Mvp

[RedsManRick]

Who, in the generic sense, should the MVP award go to?

As a follow-up, do you see a difference in the "value" based on how much help a guy has? That is, if two players perform equally well, but one player contributes a greater percentage of his team's overall production because his team sucks, does that make him more valuable?

For the sake of debate, my answer is that the MVP should go to the best player in the league, bar none, all contributions considered (offense, defense, pitching). If you could choose 1 player to have on a team for 1 year based on their performance from that season, who do you choose?

Just like the pitchers have a "Cy Young", I'd create/rename an award specifically to recognize great hitting prowess.

[Z-Fly]

It has always been a debate.

Some say it should go to the best player on the best team. Some say it should go to the best player in the league. Some say it should go the best player on a team in the hunt.

I don't know the answer.

I always thought it would be fun to do something like production/salary and see who had the best ratio.

[Chip R]

The most valuable player in the league. :devil:

Seriously, I think it should go to the player who their team could least have afforded to lose. Like this year, would the Phillies done worse without Howard than the Cardinals would have done without Pujols?

[Z-Fly]

The most valuable player in the league. :devil:

Seriously, I think it should go to the player who their team could least have afforded to lose. Like this year, would the Phillies done worse without Howard than the Cardinals would have done without Pujols?

Sometimes that would be hard to judge IMO.

[TeamSelig]

I don't think its right to not give someone an award because the rest of his team is good enough to make the playoffs..

Best position player in the league, period.

Pitchers have their own award.

Also, take in factors of how well they played toward the end of the season. JM was a good example of this. He was a big part of the reason why they came back & made the playoffs.

[texasdave]

Seriously, I think it should go to the player who their team could least have afforded to lose. Like this year, would the Phillies done worse without Howard than the Cardinals would have done without Pujols?

The Astros minus Lance Berkmann would not have been a pretty sight to see.

[Chip R]

Sometimes that would be hard to judge IMO.

Like it isn't hard to judge the current way? It's a subjective process. Always has been, always will.

[FutureRedsGM]

Other - the player that contributes MOST to his teams success (therefore making him most valuable).

[Highlifeman21]

Best player in the league.

More specifically, whoever leads their respective league in non-defensive Win Shares:D

That could easily mean if the best pitcher has more WS than the batting WS leader, give it to an arm, or vice versa.

Enough of this RBI stuff, that's so yesterday.

[Danny Serafini]

Just like the pitchers have a "Cy Young", I'd create/rename an award specifically to recognize great hitting prowess.

They have the Hank Aaron Award, it's just that nobody cares.

[RedsManRick]

They have the Hank Aaron Award, it's just that nobody cares.

Classic case of the tail wagging the dog, IMO.

[RedsManRick]

Also, take in factors of how well they played toward the end of the season. JM was a good example of this. He was a big part of the reason why they came back & made the playoffs.

Do wins/runs later in the season mean more than wins/runs in April.

[Chip R]

They have the Hank Aaron Award, it's just that nobody cares.


I'll bet Hank Aaron cares. :)

[M2]

I've never seen the league value in a guy piling up stats on a lousy team. His performance hasn't affected the league and opposing teams probably haven't pitched him as tough as they could because he's probably coming up in a lot of situations where that individual AB isn't going to have a ton of bearing on the outcome of the game.

If they want to call it the Statistiscally Best Player in the League Award, which is essentially what the Cy Young serves as for pitchers, that would be a major departure from what the MVP is and has been. If they want to continue to call it the MVP with the stated primary criteria of the making direct contributions to a team's ability to win, then they've made quality of the team a de facto standard. If your team hasn't won enough then your contributions went for naught and you're not the most valuable player in the league. You may be the best player, but you've unfortunately found yourself in a position where your performance didn't translate into value.

[RedLegSuperStar]

Best Player In League

Most Valuable Player

Whether it be pitching or a position player

[Will M]

Now often the 'best player' is the one who gets those clutch hits in the BIG games not the meaningless blowouts. So it is not just based on stats. When platers have similar stats you have to look deeper. When one clearly dwarfs the league ( ala Andre Dawson in 1987 ) it goes to him.

[TOBTTReds]

The most valuable player in the league. :devil:

Seriously, I think it should go to the player who their team could least have afforded to lose. Like this year, would the Phillies done worse without Howard than the Cardinals would have done without Pujols?

I agree. The award is not Best Player, it is Most Valuable Player (to their team, so I have assumed).

This whole playoffs argument is ridiculous as the Cards were worse than the Phils in a bad division. Either way, it is the most valuable to the team.

Either one is a good vote, neither have star studed teammates.

That is why I would vote against a Yankee (like Jeter, unless he or a Yankee has a never seen before season). I just think they have so many good bats, that without him they would still score the most runs, and his D is so-so.

[Patpacillosjock]

best player.

baseball is a team sport. Dont penalize a player who has a great season but the rest of his team sucks

If I'm batting .340 42 HR 130 RBI's and there's no one in my lineup who is protecting me and my team's starting rotation/bullpen is so terrible we cant win 70 games, I still think I get the MVP

[Rojo]

Biggest salary. I mean, value is dictated perfectly by the marketplace. Just ask Milton Freidman. Oh wait, he's dead.

[cincinnati chili]

Seriously, I think it should go to the player who their team could least have afforded to lose. Like this year, would the Phillies done worse without Howard than the Cardinals would have done without Pujols?

I completely disagree with this. As I said on another thread, the '27 Yankees would have done just fine without at least one of Ruth or Gehrig. Should the "difference maker" on another team get the MVP instead of them?

People make this way too complicated. Best player.

I'm also skeptical of the idea that players on a last-place team would have folded like a deck of cards in a pennant race, and should therefore be downgraded. On the contrary, I think that MOST players benefit from better supporting casts and crucial games.

And one more thing... I don't really care if pitchers should be included or not, but I think they should settle on a RULE one way or the other, and direct the baseball writers to act accordingly. Same thing with the DH. It always seemed a little stupid that one writer would give Pedro the MVP award and aother one leaves him off the ballot. Give clear directions, and strip the privilege from the publications who don't follow them or don't vote in good faith.

[Rojo]

I voted "other" because I'd consider a reliever but leave starters to their Cy Youngs.

[M2]

Best player would make it simple, but as long as it's MVP and contributions to the team are the primary consideration, then team performance matters.

If you win a triple crown on a last place team, they'd still be a last place team without you. Sure, it's not your fault, but your performance hasn't been able to propel your team to any sort of achievement and that's the basis for the award.

Frankly, I think the current nebulous criteria makes the award more interesting than just counting up the stats and handing it out based on whatever formula you want to run the numbers through.

I like the subjectivity of it. In fact my chief complaint about the award is that the writers are too stat focused, in their case it's RBIs, which is it's own kind of special pathology. I loved it when Miguel Tejada got the award for playing a starring role in the A's big flourish in 2002. I thought it was unfortunate that A-Rod got it in 2003 when he padded his numbers with a second half push for a team that had been eliminated in May. Carlos Delgado had just as good a season for a Blue Jays team that had a surprisingly strong performance.

It stirs up discussion about what really matters in baseball by not treating the subject like a pat answer. I dig that.

[Rojo]

It stirs up discussion about what really matters in baseball by not treating the subject like a pat answer. I dig that.

I do as well. And I don't really mind starting with RBI's and post-season teams. I just wish the writers would not stop there. I'm biased of course, but I thought the Larkin pick in 95 was shrewd.

[StillFunkyB]

I have always thought it should go to a position player, unless a pitcher has had some unbelievable season.

[M2]

I'm biased of course, but I thought the Larkin pick in 95 was shrewd.

And out of character. Piazza and Bichette surely were sitting on their sofas shouting, "But I've got RBIs!"

But Peter Gammons really drove the bus for Larkin that year and convinced everyone, rightly so, that an all-around player had more value than a pure slugger.

[Jpup]

other. the player that is the most valuable to their team, aka Derek Jeter.

[IslandRed]

If you win a triple crown on a last place team, they'd still be a last place team without you. Sure, it's not your fault, but your performance hasn't been able to propel your team to any sort of achievement and that's the basis for the award.

The same argument can also be used on the flip side, though: "We would have finished first without you." The maximal point of value is where a player's performance puts a team into the postseason that otherwise would not have gone. But that can be a pretty narrow band to look at.

[IslandRed]

other. the player that is the most valuable to their team, aka Derek Jeter.

See, I disagree that Jeter is the most valuable guy to his team. He's surrounded by great hitters. Weren't people saying stuff like "the Yankees' lineup is most dangerous one-through-nine in baseball history?" You could pull any single player from that lineup and it wouldn't have crippled them. I don't think taking Jeter from the Yankees would hurt them nearly as much as yanking Joe Mauer from the Twins.

[M2]

The same argument can also be used on the flip side, though: "We would have finished first without you." The maximal point of value is where a player's performance puts a team into the postseason that otherwise would not have gone. But that can be a pretty narrow band to look at.

Yeah, but then you can argue that said player helped make a good team into into a very good or great team. You don't have to apologize for much when things go right.

The BRM could have won without Joe Morgan, but with him it was a team for the ages (and I understand that few players ever perform as well Morgan did in '75-'76).

The Yankees went out quick in the playoffs this season so they don't get to claim team for the ages status (though voters cast their ballots before the playoffs so they don't have the benefit of knowing that). Yet if in 2006 opponents could have removed one guy from the Yankee team in order to make it less scary, Jeter would have been the overwhelming choice. He and Mauer were defintely the two best players in the AL last year. I'd have no problem with Mauer having gotten the MVP, great hitter and a dynamite catcher to boot, but he had a pretty solid supporting cast too (Morneau, Cuddyer, Hunter, Castillo and Bartlett all had good years, plus Santana and Nathan were all kinds of awesome).

[IslandRed]

Yeah, but then you can argue that said player helped make a good team into into a very good or great team. You don't have to apologize for much when things go right.

The BRM could have won without Joe Morgan, but with him it was a team for the ages (and I understand that few players ever perform as well Morgan did in '75-'76).

The Yankees went out quick in the playoffs this season so they don't get to claim team for the ages status (though voters cast their ballots before the playoffs so they don't have the benefit of knowing that).

That's pretty much it, I think. When discussing value, there's no real value-added in winning the division by twelve games as opposed to "only" five, just to pull some numbers out of thin air. But the team that runs away with the division looks like a World Series winner. Since the votes are cast before the playoffs, voters sometimes reward for what they think is about to happen as much as for what did happen.