A-Rod has had the kind of year that will make him another Andre Dawson-esque exception to that rule. Just my opinion, and I'm sure many disagree. I really do want baseball to get this award defined better. That's interesting that they don't really promote the Henry Aaron Award... a damn shame, as it would put a stop to the gazillion "MVP vs "Best Player" arguments
That's ridiculous. You say that A-Rod doesn't help his team as much as the other guys simply because his team is in last? He helps his team more than those other guys, it's the rest of his team that isn't valuable. Manny is right, no one is going to be convinced here. But I leave this discussion with this point. You post above the definition of valuable. I agree with that definition. However, I don't agree with how it is APPLIED in the MVP race. A-Rod IS the most valuable player in the AL. I say this because, if any team had their choice of ONE player in the AL to pick up, they would all choose A-Rod, and we know it (let's assume that salary is not part of the MVP consideration, as I think many believe it should not be). He is the most valuable player in the league, because he would have the most value over anyone else if he was on ANY team. Right now, you can definitely say he is not the most valuable player to the team that he belongs to, but that is just an unfortunate coincidence, and not one that he has any control over. Also, someone pointed out (I believe you, Manny) that baseball is a team game, so that team success should be considered when voting for MVP. Well, I submit to you that baseball is NOT a team sport. It is a sport played by teams that are populated by players that are doing their best individually at nearly all times, and that just happens to coincide with the team's success because of the way baseball is designed. Baseball is not like basketball where a player like Stephon Marbury can pad his stats and hurt his team. In baseball, it is every player's goal to get their individual stats as high as possible. Sure, there are situations where laying down a sacrifice is asked of players as opposed to swinging away, but that situation doesn't really happen often for me to consider this a "team" sport in the sense that everyone works together, sacrificing of their own glory to help the team win. And usually players like A-Rod, who are in the MVP hunt, are not asked to lay down sacrifices because it takes their big bat out of their hands. On defense, this is changed somewhat, as the players do have to work together, and in some cases it might be better for a player to not try to make a spectacular play. However, defense is not really a big factor in the MVP race, so I don't feel that makes a big difference. For these reasons, I don't feel team success is relevant in the MVP race. So much of team success is merely a sum of the parts, and it is all very detached from the individual players...that is why you see so much statistical analysis in baseball, because production can be measured very accurately, unlike football and basketball where there are many more intangibles players may be contributing to. But like Manny points out, this discussion is not really evolving, and we are all just stating the same things over and over again, so I will bow out now.
You also have to remember what era A-Rod is playing in. If Rodriguez had this type of season pre-1998, he would definitely be getting some serious MVP consideration.
Raven, you make several good points, but I think we just differ in our opinion of what the MVP is. In my opinion the MVP is someone who helps their team win in high-pressure situations, such as pennant races, wildcard races, or just maintaining a 1st place record. Pretty much all Arod was playing for this season was to pad his stats, there really wasn't anything else to play for...the Rangers were out of the playoffs before the season even got going. And yes, I'm sure Arod would perform even if the Rangers were in a playoff race, but the fact is, he wasn't given the opportunity! And as unfair as that sounds, that is what the MVP award is about! All you have to do is look to the history of major league baseball and see there's only been something like 3 MVPs who were on a losing team. As far as me brining up the Mariners, I wasn't using that as a knock against Arod, I was just using that to prove a point that just because a star player leaves a team doesn't neccesarily mean that team is going to be worse the next season. There are several examples of this. It's really just speculation when you say the Rangers would be a whole lot worse off without Arod...personally, I don't think they would. They would still be a very good hitting team, and their pitching would still suck...just like this season. I could also go into a rant about how opposing teams may not throw their best pitchers at the Rangers as they would against teams like the Yankees, but that would purely be speculation on my part. So, I'll just casually mention it at the end of this post.
First of all, I don't think his salary should come into play at all. That just means the owner is a ****ty owner. As far as value goes, then shouldn't the closer with the most saves win the MVP every year. They are working under pressure situations every time they enter the game and factor in around 40 wins for the season. I don't really agree that a closer deserves to win MVP, I just think it refutes some of your arguements.
