MVP Criteria

[Gugny]

This topic is near and dear to my heart.

 

I am a firm believer in the fact (my opinion) that an MVP cannot come from a losing team.

 

Value is the key word.  I think a team has to be a winning team in order to have an MVP candidate.

 

Let's take last year's winners:  Stanton and Altuve.

 

The Marlins were going to suck with Stanton, or without him.  How was he valuable?  He made them suck a little less.

 

The Astros, however, (in my opinion) would not have gone onto the World Series without Altuve.  THAT is value.

 

I believe that MLB should have two awards for each league:  MVP and POY (Player of the Year).  This way, guys like Stanton can be recognized for being the best player in the league - even though his contributions didn't lead to his team getting into the post season.  And guys like Altuve can be recognized for being a player who - without him - his team would NOT have gotten as far as they did.

 

I love this conversation.  Especially with true baseball fans, which is why I opened it up here and not on Off the Wall.  

 

Let's discuss!!

[row_33]

MVP or its like should be categorized as:

 

1)  a season that only the immortals could give us; or

 

2) we have to give out the trophy every year,  so here you go but this isn't really worthy

 

 

and we go through the charade in the NBA of LeBron clearly being the top player for a decade now in his sport but the writers are too bored with voting for him, Jordan had the same effect

 

and it's for the regular season which means LESS and LESS each year that passes....

 

 

[Gugny]

11 minutes ago, row_33 said:

MVP or its like should be categorized as:

 

1)  a season that only the immortals could give us; or

 

2) we have to give out the trophy every year,  so here you go but this isn't really worthy

 

 

and we go through the charade in the NBA of LeBron clearly being the top player for a decade now in his sport but the writers are too bored with voting for him, Jordan had the same effect

 

and it's for the regular season which means LESS and LESS each year that passes....

 

 

 

For your #1 - I would rather have a Player of the Year for that kind of performance.  Being great doesn't define value, IMO.  Look at the Yankees.  Let's say Judge and Stanton each hit 50+ homeruns and drive in 130.  If you take one of those players away, it would barely be a blip on their radar and they'd likely win just as many games - just by a smaller margin.  So neither is the most valuable player in baseball, because the Yankees would still be great (hypothetically) without one of them.  However - one of the two would likely qualify for Player of the Year.

[row_33]

Bill SImmons in his Basketball book went on for many pages about this concept, the size of the trophy reflecting the honest accomplishments for the MVP... a great read if you like this kinda thing, and i do...

 

I know the players care about it for $$$ and swag reasons, but I think they are more interested in a prolonged career with huge down the road paydays, and the playoffs are so long that the regular season is totally forgotten at the end

 

we have given MVPs and Cy's in my addicted fan life to:

 

1) a man whose only distinction was people felt sorry because he had the living crap beat out of him in a bar fight

 

2) a man who had a very good year and played up the story that he was molested as a child

 

3)  a man who finished dead last in the standings but was admired for letting the owner fill in a blank cheque for his free agent salary

 

maybe a legend but the Tchaikowski Piano competition in Moscow would designate legendary and "also ran" status to annual winners to preserve integrity

 

 

 

[row_33]

So Ted didn't get a top 10 vote in his triple crown 1941 from a Boston sportswriter and missed out on the MVP.

 

and apparently this voter despised Ted (the first incarnation of Dan Shaughnessey I guess...) and was passed out drunk half the games so the other Boston scribes would fill in his boilerplate columns for him, and voted that way for him as well

 

 

[Greybeard]

1 hour ago, row_33 said:

So Ted didn't get a top 10 vote in his triple crown 1941 from a Boston sportswriter and missed out on the MVP.

 

and apparently this voter despised Ted (the first incarnation of Dan Shaughnessey I guess...) and was passed out drunk half the games so the other Boston scribes would fill in his boilerplate columns for him, and voted that way for him as well

 

 

              Ted got ripped off but I have to admit in any other year, Williams or DiMaggio would have been the winner.  Each guy had a great year.

 

        There is no way I would not vote for some guy who has a great year, hit 380, 40 hr and 100 RBI's and not get my vote because he was on a last place team.   Say a Marlin did this.  You going to screw the guy because of the front office?   And that is assuming no other guy in contention can match those stats.

2 hours ago, row_33 said:

Bill SImmons in his Basketball book went on for many pages about this concept, the size of the trophy reflecting the honest accomplishments for the MVP... a great read if you like this kinda thing, and i do...

 

I know the players care about it for $$$ and swag reasons, but I think they are more interested in a prolonged career with huge down the road paydays, and the playoffs are so long that the regular season is totally forgotten at the end

 

we have given MVPs and Cy's in my addicted fan life to:

 

1) a man whose only distinction was people felt sorry because he had the living crap beat out of him in a bar fight

 

2) a man who had a very good year and played up the story that he was molested as a child

 

3)  a man who finished dead last in the standings but was admired for letting the owner fill in a blank cheque for his free agent salary

 

maybe a legend but the Tchaikowski Piano competition in Moscow would designate legendary and "also ran" status to annual winners to preserve integrity

 

 

 

         So who are 1-2-3?

[SinceThe70s]

12 minutes ago, Greybeard said:

              Ted got ripped off but I have to admit in any other year, Williams or DiMaggio would have been the winner.  Each guy had a great year.

 

        There is no way I would not vote for some guy who has a great year, hit 380, 40 hr and 100 RBI's and not get my vote because he was on a last place team.   Say a Marlin did this.  You going to screw the guy because of the front office?   And that is assuming no other guy in contention can match those stats.

         So who are 1-2-3?

 

I think there was Andre Dawson,. no clue on 1 and 2. 

[row_33]

1 hour ago, Greybeard said:

              Ted got ripped off but I have to admit in any other year, Williams or DiMaggio would have been the winner.  Each guy had a great year.

 

        There is no way I would not vote for some guy who has a great year, hit 380, 40 hr and 100 RBI's and not get my vote because he was on a last place team.   Say a Marlin did this.  You going to screw the guy because of the front office?   And that is assuming no other guy in contention can match those stats.

         So who are 1-2-3?

 

#2 took his Cy Young to Toronto and robbed us completely blind in exchange for Syndergaard..... !@#$ !@#$ !@#$ a million times !@#$ for eternity....

 

 

Vaughan was the bar fight windbag, they played it like he was "defending a woman's honour" for a week and then dropped that line...

[SinceThe70s]

5 hours ago, row_33 said:

 

#2 took his Cy Young to Toronto and robbed us completely blind in exchange for Syndergaard..... !@#$ !@#$ !@#$ a million times !@#$ for eternity....

 

 

Vaughan was the bar fight windbag, they played it like he was "defending a woman's honour" for a week and then dropped that line...

 

I feel shame that I didn't get R.A. As a Mets fan It's unusual to be on the good side of a lop-sided trade. Nolan Ryan, Amos Otis,...

 

Getting back to OP, this has been a great debate since I was a kid. I did a quick google to see if I could find the criteria for the award (beyond it's name!) and found the following:

 

 “There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

“The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931: (1) actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense; (2) number of games played; (3) general character, disposition, loyalty and effort; (4) former winners are eligible; and (5) members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.” (http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2011/08/29/here-are-the-mvp-voting-criteria/)

 

If I remember correctly, Andre Dawson won on a last place team because his numbers were so much better than anyone else. Still tough to consider that "most valuable".  But I wouldn't rule out based on winning/losing solely. Astros would not have made it to the WS without Altuve. But the same could be said of Verlander. Astros might not take it past the Yankees without him. If Altuve has the same exact year on a lesser team is he any less valuable? It's a team game.

 

Pitchers typically get short-changed too. Probably because they have their own award. I always thought Mariano should've won one.  And has anyone ever won the award with consideration given towards defense? More often than not it's a power hitters award.

 

The great thing about the award is that it's completely subjective. Makes for great debate. In the end it doesn't really matter to me who wins, except it gives me something to talk about in between games and seasons.

 

 

 

[Gugny]

13 hours ago, SinceThe70s said:

 

I feel shame that I didn't get R.A. As a Mets fan It's unusual to be on the good side of a lop-sided trade. Nolan Ryan, Amos Otis,...

 

Getting back to OP, this has been a great debate since I was a kid. I did a quick google to see if I could find the criteria for the award (beyond it's name!) and found the following:

 

 “There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

“The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931: (1) actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense; (2) number of games played; (3) general character, disposition, loyalty and effort; (4) former winners are eligible; and (5) members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.” (http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2011/08/29/here-are-the-mvp-voting-criteria/)

 

If I remember correctly, Andre Dawson won on a last place team because his numbers were so much better than anyone else. Still tough to consider that "most valuable".  But I wouldn't rule out based on winning/losing solely. Astros would not have made it to the WS without Altuve. But the same could be said of Verlander. Astros might not take it past the Yankees without him. If Altuve has the same exact year on a lesser team is he any less valuable? It's a team game.

 

Pitchers typically get short-changed too. Probably because they have their own award. I always thought Mariano should've won one.  And has anyone ever won the award with consideration given towards defense? More often than not it's a power hitters award.

 

The great thing about the award is that it's completely subjective. Makes for great debate. In the end it doesn't really matter to me who wins, except it gives me something to talk about in between games and seasons.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for posting this.

 

I really think it underscores the need for a Player of the Year award.  

 

I think defense would (and possibly has) come into play if, let's say, two players each have 50+ homeruns and 120+ RBI ... but one of them is a DH and the other is Gold Glove outfielder.  I think the outfielder would win out because he's contributing more to the team on a daily basis.

 

That's why it's hard to make a case for pitchers.  Mariano was protecting a lead that was built by guys who scored more runs than the other team.  Don't get me wrong ... as dominant as he was, I'd have been fine with him winning an MVP.  For starting pitchers, because they only pitch every 5 days, I can't see how one could qualify as the MVP.  Unless someone has 25 wins and they're all 2-1 or 3-2 complete games.  Then one could point out that 1/4 of the team's wins were because of this guy's pitching.  

 

So MLB recognized the need for a separate award to acknowledge the best pitchers in each league - which has nothing to do with value to the team; only with individual success.

 

They need the same for positional players and I believe they've been using the MVP incorrectly for this purpose.

Edited April 21, 2018 by Gugny

[row_33]

20 hours ago, SinceThe70s said:

 

I feel shame that I didn't get R.A. As a Mets fan It's unusual to be on the good side of a lop-sided trade. Nolan Ryan, Amos Otis,...

 

Getting back to OP, this has been a great debate since I was a kid. I did a quick google to see if I could find the criteria for the award (beyond it's name!) and found the following:

 

 “There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

“The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931: (1) actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense; (2) number of games played; (3) general character, disposition, loyalty and effort; (4) former winners are eligible; and (5) members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.” (http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2011/08/29/here-are-the-mvp-voting-criteria/)

 

If I remember correctly, Andre Dawson won on a last place team because his numbers were so much better than anyone else. Still tough to consider that "most valuable".  But I wouldn't rule out based on winning/losing solely. Astros would not have made it to the WS without Altuve. But the same could be said of Verlander. Astros might not take it past the Yankees without him. If Altuve has the same exact year on a lesser team is he any less valuable? It's a team game.

 

Pitchers typically get short-changed too. Probably because they have their own award. I always thought Mariano should've won one.  And has anyone ever won the award with consideration given towards defense? More often than not it's a power hitters award.

 

The great thing about the award is that it's completely subjective. Makes for great debate. In the end it doesn't really matter to me who wins, except it gives me something to talk about in between games and seasons.

 

 

 

 

The media hyper-pumped up Dawson on a last place team, even with the best numbers it’s still a stretch to give it.....

 

just like giving it to a pitcher or reliever

 

Steve Carlton with 27 wins on a 55 win team was worthy of MVP.....

 

[row_33]

 

 

Rules..... they just do whatever they feel like every  year, if they don’t like a player they will give it to a weaker candidate out of spite.  Sometimes the hate is deserved fully.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

I don't think anyone should ever be awarded an MVP in any sport unless they've hit Mike Piazza in the head with a fastball, and then thrown a shard of a broken bat at him.  Period.

[Gugny]

3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

I don't think anyone should ever be awarded an MVP in any sport unless they've hit Mike Piazza in the head with a fastball, and then thrown a shard of a broken bat at him.  Period.

 

I can't think of many people, past or present, who I despise more than I do Roger Clemens.  Off the top of my head:  Hitler, Bin Laden, Curt Schilling, Doug Flutie ... that's all I got.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Poetry in motion, brought to you by the last MVP in any sport, ever:

 

Edited April 25, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[row_33]

8 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Poetry in motion, brought to you by the last MVP in any sport, ever:

 

 

Fond memories, as fresh as if it were yesterday 

 

 

[Gugny]

Clemens still has to buy a ticket to get into Cooperstown.  He's the only baseball player who !@#$ed a girl younger than Travis Henry did, too.  RIP Mindy McCready.

[row_33]

5 hours ago, Gugny said:

Clemens still has to buy a ticket to get into Cooperstown.  He's the only baseball player who !@#$ed a girl younger than Travis Henry did, too.  RIP Mindy McCready.

 

For a few years a colleagues a few times a week gave me a pair of tickets five rows behind the screen at home for Jays games.

 

Mediocre years where hovering around 500 was meaningless.

 

I went alone and stayed for an hour and left unless something compelling kept me around.

 

Clemens and later Halladay were given four inches off both sides of the plate by the umps and no batter said a peep about it.

 

Edited April 29, 2018 by row_33

[TakeYouToTasker]

On ‎04‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 11:34 PM, Gugny said:

Clemens still has to buy a ticket to get into Cooperstown.  He's the only baseball player who !@#$ed a girl younger than Travis Henry did, too.  RIP Mindy McCready.

 

MVP! MVP! MVP!