than Utley.

by JoshNY on Nov 20, 2008 10:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

agreed

and again, I wouldn’t have voted for Lidge for any award (I feel like I’ve said that a lot). I was just responding to the “take any of x players off the Phillies and the Mets win” line. The Mets and Phillies are nearly identical teams, who have been separated by a combined 4 games the past 2 years, and you could take anybody off either team and it would change the equation. But the reason the Phillies were a game better than us last year and 3 games better this year is b/c they had a better bullpen starting sometime around July/August 2007.

by cjmulrain on Nov 20, 2008 11:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's an oversimplification

There isn’t one reason why the Phils won the division the last two years. Maybe it’s because Chase Utley is awesome and our 2Bs are a big pile of suck. Or because Pat Burrell is pretty good and consistently healthy and our LF is a bunch of mediocre retreads. It’s just easy to say that the bullpen is “the difference” (singular) because the Mets’ bullpen was bad.

by JoshNY on Nov 20, 2008 12:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hold on

I love and have great faith in VORP and other “new” stats(I wouldn’t be posting on this site if I did not) but they are misleading at times. Again I am not saying Lidge should have won the MVP. Pujols is the clear choice. But Lidge is as valuable a member of the Phillies as you can be because he did something so unique. In a race decided by three games, he was the last line of defense in 41 games and came through 41 times (plus the playoffs) I agree VORP and other stats don’t measure the value of what Lidge did but that doesn’t mean common sense doesn’t come into play. While advocating for rational stats based analysis is great, I think it strains creduilty to argue that Jayson Werth or Burrell were more valuable players than Lidge. There is a reason why nobody has ever done what Lidge did, it is damn hard. I don’t think VORP disproves it.

by Endys Game on Nov 18, 2008 7:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

while I agree with you, I have one minor quibble

“There is a reason why nobody has ever done what Lidge did, it is damn hard. I don’t think VORP disproves it.”

I’m assuming you’re referring to going 100% in save opportunities, which has been done before – and more impressively – by Eric Gagne in 2003, who was 55 for 55.

by cjmulrain on Nov 18, 2008 11:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

true but

Lidge was 48 for 48 including playoffs which equals in my mind 55 out of 55 without playoffs. of course Gagne converted 80+ in a row over two seasons but my point wasn’t to compare Gagne to Lidge. Gagne however was pretty much a consensus choice for CY Young in 2003 which is what makes it so strange to me that Lidge couldn’t even finnish in the top four. I suspect that the Cy Young voters were worried that he might choke in the playoffs and that their giving him the award would wind up looking foolish. Of course considering that this is the same group that voted for an ineligible player for Rookie of the Year, I think that looking foolish is not really one of their major concerns.

by Endys Game on Nov 19, 2008 11:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

fair enough

about the playoffs, but in terms of Cy Young, like you said, that was decided before the playoffs began.

by cjmulrain on Nov 19, 2008 12:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

or maybe...

Gagne was the consensus choice in 2003, whereas Lidge didn’t get a sniff this year, because Gagne was far better in 2003 than Lidge was in 2008, if you discount the arbitrary definition of “converting a save opportunity”.

Lidge in 2008: 69.3 IP, 50 H, 35 BB, 92 K, 11.94 K/9, 2.63 K:BB, 1.226 WHIP, 225 ERA+
Gagne in 2003: 82.3 IP, 37 H, 20 BB, 137 K, 14.98 K/9, 6.85 K:BB, 0.692 WHIP, 335 ERA+

by JoshNY on Nov 20, 2008 9:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dag

I forgot how dominant Gagne was that year. Must have been some GREAT drugs.

'Catsmeat!' he cried. 'I see it all. It was that chump, Catsmeat.'

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Nov 20, 2008 10:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I thought he was mainlining poutine

by JoshNY on Nov 20, 2008 10:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No

I think that’s what he’s been doing ever since. He was always a big boy but now it’s just out of control.

'Catsmeat!' he cried. 'I see it all. It was that chump, Catsmeat.'

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Nov 20, 2008 11:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

True

But to be fair to the frog, poutine is some tasty tasty stuff.

by JoshNY on Nov 20, 2008 12:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Damn straight

The first time I ever had poutine, however, was from the Burger King stand at Olympic Stadium, which turned me off of poutine for a few years. I didn’t really understand how great the stuff was until a few years later on another trip to Quebec.

'Catsmeat!' he cried. 'I see it all. It was that chump, Catsmeat.'

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Nov 20, 2008 12:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

question?

what is the difference if any between Poutine and Disco Fries? And if they are the same which dish came first? I read somewhere that Disco Fries arent’ usually made with cheese but when I used to live in Cherry Hill, NJ, all the diners made them that way.

by Endys Game on Nov 20, 2008 3:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

According to the trusty ole Wikipedia

Poutine is made with brown gravy, cheese curds and fries. Disco fries are made with brown gravy, mozzarella and thicker fries. Not sure which one came first, but it seems like there are regional derivations throughout the county/continent/world.

'Catsmeat!' he cried. 'I see it all. It was that chump, Catsmeat.'

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Nov 20, 2008 3:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

far be it from me to question Wikipedia but

I also remember eating disco fries at a Mama’s diner or some such place during my college summers in Ohio. It was fries with gravy and cheese. I don;t know what kind of cheese it was but it wasn’t mozzarella. Can’t remember if the fries were thick or not. But I trust a diner with the name Mama’s in it more than Wikipedia. So now you have poutine, disco fries(wiki style) and just plain old cheese fries with gravey. Sorting all this out could take a lifetime.

by Endys Game on Nov 20, 2008 4:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I wasn't gonna go too deep

But the article listed all sorts of variations of “cheese and gravy on french fries” from region to region. The disco fries I got in Albany, NY were cheddar and brown gravy over cajun fries. Or maybe those were jesus fries. Ah hell. You’re right; there is work to be done.

ROAD TRIP!

'Catsmeat!' he cried. 'I see it all. It was that chump, Catsmeat.'

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Nov 20, 2008 4:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

if only there were still an MLB team in Montreal

by JoshNY on Nov 20, 2008 5:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Of Course Gagne was much better than Lidge

Would you therefore argue that no closer should win a Cy Young (or a MVP) unless he is comparable with what Gagne did in 2003, regardless of the value to his team? That seems like too high of a standard to me but I am sure many people agree with you.

by Endys Game on Nov 20, 2008 10:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No, that wasn't my point

Just that Lidge wasn’t nearly up to that standard, and claiming their seasons were comparable merely because of the fact that both converted all their save opportunities is silly. If some relief pitcher had a season somewhere between Lidge’s 2008 and Gagne’s 2003, he certainly would deserve award consideration. (I’m not sure what is meant by the apparent separation between performance and “value to his team”. Did what Rivera did this season not have value to the Yankees because a bunch of their other players all suck so the team didn’t make the playoffs?)

And as cjmulrain pointed out, Rivera was incredible this year and should’ve gotten Cy Young consideration (and, really, even MVP consideration when you figure in how weak the AL field was this year), but because voters mostly care about wins and Cliff Lee had 22 of them (to be fair, Lee had a pretty great season, but it wasn’t as all-conquering as the Cy Young voting would lead you to believe), Mo was a pretty distant 5th.

by JoshNY on Nov 20, 2008 12:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

by the way, check out Mo Rivera’s numbers this year:

70.7 IP, 41 H, 6 BB(!), 77 K, 9.8 K/9, 12.83 K:BB, 0.665 WHIP, 317 ERA+, 39/40 Sv/SvO

That’s probably one of the 5 best seasons by a relief pitcher ever. If KRod had won the MVP or Cy Young while another reliever was having a historic season, I would have ripped my hair out.

by cjmulrain on Nov 20, 2008 10:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs