Red, Red Whine

Disagreement surrounding this year's MLB MVP awards continues to stir, with the most recent round of sulking coming from World Series winner and NL runner-up Albert Pujols. The St. Louis first baseman, who many consider to be the best all-around player in the game, was recently quoted as saying that a player who does not take his team to the playoffs (i.e., Ryan Howard) should not be voted his league's Most Valuable Player.

The relationship between team success and individual accolades has been well documented and debated, with particularly well-reasoned commentary coming from my aforementioned brother-in-arms Mike, whose blog (http://mao-musings.blogspot.com) is well worth a gander. (His primary emphasis surrounds MVP winners and World Series appearances, rather than the postseason in general.) While league MVP's do not often come from LCS winners, they do generally play for contenders. However, with A-Rod winning the award several years ago as a member of last-placed Texas, and in light of Ryan Howard's recent victory, questions persist as to whether or not a Most Valuable Player "should" come from a playoff team.

If we are to take the honor at its name--the Most Valuable Player award--then it is patently illogical and indefensible to assert that the MVP "must" play for a postseason team. A player's discernible value to his team cannot rightfully be measured purely in terms of his team's overall standing. In other words, if (for example) Player X were to hit 65 HR and compile 190RBI next season for an 88-win team, say Baltimore, that missed the Wild Card by 1/2 a game, it would be wrong to insist that he should not be the MVP simply because the Orioles would miss the postseason. Anyone who posts league-high numbers and brings an otherwise mediocre team to the brink of the playoffs is, without a doubt, valuable.

Enter Ryan Howard. The guy played on a Phillies team that traded its most proven hitter (Bobby Abreu) and one of its most capable pitchers (the late Cory Lidle) because playoff contention seemed nothing more than a pipe dream. Nonetheless, Howard posted ridiculous numbers--.313, 58HR, 149RBI--while nearly leading a no-name group of players to a Wild Card shocker. He led the NL in homers and runs driven in, and his team won more games than Albert Pujols's Cardinals. Stick the Redbirds in the NL East with the runaway Mets and see if they make the playoffs.

Speaking of the Cards... let's consider their roster. First, there's ace pitcher Chris Carpenter, a Cy Young winner who is a full-fledged #1 starter. Then, there are underrated center-fielder Jim Edmonds and world-class 3rd-bagger Scott Rolen--two guys who could hit 3rd and 4th for nearly any team in the Majors. Remove Pujols from this equation and replace him with a so-s0 .280-30-100 guy, and you still find yourself with a solid core of a team, perhaps even a contender. Take Howard away from Philly, however, and what do you have? Overhyped leadoff man Jimmy Rollins? Up-and-coming yet still maturing Chase Utley? Heck, without Ryan Howard the Phillies may have won 15-20 fewer games and remained light years away from contention. With his dynamite performances and clutch hits, though, they nearly made the postseason.

Here's another key point: Being on a last-placed team and winning the MVP, a la Alex Rodriguez, is somewhat different than playing for a legitimate contender, as was the case with Howard and the Phillies. It's extremely difficult (though perhaps completely viable) to argue that a player from a cellar-dwelling team is indeed the league's most valuable. People are not generally swayed by "With him they won 70; without him they'd have won 40" arguments. The difference between 65 and 85 wins, however, is extremely significant, even if 85 wins are not quite good enough to make the playoffs.

Indeed, Albert Pujols's whining falls flat on two counts. First, there's the line of argument presented above, which illustrates that team success and individual achievement are, while related, not inseparable. Secondly, there's a more general, sportsmanship-driven argument. If team success is the barometer by which great players are to be measured, then Pujols should shut his yapper and celebrate the fact that he's a World Series champion. Remember the World Series? It's the title for which every team competes, and its trophy stands as a symbol of team excellence. The MVP is an individual award, to be given to the player who is most valuable to his team. If we start awarding it based upon a team's final standing--or, as some people would have it, start voting on it after the postseason is over--then we risk turning it into a Best Player On The Best Team award, or a Had A Good Postseason honor.

Albert Pujols and his misguided bandwagoners need to stop their tasteless whining; in fact, Pujols should even apologize for his unwarranted criticism of Ryan Howard's achievement. There are indeed arguments to be made in favor of Pujols, but there are no arguments to be made against Ryan Howard. "Most Valuable" means just that--most valuable--and no one can sensibly claim that Ryan Howard does not deserve such billing.