It addresses the point because the frequent argument is that ARod on the A's would produce more than Tejada, yet ARod makes 7 times what Tejada does and the A's could never afford him. There are a lot of players who've won the award having inferior statistics. This isn't new and the award isn't just about statistics.
why is he less valuable than tejada? because his teammates suck? so is the award for tejada or for his teammates? Most Valuable to the Team. What did A-Rod help his team achieve? Last place? They could have done that without him. Tejada helped his team make the playoffs. It's the same as Hakeem - he had lots of great seasons, but the greatest was the one (or two, in his case) where he led the Rockets to the championships. Statistically, he might have been good in other seasons, but if the Rockets finished with a 20-62 record, did it really matter? I don't think an MVP candidate has to led a team to a title, but I think he has to help the team compete for something significant - division title, playoffs, whatever.
it boils down to punishing a player with a tremendous performance because the players on his team aren't as good as the players on another team... is tejada any more valuable by your definition than barry zito? timing -- i don't think salary should factor into it...what an owner is willing to pay a guy shouldn't affect awards for performance on the field, in my opinion.
it boils down to punishing a player with a tremendous performance because the players on his team aren't as good as the players on another team... I don't know that they are necessarily punished, but yeah I agree that how good the rest of your team is has a big impact. If your criteria for MVP is selecting from players who helped make their teams good, then ignoring the players who didn't make their teams good isn't really "punishment". is tejada any more valuable by your definition than barry zito? Not really, except that Tejada played every day. I personally have no problem with giving MVPs to pitchers, but it seems that its pretty much accepted that Cy-Young is the pitcher's MVP while the MVP is the position-player's MVP.
so we just choose the best player from the best team and that's the MVP? ok...but it's worthless then, in my opinion. it eliminates a whole field of players who play for teams that year in and year out suck, despite how well they may play. i could understand taking this approach in basketball, where everyone plays defense and offense...but taking this approach in baseball where pitching is so vital to the success of a team just baffles me.
so we just choose the best player from the best team and that's the MVP? ok...but it's worthless then, in my opinion. it eliminates a whole field of players who play for teams that year in and year out suck, despite how well they may play. You take the best player from the pool of decent/good teams that were competitive for most of the season, in my opinion. The great players on the the sucky teams could win a Most Outstanding Player award, but not a Most Valuable Player because they really didn't add much value. Is there much value in being in last by 20 games or 30 games?
Team ERA Oakland-3.68 with 19 shutouts Texas-5.15 with 4 shutouts Team Batting (Runs) Oakland-800 (Team avg runs per game 4.9) Texas-843 (Team avg runs per game 5.2) Team's win-loss Oakland-103-59 Texas -72-90
wait...that's a team oriented question...not an individual one...no, there's not any value in being in last...but there is value in having the best season ever in the history of SS's...the fact that it came for a bad team is incidental... what were really saying here is that if you play for a bad team that is 20 or 30 games out, then there is nothing valuable about your performance? that's the problem...you have to have a good team around you to win this award...again, i think the spirit of the mvp award is that it denotes who the best player in the league was that year...who had the best season...i'm not even an A-Rod fan...in fact I can't stand the Rangers...but when a guy has the best season ever for a player at his position, i'm not real inclined to say, "eh...it's not as valuable as the guy who had half your power numbers but happens to play for a team with a kick-ass pitching staff." just doesn't make sense to me...
But who says it is most valuable to the team? Could it not be most valuable to the entire league? In other words, if you consider A-Rod as a player separate from his team, then it could be the player most valuable to ANY team. In other words, if any team (only AL in this case) could choose a player to form their team around, then A-Rod would be chosen, I think. As others have said, it is a problem of semantics, and it is a problem that MLB will probably never fix because it can be interpreted different ways. The basketball analogy is a bad one because, in basketball, players that are deserving of MVP consideration should be able to carry the team to success regardless of the kind of supporting cast they have (or at least moderate enough success to take away the winning/losing criticism). In baseball, this is not the case, there are just too many players. By the way, there was a huge discussion of this very subject a couple months ago. Might save some people the time of arguing the exact same points. http://207.44.140.146/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41723&highlight=MVP\
what were really saying here is that if you play for a bad team that is 20 or 30 games out, then there is nothing valuable about your performance? Valuable to whom, I guess. I think of MVP as Most Valuable to the Team Player. I guess, as Raven mentioned, you could look at it as Most Valuable to the League Player, or Most Valuable to an Offense Player, though.
So now he's a mother****er because he plays for a guy who sticks with a team, that, you know, makes the playoffs? In that sense, are you an assmuncher because you support a crappy team?
I don't like the Rangers... ... but it should have been A-Rod unanimously. There's no doubt he had the best season in the American league. Basketball, maybe you have to carry your team. Baseball, no one player can do that, no matter how good you are. And then, of course, you have all the geniuses who dislike giving MVPs to the best player on a great team, reasoning that the best player on a Wild Card team "meant more." Makes the MVP a joke - the award goes to the best player on the team that just managed to make the playoffs. Then, you've got the even bigger geniuses who vote for a good player on a great team, reasoning that the award should go to someone on the best team in baseball (Ichiro last year, anyone?). Just cut the crap... give it to the guy who had the best season, and get it over with. The team award is "World Series champions." So, let's give the MVP on individual performance alone.
WOW, $600,000 is a steal for what Soriano did this year. Looks like George is going to have to open up the wallet very soon.....hopefully he saves a little after they sign Matsui
