What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

NL MVP : Ryan Howard (1 Viewer)

posty

Footballguy
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article...sp&c_id=mlb

PHILADELPHIA -- The sheer force of Ryan Howard's gargantuan home runs cannot accurately be measured in speed or total distance, only by the gasps from those watching such a spectacle.

The Baseball Writers Association of America collectively gasped, then stood and applauded on Monday, selecting the Phillies first baseman as the National League's Most Valuable Player.

Howard becomes the second player in Major League Baseball history to win the Rookie of the Year and MVP Awards in consecutive seasons, following Cal Ripken in 1982 and 1983. Fred Lynn (1975) and Ichiro Suzuki (2001) have the even sweeter distinction of winning both awards in their first seasons.

Still, Howard had a calendar year that he'll never forget. The start came in January, when Howard was officially presented with his Rookie of the Year Award at the Baseball Writers dinner in New York City. His first full season included his first All-Star appearance, where he slammed his way to a victory in the CENTURY 21 Home Run Derby.

He added 30 more homers in the second half of the season, shattering Mike Schmidt's franchise record of 48 along the way. In September, Schmidt marveled, "I've never seen anyone in the Major Leagues who is treating the game almost like an oversized kid in the Little League World Series. All he's got to do is get a ball out over the plate and it's a home run."

Now, Howard is the first Phillie to be named MVP since Schmidt won the last of his three awards in 1986.

Howard likely would have become the sixth player to reach 60 homers in a season, but pitchers stopped throwing him strikes, especially in September. That resulted in just two homers in his final 23 games.

The fear Howard evoked in opposing managers can best be illustrated in an Aug. 11 game against Cincinnati, when the slugger was walked three times in extra innings. The final time came in the bottom of the 14th, to load the bases with no outs.

Yes, you read that correctly. Reds manager Jerry Narron would rather have the winning run 90 feet away with no outs than dare challenge Howard.

"When he comes to the plate, he's already in scoring position," Narron remarked.

Howard's season of 58 homers and 149 RBIs is made more impressive by his .313 batting average. The award also signals that the player's team doesn't have to make the playoffs in order to be considered the Most Valuable Player. The Phillies had a better record than the World Series champion Cardinals, but finished second in the NL East to the Mets and three games back of the Dodgers in the NL Wild Card race.

Howard followed up his rookie season with an even more brilliant sophomore campaign. He tied for the 10th best single-season mark for homers, and his 58 were the most by a second-year player. His 149 RBIs were the second-most for a sophomore, behind Hall of Famer Joe DiMaggio.

Howard's legend began well before becoming a fifth-round pick in 2001 out of Southwest Missouri State. People in the St. Louis suburb where he grew up still remember the 400-foot home run he smacked as a 12-year-old -- and the Red Lobster across the parking lot likely still has the dent to prove it.

Nervous in his first callup in May 2005, Howard stuck the second time around, when he was recalled in July. Now, he's just being unfair.

The MVP is his crowning individual achievement, trumping his Rookie of the Year ('05), Home Run Derby win ('06), and earning MVP of the Japan All-Star Series.

Another sterling performance came on June 20 against the Yankees, when he hit three long balls and drove in seven runs in a loss. One of those drives christened the upper deck at Citizens Bank Park and clanged off a seat that now bears a white "H" to mark the spot. It is the only ball hit up there in the park's three-year history.

"Yeah, I hit that one pretty good," Howard recalled at the end of the season. "I hope there are more like it."

If there are, more awards will likely follow.

 
I think you should have to submit a 1-2 page essay explaining your decision if you are going to vote on these awards. I'd love to see all of these "expert writers" explain their selections. Pujols was superior in almost every relevant statistic not named "Home Run" or "Runs Batted In."

 
An MVP who struck out 181 times? Please....good call sportswriters...
Would you have preferred if he grounded out to second 181 times instead?There are plenty of reasons why Howard should not be MVP. His strikeout totals are not one of those reasons.
 
i understand the fact that pujols' numbers were better in most categories.

But as a phillies fan, what this guy did in the second half of the season was one of the most amazing things i've ever seen. This team traded away Bobby Abreu & some others, giving up on the season and then this guy took the team on his back. He hit 14 homers in August and it almost got to the point at one stretch where he would come to the plate and everyone knew he was hitting one out and he did so. You can argue that his team didn't make the playoffs, however they did have a better record than St Louis, and i guarentee had that team had ANYBODY hitting in the 5 hole behind him, they make the playoffs. They man did not see a pitch in the September. In conclusion, Howard's the man

 
i understand the fact that pujols' numbers were better in most categories.But as a phillies fan, what this guy did in the second half of the season was one of the most amazing things i've ever seen. This team traded away Bobby Abreu & some others, giving up on the season and then this guy took the team on his back. He hit 14 homers in August and it almost got to the point at one stretch where he would come to the plate and everyone knew he was hitting one out and he did so. You can argue that his team didn't make the playoffs, however they did have a better record than St Louis, and i guarentee had that team had ANYBODY hitting in the 5 hole behind him, they make the playoffs. They man did not see a pitch in the September. In conclusion, Howard's the man
Look at the ERA of Philly's pitching staff before the All-Star break and then after it, too. You will see that the pitching staff had just as much to do with their second surge as Howard or anyone else.
 
Yes, the starting pitching improved, but the bullpen got worse as the year went on. Arthur Rhodes, Madson, and Gordon continually blew games in the 2nd half that they didnt in the 1st half. The improvement in the starting pitching I would say primarilly was because of Hamels improvement as well as the addition of Moyer to solidify a spot that had been terrible all season.

However, offensively in August the only two guys on the team that seemed to be hitting were Victorino, Rollins, and Howard. After Utley's hit streak the guy went into a 3-4 week funk that was frustrating to watch. I am not even going to speak on Pat Burrell's season, the guy just did not care and would watch strike 3 after strike 3. The catcher spot fluctuated all season and the 3B might as well hit 9th. When you are the only weapon in the middle of the lineup, and you still produce the way he did, I think he deserves the MVP

 
Yes, the starting pitching improved, but the bullpen got worse as the year went on. Arthur Rhodes, Madson, and Gordon continually blew games in the 2nd half that they didnt in the 1st half. The improvement in the starting pitching I would say primarilly was because of Hamels improvement as well as the addition of Moyer to solidify a spot that had been terrible all season.However, offensively in August the only two guys on the team that seemed to be hitting were Victorino, Rollins, and Howard. After Utley's hit streak the guy went into a 3-4 week funk that was frustrating to watch. I am not even going to speak on Pat Burrell's season, the guy just did not care and would watch strike 3 after strike 3. The catcher spot fluctuated all season and the 3B might as well hit 9th. When you are the only weapon in the middle of the lineup, and you still produce the way he did, I think he deserves the MVP
So, because Howard had a good August, he should be the MVP?You sound like such a homer in your arguments.Howard had 3 guys in his lineup who hit better than the next best hitter oh the Cardinals.Utley, Delucci, Burrell, all put up better numbers than the Cardinals next best hitter, Scott Rolen. For as much whining as you did in regards to nobody hitting behind Howard, you could have made a stronger case about nobody hitting behind Pujols.But I guess that wouldnt have bolstered your point that Howard deserved the MVP.
 
It's hard to argue with Howard winning it with those HR a nd RBI totals, but any real baseball expert knows Pujols should have won it.

 
An MVP who struck out 181 times? Please....good call sportswriters...
Would you have preferred if he grounded out to second 181 times instead?
Would he have advanced the runners doing so?
It would most likely be offset by him grounding into more double plays.Strikeouts rarely hurt a team. The "productive" out is mostly a myth.
While I agree with this to a certain extent, excessive strikeouts are a problem. Howard and Dunn have a strikeout problem.
 
An MVP who struck out 181 times? Please....good call sportswriters...
Would you have preferred if he grounded out to second 181 times instead?
Would he have advanced the runners doing so?
It would most likely be offset by him grounding into more double plays.Strikeouts rarely hurt a team. The "productive" out is mostly a myth.
While I agree with this to a certain extent, excessive strikeouts are a problem. Howard and Dunn have a strikeout problem.
Howard and Dunn are two of the most productive hitters in baseball. Yes, they strikeout alot. Who cares. Power hitters tend to strikeout alot. The really good ones tend to walk alot too. Hence the high OBP for Howard.Looking at strikeouts to determine value is as pointless as looking at RBI numbers
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Howard had an MVP season. Pujols is from another planet and gets punished for it. The funny thing is he is far and away the best all around hitter of his generation and he has 1 MVP to show for it. It just seems that every year there is another player who had a great season and the writers figure Pujols will have plenty more opportunities. Well the years pile up.

I have no problem with Howard winning the award, but Pujols was the NL MVP.

 
honda, dude.
Nope, his says the 2007 MVP, last I checked it was 2006...
face it.. you got scooped, gammons.
It's OK. I feel bad for Posty since he has no friends and this is his life. He can have this thread.I can't wait until they name Jeter MVP tomorrow and Posty has to post that!
I think you're going to be right, because just like Howard, Jeter is another media darling.You cannot underestimate the spin and influence the media has.Side note: Jeter already has his trophy as I heard he just bagged Jessica Biel.Should be a poll. Which is better? Bagging Jessica or bagging the AL MVP.
 
Yes, the starting pitching improved, but the bullpen got worse as the year went on. Arthur Rhodes, Madson, and Gordon continually blew games in the 2nd half that they didnt in the 1st half. The improvement in the starting pitching I would say primarilly was because of Hamels improvement as well as the addition of Moyer to solidify a spot that had been terrible all season.However, offensively in August the only two guys on the team that seemed to be hitting were Victorino, Rollins, and Howard. After Utley's hit streak the guy went into a 3-4 week funk that was frustrating to watch. I am not even going to speak on Pat Burrell's season, the guy just did not care and would watch strike 3 after strike 3. The catcher spot fluctuated all season and the 3B might as well hit 9th. When you are the only weapon in the middle of the lineup, and you still produce the way he did, I think he deserves the MVP
So, because Howard had a good August, he should be the MVP?You sound like such a homer in your arguments.Howard had 3 guys in his lineup who hit better than the next best hitter oh the Cardinals.Utley, Delucci, Burrell, all put up better numbers than the Cardinals next best hitter, Scott Rolen. For as much whining as you did in regards to nobody hitting behind Howard, you could have made a stronger case about nobody hitting behind Pujols.But I guess that wouldnt have bolstered your point that Howard deserved the MVP.
No, my argument, is not that because he had a good August he should be MVP. My argument is that this team gave up on the season at the end of July and Howard pretty much carried this team to lead the wildcard (for a few days) during the last week of the season. Even in a bad year for Rolen, if you want to tell me that Pat Burrell is better protection you are kidding me and clearly have not seen this guy play. His numbers may be average, hes the king of the homer when your down or up 9-1. Look up how many times this guy struck out looking this year, I believe he lead the league. Dellucci was great until the end of July where it seemed like he just hit a wall, so he wasn't helpful down the stretch. Howard also hit 30 home runs in the 1st half of the season, so it wasn't purely his August or his second half, but his second half was something that I have never seen before. Pujols is a great player, probably the best player in the league, but he wasn't pitched around like Howard down the stretch. This was someone who was walked intentionally with 1st and 2nd, 0 outs, in extra innings. He was also walked to lead off an inning in extras by Garner, I believe. Could Pujols have won the award? Sure. Was he absolutely robbed? No
 
Yes, the starting pitching improved, but the bullpen got worse as the year went on. Arthur Rhodes, Madson, and Gordon continually blew games in the 2nd half that they didnt in the 1st half. The improvement in the starting pitching I would say primarilly was because of Hamels improvement as well as the addition of Moyer to solidify a spot that had been terrible all season.However, offensively in August the only two guys on the team that seemed to be hitting were Victorino, Rollins, and Howard. After Utley's hit streak the guy went into a 3-4 week funk that was frustrating to watch. I am not even going to speak on Pat Burrell's season, the guy just did not care and would watch strike 3 after strike 3. The catcher spot fluctuated all season and the 3B might as well hit 9th. When you are the only weapon in the middle of the lineup, and you still produce the way he did, I think he deserves the MVP
So, because Howard had a good August, he should be the MVP?You sound like such a homer in your arguments.Howard had 3 guys in his lineup who hit better than the next best hitter oh the Cardinals.Utley, Delucci, Burrell, all put up better numbers than the Cardinals next best hitter, Scott Rolen. For as much whining as you did in regards to nobody hitting behind Howard, you could have made a stronger case about nobody hitting behind Pujols.But I guess that wouldnt have bolstered your point that Howard deserved the MVP.
No, my argument, is not that because he had a good August he should be MVP. My argument is that this team gave up on the season at the end of July and Howard pretty much carried this team to lead the wildcard (for a few days) during the last week of the season. Even in a bad year for Rolen, if you want to tell me that Pat Burrell is better protection you are kidding me and clearly have not seen this guy play. His numbers may be average, hes the king of the homer when your down or up 9-1. Look up how many times this guy struck out looking this year, I believe he lead the league. Dellucci was great until the end of July where it seemed like he just hit a wall, so he wasn't helpful down the stretch. Howard also hit 30 home runs in the 1st half of the season, so it wasn't purely his August or his second half, but his second half was something that I have never seen before. Pujols is a great player, probably the best player in the league, but he wasn't pitched around like Howard down the stretch. This was someone who was walked intentionally with 1st and 2nd, 0 outs, in extra innings. He was also walked to lead off an inning in extras by Garner, I believe. Could Pujols have won the award? Sure. Was he absolutely robbed? No
Oh my god. He was walked with guys on 1st and 2nd! With no outs!I stand corrected, he definitely deserves the MVP.
 
An MVP who struck out 181 times? Please....good call sportswriters...
Would you have preferred if he grounded out to second 181 times instead?
Would he have advanced the runners doing so?
It would most likely be offset by him grounding into more double plays.Strikeouts rarely hurt a team. The "productive" out is mostly a myth.
I strongly disaree.Putting the ball in play>striking outYou saw it in the WS. Put some wood on the ball and anything can happen. A dribbler to a Detroit pitcher and you never know what's going to happen.
 
An MVP who struck out 181 times? Please....good call sportswriters...
Would you have preferred if he grounded out to second 181 times instead?
Would he have advanced the runners doing so?
It would most likely be offset by him grounding into more double plays.Strikeouts rarely hurt a team. The "productive" out is mostly a myth.
I strongly disaree.Putting the ball in play>striking outYou saw it in the WS. Put some wood on the ball and anything can happen. A dribbler to a Detroit pitcher and you never know what's going to happen.
Yep, agree 100%.
 
An MVP who struck out 181 times? Please....good call sportswriters...
Would you have preferred if he grounded out to second 181 times instead?
Would he have advanced the runners doing so?
It would most likely be offset by him grounding into more double plays.Strikeouts rarely hurt a team. The "productive" out is mostly a myth.
While I agree with this to a certain extent, excessive strikeouts are a problem. Howard and Dunn have a strikeout problem.
Howard and Dunn are two of the most productive hitters in baseball. Yes, they strikeout alot. Who cares. Power hitters tend to strikeout alot. The really good ones tend to walk alot too. Hence the high OBP for Howard.Looking at strikeouts to determine value is as pointless as looking at RBI numbers
I'm aware of your theory. I actually agree with it. Adam Dunn is probably one of my top 5 favorite players in all of the league. I understand his value.That being said, any trend towards an "unproductive" is not a good thing. Even if there is a bit of a myth lending towards the value of a "productive out," there is still a threshold where too many strikeouts can end up costing the team.
 
An MVP who struck out 181 times? Please....good call sportswriters...
Would you have preferred if he grounded out to second 181 times instead?
Would he have advanced the runners doing so?
It would most likely be offset by him grounding into more double plays.Strikeouts rarely hurt a team. The "productive" out is mostly a myth.
I strongly disaree.Putting the ball in play>striking outYou saw it in the WS. Put some wood on the ball and anything can happen. A dribbler to a Detroit pitcher and you never know what's going to happen.
Yep, agree 100%.
Well, you are wrong. I will dig up the link to the study, but overall, a strikeout is no worse than a groundout.Pointing to one specific play does not make for a strong argument my friend.
 
An MVP who struck out 181 times? Please....good call sportswriters...
Would you have preferred if he grounded out to second 181 times instead?
Would he have advanced the runners doing so?
It would most likely be offset by him grounding into more double plays.Strikeouts rarely hurt a team. The "productive" out is mostly a myth.
I strongly disaree.Putting the ball in play>striking outYou saw it in the WS. Put some wood on the ball and anything can happen. A dribbler to a Detroit pitcher and you never know what's going to happen.
Yep, agree 100%.
Well, you are wrong. I will dig up the link to the study, but overall, a strikeout is no worse than a groundout.Pointing to one specific play does not make for a strong argument my friend.
Wow, ok. Thanks.
 
An MVP who struck out 181 times? Please....good call sportswriters...
Would you have preferred if he grounded out to second 181 times instead?
Would he have advanced the runners doing so?
It would most likely be offset by him grounding into more double plays.Strikeouts rarely hurt a team. The "productive" out is mostly a myth.
I strongly disaree.Putting the ball in play>striking outYou saw it in the WS. Put some wood on the ball and anything can happen. A dribbler to a Detroit pitcher and you never know what's going to happen.
Yep, agree 100%.
Well, you are wrong. I will dig up the link to the study, but overall, a strikeout is no worse than a groundout.Pointing to one specific play does not make for a strong argument my friend.
LOL, you're the one pointing to one specific play (i.e. the groundout vs. the strikeout).I'm saying that putting the ball in play trumps a K, every day of the week.This is little league knowledge.Put the ball in play.
 
An MVP who struck out 181 times? Please....good call sportswriters...
Would you have preferred if he grounded out to second 181 times instead?
Would he have advanced the runners doing so?
It would most likely be offset by him grounding into more double plays.Strikeouts rarely hurt a team. The "productive" out is mostly a myth.
I strongly disaree.Putting the ball in play>striking out

You saw it in the WS. Put some wood on the ball and anything can happen. A dribbler to a Detroit pitcher and you never know what's going to happen.
Yep, agree 100%.
Well, you are wrong. I will dig up the link to the study, but overall, a strikeout is no worse than a groundout.Pointing to one specific play does not make for a strong argument my friend.
Wow, ok. Thanks.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2617The gist is that there is no positive correlation between strikeout totals and run scored totals.

On the other hand, there is strong correalation between an individuals strikeout numbers with OPS and more intricate stats like ISO and BB/PA.

Strikeout are huge for pitchers. Pitchers that strikeout alot of guys tend to have lowere ERAs. There is definitely a correlation between striking someone out and being a productive pitcher.

There is little, if any correlation between being striking out and being a good hitter.

 
Don't even get me started about Scotty's last six weeks and the fact that Edmonds and Eckstein were gone for them as well. Anyone claiming that Howard had less protection needs to get their Phillies' maroon colored glasses off and see the whole picture. Encarnacion, Miles, Belliard, Molina, and Rolen hitting under .200, much worse than the Phillies lineup down the stretch.

 
An MVP who struck out 181 times? Please....good call sportswriters...
Would you have preferred if he grounded out to second 181 times instead?
Would he have advanced the runners doing so?
It would most likely be offset by him grounding into more double plays.Strikeouts rarely hurt a team. The "productive" out is mostly a myth.
I strongly disaree.Putting the ball in play>striking out

You saw it in the WS. Put some wood on the ball and anything can happen. A dribbler to a Detroit pitcher and you never know what's going to happen.
Yep, agree 100%.
Well, you are wrong. I will dig up the link to the study, but overall, a strikeout is no worse than a groundout.Pointing to one specific play does not make for a strong argument my friend.
LOL, you're the one pointing to one specific play (i.e. the groundout vs. the strikeout).I'm saying that putting the ball in play trumps a K, every day of the week.

This is little league knowledge.

Put the ball in play.
Yes, it is little league. Thankfully there are major league discussions going on about what stats mean what in the real world.Read up a little bit, then we can have an adult conversation on the subject. Unless you think you learned all you need to know about baseball during your little league years.

 
An MVP who struck out 181 times? Please....good call sportswriters...
Would you have preferred if he grounded out to second 181 times instead?
Would he have advanced the runners doing so?
It would most likely be offset by him grounding into more double plays.Strikeouts rarely hurt a team. The "productive" out is mostly a myth.
I strongly disaree.Putting the ball in play>striking out

You saw it in the WS. Put some wood on the ball and anything can happen. A dribbler to a Detroit pitcher and you never know what's going to happen.
Yep, agree 100%.
Well, you are wrong. I will dig up the link to the study, but overall, a strikeout is no worse than a groundout.Pointing to one specific play does not make for a strong argument my friend.
LOL, you're the one pointing to one specific play (i.e. the groundout vs. the strikeout).I'm saying that putting the ball in play trumps a K, every day of the week.

This is little league knowledge.

Put the ball in play.
Yes, it is little league. Thankfully there are major league discussions going on about what stats mean what in the real world.Read up a little bit, then we can have an adult conversation on the subject. Unless you think you learned all you need to know about baseball during your little league years.
It's called common knowledge. Striking out = an out

Productive out = advanding a runner a base

Productive out is not a myth. It's a baseball stragety used by MLB teams that do not have a power hitter batting 1 thru 9 in the lineup.

You seem to have a narrow view on the subject, so I tried to post it as simply as I could, so you'd be able to understand it.

 
An MVP who struck out 181 times? Please....good call sportswriters...
Would you have preferred if he grounded out to second 181 times instead?
Would he have advanced the runners doing so?
It would most likely be offset by him grounding into more double plays.Strikeouts rarely hurt a team. The "productive" out is mostly a myth.
I strongly disaree.Putting the ball in play>striking out

You saw it in the WS. Put some wood on the ball and anything can happen. A dribbler to a Detroit pitcher and you never know what's going to happen.
Yep, agree 100%.
Well, you are wrong. I will dig up the link to the study, but overall, a strikeout is no worse than a groundout.Pointing to one specific play does not make for a strong argument my friend.
LOL, you're the one pointing to one specific play (i.e. the groundout vs. the strikeout).I'm saying that putting the ball in play trumps a K, every day of the week.

This is little league knowledge.

Put the ball in play.
Yes, it is little league. Thankfully there are major league discussions going on about what stats mean what in the real world.Read up a little bit, then we can have an adult conversation on the subject. Unless you think you learned all you need to know about baseball during your little league years.
It's called common knowledge. Striking out = an out

Productive out = advanding a runner a base

Productive out is not a myth. It's a baseball stragety used by MLB teams that do not have a power hitter batting 1 thru 9 in the lineup.

You seem to have a narrow view on the subject, so I tried to post it as simply as I could, so you'd be able to understand it.
So, did you read the study or not?
 
Good for Howard........

In spite of what people think...baseball is not solely about numbers. It's about having "it". Rotonerds, fantasy geeks, Cardinals fans and stat-o-philes will cry, clamor and complain that Howards VORP wasn't as high, his SNAFU wasn't as low and his SNUH wasn't as good as Pujols'. Maybe the myth is more than the reality (such as Howard being the young kid with Pujols being the veteran, or the Cardinals having such a great all around team which would diminish Pujol's value) ........ but in the end Howard had "it".

 
An MVP who struck out 181 times? Please....good call sportswriters...
Would you have preferred if he grounded out to second 181 times instead?
Would he have advanced the runners doing so?
It would most likely be offset by him grounding into more double plays.

Strikeouts rarely hurt a team. The "productive" out is mostly a myth.
I strongly disaree.

Putting the ball in play>striking out

You saw it in the WS. Put some wood on the ball and anything can happen. A dribbler to a Detroit pitcher and you never know what's going to happen.
Yep, agree 100%.
Well, you are wrong. I will dig up the link to the study, but overall, a strikeout is no worse than a groundout.

Pointing to one specific play does not make for a strong argument my friend.
LOL, you're the one pointing to one specific play (i.e. the groundout vs. the strikeout).

I'm saying that putting the ball in play trumps a K, every day of the week.

This is little league knowledge.

Put the ball in play.
Yes, it is little league. Thankfully there are major league discussions going on about what stats mean what in the real world.

Read up a little bit, then we can have an adult conversation on the subject. Unless you think you learned all you need to know about baseball during your little league years.
It's called common knowledge.

Striking out = an out

Productive out = advanding a runner a base

Productive out is not a myth. It's a baseball stragety used by MLB teams that do not have a power hitter batting 1 thru 9 in the lineup.

You seem to have a narrow view on the subject, so I tried to post it as simply as I could, so you'd be able to understand it.
So, did you read the study or not?
I will, if you provide a link or PM. I always love a good BB read.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top