MLB Awards watch

[BBTV]

If I'm a voter, I vote Lidge ahead of Howard. Utley was close to worthless in the second half.

You do get defensive when anyone even says anything that could even remotely be construed as something against a St. Louis player. Honestly, you're the Tank of the Sports in General board. That being said, Pujols was the best player and deserved the award. MLB would do themselves (and the BBWA) a BIG favor by just changing the name of the damn award to the MOP. Then at least there is less room for subjectivity.

I know Utley had a bad second half, but Howard also had a pretty bad first half.

I'm a pretty big homer, but I'm fairly rational and I back up my statements with logic and facts. It's also inaccurate to suggest I defend anything remotely negative against a St. Louis player. It's just not true.

I'm patient and I don't freak out and attack anybody or lose my head worrying about everyone else's attacks.

I know you all like to have you're fun with my being a Cardinal and all, but that's no skin off my teeth.

It's also worth noting that while I can't think of anything particular I'd change my viewpoint on, I've done much maturing during my long tenure on these boards (just 21 in January...another large hole in your comparison) and likely would handle certain situations in a much different manner now than I did at previous times, and I'm sure that will only continue to be the case. I won't be any less of a fan, but my style of interaction certainly has grown and will continue to.

If you choose to dismiss everything I write because you have a skewed opinion of me, so be it.

I don't dismiss everything you say - just when it involves a St. Louis player.

Even in my post, I stated that no only did I agree that Pujols should be the pick, but that Howard wouldn't have been my choice on his own team, let alone the league. I'm not sure if you even read that, because in your very first sentence you took a shot at Howard, when I wasn't even making a case for him. It's sort of like me saying "2 + 2 = 4" and you saying "no it's not, it's 4!" Maybe not that extreme, but along the same lines. I don't have anything against you - but you do feed us some fun lines some times!

If I'm a voter, I vote Lidge ahead of Howard.

If I'm a voter...I'd like an MVP to appear in more than half my team's games and more than 70 innings.

That's just me though.

Being that the MVP is such a subjective award, I bet most would feel that way. I just know that the offense was basically the same from '07 to '08, but the bullpen was immensely better. Having a closer that they could depend on for the first time since Billy Wagner (Gordon went down in '07, then they moved Myers there, then he went down, etc.) allowed for the rest of the bullpen staff to have defined roles, and made decisions a lot easier on Charlie Manuel, who (to put it lightly) is not the best at managing a pitching staff. None of that is possible if Lidge isn't doing what he did. Having Lidge anchoring the 'pen also allowed them to move Myers back into the rotation, which after a horrid first half, turned into one of the moves that won them the division.

That's my rational for Lidge being the MVP of the team. Again, it's too subjective of an award - they should really put some criteria around it.

EDIT: Just realized that I typed that Wagner was a closer that they could depend on. That's a huge stretch, considering how he basically blew the 2005 season for them, and was on and off of the DL during his stint in Phila.

[pcgd]

Again, it's too subjective of an award - they should really put some criteria around it.

I agree. I really wish they'd just change it to the most outstanding player of the year award. It seems much easier to pick that. I can see the arguement that you bring with Lidge, I can see the arguement for Howard, and Berkman, and everyone. But I don't think there is any doubt who had the most outstanding year in each league. I think most leagues have shifted the award to something that is more along those lines.

I like the debate every year, but almost every year the writers screw it up in one of the leagues. Leave MVP to the individual playoff series as Value is much easier to recognize over a small sample size than a whole season.

[HedleyLamarr]

Just can't understand the suggestion that 6 players were more valuable than Albert. Even if you buy into the last month of the season (Albert was actually great in Sept.) and postseason hype machine...Delgado throws a wrench in it.

Albert's September stats weren't all that outstanding before the Cardinals got eliminated from playoff contention.

Let's keep it fair and balanced....

[See Red]

So Pedroia's been a World Series Champion, Rookie of the Year, MVP, Silver Slugger, and a Gold Glove winner. Not a bad first two years in the league.

[Cujo]

So Pedroia's been a World Series Champion, Rookie of the Year, MVP, Silver Slugger, and a Gold Glove winner. Not a bad first two years in the league.

True. But let's see him win a Cy Young!

[See Red]

So Pedroia's been a World Series Champion, Rookie of the Year, MVP, Silver Slugger, and a Gold Glove winner. Not a bad first two years in the league.

True. But let's see him win a Cy Young!

Heh... he did offer to be the Red Sox emergency catcher early in the year when the team was battling injuries and the flu, I'm sure he'd offer to pitch if the team needed.

[STL FANATIC]

I don't dismiss everything you say - just when it involves a St. Louis player.

Even in my post, I stated that no only did I agree that Pujols should be the pick, but that Howard wouldn't have been my choice on his own team, let alone the league. I'm not sure if you even read that, because in your very first sentence you took a shot at Howard, when I wasn't even making a case for him. It's sort of like me saying "2 + 2 = 4" and you saying "no it's not, it's 4!" Maybe not that extreme, but along the same lines. I don't have anything against you - but you do feed us some fun lines some times!

See, that's you're skewed view of me at work.

I wasn't taking a shot at Howard at all. But I knew my post was going to be more about defending myself than the debate we had going as we agreed on just about everything else, so I wanted to reply to that one thing you said. It wasn't a shot, but me merely pointing out that Utley's bad second half doesn't mean his incredible first half doesn't deserve MVP consideration. Like the Phillies needed Howard to win the East in the second half, I don't think they'd have been in that kind of position in the first half without Utley.

My point there isn't in any way to diss Howard, it's to discredit the writer who said one reason Albert didn't deserve credit for keeping the Cards in contention is that Ludwick was just as important. Not only do I disagree, but I thought it should be noted that in spite of using that line of reasoning, he had three Brewers on his ballot, and two Phillies and while he did not put him on his ballot, he could have included Utley.

My point is that a player (Howard, Pujols, any of them) shouldn't be punished by the team they have around them, whether good or bad.

That was in NO way a shot at Howard. At all.

And Hedley, I think you might be right about that early September. But it wasn't poor either if I recall. Only by Albert's standards.

[McCall]

Again, it's too subjective of an award - they should really put some criteria around it.

I agree. I really wish they'd just change it to the most outstanding player of the year award. It seems much easier to pick that. I can see the arguement that you bring with Lidge, I can see the arguement for Howard, and Berkman, and everyone. But I don't think there is any doubt who had the most outstanding year in each league. I think most leagues have shifted the award to something that is more along those lines.

I like the debate every year, but almost every year the writers screw it up in one of the leagues. Leave MVP to the individual playoff series as Value is much easier to recognize over a small sample size than a whole season.

I don't think pitchers should be able to win the MVP. That's what the Cy Young is for. That's their MVP. Both awards are essentially the best (most valuable, most outstanding, most whatever) at each of the 2 types of players - pitchers and position players. Why should pitchers be able to win both when position players can't? The MVP is the MVP award of position players, and the Cy Young is the MVP award of pitchers. That's how it should be. Either keep them seperate, or do away with one or the other.

[BBTV]

Again, it's too subjective of an award - they should really put some criteria around it.

I agree. I really wish they'd just change it to the most outstanding player of the year award. It seems much easier to pick that. I can see the arguement that you bring with Lidge, I can see the arguement for Howard, and Berkman, and everyone. But I don't think there is any doubt who had the most outstanding year in each league. I think most leagues have shifted the award to something that is more along those lines.

I like the debate every year, but almost every year the writers screw it up in one of the leagues. Leave MVP to the individual playoff series as Value is much easier to recognize over a small sample size than a whole season.

I don't think pitchers should be able to win the MVP. That's what the Cy Young is for. That's their MVP. Both awards are essentially the best (most valuable, most outstanding, most whatever) at each of the 2 types of players - pitchers and position players. Why should pitchers be able to win both when position players can't? The MVP is the MVP award of position players, and the Cy Young is the MVP award of pitchers. That's how it should be. Either keep them seperate, or do away with one or the other.

But is it fair to judge starters who throw 7 innings every fifth day the same way you judge closers or relievers who throw 1 (maybe 2) every other day? I know that non-starters have won the Cy Young, but I look at it as the best starter award. I think that closers and relievers are kind of like position players, in that they have very defined roles and are put out there more than once every fifth day, so I would consider them eligible for MVP.

Just to be clear - my argument wasn't that Lidge should have been MVP - just that I would have named him MVP of the Phillies. Not the whole league.

[HedleyLamarr]

I don't think pitchers should be able to win the MVP. That's what the Cy Young is for. That's their MVP. Both awards are essentially the best (most valuable, most outstanding, most whatever) at each of the 2 types of players - pitchers and position players. Why should pitchers be able to win both when position players can't? The MVP is the MVP award of position players, and the Cy Young is the MVP award of pitchers. That's how it should be. Either keep them seperate, or do away with one or the other.

Hitters have their own specific "best player" award: the Hank Aaron Award, just as the pitchers have their "best player" award: the Cy Young Award, as these two awards are purely driven by stats. The MVP should rightfully include pitchers, as they could be just as valuable to their team. Look at CC Sabathia's last two weeks in September and tell me he wasn't the main reason the Brewers made it to October. Hell, the Brewers were just middling around before they traded for Sabathia. Doesn't that scream "MVP" for the Brewers?

[BBTV]

I kind of wish that MLB had a prime time awards show to give these out, instead of just press releases staggered over a week or two.

[NJTank]

I kind of wish that MLB had a prime time awards show to give these out, instead of just press releases staggered over a week or two.

I agree