2006-09-22 02:46:32 · 22 answers · asked by CRAYO 2 in Sports ➔ Baseball
Yes, he deserves to win the MVP award. If I had a vote I would certainly vote for him. The guy is the real deal!
2006-09-22 05:31:36 · answer #1 · answered by The Mick "7" 7 · 17⤊ 1⤋
Albert Pujols deserves the NL MVP.
While Ryan Howard has produced one of the more spectacular individual seasons in MLB history, Albert Pujols is the more complete player and has carried the Cardinals all season. Aside from the contributions of Scott Rolen, Pujols has single handedly kept the Cardinals in 1st place of the Central Division. This despite the fact that he missed a total of 17 days to an injury at a time when he was his hottest. Ryan Howard has had the support of Bobby Abreu, Jimmy Rollins, Pat Burrell, and especially Chase Utley during the season. All of these players are taken on fantasy rosters, while Rolen and Pujols are probably the only Cardinals' offensive players on fantasy roster aside from Duncan.
Ryan Howard has produced in some key categories mainly HR and RBIs, but if you look at the rest of the statistics Pujols leads the pack even by playing 16 fewer games than Howard. Pujols leads in: Runs, Doubles, K (he has nearly 130 fewer strikeouts), OBP, SLG, OPS, and AVG. Pujols is behind Howard by only 9 Hits, 11 RBIs, and 9 walks. The only category in which Howard is dramatically superior to Pujols is HR where he leads 57 to 46. What's even more suprising about this is that Pujols has the higher SLG % even though he has fewer HRs.
The reason I bring up the statistics is that when Pujols was fighting Bonds for MVPs a couple years ago everyone was looking to certain statistics to justify Bonds as the MVP. Overall Pujols had better statistics than Bonds, but still failed to garner the MVP because of some of Bonds "magic" stats that awed the voters. While Howard's stats are impressive I don't believe they garner the "awe" factor that some of Bonds stats did.
Lastly, the voters do look at postseason eligibility as a factor in determining the MVP. Pujols is most certainly going to the playoffs, while Howard is a question mark at this time.
2006-09-22 04:16:40 · answer #2 · answered by Fantasy Protege 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I doubt it for a couple of reasons. The MVP rarely goes to someone who doesn't make the playoffs because the award is for the most valuable player, which can help you get to the playoffs, and not necessarily the best player. The other thing is that it seems like over the last few years they've made the younger players wait to get it like they did with Albert Pujols even when he had numbers deserving of the honor. It's like they want the player to prove that they will be around.
All that said, I do believe he deserves it. Whether or not the Phillies make it, he has been huge in the second half in keeping them in it. I'm just not sure it will be enough for fickle voters.
2006-09-22 03:00:08 · answer #3 · answered by shominyyuspa 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think the better question is, Are the Phillies in the race without Howard? The answer is NO. I think Howard is the MVP simply look at his numbers. He has put this team on his shoulders. Winning the MVP isn't a matter of if they make the playoffs it is more of a "if they contend for the playoffs". Who has been the most unbelievable player in the national league, Howard, who is putting up better numbers than his closest rival, Howard, who is coming the closest to beating the 61 mark without speculation of using roids or HGH, Howard. Give it to the kid, he's great for the game.
2006-09-22 03:11:37 · answer #4 · answered by thatchelpage 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
An MVP guy doesn't have to come from a winning team. In Howard's case, he is most certainly deserving. Without him, the Phillies are certainly not in a spot to make the playoffs....BUT, he also has Chase Utley to help in that lineup.
Albert Pujols is the Cards...without him, the Cards stand no chance to make the playoffs. He makes the guy hitting in front of him better, as well as the guy hitting behind him. I think Howard deserves it, but the MVP should go to the guy his team could not win without. To me, Pujols means a bit more to his team, than Howard does to his. Plus, Howard is mostly a HR & doubles hitter...Pujols is a complete hitter (and better on defense)
Too close to call, but I think Pujols gets it.
2006-09-22 03:40:06 · answer #5 · answered by brianwerner1313 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes he does! Barry Bonds won the MVP in years the Giants did not make the postseason. Ryan Howard is the real deal for years to come as a bonafide slugger!
2006-09-22 11:36:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Let me ask you this....why did A-Rod get it when he was with the Rangers?.......why did Jim Rice get it when he help blow a 13 1/2 lead to the Yankees(1978)......why did Bonds win it so many times when the Giants went no where.....and why did A-Rod win it last year when the Yankees would have won it without him.........MVP(Most Value able Player)....where would the Phils be now without "RH".....no where inconsideration for the wild card I will bet the "sink" on it.........the answer is "YES"
2006-09-22 05:57:19 · answer #7 · answered by Mickey Mantle 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't think the subject of whether or not a team makes the playoffs or not should enter into the choice, but realize it does. However for my money if Ryan has contributed the most to his teams reaching the level it did than he should get the vote.
2006-09-22 03:04:05 · answer #8 · answered by 91106 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Of course. He's got 57 home runs and 140 RBI. The stats don't lie. He's had an amazing season, even for the steroid era.
2006-09-22 03:59:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Who cares whether his team makes the playoffs. His team has no bearing on his own skills. One person alone cannot bring a team to victory.
2006-09-22 02:52:15 · answer #10 · answered by ♥ady_8e_80♥ 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, because only players in the playoffs should be MVPs.
2006-09-22 02:48:56 · answer #11 · answered by Tony R 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋