On the Mets beat

Delgado is not the Mets MVP, let alone the National League MVP. For starters, what does it say about a guy's, um, valueableness, when he mails it in for the first few months of the season because he doesn't like the manager? Second, yes, Delgado has gotten big hits in the second half and these hits have helped bring the Mets out of the abyss and into first place. However, if not for Delgado, among others, deciding not to show up the first few months, there would be no need for him to go all Babe Ruth just to get the Mets back to where they should have been all along. If you want a Mets FULL SEASON MVP, and a potential league MVP, look no further than David Wright. It seems Wright is being overlooked, and perhaps overshadowed by Delgado, because he committed the cardinal sin of being consistently good all year long. The horror! Here are Wright's monthly batting averages, on base and slugging percentages, along with HRs and RBI:

April: .272/.409/.511/4/20

May: .287/.364/.530 7/17

June: .279/.350/.413/4/24

July: 317/.431/.574/5/19

August: .310/.370/.575 7/20

Now, add those consistently solid numbers to sound base running/stealing and sprinkle in some Gold Glove level defense at a much more demanding position than first base, and what you have is a legitimate team MVP candidate. Combine that with the fact that this Mets team is now in first place despite a roller coaster season with ups and downs, managerial firings, turmoil, the constant reminder of The Great Mets Collapse of 2007 (when Wright was the only guy that hit), and amidst this craziness, Wright was and continues to be a beacon of solid consistency. This makes Wright a legit National League MVP candidate and Delgado a solid bounce back candidate

unrelated but David, are the Mets done with Trot Nixon? I was surprised he wasn't a call up. He was with the team for what a week?

So his .259 BA would be the lowest MVP BA ever, AND the first under .260? Really? Tell me, would it also be the first MVP in the 250s? How about the first with a 2, 5 and 9 in it?

You missed so many opportunities to make the same point over and over, I'm surprised you stopped at two in successive graphs.

So if the season ended today and Delgado won the award with a .259 average, it would be the lowest average for a MVP in baseball history, AND the first to be below .260?

Wow, that's TWO arguments with one point! Well done! But why stop there? It would also be the first MVP to be in the 250s! AND the first to have a 2, 5 and 9 in his average! If Delgado wins the award with a .259 average, it would be lower than the current lowest average ever too! It would also be the first time an average as low as .259 got first place in the MVP voting!

i had to change the text to post twice, but you get the idea.

This entire article is just proof of how much of a moron Jim Baumbach is.