Why We Fight

I imagine some of you wonder why I get so annoyed by bad MVP votes and the like. It's for the same reason why I don't think intelligent design deserves to be taught in public schools alongside evolution. We have scientific methods and data that can tell us things we're not always capable of guessing or perceiving on our own - but some people actively disdain these methods. Saying that people who believe in the importance of stats don't like or can't adequately appreciate baseball, as many anti-stat types do, is really no more intellectually valid than saying that a belief in evolution means I don't like or can't adequately appreciate the majesty of the earth. It's ridiculous. And, more specifically, because sometimes there is an MVP ballot so monumentally dumb that it suggests that its associated voter should not only be stripped of his right to vote for postseason awards, but dragged out into the street and beaten like Carlo Rizzi. Ladies and gentlemen, Tom Haudricourt of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's ballot for 2008 NL MVP:

1. Ryan Howard, Phil
2. CC Sabathia, Mil
3. Manny Ramirez, LA
4. Carlos Delgado, NY
5. Aramis Ramirez, Chi
6. Prince Fielder, Mil
7. Albert Pujols, Stl
8. Ryan Ludwick, Stl
9. Ryan Braun, Mil
10. David Wright, NY

My first thought: Tom Haudricourt was awakened from a coma on July 1st.

1. Ryan Howard, Phil

I mostly went over this one yesterday. Ryan Howard is the MVP only if you believe one of the following three things:

(1) There is nothing more important than hitting a lot of home runs
(2) There is nothing more important than having a ton of RBIs
(3) There is nothing more important than getting hot in September

(3) is maybe, kinda, sorta true, although if you were absolute shit for the first three months of the season, and then again in August, I don't think a hot September should outweigh that. (1) and (2) are nonsense.

2. CC Sabathia, Mil

Sabathia pitched extremely well for the Brewers. He also did not pitch for them before July. Unless you put up full-season stats in half a season, you cannot be an MVP for half a season. There are no such things as extrapolation points.

3. Manny Ramirez, LA

See above. Ramirez played for the Dodgers for two months. He was a really, really good hitter during that time, but he still only played for them for two months. Mercifully, Ramirez finished "only" fourth in the balloting this year, suggesting that at least most writers were only so swayed by the "Manny has turned this team around!" narrative.

4. Carlos Delgado, NY

Remember the first half of the season, when Delgado was hitting .248 with a .328 OBP and everyone was talking about how washed up he was? Tom Haudricourt doesn't.

5. Aramis Ramirez, Chi

Dear God. At this point there can be no doubt that Haudricourt is focused primarily on team accomplishments; Ramirez had a nice season, of course, but it doesn't compare with Albert Pujols' even if you love counting stats.

6. Prince Fielder, Mil

Decent year. Better year than Albert Pujols?

7. Albert Pujols, Stl

And finally we get to the real MVP. The guy who Tom Haudricourt does not even think was a top five most valuable player candidate because his team was mediocre. Tom Haudricourt was voting for the MVPOATTAMTPOALGCTTCDBOEHCDGOHB Award, the Most Valuable Player on a Team That Also Made the Playoffs or At Least Got Closer Than the Cardinals Did Because Otherwise Explain How Carlos Delgado Got on His Ballot Award.

Who's ready for some stupid justification?

I had an MVP ballot and voted for Howard first because he almost single-handedly carried the Phillies to the playoffs by batting .352 with 11 homers and 32 RBI in September. I like to weight my voting to teams in the playoff hunt because I think that puts more pressure on players and separates the men from the boys. There's little pressure on players having big years if their teams aren't playing for anything at the end.

First of all: no. Okay, Howard had 32 RBI in September. Even if you give him full credit, as an individual, for driving in all of those important runs, the Phillies scored 138 runs. That's less than a quarter that were driven in by Howard. Maybe the other 77% of runs that were knocked in were also kind of important? Also, maybe if Howard hadn't been such a non-factor for four months, he wouldn't have needed to have such an enormous September just to "carry" the Phillies to the playoffs. Maybe?

With the Cardinals finishing fourth, I voted Pujols seventh on my ballot. I don't consider MVP to be "the most outstanding player" award and therefore don't just go by who had the best stats. I like to credit players for lifting their teams to the post-season or at least keeping them in the race until the very end.

At least he, unlike Thomas Boswell, admits that Pujols had the best stats. Then he goes ahead and ruins it by pretending that individual players are capable of "lifting" otherwise mediocre teams to the postseason. Remove Pujols from the Cardinals and they lose 13 wins if you just stick any AAA guy in his place; rather than finishing four out of the wild card - a respectable if not successful season given how low the team's expectations were in March - they finish seventeen out of the wild card and drift behind the Reds into fifth place in the Central. Why Pujols is to be punished because the rest of his team wasn't that good is beyond me. Certainly writers like Haudricourt do not seem to be able to grasp the idea that elevating any team's performance by 13 wins is "value," and it's not his fault that the Cardinals had a shitty bullpen that blew literally dozens of leads, and had it blown five fewer the Cardinals would have made the playoffs and guys like Haudricourt would be lining up to tell us how amazing a season Pujols had. But because Jason Isringhausen blew five saves that turned into losses, Pujols finishes seventh on Haudricourt's ballot. Are you capable of seeing why this makes no fucking sense? At all? Pushing the guy with the best stats to seventh on your ballot because his team's bullpen sucked is madness.

I understand that the Cardinals would not have been even close to the wild-card berth without Pujols, but I still like players who elevate their game in crunch time and lift their teams to new heights. And I thought Ryan Ludwick had just as much to do with keeping the Cards in the hunt as Pujols did. St. Louis did stay in the wild card race until mid-September, but mainly because the Brewers and Mets were gagging at the time.

I swear to God, if I ever run into Tom Haudricourt on the street, I am going to punch him in the face. Albert Pujols' on-base percentage was .462. With RISP he hit .339/.523/.678. In "late and close" situations he hit .314/.444/.600. In "high leverage" spots as defined by WPA, he hit .392/.492/.725. For the month of August, as the Cards were desperately trying to stay afloat in the playoff race, he hit .398/.491/.745. Oh, but I guess he only hit .321/.427/.702 in September. What a fucking choke artist. (Ryan Ludwick: Nice season, especially considering. But he gives up 87 points of OBP to Pujols, and was no doubt aided by the fact that he spent half the season hitting in front of Pujols, giving him better pitches to hit, and the other half hitting behind Pujols, boosting his RBI chances since Pujols was on base twice a game.)

Also, none of this explains why Carlos Delgado finished three spots above Pujols, considering that he was teammates with David Wright, Carlos Beltran and Jose Reyes, all of whom are at least as valuable as Ryan Fucking Ludwick, and his team also failed to make the playoffs. If Pujols didn't elevate his game in the last two months it's only because he played at a ridiculously high level all season. So what Tom Haudricourt is saying is: Playing great all year is less valuable than playing shitty for half the year and great for two, three months tops. And also, playing great for a team that doesn't have a lot of other great players is somehow less valuable than playing pretty well for a team that does have a lot of other great players. Jesus Christ. This is the dumbest shit ever. Tom Haudricourt wrote this down and thought, "This will make sense when people read it."

It's a subjective vote and every writer has his own preferences. That's why I voted for Sabathia second and Ramirez third because even though they played in the league only half a season they were primarily responsible for putting their teams in the playoffs.

Some preferences may be stupider than others. Like yours, for example. Also, don't lean on subjectivity as an excuse. The vote should not be nearly as subjective as you've made it. And when you put two other Brewers in your top ten, that damages the argument that Sabathia was "primarily" responsible for putting the Brewers into the playoffs. How many guys can be that valuable for a team that slipped in by the skin of its teeth (and then in large part because their final weekend opponent had long since clinched)?

I voted Fielder higher than Braun because Fielder had a much better September when the Brewers were clawing to get in the playoffs. Braun was ailing, as we discovered, and did have the homer that put the Brewers in the playoffs, but I just felt Fielder did more down the stretch.

I know in this last paragraph he's comparing Fielder and Braun. But remember that he voted Fielder 6th and Pujols 7th as well.

Prince Fielder, September 2008: .316/.398/.600
Albert Pujols, September 2008: .321/.427/.702

Prince Fielder's team, September 2008: 10-16
Albert Pujols' team, September 2008: 12-13

Prince Fielder: more valuable than Albert Pujols.

Tom Haudricourt: IQ of a can of garbanzo beans.