http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writ...p.monday/1.html

 

Its funny how they dont measure Cabrera, Ramirez, heck why not even mentio hammer or uggla compared to the guys they mentioned:

Jose Reyes

Russell Martin?????????

Heyman.

 

'nuff said.

MVP isn't all about stats. Hard to make a case for our guys when we are struggling to finish above the Nationals.

 

No matter how well Cabrera and Ramirez play, if the team sucks, it is hard to justify the award.

A-Rod won an MVP award for the Rangers when they were in last place.

Did he seriously list Wright and Reyes?!?! What a joke this guy is.

Anytime someone wins MVP on a losing team it makes no sense.

Anytime someone wins MVP on a losing team it makes no sense.

 

Not really. According to, like VORP, Hanley is, like, the most valuable player in either league. So, like, why shouldn't he, like, win it? Since, he's been, like, really valuable.

 

He should be penalized because the rest of his team sucks?

Anytime someone wins MVP on a losing team it makes no sense.

 

Not really. According to, like VORP, Hanley is, like, the most valuable player in either league. So, like, why shouldn't he, like, win it? Since, he's been, like, really valuable.

 

He should be penalized because the rest of his team sucks?

But his team, could like, finish below .500, like, without him too.

 

He maybe, like, valuable, but it's not, like, doing his team alot of good.

Anytime someone wins MVP on a losing team it makes no sense.

 

Couldn't disagree more.

 

Baseball has proven, more than any other sport, that an individual cannot make as great an impact on the outcome of a game akin to those of the other major American sports.

 

Why then should the league's "most valuable" player be punished for the team around him?

 

Or, just to put your argument to its logical conclusion, the league MVP must then always be the best player on the team with the best record in each league? Now how silly a notion is that?

Anytime someone wins MVP on a losing team it makes no sense.

 

Couldn't disagree more.

 

Baseball has proven, more than any other sport, that an individual cannot make as great an impact on the outcome of a game akin to those of the other major American sports.

 

Why then should the league's "most valuable" player be punished for the team around him?

 

Or, just to put your argument to its logical conclusion, the league MVP must then always be the best player on the team with the best record in each league? Now how silly a notion is that?

The word valuable leaves alot to be disired. For example, A-Rod is the best player this year, no? However he is on a team with guys like Jeter, Abreu, Matsui, etc. with the biggest payroll in baseball, and it is still struggling to make the playoffs.

 

When I think of a prototype MVP, it's a Sammy Sosa in 1998. A guy that was on an average at best team, but eleveated his team to the playoffs. Sometimes there is a guy like that, but alote of times there's not.

 

MVP can be taken many ways. Some think it's the best player, some think you have to be on a good team to do it.

A silver slugger is a nice award. He can go ahead and win that every year for the next 10+ years.

Anytime someone wins MVP on a losing team it makes no sense.

 

Couldn't disagree more.

 

Baseball has proven, more than any other sport, that an individual cannot make as great an impact on the outcome of a game akin to those of the other major American sports.

 

Why then should the league's "most valuable" player be punished for the team around him?

 

Or, just to put your argument to its logical conclusion, the league MVP must then always be the best player on the team with the best record in each league? Now how silly a notion is that?

The word valuable leaves alot to be disired. For example, A-Rod is the best player this year, no? However he is on a team with guys like Jeter, Abreu, Matsui, etc. with the biggest payroll in baseball, and it is still struggling to make the playoffs.

 

When I think of a prototype MVP, it's a Sammy Sosa in 1998. A guy that was on an average at best team, but eleveated his team to the playoffs. Sometimes there is a guy like that, but alote of times there's not.

 

MVP can be taken many ways. Some think it's the best player, some think you have to be on a good team to do it.

 

I'm confused, are you saying that no last-place team should have an MVP winner, and also that ARod is not the AL MVP this year?

 

Because that's both crazy and stupid talk all rolled together.

Anytime someone wins MVP on a losing team it makes no sense.

 

Not really. According to, like VORP, Hanley is, like, the most valuable player in either league. So, like, why shouldn't he, like, win it? Since, he's been, like, really valuable.

 

He should be penalized because the rest of his team sucks?

But his team, could like, finish below .500, like, without him too.

 

He maybe, like, valuable, but it's not, like, doing his team alot of good.

 

It's doing his team a ton of good. Just because his team has no pitching doesn't mean he's not valuable. Value is value is value. A home run means as much to a below .500 team as it does to the best team in the league. You don't see how it's backwards to penalize a player for playing on a bad team?

Yes and no.

 

You know, I could see giving the MVP to a guy on a losing team if it was a year without a clear cut favorite, and I don't think there is one of those this year.

There is no clear cut favorite in the NL this year.

I don't like the logic that players should be penalyzed because of the team they have around them. Not talking about Ramirez or Cabrera specifically here: It's not a player's fault if the defense of the players around them sucks, or if the starters are no good, or if the bullpen is in shambles or if they have to deal with any combination of the above.

 

If you switch a great player on a bad team with an equally great player on a good team, the bad team won't improve because the guy is a "winner"; It still won't be a good team.

This question is for Junior or others who say that the MVP shouldn't come from a losing team.

 

Hypothetically, let's imagine two talented players on two different teams. For the sake of argument, Player A's team would be a 59 win team without Player A. With him, they are a 70 win team. Now, Player B's team would be a 80 win team without Player B. With him, they are an 88 win team and end up winning the Wild Card. So, Player A gives his team an additional 11 wins and Player B gives his team an additional 8 wins. However, by your criteria, Player B ought to be the MVP because he elevated his team from a non-playoff team to a playoff team.

 

However, here's where I have a problem with that line of thinking. By giving the MVP to Player B, you give Player B credit for things he has no control over, mainly the quality of the players around him. Suppose that in a parallel universe everything remained the same except that a league average reliever on Team B gets injured at the beginning of the season and gets replaced with a AAA call-up. That call-up blows 3 games the other reliever wouldn't have, and now Team B finds itself 2-3 games short of a Wild Card berth. If we go by your reasoning, Player B is no longer an MVP because his team came short of the playoffs. But, it's hard to argue that an injury to a reliever can make another player less valuable. He still hit and fielded the same. Yet, somehow his value is diminished in the eyes of many because his team has become less relevant. That just seems really weird to me. (Mind you, I'm not making the case for Player B. I'm just using this thought experiment to show that Player A should have won the MVP to begin with)

 

In my mind, you can't penalize a guy for having to play with crappy talent and you can't reward a player for being lucky enough to have good players around him. No one player can take a really bad team and elevate them to a playoff contender. Baseball just isn't designed to allow for a single player, outside of a pitcher, to have that much impact.

The award is called MVP, Most valuable player

 

 

If you dont want to give it to the most valuable player, player with the best year (not the BEST TEAM), then change the stupid award to MVPP, Most Valuable Playoff Player

This question is for Junior or others who say that the MVP shouldn't come from a losing team.

 

Hypothetically, let's imagine two talented players on two different teams. For the sake of argument, Player A's team would be a 59 win team without Player A. With him, they are a 70 win team. Now, Player B's team would be a 80 win team without Player B. With him, they are an 88 win team and end up winning the Wild Card. So, Player A gives his team an additional 11 wins and Player B gives his team an additional 8 wins. However, by your criteria, Player B ought to be the MVP because he elevated his team from a non-playoff team to a playoff team.

 

However, here's where I have a problem with that line of thinking. By giving the MVP to Player B, you give Player B credit for things he has no control over, mainly the quality of the players around him. Suppose that in a parallel universe everything remained the same except that a league average reliever on Team B gets injured at the beginning of the season and gets replaced with a AAA call-up. That call-up blows 3 games the other reliever wouldn't have, and now Team B finds itself 2-3 games short of a Wild Card berth. If we go by your reasoning, Player B is no longer an MVP because his team came short of the playoffs. But, it's hard to argue that an injury to a reliever can make another player less valuable. He still hit and fielded the same. Yet, somehow his value is diminished in the eyes of many because his team has become less relevant. That just seems really weird to me. (Mind you, I'm not making the case for Player B. I'm just using this thought experiment to show that Player A should have won the MVP to begin with)

 

In my mind, you can't penalize a guy for having to play with crappy talent and you can't reward a player for being lucky enough to have good players around him. No one player can take a really bad team and elevate them to a playoff contender. Baseball just isn't designed to allow for a single player, outside of a pitcher, to have that much impact.

 

Great post, Crimson. :thumbup

This question is for Junior or others who say that the MVP shouldn't come from a losing team.

 

Hypothetically, let's imagine two talented players on two different teams. For the sake of argument, Player A's team would be a 59 win team without Player A. With him, they are a 70 win team. Now, Player B's team would be a 80 win team without Player B. With him, they are an 88 win team and end up winning the Wild Card. So, Player A gives his team an additional 11 wins and Player B gives his team an additional 8 wins. However, by your criteria, Player B ought to be the MVP because he elevated his team from a non-playoff team to a playoff team.

 

However, here's where I have a problem with that line of thinking. By giving the MVP to Player B, you give Player B credit for things he has no control over, mainly the quality of the players around him. Suppose that in a parallel universe everything remained the same except that a league average reliever on Team B gets injured at the beginning of the season and gets replaced with a AAA call-up. That call-up blows 3 games the other reliever wouldn't have, and now Team B finds itself 2-3 games short of a Wild Card berth. If we go by your reasoning, Player B is no longer an MVP because his team came short of the playoffs. But, it's hard to argue that an injury to a reliever can make another player less valuable. He still hit and fielded the same. Yet, somehow his value is diminished in the eyes of many because his team has become less relevant. That just seems really weird to me. (Mind you, I'm not making the case for Player B. I'm just using this thought experiment to show that Player A should have won the MVP to begin with)

 

In my mind, you can't penalize a guy for having to play with crappy talent and you can't reward a player for being lucky enough to have good players around him. No one player can take a really bad team and elevate them to a playoff contender. Baseball just isn't designed to allow for a single player, outside of a pitcher, to have that much impact.

I don't believe there's a problem in giving the benefit of the doubt to a player on a winning team over one on a losing team. As for the argument that the Marlins would finish in last place with or without Miguel/Hanley, it's still fundamentally sound. For all of the talk otherwise, you still play to win the game like Herm Edwards lovingly reminds us.

 

To follow the thought experiment though, yeah you're giving Player B credit for things he has limited direct control over. But he also can be rewarded by things he doesn't have control over, because statistics don't happen in a vacuum. Does the player that plays in Philadelphia or Colorado not benefit, out of his control, from the environment to produce better offensive statistics? Does the pitcher that relies on ground balls not benefit, out of his control, from a superior infield defense and the way the grass is cut? What about the fly ball pitcher that happens to throw the majority of his pitches in a cavernous park? Or the RBI machine #3 hitter who has the good fortune of hitting behind two of the better hitters OBP-wise in baseball? A pitcher that gets runners cut down by a catcher with a Howitzer? Teams with decent talent that happen to play in an inferior division?

 

There's a whole lot that's out of player's control that still gets taken into account for their overall achievement. Like almost all things, value does not happen in a static shell.

 

And for the record, as much as I love baseball I dispute the claim that one players makes less difference than in any other sport. Patently untrue when compared to American football. I'll give you hockey and basketball, though.

I don't believe there's a problem in giving the benefit of the doubt to a player on a winning team over one on a losing team. As for the argument that the Marlins would finish in last place with or without Miguel/Hanley, it's still fundamentally sound. For all of the talk otherwise, you still play to win the game like Herm Edwards lovingly reminds us.

If you follow the Edwardsian mantra that "you play to win games," then it's still better to be a 70 win last place team than a 60 win last place team. If a player makes his team 10 wins better and another player makes his team 8 wins better. The 10 win player is the better, more valuable guy. And, since no player can make his team 20-30 win better or anything close to that, you can't point to a single player and say, "He's the reason they're a winning team." So, I still maintain that how the team fares in the standings should be a non-factor and the player's actual performance throughout the season should be the determining factor.

 

To follow the thought experiment though, yeah you're giving Player B credit for things he has limited direct control over. But he also can be rewarded by things he doesn't have control over, because statistics don't happen in a vacuum. Does the player that plays in Philadelphia or Colorado not benefit, out of his control, from the environment to produce better offensive

statistics?

There are stats that allow you to discount these factors, as best as possible, and assess a player's performance independent of the ball park they played in. All-inclusive stats like VORP, BRAR, Runs Created and the like all take what park a player plays in into consideration.

 

Does the pitcher that relies on ground balls not benefit, out of his control, from a superior infield defense and the way the grass is cut? What about the fly ball pitcher that happens to throw the majority of his pitches in a cavernous park?

Looking at a pitcher's DIPS (Defense Independent Pitching Statistics) allows you to make those judgment calls without having to go with the "Give the player on the better team the benefit of the doubt" route. Pitching statistics can also be discounted for park effects.

 

Or the RBI machine #3 hitter who has the good fortune of hitting behind two of the better hitters OBP-wise in baseball?

That's just an argument against the use of RBI to analyze a player's performance, not on my original argument. The only question I'd ever use RBI to answer is: "How many RBIs did this player have?"

 

A pitcher that gets runners cut down by a catcher with a Howitzer?

For starters, pitcher's are rarely awarded the MVP award. However, a pitcher's WHIP is much more important to keeping runners down than the catcher's arm, and is independent of those type of factors. Meaning, you don't have to get bogged down in these "What If" scenarios if you don't want to. There are plenty of hitting and pitching stats that are as independent of these factors as you can get.

 

Teams with decent talent that happen to play in an inferior division?

That's a point against your argument, not mine.

 

There's a whole lot that's out of player's control that still gets taken into account for their overall achievement. Like almost all things, value does not happen in a static shell.

You can do your best to assess performance as objectively as possible. Just because it's not perfect doesn't make it any more sensible to go with a flawed system (Best player on a winning team).

 

And for the record, as much as I love baseball I dispute the claim that one players makes less difference than in any other sport. Patently untrue when compared to American football. I'll give you hockey and basketball, though.

I never claimed that baseball was unique in that regard, but, since you disputed 2 out of the 3 remaining major team sports on your own, I'll address football. I agree with you that, like baseball, 1 single player cannot have a huge impact in football. However, here's the difference between the two sports. It's more difficult to analyze individual performance in football than it is in baseball. For the most part, baseball is a series of 1-on-1 matchups (Hitter vs. Pitcher). Football involves 11 players on either side of the ball all moving at the same time. That's 22 people who can be credited or debited for what happens on the field. Is that 4 yd. run due to the running back, the offensive linemen, the wide receiver who drew the linebackers over to his side of the field, the fullback who blocked, etc? In baseball, there are at most 3 individuals involved: the pitcher, the hitter, and the fielder. That alone makes it much easier to evaluate individual performance and allows you to make pretty precise determinations about a player's value to his team, as opposed to football.

 

Oh, and thank you Juanky for taking us both back to 9th grade debate meetings. Always fun.

For the record, the sports jab was at Swift, I just forgot to quote him. Just as lazy now as I was in Belen!

 

My overall argument was not for a lack of statistics, rather for the way awards are considered in general. We have VORP, OBP, Runs Created.....hell, if you really really wanted to, I bet you could find out Miguel Cabrera's average in day games when he's hung over and he's slept with a Mermaid in the previous 72 hours. Not disputing that stats exist to discount things players don't control. That also plays into the case of baseball vs football in regards to a singular achievement, because baseball is by far the easiest sport to gauge performance in (especially in the pitcher vs batter matchups).

 

However, one cannot deny that the nature of our award structure is still very much old fashioned. We don't give out silver sluggers for VORP and OPS+, we give it away for sexy. Chicks and sportswriters will always dig the long ball whether or not Bill James sleeps easy at night. Chicks also dig low ERAs, leading the league in hits, and the amount of flashy plays you make on defense when determining the silver slugger and gold glove. All of those things by their very nature are directly and indirectly influenced by the team around you. Which makes sense, to a point.....what good is having Carlos Ortega on your BFL team if you have Juanky throwing to him (that, and he never showed)? On the converse, having Gaby Hernandez single-handedly lead your team to the playoffs as the QB earns him MVP honors. SWIDT?

 

This conversation is all well and good and in theory your argument is the better one. But if we honestly think Hanley has more than a 20% shot to win the MVP when he's got the following against him:

• Arguably not having the best year on his own team
  
• Arguably not the most talented player on his own team
  
• Plays for a small market
  
• Plays for a last place team
  
• Isn't having a record setting year in the traditional sense
  
• Is about to join elite company in a year where a lot of people are joining elite company in equally as random scenarios (see: latest Jason Stark column)
  

we're lying to ourselves plain and simple.

 

I personally believe, outside of the vacuum and outside of reality, MVP (usually) should go to the player who had the most clear cut place in lifting a team into the playoffs that wouldn't have been there before. I don't buy into the best player on the best team crap. The Sosa example in 1998 was actually, IMO, the best example of an MVP. World class year on a team that would have been crap without him, but with him is elevated into the finest of all sports months.

I bet you could find out Miguel Cabrera's average in day games when he's hung over and he's slept with a Mermaid in the previous 72 hours.

 

.427

 

(Fortunately, or unfortunately, there's no small sample size alert for this one)

That low?

For me, choosing an MVP is a complicated calculus, but I wouldn't hesitate to use team success as a tiebreaker when choosing between two roughly equivalent players. Limiting the voting to only playoff-bound players is ridiculous, though. If any one player has clearly had a better season than everyone else, he should be MVP. That isn't the case with either Marlin, though, so neither is going to win (nor should they).

 

As a side note, if I have two equivalent players, one on the best team in the league, and one on a team that just sneaks into the playoffs, I would give the MVP to the player on the best team without hesitation. I understand the argument given by those who would do it the other way around, but I disagree with it wholeheartedly. The goal is to be the best, not to sneak into the playoffs.

For me, choosing an MVP is a complicated calculus, but I wouldn't hesitate to use team success as a tiebreaker when choosing between two roughly equivalent players. Limiting the voting to only playoff-bound players is ridiculous, though. If any one player has clearly had a better season than everyone else, he should be MVP. That isn't the case with either Marlin, though, so neither is going to win (nor should they).

 

As a side note, if I have two equivalent players, one on the best team in the league, and one on a team that just sneaks into the playoffs, I would give the MVP to the player on the best team without hesitation. I understand the argument given by those who would do it the other way around, but I disagree with it wholeheartedly. The goal is to be the best, not to sneak into the playoffs.

 

Yes, but just to play devil's advocate what you determine to be "equal" players may not always be the easiest perception. I mean, some people are so antiquated in their assessment of worth that it begins and ends with the triple crown stat. Others see stolen bases, completely ignore caught stealing and think that that is the most valuable a player can be since steals are an increasing rarity.

 

What my point is, that it's impossible to say that two players are unilaterally equal. And what's more, I think that since perception of worth is an all too overused qualifier in this debate, when one wishes to look at the intangi-scale, perhaps a new variable should be the figment of lineup protection. After all, if a player is posting triple crown numbers on one of the worst teams in the league, surely he must be "doing it by himself" which means every home-run or RBI, he earned himself and not on the merit of the player in the on-deck circle.

 

My belief is simply this, the antiquated notion of the MVP being about the best player on a playoff or near-playoff team is foolish. If that's the logic used, the award should just go to Albert Pujols every year the Cardinals finish above .500. He's the best player on that team, he's the best player (all things considered) in the league on a year to year basis and he's doing it by himself. To me, that's just silly.

 

I think that the sooner a lot of the voters (and fans) realize that baseball is the one sport that minimizes the ability of an individual to take over a game, the sooner progress is made in this field. Because the Marlins stink is no fault of Miguel Cabrera, much like the Rangers stinking was no fault of Alex Rodriguez (although I know you could abstractly argue he was a leading contributor).

 

A player's ability and worth need to be held independent of his team's success. Otherwise, it's just as silly as looking at a player like Derek Jeter and using a good old Joe Morgan "he's a winner."