Most Valuable Player - they got it wrong, again
Albert Pujols is the best player in baseball.
Today, and forever, he is the 2008 National League MVP. As we all know, he played on a fourth-place team. He was the best player in baseball this past year, on a team that finished below Houston.
Some of you may know where I'm going with this, so hang on. But first, Brad Lidge was the MVP of the National League this past year. He saved every game he was asked to. Without him, the Phils do not win the East, let alone the whole bowl of chips. I understand the voting took place before the playoffs, but as we well know here in Cubland, a bad closer equals lots of games pissed away equals a poor record and no postseason play. Lidge was the Beast from day one to day last, and he should have been the MVP this year.
But Pujols was the best player in the league. Just like Andre Dawson was the best player in baseball in 1987, and of course, he won an MVP for a LAST place team. Albeit, a team within 3 games of fourth.
The difference? Naturally, I am preaching to the wrong choir here, since none of us probably followed Pujols as closely as I followed Dawson in 1987. I know that Dawson did not hit .220 in September, as Pujols did this year. Yes, Pujols has a bad elbow. Dawson's knees (rather infamously) were "bone rubbing against bone" as Harry Caray pointed out a million times that summer.
Anyway, if anyone did in fact follow Pujols day in, day out, this year, you can let us know. Yes, he pretty much Led his team's offense this year, but I did not notice that he literally picked his team up and carried them on his back,as Dawson did that year. Dawson had about 15 more homers and 20 more RBIs in an deader offensive era. The Cubs won 77 games that year. Without Dawson, they might have not won 60.
Pujols is the best player currently in baseball. In 1987, Dawson was a Force of Nature. He simply wasn't human. That's why he deserved an MVP and Pujols doesn't.