This man has a say in who wins the MVP

Well at least they got it right in the end. Pujols won his second MVP award. But with Manny and CC involved, the voting was not without its blatant stupidities.

Mr. Tom Haudricourt of the Brewers Blog (hint!) had quite the ballot, which he exposed (foolishly) for all to see. It's as follows:

Here's the way I voted:

1. Ryan Howard, Phil

2. CC Sabathia, Mil

3. Manny Ramirez, LA

4. Carlos Delgado, NY

5. Aramis Ramirez, Chi

6. Prince Fielder, Mil

7. Albert Pujols, Stl

8. Ryan Ludwick, Stl

9. Ryan Braun, Mil

10. David Wright, NY

Howard is whatever. "Carried his team into the playoffs." "Had a great September" and whatever other stupid axioms writers use to vote for inferior players. But let's look at number seven.

7. Albert Pujols

That's not the same guy who garnered 18 of 32 first place votes and finished with 369 total points, is it?

Shit.

He was the seventh most valuable player in baseball according to Mr. Haudricourt. This man, who writes about baseball for a living, placed Pujols seventh on his MVP ballot.

Prince Fielder, the Brewers first basemen (although I am sure that has nothing to do with it), was a more valuable player in Haudricourt's warped mind. Why you ask? Well, you won't get a good answer.

With the Cardinals finishing fourth, I voted Pujols seventh on my ballot. I don't consider MVP to be "the most outstanding player" award and therefore don't just go by who had the best stats. I like to credit players for lifting their teams to the post-season or at least keeping them in the race until the very end.

That last sentence is humorous. "At least keeping them in the race until the very end."

The Cardinals finished 86-76, while your mighty Brewers finished 90-72. That's four games. Care to respond?

I understand that the Cardinals would not have been even close to the wild-card berth without Pujols,

Argument undermined.

but I still like players who elevate their game in crunch time and lift their teams to new heights. And I thought Ryan Ludwick had just as much to do with keeping the Cards in the hunt as Pujols did.

Sept./Oct. splits for Pujols/Ludwick:

Pujols - 1.130 OPS/8 HR/8 2B/17 BB/7 K

Ludwick - .941 OPS/5 HR/9 2B/9 BB/30 K

So "just as much to do" becomes "not nearly as much to do."

St. Louis did stay in the wild card race until mid-September,

That was nice of you to undermine yourself again.

but mainly because the Brewers and Mets were gagging at the time.

Nothing to do with the Cardinals you know, winning while they were "gagging."

It's a subjective vote and every writer has his own preferences. That's why I voted for Sabathia second and Ramirez third because even though they played in the league only half a season they were primarily responsible for putting their teams in the playoffs.

I voted for them because I like them.

This is an inexact science. With 10 names on the ballot, you could move guys around and drive yourself nuts putting them in the spot you feel is best. But that's the way I voted. In sheer offensive numbers, Pujols certainly is tough to beat, which is why it's understandable that he got so much support.

What's not understandable is how the hell you have an MVP vote.

This one's for you

Fire Joe Morgan.

You may be gone, but you'll never be forgotten.

This one's for you.

Cold Hard Football Facts claims to be all analytical and shit about all things football. But really they are fairly wrong, fairly often. They express opinion as fact and will not get away with it. Not on my watch!

Best QBs ever. Go.

2. JOE MONTANA (San Francisco, 1979-92; Kansas City, 1993-94)

Best season (1989): 271 for 386 (70.2%), 3,521 yards, 9.12 YPA, 26 TD, 8 INT, 112.4 passer rating

Career: 3,409 for 5,391 (63.2%), 40,551 yards, 7.52 YPA, 273 TD, 139 INT, 92.3 passer rating

Championships: 1981, 1984, 1988, 1989.

Seems pretty freakin' awesome to me. Who could possibly be number one...

1. BART STARR (Green Bay, 1956-71)

Best season (1966): 156 for 251 (62.2%), 2,257 yards, 9.0 YPA, 14 TD, 3 INT, 105.0 passer rating

Career: 1,808 for 3,149 (57.4%), 24,718 yards, 7.8 YPA, 152 TD, 138 INT, 80.5 passer rating

Championships: 1961, 1962, 1965, 1966, 1967.

Oh, someone worse. That's cool.

The numbers, in side-by-side form:

Starr - 57.4% comp/24,718 YDS/7.8 YPA/152 TD/138 INT/80.5 passer rating
Montana - 63.2% comp/40,551 YDS/7.52 YPA/273 TD/139 INT/92.3 passer rating


Those differences are a fucking joke. And not even a funny one. It's like a really racist joke that is offensive to anyone intelligent.

Almost 16,000 more yards. 121 more TDs. And only ONE more pick. Montana also played in four less games than Starr. He also had 2,000+ more attempts than Starr, which explains the minor difference in YPA.

But he won one less championship! Well Starr won them in a time when there were six teams and no coloreds were allowed to play.

Conclusion: Montana is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better.

You say Jerry Rice. I say shut your mouth.

The stupidity, in word form:

And even if you listen to teammates today, they make it pretty clear that they would have fallen on a grenade for Starr. Leadership is an elemental piece of quarterbacking – probably more important than gaudy passing stats.

Jon Kitna. His tight ends would kill for him. No. Questions. Asked.

Best QB ever.

And that love his teammates had for their field general is an incredible sign of his leadership.

But forget, for a moment, the team accomplishments and the “intangibles” of leadership.

I will if you will.

Also, +1 for the douchy "_______" on intangibles. They aren't required because "leadership" "is" "actually" "immeasurable."

If you want to talk passing and statistics, we’ll put Starr up against anybody. Anybody.

How about, oh, I don't know, Joe Fucking Montana?

He led the NFL in passer rating five times. Johnny Unitas led the league in passer rating just twice. Ditto Joe Montana. Only Steve Young surpassed Starr’s mark (six).

Objection! Relevance.

Congrats on leading a league consisting of two teams in a wonky stat. Oh, and not being the best ever in that contrived example. Nice job.

When it comes to a combination of leadership, victories, big-game performances and statistical supremacy nobody – NOBODY – put together a more total package than Bart Starr, the greatest quarterback in NFL history.

The two things - wins (which are dumb anyway) and stats - I can measure against my ace (Montana), my guy wins.

Career win/loss:
Monty - 117/47
Starrman - 94/57

The stats are there - in all their uneven glory - above.

FJM, you will be missed.

The Twins are a no-trying, worthless baseball club

The Minnesota Twins and the Chicago White Sox played the second straight one-game playoff for a chance to play the Rays in the ALDS. Exciting stuff. One game to rule them all and in the darkness bind them.

Scott Jensen has a history of hating the thrifty (because they have to be) Twins. Even saying they do not care about winning - especially not in the playoffs.

But his latest is one step away from just typing "I HATE THE TWINS FOR NO GOOD REASON!"

TWINS WON'T WIN - OR AT LEAST THEY DON'T DESERVE TO

I can buy that the Twins aren't that good. But they ended the season tied with the Sox and had a better run diff. (84 to 82) and earned this position.

The Twins won’t win tonight against the White Sox. Well, I can’t guarantee that. Anything can happen after all. But here are three reasons why the Twins are unlikely to win.

Bet hedged.

1. Ron Gardenhire. Gardenhire is a great regular season manager. And I mean great. My measure for managerial greatness is how well a team does relative to its overall talent level. And thanks to ownership miserliness since Gardenhire’s hire in 2002, the Twins talent level has been far less than it should have been. Yet Gardenhire has been continually able to get good to great performance out of his team.

I would argue that Gardenhire is an OK coach that doesn't have any magical talent extraction powers, but does manage his team well.

Unfortunately, Gardenhire has a managerial form of the yips. He’s not a pressure guy.

Ohhh I getcha. Sweeping the White Sox from Sept. 23-25 was utterly gutless. Joe Torre would have Super Swept them, in which you pick up double games in the standings, unless the opponent performs a physical challenge, which the White Sox would not have. What a goddamn choker.

Witness Game 4 of the 2004 American League Divisional Series. Down two games to one in a must-win game, Gardenhire was sitting on a 5-1 lead after six, when he inexcusably removed ace Johan Santana – after just 87 pitches. Then Juan Rincon, Joe Nathan (used improperly in the eighth) and Kyle Lohse blew it and the Twins lost 6-5. Series over. Maybe Gardenhire has learned. I doubt it.

Removing Santana - probably not that smart. But his pen was nuts that year. Rincon struck out 106 in 82 IP and Nathan had 89 K in 72 IP with a 0.98 WHIP. And what a moron, using his closer not in the ninth to get that ever valuable save.

Also, one example out of 1151 games managed.

2. Nick Blackburn. He won 11 games in his rookie campaign and had a league average ERA. But I expect him to get hit hard tonight. Why? Second half ERA of 4.98; first half ERA of 3.65. Looks like a classic case of someone who had success because the league wasn’t familiar with him. My guess is that the White Sox get to him the second time around the lineup.

I've got nothing here other than that the game finished in a 1-0 score.

3. Karma. Hey – ballplayers are superstitious and believe in stuff like this, so why can’t I.

Because you're a writer and should be level-headed about these things? And question mark.

If the Twins hadn’t traded Santana, they wouldn’t be in this situation; they would have won the division by five games. And then they would have been able to set up their divisional rotation with Santana number one and Scott Baker number two.

Wowwwwwwww. The ghost of Santana is going to come back from the grave of the Mets - who were eliminated earlier than the Twins - and knock a sure Denard Span homer back into the field of play, "Angels in the Outfield" style.

And the Twins also could not have afforded $29,385,729,485 million to pay Johan. And they were within one run of making the playoffs.

It really doesn’t matter what the Twins do tonight – or possibly in the playoffs. Twins ownership has already won. They didn’t spend the money – again – yet were good enough to keep people buying tickets, tuning in and buying the merchandise. Their meal has been served. Anything else is just gravy for them.

Holy shit. The venom comes out. Those greedy bastard Twins. Wisely squeezing the last capitalist drop out of their baseball team by getting to a 163rd game of the season and purposely losing to continue their run of not making the playoffs.

Seriously folks, constantly winning and putting a good team on the field without spending hundreds of millions on Carlos Silva or Erik Bedard should be praised, not met with hatred.

Outrage! Ted Lilly NOT chosen as Cubs number two starter

Gene "Copy/paste my last name because it's crazy" Wojciechowski loves him the Ted Lilly. So much in fact that he insists he should be the number two starter for the Cubs in their upcoming playoff series, not Carlos Zambrano.

I'm fine with this, they're pretty close. It is sure to be an interesting, level-headed article filled with facts and numbers about why Lilly should be number two.

Just kidding.

Wojo is so indignant and provides no facts - beyond the "Zambrano is crazy!!!!!!1111!!1!!!" - that it makes me angry.

But the numbers speak for him, and right now they're saying the Cubs are taking, at best, a calculated risk by pitching him second in the NLDS rotation. At worst, they're risking another mound meltdown and depriving the more consistent Ted Lilly of his rightful place in the No. 2 spot. ... On performance alone, the rotation should be Dempster, Lilly, Rich Harden and then Zambrano. Instead, it's Dempster, Z, Harden and then Lilly.

But other factors could be at work here, beginning with Zambrano's pride.

And ending with numbers.

Cubs pitchers by VORP:

Dempster (57.5), Z (35.7), Lilly (35.3), Harden (28.4)

It could also be that the Dodgers OPS .50 points higher (.769 to .716) against lefties - the handedness of which Lilly happens to be. Or that Lilly gave up 1.41 HR/9 innings this season and owns the dreaded "fly ball pitcher" tag. Or that Lilly has worse LD/GB/FB percentages - career and this season - than Zambrano.

No, it's that Zambrano is a prideful jerk who beats on innocent Gatorade jugs while screaming at Lilly as he reads "The Tao of Pooh."

Zambrano has been the Cubs' Opening Day starter in each of the last four seasons. He was the Cubs' Game 1 NLDS starter a year ago and made three playoff starts in 2003. A little more than two weeks ago he threw the first Cubs no-hitter since 1972.

But the flip side is this: He's never won any of those four Opening Day starts (5.57 ERA in 21 innings). He's never won any of those four postseason starts.

Loser.

Let's check those postseason starts:

'07 - 6IP/8K/1BB/4H/1ER

'03 - 16.2IP/12K/5BB/25H/10ER

OK, so he did kind of stink in '03. But that '07 start? Come on.

Oh and while we're there, Ted Lilly is a playoff ace:

16IP/14K/7BB/19H/12ER

And the good ones were with the A's (9IP/7K/1BB/2H/0ER) four seasons ago.

Since his Sept. 14 no-hitter he's given up 13 runs and allowed seven walks in 6 1/3 innings. Since the All-Star break his ERA has more than doubled (from 2.84 in the first half to 5.80 in the second half) and his win total has decreased by more than half (10 in the first half, four in the second). It's also the first time in the last six seasons that Zambrano hasn't reached the 200-innings pitched mark.

He threw 188 innings. 200 is a pointless benchmark. Lilly, that workhorse, threw 204. 16 inning difference or like 2-3 starts. Criminal he isn't starting in the two hole.

So, yes, the numbers scream something.

They're relatively close and it's a judgement call?

I tell Lilly that Zambrano's antics sometimes make me want to jump off the Sears Tower. The tantrums drive me crazy.

Do tell, Wojo, where the line between "competitor" (Jeter) and "thrower of tantrums" (Z) is? Because from my point of view, it's nowhere.

Overheard on Mike and Mike

[The non-football one]: "CC Sabathia SHOULD ABSOLUTELY BE THE NL MVP."

*Wipes brain matter off laptop monitor*

Scoop being ... dumb?

I nominate Manny Ramirez as the man who spawned the most articles in 2008. Favre is second. The Mets and their "collapse" are third. But all this "Manny for MVP" talk is getting to the point where I think he's going to win the damn thing.

Which would be insane.

No, not him. Anybody but him.

You can already hear it. Welcome to late September. There it goes: "Manny Aristides Ramirez, the 2008 NL MVP." That's a hard one to absorb, ain't it? Maybe too big a blue pill to swallow. Especially if you live outside the 323 area code. "That dude being honored as the MVP? Over our dead bodies." Let the church say, Amen!

Well … ... The case should be closed.

There really should be no talk about anyone else. Guy who's played 48 games for a team in a league with Albert Pujols, Lance Berkman, Carlos Beltran, David Wright, Ryan Howard, Chase Utley and a ton of other dudes who played the whole season in their league is unquestionably the MVP?

Awesome.

But since it's not,

Oh, OK.

let's crunch some numbers of the players mentioned most often as MVP candidates:


• Ryan Howard: .245 BA/46 HR/141 RBI/.334 OBP/.529 SLG/.863 OPS

• Carlos Delgado: .273 BA/37 HR/110 RBI/.355 OBP/.521 SLG/.875 OPS

• Albert Pujols: .348 BA/34 HR/106 RBI/.453 OBP/.631 SLG/1.084 OPS

All seem like fine gentlemen, worthy of the MVP. And Pujols is a monster - no, a demon - and should win it going away.

All three front-running candidates for NL MVP have offensive numbers that extend over the entire season, not just the 48 games Ramirez has played since he slipped on Lasorda blue.

But without even getting caught up in the .399 batting average, the 16 home runs and 49 RBIs he's put up since his Red Sox divorce -- or the .493 on-base percentage, .751 slugging percentage and 1.243 OPS -- his season-long numbers provide a part of the story that most are missing (Fox's Mark Kriegel made a similar argument).

Before reading the rest of this I knew, that even combining his numbers from each league, he is nowhere close to Pujols.

Prove me wrong.

• Albert Pujols: .348 BA/34 HR/106 RBI/.453 OBP/.631 SLG/1.084 OPS
• Manny Ramirez: .331 BA/36 HR/117 RBI/.429 OBP/.600 SLG/1.030 OPS

Oh, so across the board worse (or very close) than Pujols? Cool. MVP. Done and done.

When compared to Pujols, it's like trying to tell the difference between Henry Paulsen and Arthur Slugworth.

What? Is that the dude from "Charlie and The Chocolate Factory?"

Then there's that small thing called "impact." Some call it "making the players around you better"; others say "making your team better." Of all the aforementioned MVP candidates listed, none has impacted their team the way Manny has the Dodgers. This is the one factor that sets him apart from all the other pretenders in this year's race.

I call it "bullshit," "bunk," "hooey," "poppycock," "hackitudinal writing" and "fucking wrong."

How about Ryan Ludwick (35) and former pitcher Rick Ankiel (25) bombing? Or Delgado coming into his own and being a threat to help out Reyes, Wright and Beltran?

True, it's only been 48 games of impact, but he's done more for one team in 48 games than any of the others have done (with possible the exception of Pujols) over the season.

So Manny's 48-game impact is more than Pujols 162-game impact? Manny is more than three times as valuable as Pujols? You're full of shit.

More numbers:

6: Number of games the Dodgers have played over .500 since Manny arrived.
.500: Dodgers winning percentage before Manny joined the team.
.519: Dodgers winning percentage today.

WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Six games over .500?! What a hero. How did they play .500 without him?

Oops. They did.

Could that .019% difference be that it's a smaller sample than the previous 100+ games?

Nooooo...

2: Number of games the Dodgers were out of first place when Manny got there.
2: Number of games they now lead the NL West.

All Manny's doing. Nothing to do with D-Backs playing like fecal matter.

.274: Andre Ethier's batting average July 31.
.361: Andre Ethier's batting average since Manny joined the lineup (of late, Ethier has been hitting second, Ramirez third).

"A number, after three months of the season."
"A higher number, during 1-1/2 months of the season."

Facts: absent.

16-5: Dodgers' record since Jeff Kent was injured Aug. 29.
25: The number Andruw Jones wears for the Dodgers that Manny has mercifully made you forget.

Har har.

Jeff Kent's an ass.

Ramirez himself told the Los Angeles Times, "It's nice that some people think I deserve [the MVP]. I'd like to win it, but I have to be realistic. Someone who was only here for two months doesn't deserve it. It should go to someone who played the six months of the season."

Gotta love political correctness. But Manny himself is wrong in his episode of humility. He has played all six months; it just hasn't been with the same team or in the same league. He's produced. Plain and simp. He's put up the numbers over the course of the entire season (148 games played and counting) that are on par with if not superior to any player up for the honor.

Funny thing is it's not the MLB MVP, it's the NL or AL MVP, of which Manny does not deserve either.

Then he came. And all of a sudden everything changed. With an extremely heavy emphasis on the word "everything."

And here's one more number to think about:

Let me guess. It's going to be about that unquantifiable "it" - the thing that no one understands, but is integral is writing about good players. Jeter's got it. Big Papi's got it. A-Rod? No fuckin' way. Manny? Didn't, until now - that non-hustling jerkface.

But now, look the fuck out, Manny is awesome.

You can't see it, can you? It's there. It's that invisible, impossible-to-define-or-determine number that represents the intangible. That invisible number that changes the culture of a team inside a clubhouse and spreads itself over an entire city. It's that number that helps makes major league baseball better and so interesting.

If anything, this makes baseball annoying.

The idea that Manny's mojo -not his numbers - made the Dodgers better and makes him the MVP is idiotic. His numbers are very good, but they just are not better than Pujols. Plain and simple.

But he sold jerseys! People come to the games! He's got dreads! He's funny!

If Manny and CC win the MVP and Cy, I will quit following baseball. There would officially be no justice in this world.

That said, they both are probably going to win.

Heyman vs. the VORPies: round two

Jon Heyman makes it no secret that he HATES the VORP stat - going so far as to call those who like it "VORPies."

It's this fear of anything new that makes me hate mainstream sportswriters.

Them being dumb doesn't help much, though.

ONCE AGAIN, VORP HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MVP

No thing. Not even one thing.

Here's the top five in NL MVP voting last year with their corresponding VORP:

Rollins - 15
Holliday - 7
Fielder - 11
Wright - 5
Howard - 22

And the AL:

A-Rod - 1
Mags - 3
Vlad - 17
Oritz - 4
Lowell - not top 30

I see little in common.

Zero. There's a number the stat people will understand.

I love this sentence because it distances Heyman - an awesome dude - from "stat people" - soulless scum.

That's the relationship between VORP, the stat that the stat people love, and MVP.

Zero correlation.

Last year A-Rod was number one in VORP and won the MVP. Magglio finished second in MVP and was third in VORP. And on, and on, and on...

Baseball Prospectus, as of a few days ago, had Alex Rodriguez leading the AL in VORP (which stands for Value Over Replacement Player), the stat its enthusiasts think is the best stat in the world to determine player value, and also the best to help determine who's the Most Valuable Player.

Not a single "VORPy" thinks that. We think it's one of many tools that can be looked at to determine the goodness of a major league baseball player. We aren't like *robot voice* "Leader in VORP must win MVP beep boop beep."

But as you can see, while VORP may tell you something, it shouldn't determine who wins the MVP award. Beyond containing two of the letters in MVP, there appears to be almost no relationship whatsoever here.

Except a near 1:1 ratio for a number of AL VORP leaders compared to their MVP voting standings.

I happened to love A-Rod. He's turned himself into a very good third baseman (he's probably the best defender on the Yankees), he's a three-time MVP (though I don't believe he deserved it the year his Rangers finished last), he's the best all-around player in the game and he's not among the prime list of reasons for the Yankees' demise this year (though, there are plenty of Yankees officials who'd have him on that list).

Yet, A-Rod shouldn't sniff the MVP award this year.

You were fine until that last line. A-Rod is probably the sole reason the Yankees were in it as long as they were.

He's sixth in all of baseball in OPS. He's seventh in baseball in RC/27. He's one of the top five fucking baseball players in baseball. Until further notice, he should be in the top ten - at least - in MVP voting.

But nope, shouldn't sniff it.

If devotees of VORP (I'm already on their bad side after calling them VORPies last year) think their stat is key to determining the MVP, they should think again. It's worth a glance, at best.

Better measures? Clutchness. Being on a winning team. RBI. Times booed/PA. Wins.

But VORP is supposed to be an all-encompassing stat, and it led some numbers people to determine that Hanley Ramirez was a viable NL MVP candidate last year.

Which he was.

And led many to say that David Wright was the NL MVP in a year in which Wright's Mets choked

Which is irrelevant.

If one game decided the MVP, baseball has no hope.

(Wright himself says no way was he MVP).

A player's word is right up there on the list of MVP measures.

VORP, like other stats, doesn't come close to telling you everything.

Here comes the big diatribe against stats. "Durn fangled numbers can't tell me a player's look - that killer instinct. Those clutch hits. Do they got a number that tells me who I'm afraid of most? Din't think so."

It doesn't take into account how a hitter hits in the clutch (oddly enough, some stat people think that's just luck, anyway)

How odd, that some people think looking at an extremely small sample size over an arbitrary time period is luck.

or how many meaningful games he played in (at last count Grady Sizemore was high up on the VORP list, as well)

Sizemore is a fucking monster.

Does Pedroia roping a single in a game vs. the Rays matter more than Sizemore stealing a bag against the White Sox? No. They both happened during the 162 game regular season. Games aren't suddenly easier when you're 25 games out any more than they are harder 1-1/2 games out. Baseball games are competitive. They are being played by highly paid, finely tuned athletes who have been doing this since they were eight.

Shut the hell up. Please.

VORP has some value. But like all other stats, it doesn't replace watching the games or following the season.

Thank God Heyman has figured out we VORPies hate, nay, abhor, baseball. Hate watching it, following it, writing about it, thinking about it. Cold numbers are our only friend. Why have we chosen baseball instead of say, math? Simple - we hate baseball.

A-Rod may have the best VORP. But he shouldn't be on anyone's MVP ballot, much less at the top of the ballot.

People who appeared on the 2007 Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player ballot:

Carlos Marmol, Aaron Rowand, Jose Valverde and Eric Byrnes.

If A-Rod is NOT on the 2008 MVP ballot (a big stretch, I know) I will deliver a hand-written letter - written in Japanese calligraphy - to Heyman apologizing and praising his all-knowing wisdom about all things baseball.

Heyman, I await your counter-bet.

43 games doth not an MVP make

Or something like that.

Look, I love me the Manny Ramirez. I felt he was wrongfully run out of Boston and it's no surprise to me he is hitting .565 with 75 homers and 290 RBI.

But there is no fucking way he is the MVP of the National League. Most people know this from one simple stat:

43 games played.

That is not a full baseball season.

Jon Heyman says fuck you. There is no way Pujols, Wright, Howard, Berkman, Delgado or others are deserving. No way.

And surprise, he is not on this list of "best players of the year," which could be called MVPs.

Manny Ramirez has gone from savant to savior.

The world's most famous hitting savant has saved the storied Dodgers, lifting them from also-ran status to the cusp of the playoffs. By the true definition of the Most Valuable Player

That definition: no one knows because no one will define it.

award, Ramirez is the MVP.

Thanks to his short tenure in Los Angeles, he may not get the NL award. But he should. Manny has taken his new team and carried them to first place in the NL West. As long as they make it to October (and there's no reason now to think they won't), the award should be his.

The NL West is awful. Like, the worst division in baseball, by far. The Dodgers lead and are 79-72. The St. Louis Cardinals - led by the shitty Albert Pujols - are 78-72. And in fourth place. Toronto and the Yankees have a better record than the Dodgers (80-71) and have already wrote the moratoriums on their seasons. Even the Florida "$2.50 Payroll" Marlins are 78-72 and sit in third.

Manny's statistics are ridiculous by any measure. Nobody hits .401 on a new team in a new league in a pitcher-friendly park. Nobody has a 1.227 OPS over 43 games (not in the post-steroid era, anyway) to go with 14 home runs and 44 RBIs.

No one.

Berkman in March/April/May (56 games) - 1.219 OPS

So yeah, I guess that .008 points of OPS (over a longer game span) makes Hey-man right.

There are a handful of other candidates, most of them power-hitting first basemen:

Albert Pujols kept hitting while his team came back down to Earth.

Ryan Howard's going to lead the National League in home runs and RBIs, and he has led the Phillies into first for now.

Carlos Delgado has carried the Mets as they try to avoid a second straight collapse.

But no one can match Manny.

Really? No one can match him? Say Howward goes 39-39 with 20 homers and 65 RBI over the last dozen+ games.

Not good enough.

Pujols keeps OPSing over 1.100 and leads the Cards on a miracle playoff run?

No sir.

Ramirez's stats are otherworldly. But his impact is immeasurable.

Ifuckingmeasurable.

Far be it for me to blame/attribute wins to one player, but the Dodgers are 25-19 since Manny's first game on August 1. 25-19. Not like 35-9.

The NL West: where a little more than .500 ball gets you the division!

Before Ramirez came to the Dodgers in the steal of the decade (all L.A. had to give up in the three-team trade was Class-A pitcher Bryan Morris and fading prospect Andy LaRoche)

"Steal of the decade." Wowzers.

Manny is a rent-a-hitter who is going to ask for a hundred cabillion dollars this off-season and will most likely leave LA - mainly because they have a ton of crappy players making way too much money.

Not Kazmir from the Mets to the Rays for Victor Zambrano or Aramis Ramirez from Pittsburgh to the Cubs for Jose Hernandez, Matt Bruback and Bobby Hill? Those were pretty awful.

Best trade of the decade? One that will almost surely end in a first round exit by the .500 Dodgers and have zero impact after the ~50 games Manny plays this season.

they were running second in the worst division in baseball,

Still in that division.

a .500 team and down in the dumps. Now they nearly are a playoff certainty.

Who are still pretty much .500.

Manny surely has been the key to the Dodgers' bottom line. They're filling up Dodger Stadium again. They're selling Manny jerseys in their clubhouse stores for $302, and folks are grabbing them like there's a shortage.

Jersey sales - the smart man's MVP criterion.

Manny has been the key to their season, too. Once manager Joe Torre inserted Ramirez into the batting order and settled on an everyday lineup that also include the emerging Andre Ethier, it was clear who was best in the West.

Playing Andre Ethier over Juan Pierre is something Torre should have done from day one - considering Pierre's OPS+ is 67 and Ethier's is almost double that at 126. But no, Manny being there made Torre smarter.

MVP.

But really, it's all Manny, who authored this Hollywood story.

*Puuuuuke*

Nostalgia no one cares about and is wrong

I am about to challenge you to solve the easiest mystery ever. Ready?

There's an article. It's about old quarterbacks.

Guess who's in it?

Here's a fogeyish thing to do. It's the sporting equivalent of babbling about those days when we all had to walk five miles to school through the snow, uphill, both ways.

Great way to start an article. "I am about the whine and complain about something that I remember as being great, but probably was just OK." I am riveted.

Still, here goes: Bob Griese wore glasses in Miami; Steve Grogan ran around like mad in New England; Richard Todd was getting booed in New York ... [massive fucking list of QBs and stupid anecdotes shortened at request of attorney general for causing dissociative disorder] Kenny Stabler was the Snake in Oakland; Steve Fuller was boring in Kansas City.

Now, as I mentioned, there is nothing that sounds more grumpy-old-man than rambling on and on about how quarterbacks used to be better. But that's not what I'm saying -- I doubt very seriously that quarterbacks used to be better. I just think they used to be more famous, more easily remembered, more beloved, more representative of their cities.

This is pretty pointless/silly/wrong/a bunch of other negative traits.

Joe Montana: who? Phil Simms: bum. Jim Kelly: worthless. John Elway: John Whoway?

And as far as modern QBs go, guess what? They're still creating memories. Brady has a bunch. Peyton too. Even little Eli. Big Ben should be pretty great for some time. Tony Romo is pretty much the prototypical definition of a quarterback. I could go on.

That has changed, I think. There are only a handful of quarterbacks these days who pierce the imagination --

"Imaginations pierced" is right under TDs (but above comp. %) on the list of important QB stats.

and with Tom Brady going down in New England and Peyton Manning looking just a wee ancient in Indianapolis, it's more like a carpool.

If Peyton is "a wee bit ancient," Favre is fucking Methuselah.

Let's not forget that Peyton's knee is bursa'ing all over and his first game this season was against a defense two years removed from the Super Bowl. He'll be fine.

Favre played the like 0-16 Dolphins and was one play away from losing to the guy his new team cut.

You have Eli Manning in New York, of course, though you get the sense that some Giants fans are waiting impatiently for the statute of limitations on the Super Bowl miracle to end so they can start booing again.* You have Donovan McNabb in Philadelphia, though he has not started every game in a season since 2003.

You have Tony Romo in Dallas, though he might want to win a playoff game at some point.

McNabb is like tier 1.5 and Eli is like tier five.

Romo is fucking awesome. He's 27. Years old, not years of NFL service. His two seasons, combined:

55 TD/64.8 % comp./32 INT/team 19-7 with him starting.

But didn't. Win. A playoff. Game. Two years into his career as a starter. Trash.

You have Drew, Matt, Carson, Jay, Rivers, Roethlisberger -- good quarterbacks all, but they're probably not sweeping the nation.

Imagination piercing moments from each:

Drew (Brees?) - passed for 4400+ yards in '06, lifted post-Katrina New Orleans.

Matt (Leinart?) - ruled the campus at USC, beer bonged a bunch of co-eds.

Carson (Palmer?) - suffered one of the most egregious cheap shots ever, was awesome before - not so much now.

Rivers - whiny bastard, has LTD to mask shortcomings.

Jay (Cutler?) - started an NFL game, this is kind of a cherry pick, this is like his second full year.

Roethlisberger - won the damn Super Bowl.

Mixed bag? Sure. But all those guys are younger than 28 (some much younger) and have a lot of time to craft solid careers. So shut it, please.

Finally, there's Brett Favre. He is the last quarterback standing, the one guy out there who inspires some of the feelings of those old-time quarterbacks. This is in part because he IS an old-time quarterback; the guy was flinging passes in the NFL before the Soviet Union collapsed. But there's something else here too, something about the way Favre still plays the game, something in the way he flings footballs into double coverage, the way he seems indestructible, the way he throws TERRIBLE interceptions but then comes back and throws absurd touchdown passes.

Wow. This is a beautiful, beautiful mess of lovely writing.

What was just described there is "bad quarterbacking" and yet, Favre = God. Still, lovely prose.

Why the hell is Favre diefied for being both an idiot and a "genius" when other sports stars (Ryan Howard, Adam Dunn and their ilk come to mind) are ripped for the same "all or nothing" style? Or a basketball player who takes - and misses - a ton of shots, but scores at a prolific rate? (I am sure people don't/won't appreciate Iverson as much as they should).

This is foolish.

That's the way it used to be. It's stunning to go back 30 and 40 years and look at the statistics of the quarterback heroes. In 1979, Terry Bradshaw threw 25 interceptions, and he didn't even lead the NFL in that category (that would be my hero Brian Sipe with 26). The only guy to throw 25 or more interceptions in the last seven years ... yeah, that would be Brett Favre in 2005 when he threw 29 of them.

You know what else was different 30-40 years ago? Everything. In 2048 when A-Rod III leads the New York Yankees (sponsored by Viagra) to their fourth straight World Series (sponsored by Fox) title by hitting 90 homers and posting a .600 OBP (BA has been abolished for being dumb), no one will flinch because that will seem normal.

Go tell a baseball writer in 1968 that someday a certain large headed man will walk 232 times (!!!!!!!!) in a season and he will shoot you for being a stoned-out hippie talkin' jive.

Oh and 'grats to Favre for throwing nearly 30 picks.

That's what it used to mean to be a quarterback. That changed. Coaches took over the game. Geniuses started calling plays. Everyone started demanding more prudent football. Defenses got more sophisticated and specialized. Sackers got bigger and stronger and faster and more dangerous. Quarterbacks were told to "manage" the game rather than "win" the game. Passer rating became the in statistic.* Fantasy football became the rage so that now every David Garrard interception in Jacksonville infuriates some doctor in Ann Arbor, some insurance person in Toledo and some farmer in Kansas and some home builder in Orange County.

There's a lot here but I wanted to let it wash over you like a cool rain.

Coaches took over the game. Geniuses started calling plays.

Could that be because the NFL is a multi-billion dollar industry and coaches get paid a shit load of money to succeed? And you're not really complaining that smarter play-calling is taking place, are you?

Everyone started demanding more prudent football.

The 2007 Patriots. The 2000-01 Rams. The Peyton-era Colts.

Those teams were/are the exact opposite of prudent.

Fantasy football became the rage so that now every David Garrard interception in Jacksonville infuriates some doctor in Ann Arbor, some insurance person in Toledo and some farmer in Kansas and some home builder in Orange County.

Out of all the ludicrous reasons why football sucks today compared to 1969, this is one of the dumbest. Football players could give two shits about said men in random places playing a game.

Garrard is a "game manager" because his defense is nuts, he has two above average RBs and not throwing to a quad-covered, mediocre receiver is considered (by brain possessing humans) a good idea. And he has to be.

"You know what's beautiful about the being an old quarterback?" Roman Gabriel once asked. Gabriel's a wonderful guy, he was the NFL MVP in 1969 and the comeback player of the year in 1973. He threw 200 touchdown passes, 150 interceptions, completed about 53 percent of his passes and fumbled 105 times in his career. Those were great numbers long ago.

Wonderful guy? Probably. Wonderful QB? Fuck no. 255 turnovers compared to 200 TDs? In no world are those "great numbers." Even "long ago." Those are "shitty numbers" "today."

Gabs played for 16 seasons and only threw more than 25 TDs - never. 25, 24, 23 are his three highest, followed by 19, 17, 16.

Peyton Manning (from the new era of pussy QBs) has thrown 25+ TDs 10 times in his 10 seasons. 49, 33, 31 (twice) are his three highest.

Things were so much better back when.

Connelly and stream of consciousness writing

Did you hear? Some footballer named Tom Brady got hurt. I've never heard of him, but ESPN seems to be shitting themselves. And hey, Tim Rattay and Jeff George are back in the headlines, so it has to be good.

Micheal Connelly - who's "Top Ten" blog is a representation of everything wrong with blogging, filled with random facts, fragmented thoughts and incomplete sentences - is goin' off the rails on a crazy train with Brady knee-Gate (first), and pretty much everything else Boston sports related.

Tom Brady is already a Hall of Famer. But Canton, Ohio and a yellow jacket wasn’t his quest. His mission was to be the greatest quarterback that ever played the game. For seven years the sixth round pick turned out to be a stunning amalgamation of Jack Armstrong, Johnny Unitas and Clark Kent. He won whenever he stood over center and thrived while others melted.

Couldn't we get some more contemporary QBs in there? Montana, Elway, Aikmen maybe?

But then for some reason he deviated.

Lol wut?

Deviated: 50 TDs/one league MVP/one play away from a fourth Super Bowl ring.

He inexplicably ventured from his set course and instead traveled roads that often have transformed immortals to mortals. With Yankee hat on head, he walked the streets of New York with a model on his arm while teammates and fans wondered where their quarterback roamed. Instead of maintaining a routine of excellence - he fathered a child, carried flowers, skipped offseason workouts and attended concerts instead of practices.

Reason Brady got hurt yesterday was NOT Pollard hitting him. No. It was because he
1) wore a Yankees hat (sin)
2) walked in NY (millions and millions of people do that)
3) dated a model (awesome)
4) had a freakin' baby
5) carried flowers

Are you serious? You work for the second biggest publication in Boston and this is what you come up with.

The fact that the Patriot quarterback has spent more time with the paparazzi this offseason

His fault. Do you know he calls the paps to photograph him and interrupt his personal life?

Just minues into a season that he entered distracted,

He sure looked focused completing 7-for-11 and 76 yards.

we discovered that Tom Brady, like ourselves, is vulnerable. The quarterback who once threw like Zeus now limps like Achillies.

ESPN bottom line: Brady, unlike Achillies, was not dipped in the River Styx ... Mets 5, Phillies 3 ...

* At the same time Brady was going down, Favre was throwing a 56 yard touchdown pass

And Micheal Turner was running for 200+ yards, McNabb passed his third TD of the day and a bunch of other shit happened. So yes, other football was being played during this time. Thanks.

* I say this every year but are there more commercials than ever - ads killed the flow of the game - game was boring

Game was boring. Brady hurt got. Ads killed game. Broken writing is broken.

* How many drops did Bowe have for KC

Well question marks are cool. ESPN doesn't list drops, but he had five catches for 55 yards and a TD. He sucks.

* Paul Byrd is 4-1 as a Sox while being provided 8.5 runs of support in his four wins

Evidence that wins are fucking dumb. Bird could have given up 8.4 runs in his starts and be 4-1. I can't wait for his olde timey wind-up, hittable 85 MPH heaters and lack of strikeouts in the playoffs.

* Brett Favre is on pace for 32 TD and 0 Interceptions

Brady for Favre, straight up?

At domestic abuse, maybe

Because really, Brett Myers is not a better pitcher than a certain portly Brewer hired gun who will make a cazillion dollars next season.

Ted Keith thinks otherwise.

THE NL'S BEST PITCHER OF THE LAST MONTH IS NOT NAMED CC SABATHIA

Maybe this is a trick and it'll be like "His name is Carl Christopher Sabathia" and be a really well-written article about how freakin' nuts Sabathia has been over the past month+.

But since returning to the Phillies in early August, he has been far and away the team's best and most dependable starter and -- brace yourselves, Brewers fans -- arguably the best pitcher in the National League. In fact, Myers is 6-1 since his return with a 1.55 ERA, and as the intensity of the moment has increased, so too has his performance. In 31 innings pitched over his last four starts, Myers has yielded only two runs (for a 0.58 ERA), while winning all four games, striking out 35 and walking just six.

So much for that.

Let's look at the August splits, shall we?

CC Sabathia: 5-0/3 CG/2 SHO/48.1 IP/1.12 ERA/51 K/8 BB
Brett Myers: 4-1/1 CG/1 SHO/43.2 IP/1.65 ERA/42 K/7 BB

Keith says "arguably." If he argues Myers is better, he is wrong. It's not an argument.

Oh wait, one less walk. Mrs. Myers can sleep a little better tonight.

Musical Chairs: Girl Talk and the 2006-07 Golden State Warriors

[This is the first in what I hope to be regular comparison series of sports teams and musical artists.]

I wrote briefly about the Warriors when they toppled the heavily favored Dallas Mavericks in last year's NBA playoffs. To me and many others, they were the most exciting team in the playoffs and one of the most entertaining teams to watch in a long while. They (and, to a lesser degree, the Suns) breathed life into a boring league, reinvigorated a great NBA city and were simply a great sports story.

I've also written about one Gregg Gillis (Girl Talk) at length. His album, Night Ripper, remains one of my most heavily played records - with play counts for a majority of the tracks nearing the 30s in less than a year. With his new offering, Feed The Animals dropping yesterday online and proving itself to be a worthy successor, I thought "what sports team resembles Girl Talk?" and, as you can tell from the opener, I believe it is the Warriors.

The History

It is difficult for many to call what Girl Talk does as music - at least in the traditional sense of the word. Sure, he arranges sounds in a pleasing way, but the way he does it - sewing together bits and pieces of hip-hop, pop and anything other music he sees fit - leads many to say "what's the big deal? I could do that."

Over four full-lengths and six-ish years, Girl Talk has managed to get to the top of the mashup DJ mountain. His albums are intricate, deep and far-reaching. His records feature hundreds of samples that go as soon as they come - half the fun of a Girl Talk records can be playing "guess the sample."

The 2006-07 Warriors offense (and team philosophy overall) can be described as free-wheeling, high-octane, run-and-gun and a myriad of other sports buzz phrases. They were one of the highest scoring teams in the league at nearly 107 points per game. They needed a do-or-die winning streak to sneak into the playoffs on the last day of the season at 42-40. They were matched up against one of the best regular season teams ever - the 67 win Dallas Mavericks, armed with MVP Dirk Nowitzki.

The deck was stacked against the Warriors to win - they were too small, too soft, too flawed to beat the Mavs. But something happened - the Mavs bowed to the Warriors style. After all, this Warrior team had beaten them twice in the regular season and had former Mavs coach Don Nelson at the helm. By going with a smaller lineup and trying to out gun the Warriors, the Mavs were doomed from the start. Six games later, the Warriors bested the Mavs and advanced to the West semifinals, only to fall to the Jazz in five games.

The parallels

There is something beautiful about something which is fatally flawed and succeeding. It's the underdog story with a twist: you just know, deep down, that it's going to fail. You are just waiting to see when and how. Girl Talk and the Warriors share this trait.

As wonderful as it was to watch the Warriors play basketball - jacking up deep threes four seconds into the shot clock, swarming a player in an attempt to get a steal and an easy lay-up on the other end and racking up pinball-like scores - you just knew they couldn't win forever that way. Someone was going to stop them - probably themselves.

Girl Talk operates on the same principal. His music is only as relevant as the source material. Sure, that bass line from "Cannonball" is awesome, but what about that Purple Ribbon All-Stars rhyme? The criticism always lobbed at Gillis is that his records are "fun" - not necessarily "good" and won't stand the test of time.

The reason these two are so great is also the reason why they're so bad. The Warriors had no chance at the NBA title because of the style they played. But they also only beat the number one seed because of that same style. Similarly, Gillis has garnered a huge cult (and more and more mainstream) following because of his straight-up fun and clever dance music. Will he sell a million records or get the number one Billboard single? No way in hell. Will he even make enough money to keep doing this, as what he does is maybe-sorta illegal? I don't know. His music is based on unlicensed (illegal) samples and thus, if he ever achieved gigantic success, the original artists lawyer's could come calling.

Both got where they were/are because of a particular style. The thing is, that style has a ceiling.

Going deeper

A basketball phrase that can be attributed to the Warriors is "the only bad shot is the one that doesn't go in." Shoot with 20 seconds left on the shot clock? Sure, as long as you make it. Take 100 shots a game? Why not, as long as 50 go in. Fade away three with someone in your face? If you can make it, do it. They go against every fundamental players are taught in rec basketball.

This is the diabolical genius of the Warriors. Nelson saw what he had - a ton of scorers and quick slashers who all had range at nearly every position and little size/rebounding - and said "Screw it, I'm playing my way." Centers shooting threes, triple teaming opposing guards to get a steal and causing absolute chaos on the court. I just imagine opposing coaches going to bed that night after losing to the Warriors 120-110 screaming in a cold sweat, seeing three after three drop in his dreams.

Listening to a Girl Talk album for the first time can be a similar experience. There's a flurry of familiar sounds flying at you from all angles. "'Jesse's Girl?!' 'Tiny Dancer!' The Cure? Biggy? 'Soulja Boy?!' What is this?!" It can be a dizzying, insane ride. Feed The Animals has over 300 samples crammed into it's less than an hour runtime. Sounds like a record coach Nelson could be proud of.

Giants 'irrefutable' as number one team in football

At least according to my favorite site, Cold Hard Football Facts.com.

The 10-6 Giants whom outscored opponents by 22 points/game, won every playoff game narrowly, have Eli Manning as QB, blah blah blah.

If they are better than 8-8 this season I will personally email someone at CHFF and apologize. I mean it.

The Giants kick off the 2008 NFL season tonight as defending Super Bowl champs and No. 1 in the almighty CHFF Power Rankings. The wisdom behind our ranking is irrefutable: the last time an NFL game was fought with real bullets, the Giants were the only team to emerge from their foxhole in one piece.

Clearly the best team always wins the SB in a three game round of Russian roulette.

But that's not to say the Giants will be the best team in football this year.

But good enough to be IRREFUTABLY ranked as number one this season.

Hell, many "pundits," including the Cold, Hard Football Facts, wonder if they’ll even reach the playoffs this year in the rough-and-tumble NFC East, let alone march through another Manhattan ticker-tape parade.

Broken record say: Good enough to be ranked number one, irrefuckingfutably.

Fans and "pundits" also wonder: is the real Eli Manning the unflappable rock who guided the Giants to four straight postseason wins and produced the greatest championship-winning drive in the history of the game? Or is the real Eli Manning the dough-faced goober who was mired below mediocrity (note the career 73.4 passer rating) right up until January?

Is Eli Manning the dude we saw for four fucking games in the playoffs or the other 57 games of his career?

*****

The rest of this is actually reasons why the G-men are flawed. Nothing too egregious. But really, go read this if you want to see just how terrible the Giants were/are.

And come on CHFF, why rank them number one when they aren't?

Do announcers ever have to check anything? Ever?

During the telecast of the Tampa/NY Yankees, the indelible Rick Sutcliffe (who was repeating someone else, I assume the TB pitching coach) said something to effect:

"He [Edwin Jackson] could have 15 wins with some run support."

Thirty seconds later I found...

Edwin Jackson: 5.37 runs scored per nine.

That is in the top 35 in baseball. Fifteenth in the AL. Come on Tampa, get over 6.5 runs, Eddy needs some wins!

Also, Sutcliffe's wing man said, "Jeter is having a good year, near .300 with the bat."

Jeter's dum-dum line: .295/8/63
Jeter's much worse smarty pants line: .355 OBP/.398 SLG/.753 OPS with 10 steals and four CS. His even 100 OPS+ means he is a completely average baseball playing human this season.

Jeter is, by all accounts that don't include the fatally flawed BA, having an AWFUL year. For him. An average one for a faceless player. Go figure.

Can Pedroia and Youkilis split the MVP? Please?

Just kidding. But over here in MA, it seems a forgone conclusion that one of these pasty fellers will win it. I mean come on, they're on the Sawx, they're white (one's even Jewish!) and - most importantly - they hustle. Not like that lazy-ass (see: non-white) Manny Ramirez.

From fan chantin' (always the best barometer for who should win the MVP) to Ozzie Guillen lovin' to media drummin' - it seems as though the pint-sized second sacker will win the award.

Chad Finn - boston.com blogger - loves him the White Squirrel (nickname mine).

He'd be one of the smallest MVPs of modern times

Irrelevant.

- he's listed at 5 feet 9 inches and 180 pounds, which, according to baseballreference.com, makes him allegedly two inches taller and 20 pounds heavier than two-time NL MVP Joe Morgan.

No one cares.

But Pedroia's numbers are staggering for a hitter of any stature. He's leading the American League in batting (.330),

"Staggering?" Really? Great - I suppose. MVP-worthy - maybe. But "staggering?"

And BA is lame.

hits (188), multiple-hit games (55) and runs (108)

Runs are teammate dependent.

and third in doubles (43) and total bases (283). He has knocked in 22 runs in his last 19 games, is batting .600 over his last seven games, and has nine hits in 14 at-bats in the cleanup spot.

All very cool.

According to the Elias Stats Bureau via Buster Olney's blog, Pedroia is the first player in Red Sox history with a five-run, a five-hit, and a five-RBI game in the same season. Considering the hitters who have graced this franchise, that is an incredibly impressive accomplishment.

No, this is an incredibly odd, nuanced and pointless "stat" that means nothing. This is like Jimmy Rollins' 20/20/20/15/10/5/2/1/0.5 season in 2007.

And control your hyperbole rager there, Finn.

And while we'll get into a comparison of these Sox to the dynastic late-'90s Yankees another day, an astute Sons of Sam Horner poster pointed out that Pedroia's season at 24 years old is very similar to Derek Jeter's at the same age, when he hit .324, with 19 homers, 84 RBIs, and an OPS+ of 124

127, but who's counting (editing)?

in 1998.

It's worth noting that Jeter finished third in the MVP race that season, behind Texas's Juan Gonzalez and a certain expatriated Red Sox shortstop. But Jeter's competition, at the pinnacle of the steroids era, compiled far flashier numbers

I'll agree with this, to a point. Juan Gon hit 45 bombs with a .996 OPS. Nomar hit .323 with 35 homers, 12 steals and a .946 OPS.

Then there's Jeter. But Griffey - who finished fourth - hit 56 (!) homers with 20 steals. Manny, Mo Vaughn, Albert Belle (171 OPS+) and A-Rod all hit 40+ homers, had higher OPS+s and should have finished ahead of Jeter. But he's JETAH, so he finished third.

Now there aren't like 20 guys with 40 homers in 2008, but some dudes are putting together awesome seasons. Many of them are not on Finn's following list.

than have Pedroia's fellow candidates, who include:

Josh Hamilton: Wonderful numbers,

Which I would assume are a top priority in this award (even though I know it's not).

wonderful story, but the Rangers are an afterthought; his most meaningful moment of the season probably happened during his siege on Yankee Stadium at the Home Run Derby.

Thoughts. Memories. Scrapbooks. Acid flashbacks. These are the keys to winning an MVP award.

K-Rod: Sure he's having a season for the ages, but there a few stats more fraudulent than saves, and had he decided to take the season off to follow the Jonas Brothers on tour, the Angels still would hold a double-digit lead in the AL West.

All reasons to include him on the MVP list, even though he's maybe in the top five in the Cy running.

Carlos Quentin: The White Sox slugger might be his stiffest competition. He's walloped 36 homers, driven in 100 runs, and compiled a .965 OPS while anchoring surprising Chicago's powerful lineup. If Chicago makes the postseason, it would not be unjust if he claimed the honor.

Get this competency out of here.

Justin Morneau/Joe Mauer: Someone deserves credit for keeping that mediocre Minnesota roster in a pennant race, but Pedroia and Quentin are superior candidates to both Twins cornerstones.

Again, so include them!

Alex Rodriguez: I'm pretty sure I actually heard you snicker there.

Is it because I am a Red Sox fan??!?!?! Well-played and funny, Finnster.

Actually, he's a better candidate than the Twins dudes and certainly K-Rod. Probably better than people realize.

31 homers/.999 OPS/161 OPS+/16 steals with three CS/.315 BA for those who care.

So yeah, yet again one of the best all-around players in baseball, even when he only has 119 games played at this point.

Other things:

Kinsler Quentin Hamilton Pedroia A-Rod

OPS+: 134, 149, 135, 124, 161,

Runs Created: 105, 109, 110, 108, 107,

VORP: 55.1, 50.3, 47.8, 55.6, 63.2,

Pedroia has nearly the exact same stats (and plays the same position) as Kinsler - only with less steals (17 to 26) and homers (17 to 18). Oh yeah, and Kinsler is only batting .319, compared to Pedroia's .330.

So Pedroia = not best player at his position in his own league and behind a number of other players in most meaningful stats.

But the trump: He's on the Red Sox.

Start engraving the trophy now.

I can't even think of a clever mocking headline

For this truly absurd article. Let the title wash over you.

It’s Time for the Cardinals to Trade Pujols

Now you, being an intelligent (see: brain having) person would say, "Mr. Jensen, why in holy Hell would the Cardinals trade the best fucking hitter on the planet?"

My answer: They wouldn't because they are not morons.

I love boldness. I loved the Angels trade for Mark Teixeira (.383/.472/.617 in 16 games). I loved the Manny Ramirez trade for both the Red Sox and the Dodgers (for whom Ramirez has delivered .424/.514/.780 in 16 games).

Yup, those trades were pretty cool.

I hate apathy. I hate the fact that the Twins again doomed themselves to missing the playoffs or exiting quickly because they didn’t upgrade.

That link is to an article Mr. Jensen wrote about how the Twins - who lead the AL Central as of writing - don't care about winning because they don't have like five Series rings.

The Twins payroll is like a haypenny and they make the playoffs regularly despite having a large roster turnover and being in a small market. They didn't win the World Series? Not-trying pieces of shit.

I hate that the Rays didn’t seize the moment by trading for someone other than Chad Bradford. No, they couldn’t have foreseen that Carl Crawford, Troy Percival and Evan Longoria would all go down right around the same time. But they should have had the foresight to know they were operating near 100% utilization for 115 games and that they couldn’t keep it up.

Again: Small market = not making dumb trades because you can't eat them like the Sawx and the Yanks.

And, yes, boldness doesn’t always mean success. The Dodgers boldly signed Andruw Jones (an OPS+ of 34!). The Reds boldly spent a ton of money on Francisco Cordero (decent year with a 3.90 ERA and 23 saves, but the Reds are 55-70. But at least the Dodgers and Reds were trying, and that needs to be respected.

Boldness >>>>> Winning.

So where am I going with this? The Cardinals need to trade Albert Pujols, that’s where. It’s a bold, bold move – and it’s what the Cardinals need to do if their goal is to win a World Series in the next five years.

Replace "bold" with "fucking idiotic" and I totally agree.

The Cardinals have a good team. They’re 70-57. That’s good enough to lead the National League East or West, but in the newly elite National League Central it’s good for third, behind Chicago and Milwaukee. They’re two games behind Milwaukee for the Wild Card.

Too good to re-tool, you say? You’re wrong. St. Louis faces certain early elimination in the playoffs, and it’s doubtful they’ll make it. Here’s why – it’ the starting pitching. Here are the Cardinals post-season options:

Scott Jensen has a crystal ball with which he knows exactly what will happen in a three round crap shoot of baseball playing.

The playoffs are pretty silly. The first round is best three of five - fluketacular. And the next two are best of seven - slightly less random, but where the non-best team can still win.

And nobody thought the Cardinals were going to be good, especially with the billion injuries they have. So they're kind of happy to be where they are, I think.

So what we have here is a) rag-tag crew of so-so pitchers (Lohse, Looper, Wellemeyer and Pineiro) who don’t strike anyone out and will fail in the playoffs

Crystal ball...

and two injured frontline pitchers (Wainwright and Carpenter).

Who will be back next year and probably good.

The Cardinals have a load of minor league pitching talent ... but most of them are very young – one to three years away from contributing at the Major League level and it’s unknown whether any of them (or Wainwright) will be an ace.

I guess his crystal ball doesn't translate to which minor leaguer will be an ace.

No one knows who will be an ace, ever. They only guess. And one to three years away and Pujols will be a crusty 29-32 years of age. Dear God! Get that man a walker!

So let’s trade Pujols and see what happens.

I like to think this is how every trade goes down. Fuck thinking.

That leaves us with the Red Sox.

Jensen is from the New England area. Do with that fact what you will.

They have the money. They have the talent. And they have a history of being bold (signing Daisuke Matsuzaka, trading away Manny Ramirez). Here’s the trade:

St. Louis trades

• 1B Albert Pujols
• RP Russ Springer

to the Boston Red Sox for

• 1B Kevin Youkilis
• SP Josh Beckett
• RP Jonathan Papelbon

This is, as the kids say, reDONKulous. Youk is a fine player, Paps is a pretty great closer and Beckett is a solid starter. But Pujols is far and away the BEST HITTER PLAYING BASEBALL.

He's 28. Actually younger than Youkilis.
He has one MVP, should have another, and has only finished lower than fourth (ninth) once in seven seasons, soon to be eight.
His career on base in .424 with a .620 slugging - that's a 1.044 OPS, which is elite.
He has 308 homers in eight seasons, good for 41/162 games.
He's God.

The Cardinals trade one of the best hitters in the game’s history.

Re-read that.

Once more.

Got it? OK. You may now stop reading.

They get an ace pitcher and post-season performer in Beckett. They get an elite closer in Papelbon. And they get a premium first baseman in Kevin Youkilis.

I think Jensen's Sox fandom is starting to show here. Beckett has a career 115 ERA+ meaning he is a slightly above average MLB pitcher.

Sheets (115), Zito (116), Carpenter (112), Garcia (111), Burnett (110) and Schmidt (110) all have similar ERA pluses. Aces.

"Premium" - of exceptional quality or greater value than others of its kind. Youkilis - career OPS of 118. Others: Millar (114), Huff (116), Konerko (115), Chavez (117). Exact opposite of premium.

Someone else fits the discription of premium other than Youkilis but I can't think who...

And they improve their chances of making and advancing in the playoffs over the next five years.

The Cardinals trade one of the best hitters in the game’s history.

I honestly cannot think of more than a handful of players as untouchable as Pujols. Trading him for parts - however good they may be - is foolish. Beyond foolish. Even those cordial Cards fans would riot in the streets if this happened.

It would be a bold trade for both teams. The Red Sox would be giving up three important pieces of their core. The Cardinals would be giving up one of the game’s best ever hitters. But both teams would be better,

Dubious. In fact, the Cards would almost certainly be worse. Not having the best hitter in the game today will do that.

White Sox use voodoo magick (home runs, good pitching) to win games

"They just aren't clicking" is one my (least) favorite sports writer cliches. It's use comes from this thought process:

*writer's brain*
"I can't think of any reason why this team/player isn't doing well. They have all the talent in the world and should be better, but I don't feel like looking up stats or coming up with a real answer so I'll just write 'they just aren't clicking.' Beautiful."

The White Sox, apparently, just aren't clicking.

THE UNLIKELY WINNING WHITE SOX

Have...
one of the top five MVP candidates in Carlos Quentin
the third best run diff in baseball at +80
the AL's third best OPS at .786
174 homers, first in all of baseball
70 quality starts, second in the AL
a 1.30 WHIP, third in the AL

That + rest of your division playing like poop = first place. Not that difficult.

I mean, really, the Sox? The Sox are good enough to be in first place -- evidently -- but nothing about this team screams "division winner," let alone "World Series."

The Twins, meanwhile, are screaming DIVISION WINNER from the rooftops. What follows is the Sox lineup along with their HRs. How the fuck are they in first!?!?!?

OF Quentin - 33
OF Dye - 28
DH Thome -25
OF/1B Swisher - 17
3B Crede - 17
OF Griffey Jr. - 15
C Pierzynski - 11
SS Cabrera - 6
2B Uribe - 4

Their lineup is painfully one-dimensional, tailored to their hitting-friendly home park, U.S. Cellular Field.

That dimension being hitting home runs, a.k.a the best result a hitter can get.

GM: "One thing I don't want on my team is hitters that hit too many home runs. You need guys who can bunt, run, sacrifice, buntacrifice, stealandrun..."
Fans of that team: *collective groan*

This isn't the NBA where there are only so many shots to go around on a team. Each hitter is an isolated incident with a home run being the best possible outcome. A lineup with nine hitters who have 30 homers each is fucking nuts while one with two guys with 30 and a bunch of David Eckstein's sucks.

Their rotation has a 4.07 ERA, right in the middle of the AL pack,

But they have the second most quality starts, third best WHIP and fifth best OPS allowed. They seem fine to me.

with a bit more power pitching than most and a little more control than others. Their bullpen is pretty good (3.49 ERA), but it's not great.

Jenks is pretty good. A 0.97 WHIP and 24K/10BB with 25 saves in 28 tries. Linebrink, also pitching well. He's got 19 holds, a 0.92 WHIP and 33K/6BB. Even the ageless Octavio Dotel is pretty nasty with his 75K/24BB in 54 innings and a 1.15 WHIP.

Three very good to awesome pitchers (at least this season) in your bullpen = pretty good, not great. They don't have K-Rod!!!!

They're tough to beat in The Cell (42-19) but awful away from it (26-33).

Sounds like every team!

Teams "in the hunt" with similar records on the road:

Tampa 29-31
Boston 28-35
Minnesota 26-31
LA Dodgers 26-32

You shitty ass division/wild card contenders. Play better on the road!

They hit a lot of homers -- 172 of them, the most in baseball, including four straight Thursday afternoon against the Royals -- but when they don't hit them, they stink.

Maybe because hitting homers is awesome and when it doesn't happen it dramatically decreases ANY team's chances of winning. Except Anaheim, they're so plucky!

They have little speed. They're not particularly good defensively.

Both instrumental in "winning the right way." Not doing so causes sports writers to be confused.

Yet the Sox, despite the quadruple shots on Thursday, aren't clicking like Williams would like them to click. They aren't clicking, in fact, like the probably less-talented but seemingly just-as-good Twins are.

Clicking clickers click well on click trip.

The Twins have a +47 run diff. which, while not awful, is not what a first place team should have. They're lucky. And not as good as the Sox.

And, pretty soon, Williams won't be able to make another trade to try to better this team. Pretty soon, we're going to have to accept the Sox for what they are.

A divison contender that hits a metric ton of homers and has a solid staff?

Ken Williams being dumb

Right before the trade deadline, Williams made another bold move, trading for Griffey. Critics wondered why Williams would put the 38-year-old Griffey in centerfield, a position he hadn't played in years, and pointed to his lack of production at the plate. ... Williams also talks about the "threat" of Griffey in the lineup.

/Ken Williams being dumb

The Sox run out a lineup that relies almost solely on swinging for the fences. When they hit a home run, they are 61-28. When they don't, they are 7-24.

This is a junk stat. The Sox won last night 2-1. Guess what? They didn't hit a homer.

Here's my stat: The White Sox are 69-53 when scoring at least zero runs. They are 0-0 when scoring less than zero runs.

In the postseason, it's imperative to have other ways to score when the home runs dry up.

No, no it's not. They should be living by the sword and dying by the sword. I don't want Quentin up there bunting over Pierykksiyrznski with one out. That is dumb.

But the Sox's reliance on power has come at the cost of speed on the basepaths. Gone are the days of Scott Podsednik swiping 40 or 50 bases. The Tigers are the only team in the AL that has stolen fewer bases than the Sox.

Scott Podsednik was and is an awful baseball player. He has a career .337 OBP - .329 this season. He's like a worse Juan Pierre, which is saying something. Pods also gets caught a lot, including 23 times (with 59 steals) in that magical 2005 season. In 300+ PA going back to '07 (so what if he was hurt) he has an astounding 22 steals and 8 CS. *foghooooooooorn*

Is a chip on the shoulder, a so-so pitching staff and a big-swinging lineup enough to win the division? Is it enough to do more?

Yes?

Teams that are better than the 10-6 Giants coming into '08: None, according to fools

Ahh football season. Just when baseball is wearing out it's welcome, it comes along to stem the boredom and boost post numbers with awful writing.

Cold Hard Football Facts is quickly becoming my favorite site. Not because it's good or anything, but because it's so damn fun to read what drivel they espouse as fact.

CHFF boasts the most accurate power rankings on the web.

Differ, I beg to do it.

1. NEW YORK GIANTS (14-6)

Oh God, it begins already.

Look, the Giants won the Super Bowl. Hooray! Making them number one for the last power rankings of '07: fine. But look just at the record. 14-6. They were 10-6 pre-playoffs. 10-6. 10-6. 10-6. I can't type that enough.

The Redskins - a team in their division - were 9-7, one lousy game worse than the Giants. If that 17-24 loss versus the G-men in week three goes the other way, hey, maybe the Skins win the Super Bowl at 10-6 and are the best team in football come the 2008 season.

Nope, number 15. One game. Eight points.

But wait, there's more!

2007 vs. quality opponents (including playoffs): 5-5

5-5. Winning percentage of .500 against quality opponents. The Patriots were 9-1 against quality opponents. And they lost one fucking game all season. Number two team. Sorry biggest margin of victory in points per game, only team in the modern era to go 16-0 and lost the Super Bowl on a string of insane plays.

Giants are better.

Last year’s highlight: Fought hard in Tampa on wild-card weekend, but just fell short against the favored Bucs and bowed out of the postseason early … oh no, wait, they won the goddamn Super Bowl!!!

Let me hypothesize for a moment.

There are two teams, the Blue Pork Mayans and the Glue Engrid Smyrniots. The Mayans barely squeak into the playoffs and win a bunch of playoff games (barely) on the road to the Super Bowl.

The Smyrniots were one of the top one best teams ever to play a regular season of football. They outscored opponents by a record 19.7 points/game in the regular season and finished 16-0, going to 18-0 before the Super Bowl...

OK, I'll stop this "hypothesis," this fucking happened. The fact that the Patriots are not number one is a joke - an unfunny one at that.

6. Green Bay Packers

They do know Favre is gone, right?

The moment Rodgers throws an INT - nay, the moment he doesn't throw a TD while driving a pickup, wearing blue jeans and waving the American flag, he will be booed relentlessly. Call me crazy, but I don't see them as a "Dominant Dozen" (CHFF's awesome tier system. The only other tier? "The fucking rest." Seriously, it's the "Tepid Twenty.") team.

Cold, Hard Football Facts: Why all the white noise surrounding Brett Favre? Consider this: The Packers reached the playoffs 11 times and suffered only one losing season in his 16 years at the helm. In the 16 years before Favre arrived, the Packers reached the playoffs just once and enjoyed only three WINNING seasons.

So without him number six team in the NFL? Got it.

Witches, we hunt them

From what I can only assume is the NY Post of the UK, the Daily Mail seems like a pretty insane publication. They have been key engineers in the ever-growing fear-mongering machine aimed at these new fangled Ptendo360 video games for a while now, producing absurdly sensationalist anti-video game propaganda.

But this takes the cake and just may be the most uneducated, incorrect and just plain dumb pieces of writing I have ever read.

PARENTS HORRIFIED AS MOST VIOLENT VIDEO GAME EVER TO LAUNCH ON 'FAMILY FRIENDLY' WII

A new computer game tipped to be the most violent ever is being released exclusively on the so-called 'family friendly' Wii console.

So-called. Those Nintendo assholes, with their simple interface, group intensive party games, annoying safety measures to insure no pedophiles kidnap your kids and a long history of being the most family-friendly console. So called.

Nintendo will dramatically transform Wii's image with the release of ultra violent video game MadWorld which, 'revolves around the themes of brutality and exhilaration', according to its creators.

That sounds fucking awesome.

Ever heard of a little title called "No More Heroes?" A game in which during the first five minutes of playing, the protagonist CUTS A MAN IN HALF - THE LONG WAY - WITH A GODDAMN LIGHTSABER. That was a pretty violent little number. Which came out in January of 2008.

Or how about Manhunt 2 in which one mimics the motion of stabbing someone? That was October of '07. That game is pretty violent.

Summary: violent stuff comes out, even on the precious bastion of purity that is the Wii in the quagmire of *duh duh duh*

Video. Games.

Players in the 'hack and slash' game, which is due for a UK release in early 2009, can impale enemies on road signs, rip out hearts and execute them with weapons including chainsaws and daggers.

Again, fucking awesome. Weird thing is, all this sounds like it was culled from the ~2:00 trailer for the game...

But they wouldn't drum up fear from a game they haven't played, would they? That's like me saying "'Tropic Thunder' will kill your wife, eat your babies and curb-stomp your dog" without seeing the film first.

Mediawatch-UK, Britains longest running pressure group campaigning for decency in TV, films and games, said MadWorld will 'spoil' the Wii.

Jason Cook - Cape Cod's longest running metacommenter on stupidity, said Mediwatch is sensationalist and ignorant.

Really now, "spoil the Wii?" They do know no one is forced to buy, open and play this game, right? In fact, I am sure it will receive an M rating just so our children can't get it easily.

I imagine this is like what happened when people didn't know anything about movies...

"Porn will spoil the movie industry!!"

John Beyer, director of Mediawatch-uk, said: 'This game sounds very unsavoury.

Tee hee, unsavoury. Next we'll have my favourite ice cream flavour!

'I hope the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) will view this with concern and decide it should not be granted a classification.

'Without that it cannot be marketed in Britain. What the rest of world does is up to them.We need to ensure that modern and civilized values take priority rather than killing and maiming people.


Values like "free speech" be damned. They do have that in the UK, right?

Nintendo's Wii has enjoyed phenomenal success as an innocent alternative to complex - and often violent - role play video games.

No More Heroes: Wii exclusive. Manhunt 2: uses Wii motion controls to realistically simulate murder. Resident Evil 4: zombie decapping fun for the whole family!

Violent games exist on the Wii. It's not just WiiSports/Fit, which the mainstream media (and presumably DAILY MAIL REPORTER who wrote this) clearly don't know.

With a repatoire of mostly sports games the basic graphics and easy-to-use motion sensor remotes have become hugely popular with young children and families.

*meeting at the Daily Mail newsroom*

Earl Wigglebottom, Editor of the Daily Mail: "I say Mr. Penniworth, the Wii by Nintendo is a delightful machine, capable of wondrous feats of merriment!"
Penniworth: "Cheers sir. But I have heard rumblings that there is a dreadful title on the horizon, one which threatens to ruin this joyous device."
EWEotDM: *spits tea* "Guffaw! Speak verily of this title in your latest article, the public must know of this menace."
Penniworth: "Cheerio sir." *tips bowler, twirls cane while walking away*

Of the Wii's top 50 scoring games on Metacritic.com (I know, a number of sports titles are probably near the bottom, but bear with me) a whopping eight of them could be considered sports titles. There are RPGs, platformers, third-person shooters, puzzle games, first-person shooters and every other genre under the sun on the Wii.

Daily Mail writers may want to "do research," "call people," "use the internet" or "have half a brain" prior to sitting down and writing. I heard that's what journalists do.

MadWorld is a third person game where players control a character called Jack in a virtual world called Varrigan City which is under siege by a group of terrorists known as The Organizers.

The alternative world has been turned into a twisted game show called Death Watch where citizens must kill one another to survive - and win.

That sounds like a fantastical premise that my non-existent seven-year old brother could parse from reality.

The action in MadWorld - developed by PlatinumGames and published by Sega exclusively for Nintendo - is entirely in black and white. The only other colour is red for all the blood.

Super non-realistic visuals to go along with an over-the-top-premise?

Number one threat to the UK - MadWorld.

Players use the Wii remote to control the violent on-screen actions as central character Jack executes his way through the game.

Thanks for telling me controllers control games. "Players use the Xbox 360 controller to control..."

I assume Mr. Penniworth's hope was that paranoid-stricken parents will read this as "Players will begin muscle memory for murder at an early age" but since it's unclear as to what level of motion control the game will have - a fact absent from this article - he can't say that. Damn those ethics I hear so much about.

Sean Ratcliffe, Vice President of Marketing, SEGA of America, Inc, said: 'MadWorld pushes the envelope with its extreme content but takes a step away from the dark and serious nature of most mature games.'

Sounds like a thoroughly responsible answer.

A spokesman from Nintendo, said:

Who shall remain nameless to insure our credibility scores stays at a solid zero.

'Wii appeals to a wide range of audiences from children and teenagers to adult and senior citizens, anyone from 5 - 95, as such there is a wide range of content for all ages and tastes available.

A responsible, logical answer.

'Mad World will be suitably age rated through the appropriate legal channels and thus only available to an audience above the age rating it is given'

Fucking monsters.