The St. Louis Cardinals' Albert Pujols is upset that Philadelphia Phillies 1st baseman Ryan Howard won the National League Most Valuable Player honor this year:
The St. Louis Cardinals' slugger is upset he lost out to Philadelphia's Ryan Howard for the National League MVP award, saying Wednesday the honor should go to someone on a playoff team."I see it this way: Someone who doesn't take his team to the playoffs doesn't deserve to win the MVP," Pujols said in Spanish at a news conference organized by the Dominican Republic's sports ministry.
Too bad, Al. Others see it quite differently. For instance, the Phils won two more regular season games than St. Louis, and since MVP voting takes place before the playoffs, this probably makes a difference. And consider: The Phillies had a virtual fire sale months before the playoffs began -- getting rid of Bobby Abreu, David Bell and Corey Lidle to name a few -- yet thanks to Howard, the Phils remained in the playoff race right to the end.
That being said, what the hell happened to sportsmanship? What happened to saying "I congratulate Ryan for his great season and winning the MVP"?? Oh, right, I forgot -- this is 2006! Sportsmanship has taken a back seat to the "Me-First" attitude in pro sports.
Oh come now......mvp.....most valuable player...to their team and the league...ryan is a one year wonder.....Pujols the best in baseball year after year not only for his team but for baseball...it should have gone to pujols, easily...and he put up his numbers while missing 15 games from injury.....should have been no contest...pujols going away.......who me biased?!
Posted by: cardinals fan at November 30, 2006 09:29 PMI'm a Phils fan, but Pujols was better than Howard this season.
But he's still a poor sport. And his argument's crap since getting to the playoffs a team function and so you would penalize a better player with worse teammates by denying him the MVP when his teammates are the reason they didn't make the playoffs.
Hope that was coherent. I'm tired.
Posted by: Paul Smith at November 30, 2006 10:09 PMOh yeah: and the Phillies won more games than the Cardinals. The Cardinals only made the playoffs because they were in a weaker division. Should Pujols really win the MVP because he played in a crappy division?
Posted by: Paul Smith at December 1, 2006 09:04 AMWell, this is an age-old debate: what does MVP mean? Most valuable to their team? Best player in the league?
Their pure numbers are quite similar. So that's really a draw.
I was going to agree with Hube that Howard really carried the Phils, whereas Pujols was surrounded by more talent. But on the offensive side, it's not really true. The non-Howard members of the Phillies, including Chase Utley, Pat Burrell, and Jimmy Rollins hit more HR and had a higher on-base percentage and slugging percentage than the non-Pujols members of the Cards.
Pujols was a bigger percentage of the Cards offense.
I fully agree that it was a classless comment, though.
Posted by: dan at December 1, 2006 03:42 PMI believe that by bitching and moaning, Pujols made his own point as to why he didn't and should not have won the MVP. His contributions to his team notwithstanding, good sportsmanship is a valuable asset to a team. Clubhouse attitudes can make or break a team. Howard excels in that regard. The point that St. Louis was in an inferior division is also valid. I believe they made the right decision by picking Howard.
Posted by: Al at December 1, 2006 08:16 PM