08/30/2004: Looks like I might be right....
Back on 8/16, I fretted that Barry Bonds was going to win the NL MVP award because the three candidates on the Cardinals (Albert "the Great" Pujols, Scott Rolen, and Jim Edmonds) were likely to split the vote.
Looks like Bernie Miklasz of the Post-Dispatch may agree with me there:
Last week I appeared on ESPN for a friendly debate with Art Spander, a columnist with the Oakland Tribune. Art made the case for Giants' extreme slugger Barry Bonds as the Most Valuable Player in the National League. I campaigned for Cardinals third baseman Scott Rolen.Nice to know I can call one right occasionally. Then again, a blind hog....
I don't know who won the debate, but I doubt that a Cardinal will win the MVP.
Here's why: Can St. Louis fans and observers reach an agreement on the Cardinals MVP?
Seriously. Rolen, first baseman Albert Pujols and center fielder Jim Edmonds have established legitimate credentials for team MVP consideration. How do you choose just one? And if there's uncertainty in St. Louis over the Cardinals' MVP, the indecision figures to make it difficult for national baseball writers to identify one Cardinal as being the most valuable overall.
Bonds doesn't have that problem. His numbers are galactic. Before Sunday night's game against Atlanta, Bonds had a .361 batting average, 36 homers, a remarkable .605 onbase percentage and a berserk slugging percentage of .803. Bonds is the Giants offense. He has kept his team in postseason contention. His offensive numbers are superior. In the Bill James stat of runs created, Bonds leads the NL with 160. Pujols is a distant second with 124. For voters who cling to the numbers, Bonds is king.
The Cardinals have three strong MVP candidates.
Ironically, that weakens the chances of the league's MVP award going to a Cardinal.
Len on 08.30.04 @ 06:41 AM CST