Sports Columnists

By Cindy

November 17, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

I have to agree with you on Johnny Depp. At least that year, his peers gave him the Screen Actors Guild Award for Best Actor. To me, that one award was worth far more than any of the other awards Sean Penn collected that year.

By Ben

November 17, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

Art Carney won the Best Actor Oscar for “Harry and Tonto”, a film written and directed by Paul Mazursky, not for “The Late Show”, which by the way, was actually released in 1977. A true movie buff would know that. I hope your memory for sports is better than your memory for films.

By Matthew

November 17, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

Mark, along with great Academy Awards travesties how about:

Saving Private Ryan getting screwed in favor of Shakespeare in Love.

One is a nice little film, a distraction if you will. The other is an important film which not only honors the “Greatest Generation,” it accurately portrays the single most important event of the 20th Century: D-Day.

Yeah, Hollywood, way to give the proverbial finger to one of the greatest movies ever, as well as to the “Greatest Generation” ever.

Other travesties:

Titanic, the worst movie to ever win Best Picture robbing the sublime and hilarious As Good As It Gets.

The first two Lord of the Rings movies losing out to A Beautiful Mind and Chicago. Those two movies couldn’t hold Peter Jackson’s jock. Add Jackson losing best director in those years as well. Who came up with the idea that “we’ll award the third film for all three?” How about the best picture wins.

Other times LOTR was gyped: Sir Ian losing out for best supporting actor, and Sean Astin not even being nominated for Return of the King.

How about Liam Niesen losing out as best actor for Schindler’s List to Tom Hanks? Hanks was good in Philadelphia, but Niesen was better in List.

And don’t get me started on sports.

Penn State in ‘94 anyone?

Michagan having to share the ‘97 Championship with an undeserving Nebraska team because Tom Osborne was retiring.

Auburn last year.

Florida St. making the Nat’l Championship Game in 2000-2001 over a Miami team which beat them.

Oklahoma sneaking in any year, but specifically, their crappy showings the last two years.

See where this leads, Mark?

ANytime you rely on people, and by definition, people are idiots, to decide the best at anything without a clear-cut competition, then you have chaos and head-scratching results.

I don’t know what p** me off more, the Oscars or the BCS.

By Columbo

November 17, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

Ben, Ben, Ben, remember this is the AJC. Accuracy and AJC have noting in common except they both begin with an “A”.

By Scott

November 17, 2005 05:05 PM | Link to this

Pujols had Jim Edmonds in his lineup all year with him. Andruw Jones had Adam LaRoche.

Need I say more?

By Mike A

November 17, 2005 05:35 PM | Link to this

He led the league in RBI, generally considered the most telling measure of “value.”

RBI is a function of who gets on base in front of you, and Andruw had far more opportunities thanks to Chipper, Giles, and Furcal than Pujols did. RBIs is more or less a team stat. I still fail to see the argument that Andruw was ‘more valuable’ than Pujols that doesn’t revolve around Braves-centric emotion.

As for Saving Private Ryan, it was powerful and emotional, yet wrapped around a plot a 6th grader could write. The biggest Oscar travesty of the past 15 years was Tom Hanks as Forrest Gump over Morgan Freeman in Shawshank.

And for the record, Art Carney was an excellent actor.

By Biff

November 17, 2005 05:36 PM | Link to this

Mike A… you are the MAN, on all counts. I was gonna post, but don’t need to now.

By doc

November 17, 2005 06:01 PM | Link to this

mark, you left out the obvious as to why jones could have won the other awards and not this one. this one was voted on by the writers, the others by the players. who is going to get it right, NOT the writers as they only think they know the games that they usually never played at a significant level. it didnt surprise me at all when the results were given.

also its a shame you dont know movies or at least didnt take the time to check your facts. is this the way you write your relevant sports stories as well, with no acurate information?

ART CARNEY?

By Matthew

November 17, 2005 07:23 PM | Link to this

A plot a 6th grader could write?

Much like you blog, Mike, and explanation of Andruw’s RBI not being important.

How about this?

Chipper Jones missed 53 games this year.

The guy in front of Pujols were always on base.

Furcal was in a slump until July and Giles was subpar this year.

LaRoche… LAROCHE was hitting in the 3rd spot for much of the year.

Trust me, as much as I hate the fact that I’d ever argue for a man who hit .260 to win the MVP, Andruw’s RBI were incredibly important.

This is all you need to know, Mike.

Take Pujols away from the 2005 Cardinals and they still win their division.

Take Andruw away from the Braves, and the Braves finish in last place.

That, Mike A, is the very definition of valuable.

Not best player… that is far and away Pujols. He’s the best player in baseball. He’s been better than the juiced-up Bonds for the last three years. He’s ten times better than A-Fraud.

Pujols was the MOP this year, not the MVP.

As for Saving Private Ryan, your critique is over-simplified.

The movie was at both times unsubtle and subtle in it’s conveyance of emotion and plot. It was, and remains, the most accurate portrait of war on the big screen, even better than Black Hawk Down.

As for the best portrayal ever, that would have to be Band of Brothers.

As for Tom Hanks winning in ‘95, I agree, to a point. Travolta was robbed, not Freeman. Freeman was up for best supporting actor. Not best actor.

Tom Hanks, on the other hand, was absolutely and unequivacbly screwed in ‘98 for Saving Private Ryan. Remind me who one again? Oh yeah, that retarded idiot from Italy, Roberto Benigni, who made the Holocaust funny with his film.

That, my friend, is the real travesty involving Tom Hanks.

He won his to awards when others should have (Niesen and Travolta), and totaly screwed out of the greatest performance of his career.

By Biff

November 17, 2005 07:48 PM | Link to this

I love it when people start denigrating the very award they covet (“it’s voted on by the writers…what do they know”). So why do you care who wins?

Pujuls led his team in virtually EVERY positive offensive category, except singles. He led them in walks, even stolen bases! If you look at FACT, the Cards dealt with more injuries than Atlanta did last year.

And, while Chipper was out, yes AJ hit well, but Betemit was the one who really stepped into Chipper’s spot and hit well over .300 for the 35 games or so.

Last, AJ disappeared in September. You can’t do that and expect to win MVP.

I like AJ and would’ve liked to see him win… but just don’t agree that “we was robbed.”

By Mike A

November 17, 2005 08:19 PM | Link to this

Alright, I think this 6th grader can get to this before Social Studies homework.

First off, go check how many plate appearances Pujols and Andruw had with runners on and RISP. Or, if you don’t want to make the effort, I’ll just let you know it wasn’t even close - Andruw had 54 more RBI opportunities than Pujols. That’s how Andruw hit .207 with RISP and still drove in a ton.

You punish Pujols because he had a better team around him. Seems odd to do that over an individual award. And it’s not as if the Cardinals didn’t have a ton of injuries themselves, including Pujols (he played through plantar fasciitis).

As for the definition of valuable, that’s in the eye of the voter, the fan, and the players. We all have our biases. There are some guidelines given to the writers for MVP, I won’t reprint them here, but they’re on the rough side. Personally, I still don’t see what’s soooo wrong about giving the MVP to the best player in the league, who also happened to play on the best team.

As for the movies, don’t get me wrong, I think Saving Private Ryan was a very good flick. I just think it’s been overrated. The plot leaves much to be desired, and the ‘present-day’ scenes are as hokey as they come. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have won Oscar over Shakespeare in Love, 1998 was a poor movie year.

Morgan Freeman was nominated for Best Actor for Shawshank, not Supporting. I would have given it to Travolta over Hanks (I like Hanks, but Forrest Gump was an awful movie and an awful role), but Freeman’s performance in Shawshank outdid them both handily. I never saw Life is Beautiful, but I won’t disagree that Hanks should have won over Roberto Benigni in 1998.

Be going now, gotta work on my homework. Don’t want to face Mrs. McGillicutty’s wrath.

By mbradley

November 18, 2005 12:42 AM | Link to this

OK, I’m an idiot. It was “Harry and Tonto,” not “The Late Show.” See how this whole Art Carney thing has left me scarred for life? (And don’t get me started on “Dances With Wolves” over “Good Fellas” in 1991.)

By Mark Bradley

November 18, 2005 12:45 AM | Link to this

The idiot speaks again — that’s me one blog up, but I typed the wrong ID in: “Dances With Wolves” won Best Picture in 1990, the ceremony for which was held in 1991.

By Donald

November 18, 2005 07:33 AM | Link to this

If Ozzie Smith would have hit 50 homers and drove in 125 runs he would have won the MVP in a landslide. Why is the press so hard on Andruw?

By bravesfan

November 18, 2005 09:13 AM | Link to this

i thought this was the sports page

By KT

November 18, 2005 10:25 AM | Link to this

Look on the bright side, Mark. At least Andruw didn’t lose out to Spicoli.

By KT

November 18, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this

Jeff Spicoli

By Dylan

November 18, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

To start with RBI’s are a very poor stat to judge a players value with they show less what the player did and more what the guys in front of him did. Yes pujols had jim edmonds but not for the entire season edmonds was also injured for his typical stint this year and andruw had marcus giles and furcal leading off in front of him way better then david eckstein and mark grudzielanek.A more telling stat would be batting average with runners in scoring position which was attrocious for andruw like 260 something pujols was over 300. I am the biggest andruw jones fan have been ever since he came up, but I am not convinced that he should have taken even 2nd place in the mvp running let alone 1st pujols and lee both had better all around numbers and value to their teams.Everyone knows the braves dont make the postseason without the heroics of andruw but I am sure the fans in st. louis would tell you the exact same thing about pujols after all he watched as the talent around him fell to the DL and he still went in there and performed like a superstar should.

By brewerfaninATL

November 18, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this

I totally agree, Titanic was a piece of garbage. And Leonardo DiCRAPio is the most overrated actor EVER! But, how Sly Stallone was robbed of an Oscar in “Over The Top” is beyond me!!! Anyway, all kidding aside, Pujols was the MVP and deservedly so. People don’t seem to realize he had injuries affecting his line-up as well. Losing Sanders for a chunk of the season and Rolen for 3/4 of the season and Pujols putting up his typical numbers is even more astounding. Jones was good was Pujols was better!

By Skip

November 18, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this

I agree that Andruw should have been the league MVP. This season I finally became a Jones fan. He actually got serious and played to his talent level. Next year..?

By mickeyro

November 18, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

Speaking of Morgan Freeman, the worst travesty in the last 20 years was his not winning the Best Supporting Actor in the 1987 Academy Awards for his role as Fast Black in Street Smart. The award was “given” to Sean Connery for his lame portrayal in The Untouchables where he uses his normal Scottish accent when he is supposed to be portraying an Irishman. I assume The Academy gave it to Connery as he was due it for The Academy’s past failures to award him in much the way Morgan Freeman finally received an Academy Award this year when he should have already had about four.

By hoodude

November 18, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

Matthew,,,your 7;23 post was strong,very strong and good,,,

liked the capitalized laroche reference,,, does anybody expect him to be back next year? wonder what’ll happen IF he hits a triple?

and since bradley started the movie/sports theme why not carry it on? or not,,,

so Band of Brothers was “better” than “SPR”? do you mean in one sitting? my butt counldn’t do “BoB” in one/sit and 14 hours of “SPR” I’d be out-taked dizzy[ever wonder how many hours of ted danson is in the can?][or dennis farina?]

oh,Pujo’s mvp cos of sending the series back to st-l w/ one hr off the light tower and aj did sorta go byby late in the year as in post-season when big hits mean big votes,,,well it helped or didn’t cases being imho

By HB Ando

November 18, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this

Mark,

I said six weeks ago that Andruw would be jobbed for one reason: sportswriters, like yourself, felt guilt and hypocrisy for giving the previous MVP’s to Bonds, over Pujols, when everyone of them knew he was cheating. It continues to mystify me that you guys knew, wrote about, understood the implications to the games historical stats and the horrible message his successes, via drug use, were sending to the youth of America, yet chose to honor him with the MVP and validate his decision to cheat at the highest level.

Taking nothing away from Pujols’ considerable accomplishments, the difference in the voting results came down to a “make up call” by the Sportswriters of America. It also speaks loudly to the egocentric nature of your community that you folks believe, collectively, that you are a better judge of who is more deserving, than Jones and Pujols’ peers, who made it clear, as the guys who actually PLAY baseball, that Andruw was the most valuable player in the National League, via their voting results for offseason awards. Your industries’ efforts to elevate your desired public status to an equal level of the athletes you cover never ceases to amaze me. It’s not about you. It’s about the games. And we only patronize you out of our interest those games.

Andruw Jones was robbed. Just as Albert Pujols was in the previous few votings, thanks to sportswriters who weren’t strong or honest enough to stand up to the truth about Barry Bonds. It’s one of the best examples in recent memory of “two wrongs don’t make a right”. Way to go, guys.

By BB FAN

November 18, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this

I think Andruw deserved the MVP award without a doubt. However, Pujols deserved it as well. Andruw also plays a much more demanding position than Pujols. And he wins gold gloves every year. Pujols does not. Pujols is a better hitter overall though. Too bad the voting didn’t end in a tie because they both had great seasons. They were both important to their teams.

Anyway, I would like to clear up the clutch hitting stats though. I know Pujols hit better with runners in scoring position and therefore everybody thinks he is more clutch. However, in late innings, Pujols hit .218 with 3 hrs in 55 at bats and Andruw hit .339 with 8 hrs in 56 at bats. (these stats are from MLB.com) So Andruw is just as clutch as Pujols. They are just clutch in different situations.

By Biff

November 18, 2005 07:59 PM | Link to this

Why would the Sportswriters feel some overwhelming need to make up for one screwup with another one? I think you’re giving them credit for thinking a lot more emotionally than they are.

The “Andruw carried the Braves” theory is growing to legendary status. He did hit well during that period, but so did a lot of other guys, most notably Betemit. Overall, Albert had an unbelievable year, not just hitting home runs but leading his injury-riddled team in virtually every category.

I can see disagreeing with the vote - hey, more than a dozen writers did, but this ‘conspiracy theory’ and ‘we was robbed’ mentality smack of one thing: homerism. Not sure it’s a word, but that’s what it is!

By Judge

November 19, 2005 12:12 AM | Link to this

To Mike A: “Saving Private Ryan…overrated…plot leaves much to be desired…present day scenes are hokey…” Suggest you read Stephen E.Ambrose book, “D-Day” to appreciate film. As to plot, see pp316-317…”(The third vilunteer, Sgt. Bob Niland, was killed at his machine gun. One of his brothers, a platoon leader in the 4th division, was killed the same morning at Utah Beach. Another brother was killed that week in Burma. Mrs. Niland received all three telegrams from the War Department announcing the deaths of her sons on the same day. Her fourth son, Fritz, was in the 101st Airborne: he was snatched out of the front line by the Army)” As to “hokey” present day scenes, I further suggest that after reading “D-Day” you take a stroll through the cemetery overlooking Omaha Beach where scenes were filmed. On a lighter note, Andruw wuz robbed!

By Mike A

November 19, 2005 01:23 AM | Link to this

I actually have read ‘D-Day’ by Ambrose - enjoyed it immensely, even though I’m not much of a war buff. I’ve read several of his books. I was disappointed to hear of his plagiarism later on, but I will not speak ill of the dead. And I know the story of the WWII brothers as well, a similar situation happened in the Civil War IIRC.

As I have said several times, I found Saving Private Ryan to be quite powerful and moving. My wife and I came close to walking out during the 1st 30 minutes, that’s how strong it was. But after the first 30 minutes, I felt it hit a lull, aside from the end and Hanks’s speech about ‘being a teacher’ (if I remember that right) there wasn’t that much there. And I felt the present-day scenes did not mesh well. JMO, but I will get to Omaha beach some day and perhaps change my mind.

But it’s a still a fine movie, just a ways from my Top 10. I thought Schindler’s List was superior, to be honest. But, to each his or her own.

And Andruw was not robbed, he merely lost to one of the best players of this generation and possibly ever. Nothing wrong with that, and it doesn’t take anything away from Andruw’s superb year.

By Peter

November 19, 2005 05:57 AM | Link to this

While Matthew is absolutly correct on Saving Private Ryan vs. Shakespear in Love he left out an even more egregious example of “Shawshank Redemption” losing out to Forrest Gump.

Art Carney in reality DID win for the Honeymooners. No it didn’t honor him for that exactly (I know it’s TV) but in part appreciation of the work he did there. Did ‘Straight Time’ not influence Hoffman’s awards? Hoffman and Pacino and Jack. They could almost be nominated for everything they’ve done. Five Easy Pieces is at least equal to Cinderella Liberty.

And yes Andruw did get “Art Carney[ed]”

By Mercury

November 19, 2005 08:05 AM | Link to this

Going to try to keep this short. Initially, I thought Jones was robbed. I thought about it and looked over some stats and the vote could have gone either way; however, I feel that Jones deserved it more. Albert didn’t have to play with a field full of rookies like Jones did. Granted, the rookies outperformed expectations, but this is an unknown stat until they start to perform and the playing with inexperienced rookies is not an easy task.

Now I am by no means a film guru, but I feel this years MVP was very similar to Denzel Washinton not winning an Oscar for Hurricane being compared to Pujols not winning the MVP due to Bonds supplement induced MVP. Then Denzel winning for Training Day (as if to say sorry we screwed up last year so here is your award a year later) compared to Pujols (with no Bonds in the mix) winning it this year over Jones.

By isaac

November 19, 2005 11:31 AM | Link to this

Stop crying! Pujols excelled Jones in on base percentage, batting average (by a ridiculous margin), runs scored (by +30!), walks, batting average with RISP (Jones hit under .220), slugging percentage, etc. Pujols also struck out much less. Yeah, Jones had more RBI, but this was a function of his surge in home runs, more than anything else. When men were on, Jones failed to knock them in with anything other than home runs. And shouldn’t Pujols get some credit for Jones’ home run surge, in that Jones’ appropriated his stance to escape from his traditional batting mediocrity? yeah, I know he has basically the same stats each year, but why should Pujols be punished for this sustained excellence? Since A. Jones has pedestrian offensive numbers throughout his career, and suddenly breaks out, he gets a medal?
Also, Braves fans conveniently forget that Jones sucked for the first month of the season (0 for 30!), while Pujols was dominant from start to finish, as he always is. The weakness of the Cardinals lineup was exposed in the playoffs versus Houston, was it not? Don’t give me this jazz about Pujols having more help. Pujols had no one to protect him, as Edmonds had a subpar season and Scott Rolen was injured most of the year. The fans who make the “Edmonds as protection” argument are looking at Edmons’ previous years, precisely what they want others to avoid doing when considering Pujols’ MVP status. I understand Bradley’s “body of work” argument (its about this year not the last 4). But looking at this body of work of Pujols, you can see that he is the constant in the Cardinals’ run of excellence. All other players have come and gone, flourished and declined. This shows that even though players on this year’s team had good seasons (though no great seasons exept for Carpenter) the one factor that makes this team an elite team is Pujols.
Without him they DO finish second to the Astros (and by the way, with him they finished second to the Astros in the end anyway). Despite the gaudy home run and RBI stats, Pujols’ effect on the offense is considerably more than Jones’, when you consider consistently putting the ball in play, moving runners over, avoiding unproductive strikeouts, getting on to keep the inning going, etc. When you add this to his batting and power numbers, Pujols is unmatched by any player in the game. Of course, Jones’ effect defensively is more considerable than Pujols, which is really the best argument for Jones as MVP. All this saving a run a game stuff I don’t buy, responding that Pujols, as a first baseman, is involved in many more plays per game than Jones, and his stability there has a tremendous impact defensively. Saying that, Jones’ spectacular and consistent play in center field is more meaningful than Pujols’ contribution defensively. In my mind this is not enough to compensate for Pujols’ marked superiority offensively. And the prodigous offensive production of Pujols, combined with his solid first base play, is more valuable than Jones’ stellar defensive play combined with his great power output. Pujols’ impact on WINNING GAMES can still be said to exceed Jones’, which is why he is the MVP.

By doc

November 19, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

issac, biff, mark, et al., why did the players get it so wrong and you and the writers get it so right?

pujols was dominant in the playoffs? no? only then can you say he was dominant the whole season, issac. that among many of your arguments may not hold up. giving crdit to pujols for a jones rise to success? far reaching there.

no doubt about it, pujols has probably been the most dominant offensive player for the last 5 seasons not bulked up on roids. but it wasnt that easy a call.

glad the writers finally got him what he has so richly deserved and earned whether it was this year or last.

By Mercury

November 19, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

Issac It is very obvious that you are a Pujols fan and that is great but:

How can you say that Pujols is the reason for Jones’ power surge this year? Because he changed his stance? What a ridiculous comment. How many players in MLB have basically the same stance? Many. I would say that if he had a stance like Craig Counsels then you could give credit to him. But to say Pujols should be credited for the stance that many Major Leaguers use is idiotic. That is really reaching. I was impressed with your argument until that comment. But like doc said…how is that the players voted Jones MOP and the writers couldn’t? Who is right? I would venture to say the players becuase they know what it takes to perform at their level. The writers, whom are put on this Earth for our entertainment and probably have never played an organized sport in their life, chosing who should be MVP is insane. Not that I or any of use can change it.

Another comment you made was that most of Jones’ RBIs with runners on base came mainly on homers. Who cares? The fact that he got the runners home and himself in the process is an added bonus.

I am really trying to understand your comment about Jones having pedestrian numbers. Averaging 33 homers and 99 RBIs a year doesn’t seem to pedestrian to me. Granted they are not as good as Pujols’. But those numbers are not pedestrian by any major leaguers standards. There are players, like J.D. Drew, making tens of millions of $$ with far worse numbers. Pedestrian type numbers huh? Do some research before you start babbling and babbling. When you start making statements like that you begin to sound like Charlie Brown’s teacher.

By Mercury

November 19, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

Issac It is very obvious that you are a Pujols fan and that is great but:

How can you say that Pujols is the reason for Jones’ power surge this year? Because he changed his stance? What a ridiculous comment. How many players in MLB have basically the same stance? Many. I would say that if he had a stance like Craig Counsels then you could give credit to him. But to say Pujols should be credited for the stance that many Major Leaguers use is idiotic. That is really reaching. I was impressed with your argument until that comment. But like doc said…how is that the players voted Jones MOP and the writers couldn’t? Who is right? I would venture to say the players because they know what it takes to perform at their level. The writers, whom are put on this Earth for our entertainment and probably have never played an organized sport in their life, chosing who should be MVP is insane. Not that I or any of us can change it.

Another comment you made was that most of Jones’ RBIs with runners on base came mainly on homers. Who cares? The fact that he got the runners home and himself in the process is an added bonus.

I am really trying to understand your comment about Jones having pedestrian numbers throughout his career. Averaging 33 homers and 99 RBIs a year doesn’t seem too pedestrian to me. Granted they are not as good as Pujols’, 40HRs and 124 RBIs. But those numbers are not pedestrian by any major leaguers standards. There are players, like J.D. Drew (17HRs and 51 RBIs), making tens of millions of $$ with far worse numbers. Pedestrian type numbers huh? Do some research before you start babbling and babbling. When you start making statements like that you begin to sound like Charlie Brown’s teacher.

By Rodney Derrick

November 20, 2005 12:04 AM | Link to this

Mark, please explain to us why Jason Stark of ESPN cast one of the two Atlanta sportswriter votes and in fact admits he voted for Pujols. This is a scandal. And who were the other voters? Of course Pujols is great and he and Andruw had varying and ultimately pretty equal claims to the award. What Andruw did not have were all the sportswriters who felt guilty for giving Steroid Barry the MVP over Pujols all those years.

By David

November 20, 2005 09:24 AM | Link to this

I disagree. Pujols did mean as much, if not more, to the Cardinals as Jones did to the Braves. With all the injuries the Cardinals had, they would of never made it to the NLCS without Pujols. How far did the Braves go?

By isaac

November 20, 2005 11:23 PM | Link to this

re mercury’s comments

1) look at tape of Jones last year, this year, and Pujols’ stance. you will see that this year, jones’ feet are wider apart, his head is turned more to the pitcher, and his hands are in a higher position. this is basically Pujols’ unique stance, and Jones has talked about how he studied tape of pujols and piazza in the off season, and consciously altered his stance accordingly. Jones’ stance definitely borrows from Pujols, when viewed from the side.
Anyway, that comment was only a provocation to get the real braves fans to surface. I like it when you guys try to make an argument. 2) if the writers’ determination of awards is so unjust, why aren’t we also questioning all the other awards, like rookie of the year, manager of the year, etc., in all the other seasons? Only when your boy Jones doesn’t get it is there a problem with the system.

3) the fact that Jones’ production depended more on home runs diminishes his offensive impact when compared to Pujols. I agree that Jones’ production on home runs (51) was all that. But what about the other 550 or so AB this year? . I am saying that in these instances Jones is far less productive than Pujols. The bonus of Jones’ extra HR and RBI are not that much more than Pujols output in those categories. +10 HR and RBI is marginally significant, but not enough to outweigh Pujols’ far superior batting average, reduced susceptibility to strike out, ability to make productive outs, higher on base percentage, etc.

4) Pedestrian type numbers- 33HR and 99 RBI are not pedestrian when compared to the whole league, I agree. To state my point better, I say that those are not MVP type numbers, and that there are players like Abreu, Burrell, Sexson, Sheffield, etc. who also post those numbers. these players are in the upper tier of MLB players, but producing at that level has become more commonplace in this era of baseball. Most would agree that today 33 and 99 are not average but also not outstanding. I call that pedestrian when maybe i should call it “kinda good”. i’m sorry for that. my basic point is that Pujols plays at an MVP level every season, while Jones had to elevate his game to reach this level.

5) why no mention of Jones’ defensive impact? this is really the best argument for Jones as MVP. Offensively, even with Jones’ HR and RBi, his impact there is just not on the same level as Pujols. But since, most pseudo sports thinkers like yourself are in love with the Home Run and insult, they don’t bother to think: how can I make the best argument to express my point? your method is: since i lack the ability to formulate a coherent thought, what insult can i hurl to mask this deficiency? wrack your brain again!

By isaac

November 21, 2005 12:15 AM | Link to this

re doc’s comments:

pujols DID have a dominant postseason: .375 batting average, 2 doubles, 2 HR, 8 RBI, obscenely high on base percentage, in 9 games. He also had 2 hits off (until then) unhittable Astro closer Lidge in ninth inning of back to back games, including the season on the line, 2 out, top of the ninth, 3 run HR off Lidge, to send the series back to St. louis.

Pujols absolutely had a dominant post season, as he did last year. Although his post season should not be an argument for regular season honors, it just demonstrates that his “default setting” is to play at the MVP level, while others must raise the level of their game to get there.

As for the “players know best argument”, two things.

1) did the players know best on steroids? where was their just and penetrating vision of the game on that subject? why can’t the players’ selection of MOP be another example of the players’ imperfection when it comes to making judements?

2) And what about the major leaguers who voted for Pujols or Lee as MOP? Surely these players got first place votes too? did every single player vote for Jones? the MLB player vote is an aggregate of what hundreds of players think, so it is unrealistic to view the vote as if it amounts to one unified opinion of the entire league that Jones was MOP, and that therefore all non-players should bow down to it. If this is the case, then you would have to tell those major leaguers that voted for Lee or Pujols that they are wrong because major leaguers voted for Jones (wouldn’t that be absurd?)

The “players voted for Jones as MOP therefore I must support him as MVP” argument has hereby been demolished.

The point is that the players’ awarding of MOP was a matter of collective opinion, just as was the sportswriters’ awarding of the same, and that we cannot look to any one source as the ultimate touchstone for our opinion on the matter. This ain’t church, this is a blog! Now, Braves fans, you must find another vehicle for your belief in Andruw Jones.

By BB FAN

November 21, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

Isaac, Like I said before, I think Andruw deserved the MVP award as much as Pujols deserved it. When saying Pujols has a better AVG and OBP than Andruw, keep in mind Andruw plays a much more demanding position than Pujols. That takes a toll on his at bats. And AJ wins gold gloves every year playing that MUCH more demanding position. Pujols has never won a gold glove and he plays 1B. Yes, Pujols is a better hitter overall, but AJ is a much better defensive player. Too bad the voting didn’t end in a tie because they both had great seasons. They were both important to their teams.

Anyway, I would like to clear up the clutch hitting stats though. I know Pujols hit better with runners in scoring position and therefore everybody thinks he is more clutch. However, in late innings, Pujols hit .218 with 3 hrs in 55 at bats and Andruw hit .339 with 8 hrs in 56 at bats. (these stats are from MLB.com)Being successful in the late innings is as important as hitting with runners in scoring position. And the Braves played in a lot of close games. So Andruw is just as clutch as Pujols. They are just clutch in different situations.