Ryan Howard is a fine player; he’s clearly one of those guys who is overrated by the traditional fans and, for that basis, becomes something a whipping boy for the saber crowd. It is important to note that the stat guys, the group with which I identify, (generally speaking) don’t make these points to slander Howard or demean his value (we think he is very good), but just to highlight how incomplete a picture focusing on the triple crown stats give you of his prowess, and that of others.

Ryan Howard is not on the short list of the best players in baseball. That’s it. Nothing really to see here.

By the way, his “proving” his clutchiness in the postseason the past few years is kind of like that time two years ago when I “proved” my roulette skills when I was down to my last few chips down in Atlantic City. You would realize this too is possible if you played roulette and instructed on gambling theory and oddsmaking. ...What, that sounds ridiculous? Yeah, it does, doesn’t it!

While I agree with Neyer that, in general, big-RBI guys are overrated, he ignores the scarcity issue. As you get higher on the performance curve, it’s harder and harder to find players. So even though Ryan Howard’s hitting is only moderately better than Choo’s, it’s a crucial advantage. There are lots of guys who hit like Choo, but a lot fewer who hit like Howard. Scarcity makes Howard more valuable than he appears.

@Jim C - You’re right, Howard is much skinnier this year.  But, that doesn’t change the point that he probably has peaked and is quickly approaching the beginning of his decline phase, assuming he ages like most hitters with his skill set.
And, I’ll take A-Rod.  Overall, he’s a better hitter than Howard, and he plays a tougher defensive position.

He’s done something only four players have done,40/130 for four straight years…

Um, okay. What is particularly significant about the arbitrary milestones of 40, 130, or four consecutive years? The answer is nothing.

Albert Pujols hasn’t done it. Alex Rodriguez hasn’t done it. Does that mean it is evidence of how rare the feat is and how prolific Howard is for having accomplished it? No, quite the opposite, in fact. It means that the milestones are arbitrary and of no significance unto themselves.

This discussion brings to mind Bill James’s comment about how it’s not difficult at all to pluck arbitrary cut-off points in a combination of statistical players that will misrepresent a merely good, or very good, player among those of historical significance. One of my personal faves is the 300 HR, 300 SB, 400 2B club, consisting of Barry Bonds, Mays, Dawson, and Steve Finley. (If you drop the 2B benchmark to 300, you add Bobby Bonds and Reggie Sanders) Anyway, the point is you have a few all-time greats, some borderline HOF-ers/occassional MVP candidates, and some occassional All Stars. The combination of the milestones doesn’t actually mean much of anything at all in regards to whether the achieiving player was historically great, very good, or just good, but to possess a complimentary skill set and circumstance allowing him to achieve the same numbers. 

Further, Howard hits in a juggernaut of a line-up and plays in a phone booth. Do we ignore that? From 1998 - 2002, Todd Helton averaged 39 HR and 128 RBI, barely off the pace, but nobody really cares. Why? Because context matters. The irony, of course, is that Helton was a better player in his prime than Howard anyway…

And, just to throw some more gas on to this stat guys vs. non stat guys debate, does the fact that you fellas are arguing Howard’s prolificness mean that we’ve finally convinced you that his 200Ks are ostensibly meaningless?