Miguel Tejada - American League MVP

[Guest NaturalBornThriller4:20]

NEW YORK (AP) -- Miguel Tejada won his first American League Most Valuable Player award Tuesday, easily beating Alex Rodriguez in a vote that valued a winning season over superior statistics.

 

The shortstop for the AL West champion Oakland Athletics received 21 first-place votes, six second-place votes and one third for 356 points from a panel of the Baseball Writers' Association of America.

 

Rodriguez, the shortstop for the last-place Texas Rangers, got five firsts, seven seconds, 11 thirds, four fourths and a sixth for 254 points.

 

New York Yankees second baseman Alfonso Soriano got the remaining two first-place votes and was third with 234 points, followed by Anaheim outfielder Garret Anderson (184) and Yankees first baseman Jason Giambi (162), the winner two years ago, when he played for the A's.

 

``I don't think there can be anyone on earth more happy than I am right now,'' Tejada said in the Dominican Republic, where he was scheduled to attend a reception in his honor at the presidential palace. ``Inside, I feel fulfilled.''

 

Tejada hit a career-high .308 with 34 homers and 131 RBIs, helping the A's win the AL West. Oakland had 103 victories, matching the Yankees for the most in the major leagues.

 

During Oakland's 20-game winning streak, the longest in the major leagues in 67 years, he hit a three-run, ninth-inning homer for the A's 18 straight victory, then had a winning bases-loaded single the next night.

 

Rodriguez, whose $252 million, 10-year contract is the highest is sports, hit .300 and led the major leagues in home runs (57), RBIs (142) and total bases (389). Rodriguez also was runner-up in 1996, when the Rangers' Juan Gonzalez finished first, and was sixth last year.

 

Even with A-Rod's outstanding season, the Rangers went 72-90, finishing 31 games behind Oakland in the AL West.

 

The only time a player on a last-place team won the award was 1987, when Andre Dawson of the Cubs led the NL in homers and RBIs after giving Chicago a signed contract during the collusion era and letting the Cubs fill in the salary -- $500,000.

 

Tejada is the third Dominican to win an MVP award, following Toronto's George Bell in 1987 and the Chicago Cubs' Sammy Sosa in 1998. Tejada gets a $100,000 bonus for winning added to his $3.5 million salary, and Rodriguez gets $200,000 added to his $21 million salary. Anderson gets a $50,000 bonus.

 

A's players have won 11 MVPs, second in the AL to the Yankees, who have 18.

 

San Francisco's Barry Bonds won his record fifth NL MVP award Monday.

 

 

This sucks.

 

What about Soriano...... 3rd MY ASS~!

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

<shrugs shoulders> I would have voted for him...

[Guest starvenger]

Is this somewhere around "Pat Borders, World Series MVP" level?

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Not a suprise. It's a good choice. He was clutch all year for Oakland, and helped lead them to a Division title.

[Guest jimmy no nose]

I would've gone Rodriguez, Soriano, Tejada. I think A Rod was the best player, therefore should have been MVP. Oh well, Tejada also had a very good season.

[Guest HorsemenGlory]

Tejada would have gotten my vote, A-Rod wouldn't because he was the best player, not the most valuable. Sori was good, but he wasn't even the best player on his team. Miguel was definately the right pick.

[Guest Bosstones Fan]

Here's how to look at it: take A-Rod off the Rangers and they still lose 90+ games. Take Tejada away from Oakland, and I'd be willing to bet that the A's win only 90-95 games...a far cry from their 103 wins.

 

It's the Most VALUABLE Player award for a reason. The Player of the Year Award is what A-Rod deserves.

[Guest alkeiper]

Here's some questions to consider if you chose Tejada for MVP.....

 

1. Other than their teammates, what exactly makes Tejada more valuable than Rodriguez?

 

2. If it's clutch hitting, did you look at clutch hitting stats from other players, or did you just watch Sportscenter?

 

3. Why is Tejada any more vital to his team than Hudson, Zito and Mulder?

 

4. If Rodriguez is not the MVP because of his team's record, than where does he rate? (i.e. how can you say Tejada 1 and then A-Rod 2....don't Giambi and Soriano fit the same criteria?)

 

If you can answer those and say Tejada's the MVP, then good. I just think people choose the stats to fit the candidate, and not vice versa.

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

During Oakland's 20-game winning streak, the longest in the major leagues in 67 years, he hit a three-run, ninth-inning homer for the A's 18 straight victory, then had a winning bases-loaded single the next night.

 

I remember one of the Sports Radio hosts saying that his performance in those two games sealed the MVP for him. I thought it would be a closer win for A-Rod, but looking back on it the guy was right.

[Guest Rabbi_wilson13]

Bosstones Fan is right. A-Rod apparently wasn't all that valuable if his team finishes a mile out of first, while Miggy played solid all year and came through with clutch hitting when it was needed.

 

Soriano's in the position where he basically has to get pitched to time in and time out because the team around him is so loaded. He would be my second place vote anyway, just because of his numbers, then A-Rod.

[Guest Smell the ratings!!!]

Soriano probably would have been second if his glove wasn't made of bricks.

 

Anyway, every MVP award in sports is like this, they don't give it to guys on bad teams period. A guy on a bad team can be second, no higher. If there's an AL player of the year award (hell if I know, it's baseball) A Rod will win it easy.

[Guest DrTom]

It's the Most VALUABLE Player award for a reason. The Player of the Year Award is what A-Rod deserves.

Exactly. It seems this debate springs up every year, because some "deserving" candidate who put up monster numbers doesn't get the award. There's no way I would have even put A-Rod on my ballot for MVP. Player of the Year? Sure, he's #1 there. But most valuable? Please. The Rangers sucked with him, and they might have been better without him, since $25 million buys a couple good starting pitchers as well as a shortstop.

 

My ballot would have been Soriano-Tejada-Giambi, but I'm certainly not going to quibble with Tejada getting the call. The A's were en fuego after he moved to the 3rd spot in the order, and that was no coincidence. I think he surpassed Jeter and Nomar this year with his clutch hitting, excellent defense, and strong play from wire to wire.

[Guest bob_barron]

Dr. Tom-

Soriano had a ton of errors this year which is the only reason I wouldn't vote for him.

[Guest bravesfan]

The Rangers sucked with him, and they might have been better without him, since $25 million buys a couple good starting pitchers as well as a shortstop.

Well, considering EVERYONE else on that team are not worthy of their bloated contracts, A-Rod's contract should be considered a bargain.

 

Cut Juan Gone, Pudge and several pitchers loose. With that, $23,000,000 in cap room will open up. THAT can be put on a quality outfielder (B. Jordan, etc.), a talented 1B to keep Palmeiro at DH (Thome) and/or a wealth of young pitchers (can't really think of any FA'S right now).

 

 

As for the MVP vote, my votes on A-Rod, although I won't argue with Tejada deserving it more.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

There's just no way the A's would have won 20 straight games or won the West had Tejada not played as well as he did. There's even a chance the A's may have missed the playoffs last year had Tejada not put up such great numbers. MVP indeed!

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

Thank God.

 

I hate Oakland...but A Rod should never have won this thing.

 

How can a last place team have the player deemed to be "Most valuable to his team"?

 

They couldn't have possibly finished anywhere BELOW last without him.

 

It's not an award for the best player...It's an award for most valuable to their team.

 

And a team in last place doesn't have one of those.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

A-Rod is simply not a clutch player, like Tejada is. In Seattle, A-Rod didn't exactly put them over the top either, and this was with a decent-to-good team around him.

 

He is like Bonds earlier in his career. He put up awesome numbers, but he never came through when the Pirates needed him. Bonds now single-handedly takes control of the game, and I consider him a far better player than he was 10 years ago.

 

Too be honest, despite A-Rod's numbers, he would only be fourth on my list of AL shortstops if I were putting together a team (behind Tejada, Jeter & Garciaparra). All three of them are more competitive and are more important to their team than A-Rod, despite not having as much talent. A-Rod is the MVP of Fantasy Baseball, no question, but he is not he MVP of the American League.

 

Otherwise, you get a situation like the NFL last year where Warner won the MVP simply because he had the best numbers, even though it was obvious he wasn't the best player, nor the best QB (or even in the top 3), nor even the best player on his own team (Faulk).

[Guest El Hijo Del Lunatic]

Personally, I had A-Rod first. The fact that someone voted A-Rod SIXTH (presumably behind Tejada, Giambi, Soriano, Anderson, and Hunter) is ridiculous. He's at least gotta be in the top three. Quick case for A-Rod (though nothing is quick for me):

 

Sure, they were 72-90, but did you see the year he had? .300 average, 57 HRs, 142 RBIs, only 10 errors. He didn't take a day off (niether did Tejada). There hasn't been an offensive season like A-Rod's in the AL since the days of Ruth and Foxx.

 

To which everyone replies: so what, they only went 72-90. Yeah, but they play in the best division in baseball, the AL West. I bet they had the toughest schedule in the league, hands-down. They played more than half their games (i think something like 86) against 90-win teams (Oakland, Anaheim, New York, Atlanta, Boston, Minnesota, Seattle). By my count they went 30-56 versus those teams. Against everyone else, they went 42-34. So maybe they're not as bad as we think they are.

 

Also, they should've had a MUCH BETTER record. The Rangers' bullpen blew, and I quote, THIRTY-THREE SAVES. Read that again - because that's absurd. That's not A-Rod's fault; I'm sure in most of those save opportunities, A-Rod didn't get a chance to change the game. And his salary has nothing to do with not being able to afford pitching - they're paying John Rocker and Hideki Irabu. They've spent the money on their bullpen, and it hasn't panned out for them.

 

This once again proves that the MVP award is won by a player in about three or four games. I love Miguel Tejada, and I respect the load he carried this year, but the A's weren't exactly an offensive powerhouse this year (800 runs - 8th in the AL), which is a big dropoff from the 884 they scored last year. They won with pitching. Miguel Tejada had a few clutch hits during the A's 20-game win streak, and that won him the MVP. He was consistent, but nowhere near as good as A-Rod. And without A-Rod, the Rangers don't even tread water.

 

I guess my question is: if Rich Gannon throws for 5000 yards this year, and the Raiders finish last in their division at 7-9, should Gannon get the MVP?

 

LUNATIC

- Just gimme the light and pass the 'dro.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

No.

 

No team that finishes last has the most valuable player in the league.

 

The entire thought of it is ridiculous.

 

Where's that story someone posted about a guy back in the old days of baseball asking for a raise after a great season with a last placed team?

 

"We could have finished last without you"

 

Or something like that.

[Guest alkeiper]

To me, its simple. Value consists in making runs for your team, which lead to wins. Rodriguez.....

 

a. was the best hitter in the league

b. won the gold glove

 

So now, not only is he the best HITTING shortstop, he's the best FIELDING shortstop as well. How in the bloddy hell can you say a player hit and fielded better, but isn't the MVP. It's a stupid stupid assessment no matter how many Game Winning RBIs Tejada had.

 

The Rangers sucked with him, and they might have been better without him, since $25 million buys a couple good starting pitchers as well as a shortstop.

 

I can easily quote you $37 million worth of Rangers (Gonzalez, Park, Everett, Greer) who made no contribution whatsoever to the team.

 

Cut Juan Gone, Pudge and several pitchers loose. With that, $23,000,000 in cap room will open up. THAT can be put on a quality outfielder (B. Jordan, etc.), a talented 1B to keep Palmeiro at DH (Thome) and/or a wealth of young pitchers (can't really think of any FA'S right now).

 

Slightly off topic, but Jordan is not the answer. They have corner outfielders and first basemen. They might do well trading Hank Blalock for a couple pitchers, especially with Mark Texiera in the system. I really think the Rangers have a bright future.

 

There's just no way the A's would have won 20 straight games or won the West had Tejada not played as well as he did. There's even a chance the A's may have missed the playoffs last year had Tejada not put up such great numbers. MVP indeed!

 

They would've needed to lose 10 games without Tejada to not make the playoffs. They survived losing Giambi ok, so I think they could've won 93 games without Tejada. Again, what about Chavez, Zito, Hudson or Mulder? Wasn't Zito the Cy Young?

 

They couldn't have possibly finished anywhere BELOW last without him.

 

They could've finished below Baltimore, Tampa Bay, Kansas City or Detroit. They could've been completely uncompetitive, costing them fans and ticket revenues.

 

A-Rod is simply not a clutch player, like Tejada is.

 

Do you have any stats to back this up? Perhaps an andidote about how Rodriguez failed in the clutch? Better yet, if Tejada's such a clutch player, why did he hit .143 in the ALDS, when it mattered the most?

 

And his salary has nothing to do with not being able to afford pitching - they're paying John Rocker and Hideki Irabu.

 

Again off topic, but Irabu was handling himself well in the closer role before blood clots grounded him.

 

How about this food for thought. The Rangers scored 843 runs this year. The Athletics scored 800. Which team had the better offense? The Rangers, with Alex Rodriguez.

[Guest DrTom]

To me, its simple. Value consists in making runs for your team, which lead to wins.

I can live with that. And since the Rangers won 72 games, it's obvious A-Rod wasn't very valuable to them, since those 72 wins didn't get them very far.

 

The problem is, MLB does not have separate awards for MVP and Player of the Year. There is no doubt in my mind that A-Rod is the POTY. But I just don't think an MVP can come from a last-place team. I thought it was a joke when Ripken won it in 1991, and the Orioles were in last -- and that includes me being a lifelong Orioles fan and being very biased toward Ripken in particular.

 

The argument against guys from good teams is that those teams would already be good. There's no doubt, though, that Tejada made the A's better. He stepped into the 3-hole in the batting order, drove in a lot of key runs, scored more than his share, and played excellent defense, all for a club that made the playoffs.

 

I just can't fathom a player from a last-place team being the most valuable player in the league.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

I agree completely.

 

It defies the entire concept of benig valuable.

[Guest the pinjockey]

No.

 

No team that finishes last has the most valuable player in the league.

 

The entire thought of it is ridiculous.

 

Where's that story someone posted about a guy back in the old days of baseball asking for a raise after a great season with a last placed team?

 

"We could have finished last without you"

 

Or something like that.

I think that was Ralph Kiner.

 

I have this arguement with my friend all of the time. He says Arod shoud be MVP but when you win 70 games is there a difference between 70 and 55? no you still miss the playoffs so who cares.

 

And Soriano and Giambi both being in the running made it impossible for either to win because how can you argue for one without mentioning the contributions of the other so Tejada was the only person left.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

So now, not only is he the best HITTING shortstop, he's the best FIELDING shortstop as well. How in the bloddy hell can you say a player hit and fielded better, but isn't the MVP. It's a stupid stupid assessment no matter how many Game Winning RBIs Tejada had.

 

 

 

A-Rod is simply not a clutch player, like Tejada is.

 

Do you have any stats to back this up? Perhaps an andidote about how Rodriguez failed in the clutch? Better yet, if Tejada's such a clutch player, why did he hit .143 in the ALDS, when it mattered the most?

 

 

How is anyone on a last place team valuable. They can be the best player, but not valuable. With a few exceptions the MVP is pretty cut and dry on who wins.

 

What does the postseason have to do with anything. It's based on the regular season.

[Guest Brian]

It's not ridiculous. Dawson had an incredible year when he won, much better than anyone especially in his era, and there were no real clearcut leaders.

 

And the thing is that the Rangers didn't win, so how much value did Rodriguez's glove, bat, or runs have? How valuable were they to the team? Was it the most valuable asset to that team?

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

Too me, the player that knocks in one run in the bottom of the 9th to win 2-1 is more valuable than the guy who knocks in 6 in a 10-6 loss.

[Guest El Hijo Del Lunatic]

The argument against guys from good teams is that those teams would already be good. There's no doubt, though, that Tejada made the A's better. He stepped into the 3-hole in the batting order, drove in a lot of key runs, scored more than his share, and played excellent defense, all for a club that made the playoffs.

 

Actually, my beef with Tejada for MVP is that he won it for his exploits in two games only. Tejada had, in my opinion, dark-horse MVP-type numbers both offensively and defensively. He had a very good season, but there were guys out there who are better players with better numbers on better teams (Soriano, Giambi, and Garret Anderson come to mind). There's really nothing that sets him apart from the rest of the MVP candidates stats-wise, so why did he win? Because he got a few timely hits in the middle of a media blitz. That's why. By the end of that 20-game win streak, Tejada had already won the MVP award. Over. Done. Finished. Like I said, I like Tejada. But he shouldn't be MVP because he gets a couple clutch hits with the world watching. And that, I truly believe, is why Miguel Tejada won the MVP. Is it right to base the entire MVP race on TWO GAMES?

 

If you can tell me what Miguel Tejada did this year that Garret Anderson didn't do, I'll rethink my stance.

 

LUNATIC

- Just gimme the light and pass the 'dro.

[Guest Choken One]

Look, I am tired of hearing people treat this as the biggest Travesty in sports history. A good player won the Award by the stature of requirements.