Personally, I think we should merge this thread with the "Is Cueto an Ace" thread. Create a subforum called "vocabulary 101 for statheads". :O) Just kidding guys, just kidding. But both threads just got funny after a while. Tons of posts/pages all debating the meaning of a word/phrase and how it's context alters the perception. Only on Redszone. *grin*
Would you vote for a player you didn't think was the best?
The definition of most valuable is actually extremely subjective however.
"This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
Griping that the MVP doesnt always go to the best player is kind of a played out argument. If you have to say it once a year to get it off your chest, fine. But no sense dragging out a thread over it.
The MVP is part production, part team results, and part media popularity. To not recognize it and move on just doesn't show a grasp on the reality of things. Not trying to be harsh, but recognize that different people vote for different factors.
Braun has had the best season and is on a contending team...I have to admit I'm suprised at the relative lack of outrage of him not being a serious contender given the overall sentiment of the board, i.e., allowing on field accomplishments of "cheaters" to be recognized by the HOF etc.
Last edited by kaldaniels; 09-25-2012 at 12:51 AM. Reason: spelling error
Again, if the award creators wanted the award to go to the best player they would have said so. They chose different wording, and can be assumed to mean something different.
In fact, they used the words "judged most valuable to his team (emphasis added). In other words, it's just not who's the most valuable, they've added in the concept of valuable to his team. If, as you say, the best player is the most valuable, why add in the concept of "to his team". It's very clear that to determine the MVP, one has to look at the team the player plays for. That immediately takes the meaning away from simply determining who the best player is. It's equally clear that the creators meant something different when they used the word valuable, because if, as you say, they meant best player, what would "best player to his team" mean?
And, in fact, the voters has consitently used a different interpretion from the one you say is clear and unambiguous.
Last edited by PuffyPig; 09-25-2012 at 12:54 AM.
The goal is to WIN as a team, not to perform as an individual. So the great player has a bad team? Tough luck. it will probably count against him in the voting. Unfair? Ah, such is life.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
Still nobody has answered my key question: If the award doesn't go to the best player then what value does it have? If the MVP doesn't go to the best player (it usually doesn't) then why should we care who wins it?
The whole false debate over the meaning of "valuable" is just an excuse writers use to justify voting for their favorite instead of the best player. It cheapens the award to the point of meaninglessness.
People are debating players' WAR scores and positional scarcity and all those things when none of that really matters that much. The writers will vote based on some twisted, nonsensical definitions of the word "value" and the award will likely go to a player who isn't the best and millions of fans will roll their eyes once again. People who actually care who wins the MVP don't know that much about baseball history in my opinion. Many past winners were so ridiculous that you just can't take this award seriously. The award has no meaning and no value.