I think it was because of race.Thats the onle explanation.
2006-11-21 07:34:32 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Baseball
nice overall avg..those hrs and rbis
b
2006-11-21 15:16:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because life isn't always fair. By all rights, Pujols should have carried home his second straight MVP, but because of the nation's obsession with home runs, whether they are hit in tiny ballparks like Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia, or in big ballparks like Busch Stadium in St. Louis. Even with a longer target to launch his home runs, Pujols hit 49 while missing about a month with an injury. Who else has ever done that? Pujols would have hit at least 55-60 home runs, and his absence showed how valuable he was to the Cardinals. Pujols was the main driving force, with weak protection in the lineup compared to Howard. Howard has good hitters such as Chase Utley, Pat Burrell, and Jimmy Rollins to set the table and give him good pitches to hit. Pujols has an injury-prone Scott Rolen, a slap-hitting David Eckstein, and a broken down Jim Edmonds. Pujols had 25 game-winning hits, which means without his presence, the Cardinals could have finished 58-104, and instead of being on top of the baseball world, the Cardinals would be the laughingstock of baseball, having fallen from grace after two 100-win seasons. The Phillies choked down the stretch, but all anyone remembers is Howard's bandbox home runs, ignoring his 181 strikeouts. Pujols, by comparison, struck out a mere 50 times, about once for every home run he hit, which is amazing. To top that off, Pujols hit over 100 points better than Ryan Howard with runners in scoring position. Hopefully people will at least realize who the real winner is.
2006-11-21 16:23:28 · answer #2 · answered by dude_in_disguise2004 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
IT WAS DEFINITELY RACE.
Specifically, the home run race and the RBI race.
Howard hit more home runs (58 to 49), walked more (108 to 92), had more total bases (383 to 359), and drove in more runs (149 to 137) than Pujols. One might counter with the argument that Howard played more games (159 to 143), but that's precisely the point. Howard was there every day for the Girly Horses, while Pujols missed almost 20 games (I don't know how many of those 143 game appearances were starts and how many were merely as a pinch-hitter. More to that point, Howard had 581 official at-bats to Pujols's 535, giving Howard something like 60 more plate appearances). So, if you're looking for some logic, these numbers might frame it.
Race? Come on. This isn't Cal Ripken, Jr. stealing Cecil Fielder's MVP!
2006-11-21 07:45:44 · answer #3 · answered by bigivima 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Perhaps because he led his team to more victories than Pujols, played in a tougher division than Pujols, and had far less of a lineup to protect his at bat than Pujols.
Let's not leave out the fact that he stayed healthy all year, unlike Pujols.
Anyone who says it has anything to do with race is an idiot, plain and simple, including the person who asked this question.
Albert Pujols doesn't even qualify as the St Louis Cardinals MVP of 2006. I would give that award to "Geography". After all, if the Cardinals played in any other division, they would've placed no higher than THIRD in the standings (and if they played in the AL East or Central, they would have placed FOURTH).
The Cardinals were undeserving World Series champions who were lucky that they played in the weakest division that Major League Baseball has seen in decades, and that they managed to have a hot streak during the playoffs, and play a team in the series with almost zero post season experience.
Pujols is undeserving of the MVP, and therefore, it was not handed to him based on name recognition value, like so many fans would have liked. It was instead given to a superior athlete, superior hitter, and a player who was truly more valuable to his team, as evident by the regular season record, and that man is your NL MVP of 2006....Ryan Howard.
Case closed.
2006-11-21 09:26:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Albert Pujols is the better player, had a better year, and his team made the playoffs...Nuff said!
Pujols - BA-331 OB%-431 SLG-671 OPS-1102
Defense - Assists-110 Errors-6 FLD%-.996 - AP saved a lot of errors with his glove at 1B for the Cardinals
Howard - BA-313 OB%-425 SLG-659 OPS-1084
Defense - Assists-91 Errors-14 FLD%-.991
RH has the range of a stump and digs one out of the dirt once a month...
Besides the fact Pujols is the best clutch hitter in all of baseball..Last year he became the first player in over 25 years to hit better than .450 with runners in scoring position...
2006-11-21 08:26:44 · answer #5 · answered by C_F_45 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This was not as bad of a decision as the AL. But yes, I agree, this was a bad decision too.
Pujols is a clutch hitter, Howard makes a 5 run lead into a 7 run lead.
EDIT: Anyone who thinks Pujols is on steroids is an idiot.. There is as good of a chance of that as there is Howard being on it. You have no evidence, the only thing you have is the fact that he is good. You can't accept that Pujols can be good and not on steroids.
2006-11-21 07:43:43 · answer #6 · answered by johnnydera18 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I have to agree with you. Pujos had the better season.
Runs plus RBIs added together Pujos beat Ryan. BA Pujos .331 Howard .313 OBP Pujos nudged Howard out. However on KOs it was HUGE. Pujos had only 50. Howard had 181 !!!! Howard came dangerously close to breaking the all time KO record. A KO means you did NOTHING for your team that at bat. You didn't make a defender work to get you out. You didn't get on because of an error, you didn't advance the runners. You just struck out. So offensively Pujos pulls way ahead of Howard because of Howard. If Howard didn't clear the bases or walk he did nothing to help his team.
Carlos Beltran I feel was a much more deserving than Howard as well. Beltran had a great offensive year and plays a skilled defensive posisition.
Last the MVP isn't the silver slugger award. It's about value to their team. Beltran and Pujos meant far more to their teams than Howard did to the Phillies.
I disagree, race had nothing to do with it. HR = MVP all to often today. Which in my opinion is insane. Who cares if Howard had a few more HRs than Pujos? In total production Pujos was way better. Pujos did more for his team offensively and as a team leader than Howard did. I wish the media would quit glorifying all or nothing sluggers. Most hurt thier team more than they help.
2006-11-21 08:58:27 · answer #7 · answered by draciron 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Are you serious? They were both strong candidates but part of MVP is how much they mean to their team overall. Pujols meant plenty to the Cards but the Phils wouldn't been dead last without Howard.
And race? The Hispanic Player loses to the African-American player and it's a race card?
[edit] They are BOTH "team players" to the "nth" degree so how can you say that either?
Tell me you're joking!
2006-11-21 07:39:55 · answer #8 · answered by Mister Bob the Tomato 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Both Pujols and Howard are deserving, unlike the guy that won in the AL. Pujols is getting the ring he wanted anyway.
2006-11-21 11:34:59 · answer #9 · answered by mattapan26 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You have to be kidding. Because of race? Be serious, Howard carried the Phillies for most of the year and on a team that essentially gave up at the trading deadline. The Phillies continued to contend because of this guy.
2006-11-21 09:02:21 · answer #10 · answered by Al J 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They were going purely on numbers and by all means Pujols is the league's mvp in my opinion.
2006-11-21 07:38:36 · answer #11 · answered by mojo2093@sbcglobal.net 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋