Quick thoughts: 2010 MVP Awards

I didn't post any quick thoughts on the NL MVP vote yesterday because the only thought I had was: Perfect. Nothing jumped out at me at the way it turned out. To me, Joey Votto should have won, and he should have won easily. He did both.

If pressed to find something, I suppose I would question putting Albert Pujols second over Carlos Gonzalez. It's the most valuable player award, not the most prolific player award or the most outstanding player award or the best hitter award. Pujols would be hard to beat in any of those. But the way I would look at an MVP vote if I had one would be which player's absence from his team would have had the biggest effect on that club's season. Clearly, without the season Votto had, the Reds are not NL Central champs.

Of course, without Pujols, the Cardinals do not sniff a pennant race, either. But Pujols had a very similar season to the one he had in his 2009 MVP campaign, yet the Cardinals missed the playoffs in 2010. In other words, I guess I look at it as whether or not they had Pujols, the Cards weren't winning the division this year. (Also, I find it interesting how Pujols has had three seasons -- including the last two -- of exactly 700 plate appearances but has never had any more than that.)

Rk	Player	OPS	G	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	GDP	SB	BA	OBP	SLG
1	Joey Votto	1.024	150	648	547	106	177	36	2	37	113	91	125	11	16	.324	.424	.600
2	Albert Pujols	1.011	159	700	587	115	183	39	1	42	118	103	76	23	14	.312	.414	.596
3	Carlos Gonzalez	.974	145	636	587	111	197	34	9	34	117	40	135	9	26	.336	.376	.598

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 11/23/2010.

As for the American League, again I have trouble coming up with an argument in support of anyone else. Had Josh Hamilton played more than 89 games in 2009, the Rangers might have overcome the Angels, or pushed them deeper into September instead of finishing 10 games back (in second place). This wasn't a full season for Hamilton, either, but in 133 games and 571 plate appearances, he had better numbers (except for 30 fewer RBIs) or negligible deficits in many key categories compared to his 2008 breakout All-Star season. The true difference in the Rangers winning the division and previous years may be their pitching, or simply just their pitching philosophy, but for a single most valuable piece of Texas' AL West title, you have to look at Hamilton.

Miguel Cabrera probably deserved more second-place support for another spectacular season. If he hasn't already, he's close to taking the torch from Alex Rodriguez as the American League's best and most reliable player, the guy you can pencil in for 150 games, a .300 average, 30 homers and 100 RBIs at the start of the season and then wait to see when he reaches those numbers and how far past them he goes.

As for Robinson Cano, kudos on a breakout year for the Trenton Thunder alum. If there's anyone on the Yankees who should be getting a six-year, $100 million contract this winter, it's him, and not Derek Jeter (same goes for three years, $45 million). But absent a 50-homer, 140-RBI season or a Triple Crown-contending campaign, it remains hard for a Yankee to garner enough support for the MVP award because the team is loaded, year in and year out. I have no problem with that, because on a team full of All-Stars, how do you determine which one is the most valuable? Take any one of them away for a significant portion of the season, and the Yankees will hardly miss a beat.

I'm trying to say that the MVP Award has to go to a player on a playoff team or contending club every year, but so long as there are singular performers on such teams, it's going to take video-game like numbers from anyone else to garner support. In a year without Hamilton, Cabrera or Cano, Jose Bautista might've been the favorite, or a top-two contender. Maybe a few more than 109 runs or 124 RBIs would've lent more weight to his 54 home runs. Or maybe his .260 batting average pulled him down in voters' eyes (indicating that BA still has more influence than wins do for pitchers in the eyes of those who judge these performances). Or perhaps the cloud of doubt in this post-BALCO age eliminated Bautista in June.

Rk	Player	BA	G	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	SB	CS	OBP	SLG	OPS
1	Josh Hamilton	.359	133	571	518	95	186	40	3	32	100	43	95	8	1	.411	.633	1.044
2	Miguel Cabrera	.328	150	648	548	111	180	45	1	38	126	89	95	3	3	.420	.622	1.042
5	Robinson Cano	.319	160	696	626	103	200	41	3	29	109	57	77	3	2	.381	.534	.914
42	Jose Bautista	.260	161	683	569	109	148	35	3	54	124	100	116	9	2	.378	.617	.995

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 11/23/2010.

With the announcement of the final major award for the season, I like to consider this day the final one of the 2010 campaign. We also saw the last managerial opening officially filled today with the Mets' introduction of Terry Collins. (I may get into my thoughts on that later.) Today is the arbitration deadline, which will put a final stamp on the makeup of this winter's free-agent crop, and Thanksgiving is upon us. On the other side of the holiday is December and the Winter Meetings, so soon we'll be looking forward to 2011 in earnest.

Time to turn that Hot Stove up to 11.

Was Rollins even the Phillies' MVP?

This isn't me. I'm not whining here or spitting out sour grapes (or whatever that lame phrase is). Yeah, I thought Jimmy Rollins had an amazing year and seemed to be there in so many clutch situations for the Phillies down the stretch, but he's not even the MVP of the Phillies. That would be Chase Utley, in my mind. But Utley was overlooked because he didn't have the numbers, because he missed a month.

But for those of you into WARP and VORP, this might be interesting.

Personally, I think Rollins won because:

1.) He has a big mouth. He said in January the Phillies were the team to beat, and despite one of the NL's worst pitching staffs, they were.

2.) He plays shortstop.

3.) Voters might have filed their ballots before the final day of the season, and therefore missed Matt Holliday's central role in the Rockies' surge. True, they would've also missed the Mets' collapse, but I don't think Rollins' case was built around that as much. Ryan Howard won last year without the Phillies' reaching the postseason.

What the article also illuminates is the changing definition of "valuable," led by the new and innovative ways of looking at performance and statistics. Batting average and home runs (and wins and ERA) don't tell the whole story anymore, but so long as the voters are two sportswriters in each league city who have been on the baseball beat for two decades, those statistics are going to be the ones that carry the weight. They aren't going to look at VORP or WARP or ballpark factors (and I checked -- Holliday's and Rollins' numbers on the road were pretty similar; both were helped a bit by their home parks but also held up well in the gray unis).

At least with the MVP, "valuable" is part of the definition. The Cy Young Award carries no such caveat, so in some years, the wrong guy wins just because his team reached the postseason or his offense produced a lot of wins. And don't get me started on the Heisman, which has completely lost its luster and meaning and probably hasn't been the same award since they moved the ceremony from the Downtown Athletic Club to Midtown. The Heisman, by definition but not in name, is for the "most outstanding college football player." Not "the most outstanding or valuable player[you could even insert quarterback/running back here] on the best team." Troy Smith wasn't the most outstanding player last year; Darren McFadden was. The most outstanding player this year isn't necessarily a quarterback who throws for 3,000 yards and 30 TDs and leads his team to a BCS game; it's Tim Tebow, the first player IN HISTORY to score 20 TDs each passing and rushing. Or, as ESPN Magazine argued, it's perhaps LSU DT Glenn Dorsey. Sure, Tebow may be a product of Urban Meyer's system, but he still executes against some tough competition -- particularly some fast defenses. I wouldn't knock Colt Brennan (last year) for throwing 58 TDs because of the system (though I would question the competition).

Anyway, enough with the football. I got carried away there. It'll be interesting to see over the years if the baseball awards continue to be based on home runs and wins (Troy Tulowitzki was the most impressive NL rookie in 2007, because he played the field so much -- significantly so -- better than Ryan Braun, who had the worst fielding season for a third baseman in something like 80 years). Or will the new stats -- kind of like the "new math," whatever that was -- take hold and change the way we look at players. When you look at Rollins' OPS -- which seems to be the new stat most accepted into the mainstream -- he was way down at No. 22 in the NL. The top nine were legitimate MVP contenders: Chipper Jones, Prince Fielder, Holliday, Albert Pujols, Howard, Utley, Miguel Cabrera, David Wright and Hanley Ramirez. Ahead of Rollins were guys like Pat Burrell, Corey Hart and, even with him, Jeff Kent.

To end this on a more even note, when you use the question, "Where would [the team] have been without [the player]?" Rollins and Holliday come out pretty closely. Rollins started all 162 games and set a Major League record for plate appearances because the Phillies had no other shortstop. In a pinch, Abraham Nunez would've played there, but he's not much of a shortstop anymore. Rollins also set a Major League record for at-bats in a season because he doesn't walk enough and makes a lot of outs. So if you took him away from the Phillies, they had no shortstop, but you also only took away an .875 OPS.

But if you took Holliday away from the Rockies, you're taking away a 1.012 OPS, not to mention an NL-best 142.2 runs created (Rollins had 133.4, fifth in the league).

Still close, but Holliday seemed more valuable to me.

Sticking it to the NL East for four more years

Jose Reyes, Shea Stadium, June 19, 2006

Outstanding move by the Mets to lock up Jose Reyes through 2010, or possibly through 2011. He's one of three players for whom you could make the case is the Mets' MVP. With Reyes, Carlos Beltran and David Wright all worthy of consideration, Albert Pujols is almost assured of taking it for the second straight year because those three Mets will split votes. If Beltran continues his torrid second half and finishes with numbers near Pujols', he'll have the best chance of giving the Mets their first MVP award.

It should be their second, following Darryl Strawberry's outstanding 1988, which was better than Kirk Gibson's season. But Kevin McReynolds seemed to take some of Strawberry's votes. I wonder if the results would have been different if we viewed OPS the same way in 1988 that we do today.

Signing Reyes -- and buying out his arbitration years -- just adds to the feel-good story of this 2006 season. Wright will probably be next, whether it's done this season, during the offseason, in spring training or next season. And this announcement should finally erase the memory of the bad dream I had a few weeks ago -- a dream in which Jose Reyes signed with the Yankees.

Shudder.

Not gonna happen. At least not during these formative, productive years.

Handing out the hardware

I didn't make my awards picks until November last year, but my intentions this year were to get them done as early into the postseason, just as the sportswriters who vote on the awards actually do. Granted, the voters have about 44 hours from the end of Sunday's games until the start of the first Division Series games -- or perhaps less time -- to get their votes in.

Last year, I was pretty accurate. Eight-for-eight, though it wasn't too hard. The races weren't all that close, with the exception of NL ROY. I hedged, but went with Jason Bay in the end in the closest voting of all the players' awards, with Khalil Greene getting seven first-place votes and finishing 38 points behind Bay. Only AL Manager of the Year was a closer vote, with Ron Gardenhire getting 11 first-place votes and finishing 10 points behind Buck Showalter; and only Randy Johnson's eight first-place votes in the NL Cy Young race were more than Greene's among second-place players. But Roger Clemens still won the award by 43 points over Johnson.

This year, we've got a few clear winners, but certainly more close races sure to cause debate. Let's get the easy ones out of the way.

AL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR
There was a bit of a late-season push for Yankees second baseman Robinson Cano, but he might not even make the top three. It could be a close race among Cano (.297, 78 R, 34 2B, 14 HR, 62 RBI), Tampa Bay's Jonny Gomes (.282, 61 R, 13 2B, 6 3B, 21 HR, 54 RBI) and Chicago's Tadahito Iguchi (.278, 74 R, 25 2B, 6 3B, 15 HR, 71 RBI, 15 SB) -- for second place.

I think A's closer Huston Street (5-1, 1.72 ERA, 1.01 WHIP, 23 SV, 72:26 SO:BB ratio, .194 BAA) continues Oakland's hold on AL ROY awards. Street stepped in and performed like a veteran closer -- something that even veteran relievers can have trouble doing. He blew just four saves (all before the All-Star break, and he got the win after one of them) and lost his only game way back on April 20. As the closer, he was out there on his own and came through. This one should be set, but something tells me that because I decided to list these in order of debate and put this one first, it will be the first to prove me wrong.

NL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR
The winner of this one didn't even occur to me until a friend told me who his pick was. Then I looked at the numbers, and it became clear. First off, there are no pitchers who can win. Zach Duke's 14 starts (8-2, 1.81 ERA, 1.20 WHIP, 58:23 K:BB ratio, .253 BAA) are probably about six short of what could have earned him serious attention. Among the hitters, third baseman Garret Atkins (.287, 61 R, 31 2B, 13 HR, 89 RBI) moved ahead of shortstop Clint Barmes (.289, 55 R, 19 2B, 10 HR, 46 RBI, 6 SB in just 81 G and 350 AB) as the Rockies' potential winner. Washington's Ryan Church (.287, 41 R, 15 2B, 9 HR, 42 RBI) was one of my preseason candidates, but injuries and then Preston Wilson ate into his playing time.

Atlanta's Jeff Francoeur (.300, 41 R, 20 2B, 14 HR, 45 RBI in 257 AB in 70 G, not to mention 13 assists) was getting a lot of press for the award in August and had a solid start to his career, but I think he comes in second. Houston leadoff hitter Willy Taveras (.291, 82 R, 13 2B, 4 3B, 3 HR, 29 RBI, 34 SB) will be up there, but it will be a mid-season callup who will take home the hardware. In just 310 at bats in 88 games, Philadelphia's Ryan Howard hit .288 with 52 R, 17 2B, 2 3B, 22 HR and 63 RBI. He led all rookies with those home runs, 10 of which came in September -- a rookie record for the month -- and brought the Phillies back into the race after losing slugging first baseman Jim Thome for the season.

NL MANAGER OF THE YEAR
It's not like Bobby Cox has won 14 straight division titles with the same team. Maybe those first four or five in the 90s all came with the nucleus of Smoltz-Maddux-Glavine-Chipper-Lopez, but there were often other key cogs that were changed (David Justice, Terry Pendleton, Kenny Lofton, Walt Weiss, etc.). And he certainly hasn't done it with the payrolls of the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets or Dodgers.

So until some team knocks the Braves out of the top spot in the NL East -- or even out of the playoffs -- this award is probably his. And when the Braves are dethroned, that team's manager will probably inherit the hardware. The true test is picking second place, which should go to Phil Garner. Houston was dreadful the first 45 games (15-30) without Lance Berkman for 22 of them and with a still-hobbled, .179-hitting Berkman for the other half of them. But Garner guided the 'Stros back to the playoffs, the first back-to-back wild-card winners in the NL since the 1999-2000 Mets.

Well, that's that. So much for the "easy" ones. Now, in ascending order of debate, as I see them ...

AL MANAGER OF THE YEAR
I think despite Chicago's collapse from a 15-game lead on Aug. 1 to a 1 1/2-game lead in mid-September, Ozzie Guillen still wins it. He got the White Sox off to a fast start and the team never had to look back. They were in control the whole way, and despite some headwinds, forged on to finish the job. Cleveland's Eric Wedge -- whose team made the White Sox faithful sweat -- deserves it too, but there were a lot of people who predicted the Indians would make a run this year with their young nucleus. I can't go back and look at everyone's preseason predictions, but I'd guess there were even a few more pundits in favor of the Indians being competitive than there were calling for the White Sox to unseat the Twins. After 99 wins and being the frontrunner all season, Guillen wins it.

AL CY YOUNG
Well, your ERA leader was Kevin Millwood (2.86), but he went 9-11. Last year's winner, Johan Santana, was second (2.87, plus 0.97 WHIP, 16-7 record, 238:45 K:BB ratio, .210 BAA) followed by Mark Buehrle (3.12, 1.18 WHIP, 16-8, 149:40). At the All-Star break, it was Buehrle's to lose (10-3, 2.58 ERA), and I think he did. We know the voters are stat-heads, and this award isn't for most valuable pitcher (otherwise, Mariano Rivera's got a much stronger case; however, I'm sure some voters look at it as MVP, with the "p" standing for "pitcher"). So after ERA, if we turn to strikeouts, Santana led the league with only Randy Johnson (211) also breaking 200. But with a 3.79 ERA and 17-8 record, his case isn't stronger than Santana's.

Then there are wins, and in leading the league with 21, Bartolo Colon had three more than any other starter (Jon Garland and Cliff Lee). Three more wins over 33 starts is close to winning the 100-meter dash by a full second -- it's a runaway. Colon went 21-8 with a 3.48 ERA, 1.16 WHIP, .254 BAA and 157:43 SO:BB ratio.

NL MVP
For the first time since 1999, it won't be a San Francisco Giant winning this award. Before Barry Bonds and Victor Conte won the award from 2001-2004, Jeff Kent won it. In '99, Chipper Jones' stellar September clinched it for him as the Braves pulled away from the Mets. The same thing could happen, and Chipper could play a part, only September wasn't the month that Andruw Jones may have clinched the award. It was June.

First, let's look at the numbers between Jones and his only competition, Albert Pujols. Since 2001, when Pujols won Rookie of the Year and finished fourth in the MVP voting, he's finished second, second and third (to Bonds and Adrian Beltre) up through last year. With Bonds out of the picture, this looked like Albert's opportunity. The only thing I see keeping it from him this time is that the Cardinals were too good. Certainly better than the Braves. Head-to-head, the numbers look like this:

AVERAGE: Pujols .330-.263
HITS: Pujols 195-154
RUNS: Pujols 129-95
EXTRA-BASE HITS: Pujols 81-77
HOME RUNS: Jones 51-41
RBI: Jones 128-117
OPS: Pujols 1.039-.922

In my heart, I want Pujols to win it. He's been so good for four years and finished second twice to a big-headed freak and his team of trainers and crooks. With the injuries to Larry Walker, Reggie Sanders and especially Scott Rolen, the lineup in St. Louis wasn't as formidable as it was expected to be. This isn't Alex Rodriguez in the Yankees' lineup or David Ortiz in Boston. Take Pujols out of the Cardinals' lineup this year, and I don't know if they do win that division. But the Cardinals also had a strong pitching staff with a Cy Young candidate and built a big lead early in the summer. That wasn't the case in Atlanta, which lost Chipper Jones and three starting pitchers in June -- which also happened to be Andruw Jones' best month (.317, 18 R, 13 HR, 26 RBI, 1.151 OPS) as the Braves made their run. Three starters out, no Chipper, a host of rookies and Andruw carried Atlanta. It kills me to say it, but I think that's what the voters will remember. Andruw wins it.

NL CY YOUNG
Wooo, doggie. This debate has been raging since July, with each of three pitchers considered the front-runner. Two of them led their teams to the playoffs; the other led his to the brink. But how to sort them out? First, the overall stats:

CHRIS CARPENTER, STL: 21-5, 2.83 ERA, 1.06 WHIP, .231 BAA, 4.18 SO:BB
ROGER CLEMENS, HOU: 13-8, 1.87 ERA, 1.01 WHIP, .198 BAA, 2.76 SO:BB
DONTRELLE WILLIS, FLA: 22-10, 2.63 ERA, 1.13 WHIP, .243 BAA, 2.93 SO:BB

But will the voters look at the overall numbers, or remember what happened more recently? Over the last month of the season, they looked like this:

CHRIS CARPENTER, STL: 1-1, 6.91 ERA, 1.60 WHIP, .328 BAA, 3.14 SO:BB in only 28 2/3 innings
ROGER CLEMENS, HOU: 2-2, 4.50 ERA, 1.73 WHIP, .303 BAA, 1.14 SO:BB in 22 innings
DONTRELLE WILLIS, FLA: 3-2, 3.00 ERA, 1.21 WHIP, .244 BAA, 3.00 SO:BB in a league-leading 42 innings

Well, Willis certainly had the best finish to the season, when his team needed him the most. The Astros needed Clemens too, and he faltered, first with a hamstring tweak, then -- and no one can fault him for this -- dealing with the death of his mother (though he pitched that night and pitched superbly). Carpenter had the benefit of pitching with the Cardinals comfortably ahead, and then after they'd clinched as a tune-up for the playoffs.

As good as Clemens' peripheral stats were, I think the writers will go with Carpenter. It's going to be a close one, a tough one, but that's my guess.

AL MVP
It's not just that this is a tight debate, a close race, a heated argument about two sluggers -- it's, yet again, Red Sox and Yankees. The numbers are tight, and those in the Alex Rodriguez camp say the fact that he plays defense puts him over the top, which is fine. It's hard to defend Ortiz's case when all he does is hit and sit on the bench. Again, we'll start with the season stats:

GAMES: A-Rod 162-159
AVERAGE: A-Rod .321-.300
HITS: A-Rod 194-180
RUNS: A-Rod 124-119
EXTRA-BASE HITS: Ortiz 88-78
HR: A-Rod 48-47
RBI: Ortiz 148-130
WALKS (Intentional): Ortiz 102 (9)-91 (8)
STRIKEOUTS: Ortiz 124-139
OPS: A-Rod 1.031-1.001

But let's look at some splits. A-Rod led the AL in at bats with runners in scoring position, with 186; Ortiz had 162. Ortiz hit .352 to A-Rod's .290, getting three more hits (57-54) and four more extra-base hits (22-18) in 24 fewer at bats. Big Papi drove in 92 runs to A-Rod's 77 and walked 40 times while striking out just 23 while A-Rod walked 34 times and whiffed 52.

Paring it down even more, we turn to each player's performance in the late innings of close games. Ortiz came to bat 56 such times to A-Rod's 47, which worked out well for Boston because he came through. He delivered 12 extra-base hits (3 2B, 9 HR) to A-Rod's 6 (4 2B, 2 HR) and 20 RBI to A-Rod's 7. Papi hit .286 to Rodriguez's .255 and had a decided OPS margin of 1.224-.814. Ortiz also evened out his walks and strikeouts (11 each) while Rodriguez fanned twice as often (14) as he tossed the bat and jogged to first (six).

[Some more numbers were just brought to my attention by the aforementioned -- though not named -- friend, Will, who happens to be a Yankee fan: A-Rod's OPS splits with the bases empty/ runners on/ RISP are 1.106/.957/.894. Ortiz's are .993/1.006/1.043. With runners in scoring position and two outs, A-Rod's OPS is .940; Ortiz's 1.226.]

As for self-promotion -- or at least "company" promotion -- Boston's game notes for Sunday's finale pointed out that: 19 of Papi's HR came in the seventh inning or later; he hit 22 HR in his last 50 (then 51, after the finale) games and 16 HR in his last 35 (36); and slugged a club-record 11 in September.

Finally, 20 of Ortiz's 47 home runs either tied the game or gave Boston the lead. That's clutch. That's valuable. Take Ortiz out of Boston's lineup, and it's significantly deflated despite Johnny Damon, Manny Ramirez and Jason Varitek. Lose Rodriguez from the Yankees'? You've still got Derek Jeter, Gary Sheffield, Hideki Matsui, Jorge Posada and, to a lesser extent, a resurgent Jason Giambi.

Some will say that A-Rod wasn't the most valuable player on his team (Mariano Rivera was more important) while others will counter with Ortiz's mere 10 games in the field. I think the voters will take into account Rodriguez's fielding -- and perhaps base stealing -- and name him the MVP. But because of the splits, my vote would go to Ortiz. It remains to be seen if the voters looked that deeply into the numbers.

* * *
Not that it will mean anything, but some may find this interesting: The last time three Yankees eclipsed 110 RBI in the same season was 1938 when Joe DiMaggio (140), Bill Dickey (115) and Lou Gehrig (114) did so. Following A-Rod's 130 this year were Sheffield's 123 and Matsui's 116. In 1938, none of those three Yankees won the MVP. Dickey finished second with three first-place votes and 196 points, 109 behind the winner. DiMaggio was sixth in the voting and Gehrig 19th.

The winner in '38? Boston's Jimmie Foxx.

A hypothetical travesty

So Barry Bonds returns tonight.

He returns to an aging, veteran Giants team that, this morning sits seven games behind the Padres in the NL West. San Francisco is tied with the Diamondbacks and one game behind the Dodgers. They're 13 games under .500. A week ago, the earliest it was expected Bonds might play this month, they were 11 games below break-even and two games closer to first place.

The first question, of course, is, Why? Why is Bonds bothering? What's he trying to accomplish? He's not going significantly help the Giants this year, so why risk a career-ending injury for 20 meaningless games? (That's 20 team games. I doubt Bonds will play in each one.) Is it to bring the fans out for the final seven home games in a ballpark that already draws pretty well as it is? Is it to see if he can hit 11 home runs in those 17 games to tie Babe Ruth this season? Is it a selfish decision, either on his part or the part of the ballclub?

But the second question, in my mind, is tougher to answer, though much more hypothetical. I first thought of this a week ago, when his presence in the lineup for -- at the luckiest best -- six more games would have meant more. Say the Giants go on a tear of historic proportions. Say they win 17 of their last 20 against a schedule packed with NL West (and, by definition, weak) opponents, plus the Washington Nationals. Such a run would make the Giants 81-81. Is he that good? Some may say so.

Now say the three teams in front of San Francisco -- the Padres, Dodgers and Diamondbacks -- all play .500 ball the rest of the way. That puts the Padres at 81-81 as well, forcing a one-game playoff. Perhaps the Giants win that game with Noah Lowry going up against Jake Peavy, or perhaps Woody Williams, if Peavy's arm troubles turn out to be significant enough to affect him the rest of the way. Maybe Bonds plays a big part in that win, whether it's at Petco Park or by the Bay in San Fran.

Say all that happens. Say Barry Bonds plays as many as 17 of these 20 games, gets 70 plate apperances, give or take five or 10, and hits eight home runs while scoring 20 (owing to a dozen or two walks).

If all that happens, is Barry Bonds the NL MVP?

Unlike the Cy Young Award, which is intended for the best pitcher in the league for each season, the most valuable player award carries within it a definition of who should be eligible for the award. It doesn't say how that value should be measured, and while I would contend that the most valuable player in the league is the one whose numbers surpass -- or at least stack up with -- those of the best players in the league over the course of the entire season. A healthy player, to me, is more valuable than an injured one, no matter how well the injured one plays when he's in the lineup. There is virtually no situation, at least this year, in baseball in which an MVP-caliber player who misses significant time with an injury is replaced by a player of equal caliber.

Bonds is a great player, and he may have a significant impact during these past few weeks, but if he's still that good, wouldn't he have been more valuable to the Giants had he been healthier this year and given them more than 70 at bats? The team is 64-78 as of Monday morning; perhaps a full season of Bonds would have meant that they were 78-64 at this point. That record would be good enough for a seven-game lead today. I don't think a 30-game turnaround is that much of a stretch when we're talking about Bonds, at least not over 142 games.

But would he deserve the MVP? Clearly such a turnaround by the Giants would be attributed to his return. This is clearly an abnormal season in the NL when the entire East Division has a good chance of finishing at or above .500 while the West Division leader could earn that title with the same .500 mark. Had the Giants still gone 64-78 but the Padres managed to win just six more games than they have, it's doubtful the Giants would have a shot to make up 10 games over the last 20. My point there is that, yes, the Giants have an outside shot to win this division with Bonds back, but I think that has more to do with the ineptitude of the rest of the division to win games than it does with the Giants ability to stay in the race without their slugger. I believe that the Giants (and Diamondbacks, too, at 64-78) are "in the race" simply by default. First and foremost, it's de fault of the Padres.

To answer my own question, I agree that Bonds' return, if it does trigger a 17-3 run to close the season, would solidify him as one of the league's most valuable players this year. But no one disputes that. No one questions you when you say he's the Giants' MVP, or the most valuable player in the West Division. But is he the most valuable player in the National League for 2005? More valuable than Albert Pujols, who has helped the Cardinals to a 14-game lead and a magic number of 6 as of this morning despite injuries to just about every starting position on the field in St. Louis over the course of the season? Would Bonds be more valuable than Andruw Jones, who carried the Braves on his back when they were calling up players from Double-A to start in the place of veterans like Chipper Jones and Brian Jordan, or when they lost three starting pitchers to injury?

I don't think so. If I happen to be prescient enough to predict San Francisco's 17-3 season-ending tear, I think Bonds receives an alarming number of votes, but should fall behind Jones and Pujols (who has unfairly followed Bonds in this voting in previous years) in the final tally. What those two players did for their teams over the course of the full season have been more valuable than what Bonds could do in three weeks. In my mind, the five-and-a-half months he missed hurt the team more than the three weeks he'll provide.

Postseason awards picks

In a few hours, we'll learn the first of this season's award winners, and since I've been lazy and couldn't come up with a real analysis, here's the quick version:

NL MVP
I think Barry Bonds will win, yet again. But I think it should be Adrian Beltre. The simple argument/formula is take the player away from his team, and where would they be? Yes, if you take Bonds off the Giants, they're not good at all. They might be lucky to win 75 games. But the same can be said of Beltre. In 2003, the Dodgers made an unexpected run at the postseason on the strength of their pitching. They couldn't hit for anything. They needed an offensive upgrade, and their only key offseason acquisition was Juan Encarnacion, until Milton Bradley came over at the end of spring training. But the key to the division title was Beltre, a young player whom the Dodgers expected to become a superstar at least three years ago. He's been drafted in so many fantasy leagues with those expectations and been dropped y Memorial Day every year. Not this time. Granted, fantasy is far from reality, but Beltre was the most valuable player this year. I'm convinced that if major league managers had some guts and pitched to him more, he wouldn't have such gaudy numbers. For one, he wouldn't have a .680 on base percentage. His numbers are tainted in so many ways.

NL Cy Young
For the most part, I'm not a fan of the guy, but how can Roger Clemens not win it? Randy Johnson just didn't have the won-loss record, Jason Schmidt faded over the season's final six weeks and Carl Pavano didn't do enough in the final stretch to seal the award. Clemens, on the other hand, looked like his classic, dominating self for much of the season and led the Astros to the postseason. But the best part, from my perspective, is that if he had remained with the Yankees, they almost certainly would have reached the World Series, probably even won it.

NL Rookie of the Year
This one seems like a two-horse race. Those who dig deeper argue for San Diego shortstop Khalil Greene, whose offensive numbers are solid, but far from spectacular. His defense, however, is stellar and he looks like a veteran already. The other half generally falls in the camp of Pirates outfielder Jason Bay, who has the flashier home run and power numbers that Greene lacks. Bay, however, doesn't have the advantage of playing on a contender and has less support overall in his lineup. My vote would be for Bay because he seemed, to me, like the most outstanding rookie; I think his offensive numbers were impressive enough to outrank Greene's defensive contributions, though there is something to be said for a complete, all-around player. I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth here. End of story: I'm picking Bay, but I could see Greene getting it easily and I think it will be this year's closest award.

NL Manager of the Year
Bobby Cox. Perhaps for the first time since 1991, most pundits expected someone other than the Braves to win the NL East. I'm sure some of the Braves themselves thought so too. But after the games were played, the same team could be found atop the division. Really though, next year is the year for someone else.

AL MVP
This one will probably be close as well, coming down to Vladimir Guerrero, Gary Sheffield and Manny Ramirez. I'm going with Vlad. While Anaheim got a lot of headlines for all its offseason pickups, the strong-armed right fielder became the heart of the team and performed better than what was expected of him. He was arguably the only Angels pickup to do so. Bartolo Colon was dreadful for a good stretch and while Jose Guillen certainly showed he can hit, his end-of-season benching showed he's also, clearly, a head case. It was Guerrero who performed consistently throughout the season and who picked up the slack for the injured Garret Anderson and Troy Glaus. It's always tough with the Yankees, because when you apply the "if you take him out of the team's lineup" test, they usually have enough to compensate for the loss of any one player. Sheffield certainly did a lot for the Yanks, but even without him, they still had Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Hideki Matsui and Jorge Posada. And for much of the season, their pitching wasn't as bad as it became in the postseason, so they had the arms to make up for a loss at the plate. As for Manny, he falls into the same predicament Sheffield's in: a lineup that's too good.

AL Cy Young
Curt Schilling will be second. Johan Santana had the better numbers overall, and this award is a bit more straightforward. It's not which pitcher was most valuable to his team, it's which pitcher was the best. I'm sure Schilling got the hardware he wanted anyway.

AL Rookie of the Year
I think it goes to Bobby Crosby. The A's let Miguel Tejada leave because they thought Crosby was ready to be a big-league shortstop. Turns out they knew what they were talking about. Whether or not that decision meant the difference between first place and second place is another matter. (I happen to think it wasn't; thinking Arthur Rhodes could be your closer was much worse.)

AL Manager of the Year
Buck Showalter. How good would the Yankees be next year if they traded Rodriguez this winter? Look at the history: the 2000 Mariners with A-Rod were 91-71 and won the wild card. In 2001 they went 116-46, setting the AL record for most wins in a season, and won the division. In 2003, the Rangers (with A-Rod) went 71-91. This year they wre 89-73 and in the AL West race until the final two weeks, even without anything resembling a competitive pitching rotation. Anyway, Showalter pulled off the managing feat of this millenium so far. And be sure to put those World Series bets down on the Rangers the year after Buck leaves. His previous two jobs ended in 1995 with the Yankees and in 2000 with the Diamondbacks.