This is something that has irked me for a long time. In most sports, whether or not a player gets awarded MVP for a season is tied closely to how his/her team did over that season. This makes sense for most sports. In basketball, you are one of 5 players on the court, and as such influence MUCH of what goes on. A single basketball player can have an effect of 10 or more wins, I feel. In football, if you are a quarterback, running back or a receiver, you can have a significant effect on the outcome of most games (and in football the MVP is rarely given to a player at a position other than those that I listed). But in baseball, a player is always ONE man out of 9 in a lineup. He is always ONE man out of 8 playing defensive positions. There is only so much a single baseball player can do to effect his team's success. So why should the requisites for winning MVP be the same in baseball as they are in basketball or football? The reason I bring this up is because I live in Dallas, and there is the big discussion right now over whether A-Rod should get the award over someone else, Soriano or Tejada for instance. To me, this is a no brainer. A-Rod has been the better hitter than either of the two others. I am not too very confident as to who has been the better fielder, but I do know that Rodriguez is an excellent fielder, so neither Tejada nor Soriano could get much of an advantage over him in that category. So for a lot of people, it comes down to team success. But A-Rod has had a better season than those other two. It is not his fault that the rest of his team might not be able to get the job done (really only the pitching). He has done everything in his power to help the team, and he has done it better than anyone else in the AL. I think that is reason enough to give the guy MVP. Baseball is not like basketball where a player can be TOO selfish and hurt the team. When he gets up to the plate, his job is to do as much as possible by himself, everytime. I just feel like, in baseball, team success should be completely excluded from consideration when voting for MVP. Thoughts?
I don't think he should get the award anyway. IMO Barry Bonds was better. He put up tremendous numbers in all categories even though he wasn't pitched to almost half of the time he went to the plate and he helped his team win. The man was simply unbelievable this year.
I've never really thought of it that way, but it makes sense. I think if someone has distanced himself in the way that A-Rod has, I think he deserves the award. Now if his numbers were just barely ahead of other canidates, then you would have to factor in the pressure of being in a penant race or playing for a winner vs playing on a mediocre or in this case horible team.
RocketPimp, I believe they have both an AL and NL MVP. And Barry Bonds does definitely deserve it for the NL and if they had a league wide MVP, he would win it hands down.
Most <b>Valuable</b> Player The Rangers would be in the same place they are if A-Rod weren't on the team...LAST! The only person that should be voting A-Rod for MVP is Tom Hicks, because nobody would even go to the games if it weren't for him The Silver Slugger award was created to recognize good hitters on bad teams...
Raven, I think you present some compelling arguments for your side; however, I look at it like this. Take away A-Rod from the Rangers and do they still win the same number of games or is it less? His season reminds me of the one that Cecil Fielder had in the early '90s with Detroit when he hit like 51 home runs. Back then, hitting 50 or more homers in a season was quite impressive; however, that Tiger team sucked and finished in last place. I can't remember if he was still voted MVP, but in my opinion, I didn't think he should have gotten it (if he did) because the Tigers would have still sucked whether he played for them or not. Another example on the flip side was a couple of years ago when Pedro Martinez had such a brilliant year (he won like 23 games and had an ERA under 2). There was little doubt that he WAS the reason why the Red Sox got to the playoffs. You take him away, and they don't go. I know Barry Bonds says that a pitcher should never get an MVP award, but that was a classic case of a player, and a pitcher at that, who definitely made a difference in his team winning ballgames. I would have to give the MVP to Soriano simply because he has had such a phenomenal season. You can argue that the Yankees would have still won the AL East without him, but he won a lot of games for them. As a matter of fact, I don't know if the Yankees would have won the AL East without Soriano, but that is my opinion.
You make a very good point. The MVP award is really who is the most valuable to their team. Thus having a good team should not count when it comes to voting. Tejada and Soriano are just big pieces to the puzzles in NY and Oakland, A-Rod is like 7/8 of the pie in Texas, especially this season. One of the easiest test for the MVP to me is, how well would the team do without this player. If you take out A-Rod from Texas they would be lifeless, taking Soriano or Tejada out and those teams keep on rolling. Although Tejada has one several games singlehandedly this season. So it is a tossup for me between Tejada and A-Rod. I think Tejada has really stepped up this season, but so had A-Rod, just incredible numbers.
You have not addressed any of my points. What could A-Rod have done differently to put him in position to win MVP? Should ALL players that are on bad teams immediately be eliminated from possibly winning the award? That seems awfully unfair.
I don't like this argument against A-Rod. You are using what is purely speculation to reduce his worth to his team. Who knows how many games they would have won without him? The guy was quite simply the most productive player in the AL, so I don't see why that wouldn't mean he had the most value to his team, regardless of what his teammates were doing.
Raven -- i don't know if we've ever agreed before...but i am with you on this one....a guy should not be punished in MVP voting because his teammates suck...A-Rod can't pitch...the team could be the best offensive team in the league, with A-Rod leading the charge, but if his pitching is worst in the league than they find themselves on the bottom of 13-12 scores...the man is clearly the best player in the AL, in my opinion...he may be the best SS in the history of the game...and he's having a career year...that merits MVP votes, in my opinion.
If your team is in last place, then you aren't very valuable to them. In fact, since he has such a rediculous contract, he is probably hurting the Rangers. They could get two or three quality starters for what he is making. Soriano is going to be the first 40-40 second baseman ever. He is leading a team in homeruns that features Giambi, Williams, and Posada. His team is in first place and will probably have homefield throughout the playoffs (based on the quality of their and Oakland's opponents for the rest of the year. I see Soriano winning it this year and I think it won't be his last. Someone that no one mentions is Posada. Sure he doesn't put up the same numbers, but how many teams have a switch-hitting great offensive catcher who can defend?
So you are of the opinion that every player on a team not contending for the playoffs should not be eligible for the MVP? I find that to be a pretty lame system for awarding players. Why are you not valuable to a team that is in last place? Just because they didn't win as many games as the Yankees doesn't mean he didn't contribute to the Rangers wins. I look at it like this: baseball players can only do so much for their teams to win, so you have to separate the wins from the players production. If A-Rod had these same numbers on the Yankees or Atheletics, everyone would be admitting he was the MVP. However, the ONLY thing that would change if that happened was his teamates. Not the pitchers he faced, not the difficulty of his accomplishments, nothing else. When you are talking about MVP, you are talking about most valuable PLAYER. We are talking about one person, so I don't think other players should have any bearing on who is selected.
A-Rod put up great numbers again, but the Rangers still are a bad team. Maybe if they split up his contract and got a couple of dominant starting pitchers they, as a team, would have more success. When you take up 25 million a year on payroll it's hard to find value in a player that equals that much money. Sure he puts up incredible stats, but the team is obviously lacking in many other areas. I know, of course, that it's not his fault. However when you eat up so much of a team's payroll it can be hard for them to fill in the other roster spots with the players they need to win . He seems like a nice guy, I don't think that he's ruining the team's chemistry or anything. They just can't compete. I completely understand your argument though and, in many cases, it is certainly true. my AL MVP vote goes to Alfonso Soriano. The man does it all. I hope he makes it to 40-40. Incredible value for a leadoff or 7th hole hitter. He makes everyone in the lineup better. He is the most valuable player in the league. I think he's only missed 1 or 2 games, also.
So now a guy's contract should be factored into the MVP decision? That's clearly not right. His contract is irrelevant to the MVP decision. I gree with Raven on this. You have to look as to who is the best player in the AL...not just how many wins his team has.
You admit that much of what you are holding against A-Rod in the MVP race is not his fault, and you still hold that against him? It is not his fault the Rangers screwed up and offered too much money. It is not his fault that their pitching staff can't hold any team to less than 6 runs. None of this is his fault, and there is little to nothing he can do about it. So I look at it like this, when you say most "valuable" player, I don't think "Who is the most valuable to their team", I instead think "Who would be the most valuable to any team if they had the same numbers?" I can see it either way, but I don't like holding things against a player that he can't control, and I really don't like eliminating half the freaking league from the MVP race from the beginning of the season, especially when the best player is among those. Also, this does nothing to help the situation in baseball where players want to go to the big market teams. They already want to go there because of the better chance of success and more money. With this system, now they have incentive to go there because their contributions will be more appreciated.
Actually, Arod may be the least valuable player on his team...I mean, I wonder how much his ridicurous contract is going to hurt the Rangers from ever improving. Hicks has already come to the realization that he has paid Arod too much, and he has said that he just can't do it anymore. Anyone think there's any truth to this...that's Arod and his contract will only hurt the Ranger's future in the long run? Or will Hicks still be able to spend money and go after some good pitchers/players to fill in the holes. I do think Arod is the best player in the AL, but the MVP is a combination of invdividual production and team results. Arod has at least ten more years to help bring a team to playoff contension, at which time he will almost definitely win the MVP. But for right now, give it someone who is helping their team compete.
Not totally random, but i think the last MVP from a really bad team was Cal Ripken Jr. some time back in the 90's, before he broke gehrig's streak, back when it was unhuman for a SS to hit like 30 hrs or so. If i'm not mistaken, he won for a last place baltimore team that year.
