To me, in terms of value, great is better than good.? Call me crazy.

I can see where you're coming from, but on the other side of the equation doesn't the most valuable player for the team that makes the playoffs on a fringe basis deserve it a little bit more than the player whose team wins their division by twenty games? Not to take away from the player on the great team, but this is not best player. When judging highest value, one has to look at what that player has caused in all aspects of the game, not just statistics. And if a team makes the playoffs by less than five games it has to be reasonably considered that the player from this team means that much more than the player on the great team does, at least in the regular season.

 

I guess the point is that great player on great team should be applauded for helping his team be great and tear through the world, but great player on good team should be applauded moreso because without him his team doesn't even have the chance to be great as they would miss the playoffs.

953420[/snapback]

 

You know, I think this would be an interesting philosophical arguement--whether a great player on a great team is more valuable than a great player on a good team--if Andruw Jones were a great player. The problem is he is merely a good player, who is having a "very good" season, but only "very good"...at least if you use Pujols' season as the standard for greatness. And if you want to call Jones' season great, fine, but then you'd have to call Pujols' season some other word that is better than great.

 

The MVP award is not defined anywhere (as far as I know). So, it can mean different things to different people. There's nothing wrong with judging on a purely statistical standpoint. And there's nothing wrong, I guess, with limiting your selection to players on good, but not quite great, teams. Value will mean different things to different people. To me, achieving greatness is of more value than rising above mediocrity, but that's just me.

 

Anyway, the point is, even if you were right when you say a great player on a good team should be applauded more than a great player on a great team, I just don't think it applies in this case. This is a good player on a good team versus a great player on a great team, and in the words of one of the world's greatest human beings ever, it takes "fuzzy math" to make good somehow greater than great.

I can see where you're coming from, but on the other side of the equation doesn't the most valuable player for the team that makes the playoffs on a fringe basis deserve it a little bit more than the player whose team wins their division by twenty games?

And this is why the Yankees have seldom had MVP candidates taken seriously.

 

Cases-in-point from RECENT history:

 

2003

Posada 481AB, 135H, 30HR, .281BA, .922OPS

Arod 607AB, 181H, 47HR, .298BA, .995OPS

 

Catcher versus SS in this day and age? There wasn't another catcher in baseball who could carry Jorge's jock in a single offensive category...

 

2002

Soriano 209H, 39HR, .300BA, .880OPS,41SB

Tejada 204H, 34HR, .308BA, .861OPS, 7SB

 

2B versus SS? There are easily three times as many offensive SS's as there are offensive 2 baggers. Posada could have won in 2003 but that's no biggy - Soriano was robbed.

 

I look at those two seasons and know that the Yankees PROBABLY would have gone to the post season without these two. And I guess, somehow, that makes them less valuable? The only thing about this argument is that Arod won the award on a LAST PLACE TEAM! While ARod had a great season for sure, I find it extremely difficult to wrap my mind around that one...