A-Rod wins!!!

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Bored is right this was more by default than anything. It still sets a bad precedent for future years though. Besides, did Rodriguez even have the best season? A case could be made for Delgado, or even Vernon Wells who played a Gold Glove like CF for Toronto.

 

How does this set a bad precident? We're not talking about an Andre Dawson here. Generally the MVP doesn't come from a bad team. A-Rod is the exception.

 

And yes, A-Rod did have the best season. The only player close to A-Rod offensively is Carlos Delgado, and A-Rod edges him out on the strength of his defense.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

The funny thing is, you know why the award was so split this year? Because Peter Gammons started that crap about David Ortiz being the MVP. Votes that might have gone to Carlos Delgado went to Ortiz instead, and A-Rod got the award. So the "winning player" nonsense that screwed A-Rod in previous years actually helped him win the MVP.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Bored is right this was more by default than anything. It still sets a bad precedent for future years though. Besides, did Rodriguez even have the best season? A case could be made for Delgado, or even Vernon Wells who played a Gold Glove like CF for Toronto.

 

How does this set a bad precident? We're not talking about an Andre Dawson here. Generally the MVP doesn't come from a bad team. A-Rod is the exception.

 

And yes, A-Rod did have the best season. The only player close to A-Rod offensively is Carlos Delgado, and A-Rod edges him out on the strength of his defense.

He wins this year... why not next year? The voters had established winning, and contending teams win the MVP. There shouldn't be an exception to the rule. Even if no player from a contending team had great numbers. The voters shouldn't just say fuck it...may has well give it to A-Rod. That shows laziness on their part.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

This has nothing to do with Arod not being the best player.

 

This has to do with the simple MEANING of the award.

 

A player who drives in one run on a winning team is more valuable to that team than a guy who drives in a million for a losing team.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

A player who drives in one run on a winning team is more valuable to that team than a guy who drives in a million for a losing team.

 

Bullshit.

 

1. There's a difference between losing teams. Look at the Rangers and Tigers. Despite their losing record, the Rangers are decent enough to attract name talent. The Tigers have shit going for them right now. Each win is valuable, regardless of whether it pushes your team over .500.

 

2. A-Rod is a box office attraction, and sells tickets and merchandise, bringing revenue to the Rangers. Does Ricky Reserve do that for the Red Sox?

 

3. By that logic, Jeff Weaver was more valuable to his team than A-Rod. Do you really believe that?

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

2. A-Rod is a box office attraction, and sells tickets and merchandise, bringing revenue to the Rangers. Does Ricky Reserve do that for the Red Sox?

 

What does that have to do with anything?

 

MLB really needs a seperate award for Most Outstanding Position Player which they give to the guy who was the best player. Sort of like how the NFL has awards for Best Offensive and Defensive Player of the Year in addition to MVP.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

They have that. Its called the MVP. What they need is a seperate award for "Best Player who played on a winning team and has gotten a verbal blowjob from Peter Gammons in the process"

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

They have that. Its called the MVP. What they need is a seperate award for "Best Player who played on a winning team and has gotten a verbal blowjob from Peter Gammons in the process"

The best player and the most valuable player can be two different things. A-Rod wasn't that important in Seattle either given how well they played the season after he left.

[Bored 0]

Yup he's valuable all right...so valuable his team thinks they need to trade him if they are going to get better.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

The best player and the most valuable player can be two different things. A-Rod wasn't that important in Seattle either given how well they played the season after he left.

 

Ignore that they added Bret Boone and Ichiro Suzuki. Really that's just a silly argument.

 

Yup he's valuable all right...so valuable his team thinks they need to trade him if they are going to get better.

 

They're absolutely stupid if they do it.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

You know what. I think I need to post something here.....

 

Dear Voter:

There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

 

The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:

 

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.

2. Number of games played.

3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.

4. Former winners are eligible.

5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

 

You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from 1 to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot.

 

Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, and that includes pitchers and designated hitters.

 

Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration.

[Guest Redhawk]

A-Rod won because none of the contending teams had a dominant player. It doesn't set a bad precedent, because it's such a rare case that none of the contenders have dominating players.

 

What more can A-Rod do for Texas? He can't pitch. He can't catch every ball hit against their pitchers. He can't do anything when the other Rangers batters are striking out and grounding into double plays. He can't get a hit and steal three bases each inning, then go out and strike out the side. Unlike basketball and football, position players cannot take over a baseball game. So in turn you're going to have guys on last place teams winning MVPs sometimes.

 

And think of this: sure, Texas would have been in last place without A-Rod. But instead of 71 wins they would have won, what, 50?

[Vern Gagne 0]

And think of this: sure, Texas would have been in last place without A-Rod. But instead of 71 wins they would have won, what, 50?

You can't really answer that question. If Rodriguez wasn't on Texas, they would have 2 or 3 guys replacing him. So who knows what kind of record they would have. If he was hurt, what's the difference between 71 wins and 51 wins. You still aren't helping your team win when it matters.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stor..._rob&id=1664838

 

Rob Neyer summed it up nicely.

 

Jayson Stark, and a lot of other baseball writers, will argue 'til they're blue in the fingers that those six or eight games don't mean anything, because the Rangers wound up below .500 (and -- gasp -- in last place!). Well, I would submit that baseball writers who think six or eight games don't mean anything have forgotten what it's like to be a baseball fan. A baseball fan lives and dies with his team for six or seven months every season. Day in, day out. And as a baseball fan, I can tell you that eight games makes a big difference, and any player who turns those eight games from losses into wins is darn valuable.

[the pinjockey 0]

And think of this: sure, Texas would have been in last place without A-Rod. But instead of 71 wins they would have won, what, 50?

You can't really answer that question. If Rodriguez wasn't on Texas, they would have 2 or 3 guys replacing him. So who knows what kind of record they would have. If he was hurt, what's the difference between 71 wins and 51 wins. You still aren't helping your team win when it matters.

I don't think you can take into account salary and possible players to use that salary on when looking at players. You can only take into account what they did with the people they had around them.

 

Otherwise you have to start using cost/benefit concepts on everyone and the MVP is always going to become which ever hotshot in their first three years did best. Because it is always going to be a better value to have a Pujols do what he did with his salary compared to Bonds and his salary.

[Fökai 0]

Well, let's take that argument to its logical extreme. Jayson seems to be saying that if Jim Bob plays for a team that finishes 80-82, he shouldn't be considered as the Most Valuable Player, but if Jim Bob's team finishes 82-80 then by golly he's an MVP candidate.

[Vern Gagne 0]

You can't really answer that question. If Rodriguez wasn't on Texas, they would have 2 or 3 guys replacing him. So who knows what kind of record they would have. If he was hurt, what's the difference between 71 wins and 51 wins. You still aren't helping your team win when it matters.

I don't think you can take into account salary and possible players to use that salary on when looking at players. You can only take into account what they did with the people they had around them.

 

Otherwise you have to start using cost/benefit concepts on everyone and the MVP is always going to become which ever hotshot in their first three years did best. Because it is always going to be a better value to have a Pujols do what he did with his salary compared to Bonds and his salary.

I just don't like hypothetical questions. Imagine if they had him, or didn't have him. What if USC would of beaten Cal? Thing like that.

 

Stark thinks a team on a contending team should win the MVP. He doesn't chance him stance on the matter.