NL MVP

Illustrious Potentate said:
Again, it’s most valuable, you’re not the MOST valuable player in the league if you’re not playing October baseball. A single player keeping his team from 100 losses isn’t nearly as valuable as a player who the team doesn’t make the playoffs without.

The league agrees with you apparently, but that doesn’t make it right.

Either change the name of the award or stop rewarding players for signing long term deals with shit franchises
Click to expand...
your logic makes absolutely no sense.
 
ill said:
your logic makes absolutely no sense.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. The success of the team increases the value of a player’s season. A great season on a bad team is a waste, not the most valuable performance of the season.
 
Illustrious Potentate said:
Yes it does. The success of the team increases the value of a player’s season. A great season on a bad team is a waste, not the most valuable performance of the season.
Click to expand...
I agree

but there are degrees of success

you can be a really shitty team

or you can have a player that elevates your team out of being shitty and puts you in contention.

a great season on a bad team is a waste...but what about on a mediocre team that would be a bad team without said player?

is that not also considered "value"?
 
ill said:
I agree

but there are degrees of success

you can be a really shitty team

or you can have a player that elevates your team out of being shitty and puts you in contention.

a great season on a bad team is a waste...but what about on a mediocre team that would be a bad team without said player?

is that not also considered "value"?
Click to expand...
There’s value, but that M stands for most, a player the team doesn’t make the playoffs without is more valuable. Personally, I’d give it to Brandon Crawford because the Giants definitely don’t win the division without him
 
And I don't know why people are suddenly outraged by this. Here's some MVP winners from non-playoff teams (not including 2019 Mike Trout):

2017: Giancarlo Stanton (NL MVP on a 77-85 team; the runner-up, Votto, was on a 68-94 team)
2016: Mike Trout (AL MVP on a 74-88 team despite a huge year from Mookie on a division winning Sox team)
2015: Bryce Harper (NL MVP)
2009: Joe Mauer (AL MVP, granted the Twins played a Game 163)
2008: Albert Pujols (NL MVP)
2006: Ryan Howard (NL MVP)
2004: Barry Bonds (NL MVP; missed playoffs despite winning 91 games)
2003: Alex Rodriguez (AL MVP; Texas was 71-91)
1997: Larry Walker (NL MVP)
1993: Barry Bonds (NL MVP; the Giants missed the playoffs despite winning 103 games!)
1991: Cal Ripken Jr. (AL MVP)
1989: Robin Yount (AL MVP)
1987: George Bell (AL MVP; Jays won 96 games but missed playoffs) and Andre Dawson (NL MVP; Cubs were 76-85)
 
Illustrious Potentate said:
There’s value, but that M stands for most, a player the team doesn’t make the playoffs without is more valuable. Personally, I’d give it to Brandon Crawford because the Giants definitely don’t win the division without him
Click to expand...
most doesn't mean it has to be on the best team

it means they added the most value
 
navamind said:
And I don't know why people are suddenly outraged by this. Here's some MVP winners from non-playoff teams:

2017: Giancarlo Stanton (NL MVP on a 77-85 team; the runner-up, Votto, was on a 68-94 team)
2016: Mike Trout (AL MVP on a 74-88 team despite a huge year from Mookie on a division winning Sox team)
2015: Bryce Harper (NL MVP)
2009: Joe Mauer (AL MVP, granted the Twins played a Game 163)
2008: Albert Pujols (NL MVP)
2006: Ryan Howard (NL MVP)
2004: Barry Bonds (NL MVP; missed playoffs despite winning 91 games)
2003: Alex Rodriguez (AL MVP; Texas was 71-91)
1997: Larry Walker (NL MVP)
1993: Barry Bonds (NL MVP; the Giants missed the playoffs despite winning 103 games!)
1991: Cal Ripken Jr. (AL MVP)
1989: Robin Yount (AL MVP)
1987: George Bell (AL MVP; Jays won 96 games but missed playoffs) and Andre Dawson (NL MVP; Cubs were 76-85)
Click to expand...
It’s not sudden outrage or really even outrage. Change the name of the award or change the criteria
 
Illustrious Potentate said:
It’s not the way it is, obviously, but the way it should be
Click to expand...
and I totally disagree

the MVP should be he who added the most value to their team over the course of a season, whether the team is in the playoffs or not

a player should not be excluded if their team doesn't make the cut for the playoffs
 
ill said:
and I totally disagree

the MVP should be he who added the most value to their team over the course of a season, whether the team is in the playoffs or not

a player should not be excluded if their team doesn't make the cut for the playoffs
Click to expand...
I’d agree if we were still only sending two teams per league to the playoffs, but 1/3 of each league makes then playoffs. My preference is the MVP goes to a player on a playoff team
 
calsnowskier said:
That’s the Hank Aaron Award, not the MVP award. And the CY Young Award.

MVP is for the most VALUABLE player. Not necessarily the BEST player.
Click to expand...

Talk to the writers. The group has been voting for the MVP since the 30s. Too high of a percentage goes to non-winning players to be just based on making the post-season. It may be a tie-breaker (see Yelich vs Bellinger a few years back). But, it seems to go to the best player.

Value in baseball has little to do with whether or not your TEAM wins. Bonds was the best player in his day, but the Giants didn't win every year.
 
Braves player not in running for MVP so Chewy is upset.
 
Kburjr said:
Talk to the writers. The group has been voting for the MVP since the 30s. Too high of a percentage goes to non-winning players to be just based on making the post-season. It may be a tie-breaker (see Yelich vs Bellinger a few years back). But, it seems to go to the best player.
Click to expand...
We aren’t arguing how it is. We are arguing how it SHOULD be.

And the criteria for the award has always been vague. Intentionally. One person can enter numbers into a computer and calculate the winner purely on stats. The next person can vote on who gives the best clubhouse speeches. Both are “valid”, but both can be argued against as well.
 
And I, personally, am not arguing that ONLY playoff teams can have the MVP. But I do argue that being on a playoff team should be A factor.

I believe that if there is not a CLEAR winner (like Bonds in the early ‘00s), than you open the pool to “inspirational“ players (Gibson in ‘88 or Pendleton in ‘90, for example). IMHO, there was no run-away player in the NL this year, so you need to look at other factors. And that opens the door to players like Riley, Crawford and Muncy.
 
Kburjr said:
An argument that is related is the "can a pitcher be the MVP?". Of course they can.
Click to expand...
That question absolutely belongs in this discussion. And I feel that pitchers only enter the discussion when there aren’t any position players that are deserving AND there is a pitcher with a REALLY strong argument. IMHO, that should be so rare that it essentially should never happen. And just because it does happen doesn’t mean that it should.
 
RoyMunson said:
Braves player not in running for MVP so Chewy is upset.
Click to expand...
I said the same thing when Braves Twitter was pissed Freddie Freeman wasn’t getting MVP attention in 2016 despite it arguably being the best season of his career on a 93 loss team
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top