Written by 
© Scott Ableman
Allow us, just this once, to divert from the glorious world of football and into that of baseball. Or more specifically, those who write about baseball. Remember, these are the same folks who hand out the awards that often leave knowledgeable fans shaking their head.
And so it is that we run into someone named Barry Federovitch, who writes for The Times of Trenton. He thinks Ryan Howard should be NL MVP over Albert Pujols, which is fine, as he's more than allowed his opinion. But shouldn't there be, you know, legitimate reasons?
First, he readily admits this: "Ryan Howard isn't the best first baseman in the National League; Albert Pujols and Lance Berkman own large margins in both slugging percentage and on-base percentage. Pujols and Berkman are far superior fielders …" Wow, okay, sounds like a ringing endorsement so far. But then he does go on to mention Howard's very impressive home run (48) and RBI (146) totals, and his spectacular September, given that Howard hit .352 with 11 homers and 32 RBI.
And then he writes something that is both fascinating and absurd in making an argument for Howard's MVP candidacy: "The strikeouts? In case you haven't noticed, Howard may not reach the 200 mark as anticipated, an incredible feat since he had 78 by the end of May. He's not even leading the league anymore in that category."
Huh? Howard strikes out 199 times – tying himself for the second-highest single season total in the more than 100-year history of baseball – and that's an incredible feat? Arizona's Mark Reynolds set the record this year with 204 Ks, so Howard gets credit for not leading the league? What freaking planet am I on? What the hell is this guy talking about?
Oh, and about the month of September, it wasn't like Pujols' was too shabby: .321, 8 home runs, 27 RBI. So basically, .031 points of batting average, 3 home runs and 5 RBI means Howard deserves the MVP over Pujols?
How about we check their averages in the other months of the season? Even if they don't count in Mr. Federovitch's fantasyland world, they do in everyone else's.
April
Pujols: .365
Howard: .168
May
Pujols: .373
Howard: .238
June
Pujols: .302
Howard: .234
July
Pujols: .347
Howard: .311
August
Pujols: .398
Howard: .213
Look at those numbers. They're ridiculously one-sided. We know that Howard has Pujols beat in home runs and RBI, but let's check some of the other stats, shall we?
OBP
Pujols: .462
Howard: .339
SLG
Pujols: .653
Howard: .543
OPS+
Pujols: 190
Howard: 123
Runs Created
Pujols: 160
Howard: 113
Batting Wins (Number of wins a player added to his team relative to a league-average hitter)
Pujols: 7.1
Howard: 1.7
Offensive Winning Percentage (Estimate of winning percentage if a team was made up of just this player)
Pujols: .833
Howard: .618
Folks, it goes on and on like this with pretty much every available number slanting in Pujols' favor. Ryan Howard had a nice season and amassed wonderful power totals, but those of us who aren't cavemen recognize there is so much more to the game than home runs and RBI.
Which is why the old guard of sports writers should not be voting on these awards. Some of them are diligent in their research and look at more than the old standards of greatness, but then there are guys like this Federovitch fellow – and I have no idea if he is an awards voter or not – who in his heart of hearts probably truly believes that .031 points of batting average, 3 home runs and 5 RBI means Ryan Howard deserves the MVP and Albert Pujols does not. Yet another reason not to believe what you see in the sport of baseball.
Amen brother. Old guard sportswriters are quite the tools. They can’t even make a convincing argument. At least if I took my Cub fandome to an extreme, and suggested Geovany Soto, I could posit that he’s the best at his position. But I have my limits too.