The glue and also the man.

I don't even know why I'm doing this, but I stumbled across a random Wright-for-MVP argument:

"Overall dominance. 30 105 .322/.414/.550. 41 doubles. 34 steals in 39 attempts."

That is not dominant in any of those categories. He's top ten in a lot of offensive categories. The opposite of dominant. Rather, he's sort of an offensive jack-of-all-trades, master of none.


"Hitting with RISP. Wright is hitting .313/.439/.560. He’s actually a better hitter with RISP."

Well, the batting average is lower, but, whatever.


"Overcame a very slow start."

April counts when determining the 2007 MVP. As long as we're talking about April 2007.


"Carlos Delgado has been awful. Beltran has decreased his OPS this year by over 100 points. Jose Reyes down almost 50. Moises Alou has only played in 82 games. Which makes Wright’s performance all the more impressive."

Delgado has been awful, that much is true.

The other points are not points at all.

Beltran is "down?" What does that mean? Compared to what? Beltran's 2006? That's why D. Wright is the NL MVP in 2007?

Beltran has more homeruns and rbis than Wright in 20 fewer games. Plus, Beltran is a better defender at a more important position. Beltran's OPS is down and he's still better than Wright.

Is that a convincing Wright-for-MVP argument?

Alou has only played in 82 games but has hit .340 in those games.

Rollins scored 100 million runs for the third year in a row even though Utley and Howard spent time on the DL.

Every team has players who are on the DL and other players who are disappointing.


"Wright’s OPS? Up over 50 points from last year."

I'm baffled by this tack.

Are we discussing Most Improved Player or Most Valuable Player?

Is Carlos Pena the MVP of the American League?


"He’s been the glue, the man and any other superlative you can add to him."

Okay, but Prince Fielder has been the glue, the man, and the Thing from the Fantastic Four.

Also, Prince Fielder has been "any other superlative you can add to him."

What I'm saying is, go ahead and add any superlative you want to Prince Fielder and Prince Fielder has been that superlative.


Also, I don't know if this counts for anything, but, down the stretch, the Mets are coming apart at the seams in an embarrassing manner. If Wright is the glue, maybe he's the same glue they used in the Ted Williams tunnel.


"He’s hit 9 of his homers against Atlanta and Philly. You’d think he would be pounding the lesser teams but he has hit only 3 against Washington and Florida."

A whole nine, huh?


"In New York they are marveling at his improvement on defense."

I guess one guy, David Lennon, is marveling at Wright's improvement on defense, but 21 errors is a heck of a lot.

David Lennon is "in New York." I will concede that point.

But, again, what difference does it really make if Wright improved?

This is a discussion of the 2007 season and the relative value of the NL baseball players in 2007. While Wright is a legit superstar -- 30 and 100 is nothing to sneeze at -- there is no way he is the best player in the NL in 2007.