AL mvp....

[dougdirt]

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.

Good players don't contribute to failure. Players in the MVP conversation aren't contributing to losing. They are making their team better, even if the rest of their team isn't that good.

[_Sir_Charles_]

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*

[AtomicDumpling]

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?

Your post says it all. Only the MVP is not given to the best, therefore only the MVP is meaningless.

[Superdude]

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*

I think we'd ultimately realize the subforum is RedsZone, and then we'd need a subforum of the subforum. It'd be like a russian doll of semantics.

[AtomicDumpling]

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.

They did say so. Most Valuable Player is extremely clear. The best player is the most valuable player. It is a distortion of "valuable" to interpret the word any other way. Valuable is not an ambiguous word. Any other interpretation really makes no sense because they are trying to assign value to the player that was created or lost by other players.

Would you vote for a player you didn't think was the best?

[jojo]

The definition of most valuable is actually extremely subjective however.

[AtomicDumpling]

The definition of most valuable is actually extremely subjective however.

A definition is by definition definite. It is defined. No subjectivity involved. The meaning of the word "valuable" has been clearly defined.

[_Sir_Charles_]

I think we'd ultimately realize the subforum is RedsZone, and then we'd need a subforum of the subforum. It'd be like a russian doll of semantics.

LOL. Yep, WHAT was I thinking.

[Superdude]

A definition is by definition definite. It is defined. No subjectivity involved. The meaning of the word "valuable" has been clearly defined.

No No No...something definite is clearly defined, but a definition isn't always definite. Some things are and some things are not. Things that are not can't be!

[_Sir_Charles_]

And with that, Superdude has won the internets. Congratulations!!! *high five* :O)

[kaldaniels]

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.

[PuffyPig]

They did say so. Most Valuable Player is extremely clear. The best player is the most valuable player. It is a distortion of "valuable" to interpret the word any other way. Valuable is not an ambiguous word. Any other interpretation really makes no sense because they are trying to assign value to the player that was created or lost by other players.

It's so clear that voters since the award was created haven't always voted for the best player.

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.

[oneupper]

It's so clear that voters since the award was created haven't always voted for the best player.

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.

This is true and while many have a problem with this (Teddy Ballgame himself was more upset about being left of the ballot by some resentful sportswriter than actually losing to a Yankee, since they DID win the pennant) and I used to also, now I'm ok with it.

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.

[AtomicDumpling]

It's so clear that voters since the award was created haven't always voted for the best player.

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.

LOL the "to his team" part doesn't change a thing. What other team is he providing value to? He is a player on a team, so of course his value goes to his team. Goes without saying.

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.

[AtomicDumpling]

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.

Well you just pretty much proved the whole point of the discussion. Player performance doesn't have much to do with the MVP Award. It is not an argument because everybody already knows it is true. Nobody is griping about it. Just pointing out the hypocrisy and meaninglessness of the "award". It is funny when so many people get all worked up and arguing over who should get the award when the award is so obviously worthless.

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.