By James Bailey
What do you say to a writer who leaves the league RBI co-leader off his MVP ballot? What if the player also finished second in home runs, slugging percentage, and OPS, batted nearly .300 and got on base at better than a .400 clip?
Sports Illustrated’s John Heyman didn’t deem Brewers first baseman Prince Fielder one of the 10 most valuable players in the National League. In his words “the ‘most valuable’ part of the equation is weighed heavily here, as I don’t believe players on also-ran teams should win the award.”
So in his world, someone who has the misfortune of playing behind the worst pitching staff in the league can’t be valuable. Hey, man, value is relative. The Brewers, despite allowing an NL-high 818 runs, finished 80-82. Subtract Fielder from their lineup and let me know where they finish. It ain’t third place. It’s more likely down in Pirate territory, where the sun never shines.
Here’s Heyman’s ballot:
1. Albert Pujols, St. Louis
2. Troy Tulowitzki, Colorado
3. Ryan Howard, Philadelphia
4. Andre Ethier, Los Angeles
5. Hanley Ramirez, Florida
6. Matt Kemp, Los Angeles
7. Chris Carpenter, St. Louis
8. Adam Wainwright, St. Louis
9. Chase Utley, Philadelphia
10. Matt Holliday, St. Louis
He obviously doesn’t have hard and fast rules against voting for a pitcher or a player who only spent two months in the league. Good to see some flexibility there. But players on losing teams are out. Tough noogies, Prince.
I won’t argue one iota with his selection of Pujols as MVP. But there has to be a place for Fielder in the top 10. Here’s how the numbers of his eight batters stack up alongside Fielder’s:
| Player | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | SB | CS | BB | SO | BA | OBP | SLG | OPS |
| Pujols | 568 | 124 | 186 | 45 | 1 | 47 | 135 | 16 | 4 | 115 | 64 | .327 | .443 | .658 | 1.101 |
| Tulowitzki | 543 | 101 | 161 | 25 | 9 | 32 | 92 | 20 | 11 | 73 | 112 | .297 | .377 | .552 | .930 |
| Howard | 616 | 105 | 172 | 37 | 4 | 45 | 141 | 8 | 1 | 75 | 186 | .279 | .360 | .571 | .931 |
| Ethier | 596 | 92 | 162 | 42 | 3 | 31 | 106 | 6 | 4 | 72 | 116 | .272 | .361 | .508 | .869 |
| Ramirez | 576 | 101 | 197 | 42 | 1 | 24 | 106 | 27 | 8 | 61 | 101 | .342 | .410 | .543 | .954 |
| Kemp | 606 | 97 | 180 | 25 | 7 | 26 | 101 | 34 | 8 | 52 | 139 | .297 | .352 | .490 | .842 |
| Utley | 571 | 112 | 161 | 28 | 4 | 31 | 93 | 23 | 0 | 88 | 110 | .282 | .397 | .508 | .905 |
| Holliday | 235 | 42 | 83 | 16 | 2 | 13 | 55 | 2 | 4 | 26 | 43 | .353 | .419 | .604 | 1.023 |
| Fielder | 591 | 103 | 177 | 35 | 3 | 46 | 141 | 2 | 3 | 110 | 138 | .299 | .412 | .602 | 1.014 |
The closest match is Howard, who shared RBI honors with Fielder, though Prince has him by almost 100 points of OPS. The cases for Ethier and Kemp don’t look so strong when stacked up next to Fielder’s numbers. And while Holliday gave the Cardinals a huge boost when he joined the team, how can you find room on your ballot for a guy who played two months, but there’s no place, even as a token No. 10 guy, for the second most productive hitter in the league?
I know there’s more to MVP voting than purely checking the stats and jotting down the league’s top hitters. A computer could do that, without any of the drama of the Baseball Writers’ vote. But there’s got to be some common sense involved, even for those who choose to stand on “principle.”
{ 6 comments }
I am not a Dodger hater because I am a D-backs fan. First and foremost, I am a baseball guy raised a Dodger fan. With that said, quite frankly, I am surprised to even see Either and Kemp in his list. Yes they played well and contributed but, to have either of them listed over Prince Fielder blows my mind.
Starting next year the fans will vote that the all-stars only come from playoff contenders. Mark my word.
Very bizarre.
Good call.
What would you do with 1972’s Dick Allen for the White Sox who never got close to the dominate A’s? He led in homers, ribbies and got knocked off by Rod Carew for the triple crown. And this is only one example.
If I were voting, I would probably penalize players on winning teams, due to the duplication in effort of above par players needed to sustain a winning season. If Albert Pujols doesn’t like being walked around, then try being the best hitter on the worst team…and see if you get any pitches to hit? How can a pitcher let up while pitching to the whole Yankees lineup? No, he doesn’t walk Teixeira, ’cause ARod’s there… and he doesn’t walk ARod because Posada’s there…. And that brings up another point. A pitcher from the Yankees never has to face the Yankees. So he actually performed with a winning defense and a pitcher from the Royals never caught a break because he had to face the Yankee hitters and drop the K.C. hitters off the agenda (along with his inferior defensive nine behind him).
The way I would factor in contending status, if I had a vote, would be more of a tie-breaker. All else being equal, I’d give the edge to the guy on the better team, figuring he helped boost them in the standings. But it’s really relative. Put a great player on a weaker team and he’s likely to boost them in the standings. Take a great player off a weaker team and they may go from 3rd or 4th to last place. I guess that makes it hard to argue real hard for a guy on a last place team, because they could finish last without him too.
You also neglected to mention that his #5 choice was fellow “also-ran” Hanley Ramirez. Fielder obviously dwarfed Ramirez in terms of power, but he also had a higher OBP and comparable defense. Heck, I don’t even need to point that out; Fielder has better numbers than anyone in the NL except Pujols. Obviously shortstop is a thinner position (though I’m not even sure it was this year), but either way Heyman is absolutely clueless.
He seems to have a pathological hatred of Milwaukee for some reason.
I don’t think that Jon Heyman has a fear of Milwaukee as much as I think he has a fear of statistical analysis…he has written many times about his dislike of some of the new metrics and his voting makes it look like he is clinging to the “old ways” of voting for MVP while not considering some of the new assessment tools.
Comments on this entry are closed.