PDA

View Full Version : Who is really more valuable (MVP)?



red-in-la
09-03-2010, 07:38 AM
If I just returned from a two year trip to Mars, and learned that Albert Pujols had won NL Player of the Month for August whilst his team lost a stunning 9 games in the division between August 11th and the end of the month, who would I vote for for MVP (if I actually had a vote) and why?

Actually, I wasn't gone to Mars but was just as stunned to learn that Pujols had won NL Player of the Month for August.

I am now really confused as to the parameters used to elect the MVP.

UKFlounder
09-03-2010, 07:54 AM
Are "player of the month" and MVP really related? "Player of the month" sounds like an award based only on stats, without taking into account "value" and Pujols may have earned it. (I have not seen the numbers.)

MVP is a bit more nebulous. Obviously stats play a great factor in the decision, but that word "value" (which is missing from the "player of the month" award) adds a lot of debate as to just what it means.

I don't think Pujols winning player of the month has any effect on the MVP race at all. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see those two having the exact same standards nor do I see the monthly award adding any certainty to how the yearly award is decided.

Roy Tucker
09-03-2010, 07:56 AM
If I just returned from a two year trip to Mars, and learned that Albert Pujols had won NL Player of the Month for August whilst his team lost a stunning 9 games in the division between August 11th and the end of the month, who would I vote for for MVP (if I actually had a vote) and why?

Actually, I wasn't gone to Mars but was just as stunned to learn that Pujols had won NL Player of the Month for August.

I am now really confused as to the parameters used to elect the MVP.

That was my first thought too when I saw the crawler on MLB network, i.e. huh?!?!

Its the classic debate of MVP vs. player of the year. Is the player with the best stats or the player that enabled his team to win the most?

Its hard to argue against Albert's monster .379/.453/.777/1.230 month of August. But his team also went down the drain for the second half of the month to go from 1 game up to 8 games down.

Dunno.

Screwball
09-03-2010, 08:01 AM
Pujols had a better month of August, and deserved the POTM award. Votto's had a better 2010 season (so far), and IMO deserves the MVP award.

oneupper
09-03-2010, 08:31 AM
POTM (and its lesser brethren POTW) has always been stats related. And it's better than way, so players from also-ran clubs can also compete for it and win it. IIRC, some REDS have won it over the past few years (Dunn comes to mind).
This time it happened to be Pujols, who pumped water furiously as his ship took it on even faster. So be it, good for him.

VR
09-03-2010, 01:17 PM
yeah, player o' the month ain't no big deal relative to wins and losses, never has been.

MVP discussion....

MVP of the league....Joey Votto

Best player on the Reds is Joey Votto.


Most valuable player on the Reds is Scott Rolen.

That would be my vote.

blumj
09-03-2010, 01:45 PM
yeah, player o' the month ain't no big deal relative to wins and losses, never has been.

MVP discussion....

MVP of the league....Joey Votto

Best player on the Reds is Joey Votto.


Most valuable player on the Reds is Scott Rolen.

That would be my vote.

Okay, I don't understand this. How do you consider one player the most valuable player in the league and one of his teammates as being more valuable to the same team?

oneupper
09-03-2010, 01:52 PM
yeah, player o' the month ain't no big deal relative to wins and losses, never has been.

MVP discussion....

MVP of the league....Joey Votto

Best player on the Reds is Joey Votto.


Most valuable player on the Reds is Scott Rolen.

That would be my vote.

I absolutely get this and kind of agree.

dougdirt
09-03-2010, 02:02 PM
Most Valuable means just that. The idea that the MVP needs to be on a winning team is flat out stupid. Either the guy is the most valuable player or he isn't. If a guy hits .350/.450/.600 for the 2010 Pirates or the 2010 Reds it doesn't matter. His value is the same. The guy who has the best stats should ALWAYS win the MVP, because that is what he was, the Most Valuable Player. It isn't the MVPFATIC (most valuable player for a team in contention). Its the MVP.

guttle11
09-03-2010, 02:23 PM
Most Valuable means just that. The idea that the MVP needs to be on a winning team is flat out stupid. Either the guy is the most valuable player or he isn't. If a guy hits .350/.450/.600 for the 2010 Pirates or the 2010 Reds it doesn't matter. His value is the same. The guy who has the best stats should ALWAYS win the MVP, because that is what he was, the Most Valuable Player. It isn't the MVPFATIC (most valuable player for a team in contention). Its the MVP.

I disagree with your absolute. "Value" is open to interpretation. I don't necessarily think there's a right or wrong answer among legit MVP candidates. Personally, I will always give extra weight to a guy in a pennant race over someone on a losing team. It's not the guy in the latter situation's fault, but it is what it is. There's an art to shining in the bright lights, and it should be rewarded. Don Larson's perfect game and Reggie Jackson's 3 home runs would have counted the same in June, but in the World Series they are iconic moments. They just mattered more. Same goes when a pennant is up for grabs.

BTW, let's not count out Carlos Gonzalez in the MVP race. He's gotten himself very close to Pujols and Votto in terms of numbers, and is doing it on a team on an upswing, trying to claw back in the divison and WC race. Unless Pujols goes off and ends up winning the Triple Crown somehow (not going to happen, Infante will win the batting title barring injury or unforeseen slump), I think Votto and CarGo are 1-2 in the MVP race.

PuffyPig
09-03-2010, 02:57 PM
Most Valuable means just that. The idea that the MVP needs to be on a winning team is flat out stupid. Either the guy is the most valuable player or he isn't. If a guy hits .350/.450/.600 for the 2010 Pirates or the 2010 Reds it doesn't matter. His value is the same. The guy who has the best stats should ALWAYS win the MVP, because that is what he was, the Most Valuable Player. It isn't the MVPFATIC (most valuable player for a team in contention). Its the MVP.


If the MVP was to go to the best player it wouldn't be called MVP, but POY.

One might suggest that an equvalent player on a poor team is actually more valuable than one on a good team as he'd needed more, hence more valuable.

Since sports are about winning, the MVP is really about helping your team win, and if your team isn't winning, its not particularly valuable.

But stats don't always equate to value, its the timing of those stats and how much they help in winning that determines their value.

The MVP has often gone to players with less stats who have helped their team win. I see nothing wrong with that.

blumj
09-03-2010, 03:27 PM
I absolutely get this and kind of agree.
Can one of you explain it to me, then? I had a similar discussion with a Twins fan about Mauer/Morneau last season and another about Youkilis/Pedroia the year before, and I didn't get it either of those times, either. Seems to me that being MVP of your team has to be the minimum requirement for consideration for MVP of the league.

oneupper
09-03-2010, 04:27 PM
Can one of you explain it to me, then? I had a similar discussion with a Twins fan about Mauer/Morneau last season and another about Youkilis/Pedroia the year before, and I didn't get it either of those times, either. Seems to me that being MVP of your team has to be the minimum requirement for consideration for MVP of the league.

OK. I'll try. How about this?

League MVP = Player whose performance stands out among his league peers in terms of production and contribution to team success.

Team MVP = Player whose performance and presence is the key ingredient in the team's success.

Definitely not straight Spock-like logic. But you could argue that the REDS clicked once Rolen came over and Votto carried them to the playoffs.
And that would fit within these definitions.

It's fuzzy, I know. These things are like that.

BCubb2003
09-03-2010, 04:31 PM
"We could have finished last without you!"

blumj
09-03-2010, 07:45 PM
OK. I'll try. How about this?

League MVP = Player whose performance stands out among his league peers in terms of production and contribution to team success.

Team MVP = Player whose performance and presence is the key ingredient in the team's success.

Definitely not straight Spock-like logic. But you could argue that the REDS clicked once Rolen came over and Votto carried them to the playoffs.
And that would fit within these definitions.

It's fuzzy, I know. These things are like that.
Extra credit for showing up later? Real fuzzy.

Mario-Rijo
09-03-2010, 09:48 PM
OK. I'll try. How about this?

League MVP = Player whose performance stands out among his league peers in terms of production and contribution to team success.

Team MVP = Player whose performance and presence is the key ingredient in the team's success.

Definitely not straight Spock-like logic. But you could argue that the REDS clicked once Rolen came over and Votto carried them to the playoffs.
And that would fit within these definitions.

It's fuzzy, I know. These things are like that.

Team MVP = It's about winning.

League MVP = It's about production, mostly.