AL mvp....

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Of course not, because writers seem to have some crazy ideas that only a player on a playoff contender can be valuable, or that, at least in the past, defense didn't matter much at all, nor did the position you played. I think that in general, they are getting better as a whole at understanding the game better than they used to. It is their award and they can do whatever they want with it in terms of voting or how they go about voting. But I would generally go about it quite differently than they have historically done it.

The writers may have such a crazy idea becuase the award is not based on "the best player in the league", but instead is awarded to the player who is, IIRC, "judged the most valuable".

One can argue that "the best player" means the same as the player "judged the most valuable", but it's losing argument.

If the award was meant to be given to the best player it would simply have said so. Whomever decided on this award obviously meant something else, otherwise they would simply have chosen the simple words.

Many voters feel that a great player on a losing team wasn't that valuable, becuase that team would have easily lost without that player. In other words, a really valuable player helps his team contend towards the playoffs.

[dougdirt]

Most Valuable = provided the most value.

Being the best performer provides the most value.

[Patrick Bateman]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Most Valuable = provided the most value.

Being the best performer provides the most value.

Did you not read his post?

He is agreeing with you, however, the award, has and always will be judged in a different light, even if the wording of MVP is consistent with your definition.

Simply put, those who vote, use a different definition. So to keep arguing the same thing over and over, is simplt not, and never will be how the award is viewed.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

Did you not read his post?

He is agreeing with you, however, the award, has and always will be judged in a different light, even if the wording of MVP is consistent with your definition.

Simply put, those who vote, use a different definition. So to keep arguing the same thing over and over, is simplt not, and never will be how the award is viewed.

I read it.

I dream of one day when the award for the Most Valuable Player actually goes to the player who was the most valuable player.

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Most Valuable = provided the most value.

Being the best performer provides the most value.

If they had wanted to give it to the best player, they would simply have said "best player". The very fact that they used different wording suggests they were trying to convey a different meaning. That's the first rule of interpretation. And, in fact, the voters have interpreted a different meaning.

But I disagree that the best performer always provides the most value. One can actually argue that if you had two excellent players of equal offensive ability, that the player on the worse team may actually provide more value to his team as they needed him more. Or, in other words, an excellent player surrounded by other excellent players may actually make less of a positive difference to his team.

I think voters have historically looked at choosing the player they felt "his team couldn't have been successful without him". And that's a far cry from choosing who is simply the best.

IIRC, the Sporting News recognizes the "Player of the Year " in each league. That player is sometimes also the MVP, but is often not. Maybe it's time for the major leagues to have a similar award.

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

I read it.

I dream of one day when the award for the Most Valuable Player actually goes to the player who was the most valuable player.

And to think some people dream about world peace, diversity in the work place, equality, etc. They surely need more worthy pursuits......

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

And to think some people dream about world peace, diversity in the work place, equality, etc. They surely need more worthy pursuits......

What kind of person only has one dream?

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

What kind of person only has one dream?

Assuming you meant it as a serious question, I'd say a "Martin Luther King Jr." type of person.

When the dream is important enough, I'm guessing it's singular and all consuming.

[Patrick Bateman]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

I read it.

I dream of one day when the award for the Most Valuable Player actually goes to the player who was the most valuable player.

My point is, that, everyone gets the opinion that you are saying.

But simply put, that's not reality, and even if you disagree with it, there is nothing wrong with trying to argue who should win it under the "current standards" that are assigned to the award without having the same argument thrown back all of the time. There is room for both thoughts.

[AtomicDumpling]

The key word in any MVP debate is "Valuable". What makes a player Valuable? What makes the MVP Award itself Valuable?

If you don't give the award to the best player then what is the point of giving out such an "award" at all? It is a meaningless trophy if it doesn't go to the best player.

I think almost everyone will agree that winning the MVP Award definitely does not indicate you were the best player. Right? Is there anyone who wants to claim that the MVP Award tells us who the best player was each year? Nobody believes that. So what Value does the award really have? What does it mean? Why should we care?

Looking back at history the award is usually given to a player that was quite clearly not the best. If you really want to know who the best player was in any given year the MVP Award won't guide you to the right guy. I just don't see why I should care about the MVP Award, it clearly doesn't mean much.

Giving an MVP Award to the 2nd-best player makes just about as much sense as giving the championship title to a 2nd-place team. Now baseball does both.

[dougdirt]

To be fair, baseball does not award the MVP trophy, the BBWAA does.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

If they had wanted to give it to the best player, they would simply have said "best player". The very fact that they used different wording suggests they were trying to convey a different meaning. That's the first rule of interpretation. And, in fact, the voters have interpreted a different meaning.

How does "most valuable" differ in meaning from "best"? To the general public in all walks of life the term MVP means the best player in the sport.

I think it is clear that when the award was first created it was intended to go to the best player in the league. They chose the title Most Valuable Player Award because it sounds a lot more prestigious and desirable than the "Best Player Award. I don't think the creators fully intended the voters to parse the meaning of the word "valuable" in strange ways when they first created the award. I think that way of thinking came about much later when it became obvious that the writers needed an excuse for giving the award to a lot of undeserving players over the years.

They didn't call it the "Player Who Provided the Most Value Award" either, which is what some sportswriters think Most Valuable Player means. There is a difference between "provided the most value" and "most valuable". Technically, "Most Valuable" literally means the player with the highest price (value) if he were for sale. If every player in the league was put up for auction where any team could buy his performance for the season, which player would sell for the highest price? That is what Most Valuable actually means, but the writers don't think of it that way because that would obviously make the best player the most valuable player.

The distorted definition of Most Valuable Player used by writers is "best player on a good team", which is merely an excuse they use for voting for someone who was obviously not the best player in the league. It is a CYA excuse for making a poor choice. It is a cop-out for a voter to employ to defend himself when he gets ridiculed for supporting an undeserving candidate.

I can understand people voting differently because they disagree on which player was the best. I just don't understand why someone would even want to vote for a 2nd-rate player just because he was on a better team.

My advice to sportswriters with an MVP vote: cast your vote for the player whom you truly think is the best player and then you won't have millions of baseball fans thinking you are an idiot.

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

How does "most valuable" differ in meaning from "best"? To the general public in all walks of life the term MVP means the best player in the sport.

The MVP is historically not a calculator award like the Cy Young though. MVP has always had a narrative element, and that means that players contributing to success rather than failure always have the leg up. There's an argument against that interpretation for sure, but I don't think you can completely discount the other side of the coin.

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

How does "most valuable" differ in meaning from "best"? To the general public in all walks of life the term MVP means the best player in the sport.

If the creators had intended the award to go to the best player, why didn't they simply say so?

Remember, it's not the writers who interpreted the criteria to the MVP, the criteria was set forth as the player judged the most valuable to his team. The creators clearly weren't intending to necessarily give the award to the best player. If they did, they would have simply said so. But they didn't. They choose different wording. So, if you follow interpretation rules, they chose different words because they wanted to convey a different meaning.

Clearly the writers don't view "MVP" as meaning the best player. Which makes sense, as they are basing it on the criteria thay are supposed to consider.

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

The key word in any MVP debate is "Valuable". What makes a player Valuable? What makes the MVP Award itself Valuable?

If you don't give the award to the best player then what is the point of giving out such an "award" at all? It is a meaningless trophy if it doesn't go to the best player.

The Cy Young award isn't given to the best player, it's given to the best pitcher.

The Rookie of the Year award isn't given to the best player, it's given to the best rookie.

The Comeback Player of the Year isn't given to the best player, it's given to the player who's made a great comeback from a poor season or injury.

The MVP isn't given to the best player, it;s given to the player judged most valuable to his team.

Are they all meaningless?