EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted August 17, 2003 Bullshit. I went over this a million times last year. The MVP is for the best player, period. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bored 0 Report post Posted August 17, 2003 Bullshit. I went over this a million times last year. The MVP is for the best player, period. Well I don't think so and I think the history of the award shows that it isn't about the best player. Like I said they have an award now that recognizes the best player, the Hank Aaron Award, but MLB is run by morons so no one even knows about it. Last player to win an MVP on a team with a losing record was Cal Ripken in '91 and I don't expect it to happen this year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Choken One Report post Posted August 17, 2003 No it's Not. VALUEABLE. that means was of the most value to your team The Aaron award is specificaly for "Best Player" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted August 17, 2003 To hell with the Hank Aaron award. Its meaningless. No one has ever cared. It was a bullshit honor just to name something after Aaron. Its pointless anyway, because it only honors what the MVP award was meant to do in the first place. Honoring the best player in the league. And yes, you can be the most valuable player and play on a losing team. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bored 0 Report post Posted August 17, 2003 If your team was a loser then how valuable can you really be? Like I alluded to its MLB's fault that no one cares about the Hank Aaron Award because it was a good idea and really defines the MVP as a seperate award on to itself. At any rate the award obviously no longer applies that way as just look at recent examples in '98 where McGwire gets only two first place votes for MVP because his team wasn't in contention and Sosa's was. In '95 Barry Larkin won the MVP as the Reds won their division and the next year he hits 18 more homeruns and 23 more rbi and he finished TWELTH in the voting in '96 because the Reds only finished at .500. And of course last year...I'm biased obviously but Tejada had huge after huge hit last year and was the deserving winner of the MVP. Oh and one more thing if the MVP was truly about the best player no pitcher would ever win the award, which is a whole other argument, and to this point we haven't gone entire decade without a pitcher winning it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted August 17, 2003 If your team was a loser then how valuable can you really be? Like I alluded to its MLB's fault that no one cares about the Hank Aaron Award because it was a good idea and really defines the MVP as a seperate award on to itself. You can be valuable on a losing team. Here's how I look at it. Take away the pitching stats of each team, and just look at the hitting stats. The Rangers are 3RD in runs scored. They're a better offensive team than the Seattle Mariners, where Ichiro Suzuki plays. So why are we honoring Suzuki? Because of his team's pitching. That's complete bullshit. A player is honored because of his teammates' contribution to the game, and that should not happen. A player needs to win the award on his own merits, or else the award loses all credibility. At any rate the award obviously no longer applies that way as just look at recent examples in '98 where McGwire gets only two first place votes for MVP because his team wasn't in contention and Sosa's was. In '95 Barry Larkin won the MVP as the Reds won their division and the next year he hits 18 more homeruns and 23 more rbi and he finished TWELTH in the voting in '96 because the Reds only finished at .500. And of course last year...I'm biased obviously but Tejada had huge after huge hit last year and was the deserving winner of the MVP. First off, you're committing a fallacy comparing the '95 and '96 seasons by pure totals. Remember the '95 season was shortened by 18 games. But you're right about Larkin. Problem was, the '95 award was bullshit, and he didn't deserve it in '96 either. Frankly, I don't get the '95 voting. Maddux was more deserving, and he played on a winning team as well. But why should we reinforce the mistakes of the past? Oh and one more thing if the MVP was truly about the best player no pitcher would ever win the award, which is a whole other argument. Why not? A pitcher can be most valuable once in a while, as long as he's dominant, and a starter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted August 17, 2003 That's such a load of b.s. that Ichiro isn't winning it on his own merits. Likely another batting title, over 220 hits, 40 steals, gold glove defense. Ichiro doesn't have the great slugging % or OPS because he's a lead off hitter, he gets on base and is the best player in the league at getting himself into scoring position. Making it easier for the other batters to drive him in. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted August 17, 2003 A-Rod is every bit as good as Ichiro. Why shouldn't he get the same consideration? Just because the Mariners' pitching happens to be better? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest cpac Report post Posted August 17, 2003 If GAYROD, oops I mean Payrod is so valuable to his team, why is his contract killing his team. Do you know how many all stars the rangers could get with 25 million to play on their team. Lets say 4 quality players. Payrod is playing meaningless games, he doesn't deserve the award. There is a big difference in having to play in the cellar and playing with your season on the line every game. If Payrod is so valuable to this team, why cant he spark and be the clubhouse leader to get that team into the playoffs. Last time I checked the royals, twins and white sox were all in playoff contention. Hell the Orioles have a better record than the Rangers. How much better are those teams????? And why should the baseball writers give the award to the DUMBEST PLAYER IN BASEBALL. How stupid can you get. You leave a team that went to the ALCS in 2000, made a repeat appearance in 2001 after you left and is in playoff contention again this year so he could play for a last place team every year. GOD WHAT A MORON, I HOPE YOU LOVE THOSE MILLIONS. And if the guy is such a valuable player, how come his last team won 116 games the year after he left?????? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted August 18, 2003 Oh dear god, not this again...... If GAYROD, oops I mean Payrod is so valuable to his team, why is his contract killing his team. Last year, the Rangers spent $105 million on payroll. Subtract Alex's contract. That leaves you with $80 million. 5 of the 8 teams in the playoffs last year had lower payrolls than that. If Payrod is so valuable to this team, why cant he spark and be the clubhouse leader to get that team into the playoffs. Because that's a bullshit argument. How do you know who sparks the team and who just happened to be there? How exactly do you spark the Rangers pitching staff anyway? Are you telling me that if Ichiro or Tejada played on the Rangers, their pitching would get better? Honestly. And why should the baseball writers give the award to the DUMBEST PLAYER IN BASEBALL. How stupid can you get. You leave a team that went to the ALCS in 2000, made a repeat appearance in 2001 after you left and is in playoff contention again this year so he could play for a last place team every year. GOD WHAT A MORON, I HOPE YOU LOVE THOSE MILLIONS. The hell? Baseball is a fickle business. You get injured, and your career could be over. You can't play your entire life. Forget the money. Someone offers you a TEN YEAR contract. You would be absolutely stupid not to accept that deal. And when Moyer and Martinez retire, and Teixeira, Blalock, and Rodriguez are tearing up the league, it'll look a whole lot different. And if the guy is such a valuable player, how come his last team won 116 games the year after he left?????? Because they had alot of good players having career years. And if you follow that reasoning, then why did they make the playoffs for the first time in team history the year he showed up in Seattle? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted August 18, 2003 A-Rod is every bit as good as Ichiro. Why shouldn't he get the same consideration? Just because the Mariners' pitching happens to be better? So any player with good starting pitching should be eliminated from the MVP race? I don't care if he's twice the player Ichiro is. Ichiro fits the criteria the voters look for in MVP canidates. A player who puts up good numbers, and the most valuable to a winning team. I still don't understand how A-Rod is valuable. It's not the award for best player, or best hitter. If your team is 10 games under, I fail to see how valuable you really are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted August 18, 2003 I still don't understand how A-Rod is valuable. It's not the award for best player, or best hitter. If your team is 10 games under, I fail to see how valuable you really are. There's no minimum to the number of games a team can lose. If your team is bad enough, it is possible to lose 162 games. The Rangers have won 57 games so far. Those wins have to be earned from somewhere, and its not their pitching. A-Rod is winning games for the Rangers. They might not be in contention, but that's not Alex's fault. Fact is, he's more responsible for the Rangers meager success than any other MVP candidate on "winning" teams. Ichiro has Bret Boone, Edgar Martinez, John Olreud, and the pitching staff helping out. Rodriguez is doing it on his own. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted August 18, 2003 Texas has one of the best hitting lineups in the game. He's not doing it by himself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted August 19, 2003 If the Giants lose every game while he's gone then Bonds is the MVP and I'll change my vote from Pujols to Bonds. Well... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
