SpecialFNK wrote:its not a matter of wheather you like it or not. its the way it is. there are lots of things i dont like. i dont like that the Yankees can go out and spend as much money as they want to try and buy a championship, but baseball isnt doing anything about it. i think thats flawed and there should be some type of salary cap, but i doubt its going to happen anytime soon.
there are some voters who vote on the MVP as who was the best player statistically regardless of how their team did, but then there are also voters who vote based on value and not only the stats said player put up but what effect they had on their teams success.
Right. The guys who take team success into account are wrong. Ryan Howard is in no way, shape or form, even in the top 10 of the NL's most valuable players. Either is Manny. Of course people are going to vote for them. We all know this. I'm not debating who WILL win the award. I'm debating about who SHOULD win the award. Neither of those guys are close to being MVP. The most valuable player in the National League in 2008 was Albert Pujols, and it's not really close.
one way they determine who to vote for for MVP is taking that player off that team how would they do. if you take both Pujols off the Cardinals and Manny off the Dodgers ill bet my last dollar the Cardinals would be a better team without Pujols than the Dodgers would be without Manny. the Cardinals have better supporting cast than the Dodgers including Ludwick who was right there in stats with Pujols.
This is a laughable argument. Laughable.
You're taking into account team success. If you took Pujols of St. Louis and Manny of LA, it doesn't matter who has the better record. It matters how many wins each team would have lost. If you take Manny off the Dodgers, they would have won less games, but how many less? Now take Pujols off the Cardinals. How many more games would the Cardinals have lost? The number for St. Louis is going to be DRASTICALLY higher, ESPECIALLY since Manny played TWO freaking MONTHS.
What if Pujols and Howard switched places? Do you honestly believe Howard would have gotten St. Louis to the playoffs and Pujols wouldn't have gotten the Phillies to where they were? If the Phillies had Pujols, they would have won MANY more games than they did. If St. Louis had Howard, they would have won NOWHERE near as many games as they did. How then, is Howard more valuable than Pujols?
Pujols had 35 Win Shares. Howard had 25. Manny 18.
I repeat, this argument is laughable.