MVP Voting: Too Much Emphasis on HR and RBI?

[yabanci]

Originally posted by Salihna_Al_Assad
most valuable player means the most valuable player to his team

To me this is like asking whether a $10 bill in your pocket is more "valuable" than a $20 bill in mine. Now, your $10 bill might mean more to you than my $20 bill does to me, but when it comes down to it there's no question that you or anybody else would rather have the $20 bill than the $10 bill. Hence, the $20 bill is more "valuable."

p.s., I don't mean "you" personally, I mean it metaphorically.

[Falcon52]

I find it ironic that the "top player award", ie. the MVP award, goes to someone who is most valuable to his team, not necessarily the BEST player in the league. Yet the Cy Young award goes to the BEST pitcher.

I've never been a fan of ANY award that's defined as "most valuable to his team" because often times the BEST player never gets rewarded for being the best.

[AnotherAlias]

Andre Dawson won the MVP for the last place Cubs in 1987.

A 'Best player in the league' case could be made with him.

[CBL-Commish]

Originally posted by Salihna_Al_Assad
a player cant be valuable to his team if his team is not having a great year.

That's logically wrong. You're telling me A-Rod wasn't valuable to his team last year? Are you actually saying that? Without A-Rod the Rangers would have won about 55 or 60 games instead of 72. Instead of rebuilding around the best player on Earth, they'd be trying to find a halfway decent shortstop. Instead of scoring 843 runs they would have scored maybe 750. Instead of having the best defensive shortstop in the league, they'd... well, have someone less adequate with the leather. Instead of having thousands upon thousands of 12-year-old Texans worshipping, arguably, the best shortstop of the last 75 years, they might just be tying their lifetime rooting interest to the Houston Astros.

Despite the lackluster contributions of his teammates, he was more valuable to the Rangers than any other player in the American League could have been, certainly including Miguel Tejada.

If 'MVP' is really tied to how well a team's GM performs and how well the supporting players play (in other words, things that the MVP candidate has zero control over), then the award needs to be changed.

[Crapshoot]

Originally posted by Salihna_Al_Assad
i , in some way agree with DWOLFSON20; anything is better then just having whoever hits the most home-runs, run-away with the MVP title.

cuss18, you stated that maybe the mlb should re-fine their mvp rules- i personally think they got it right. most valuable player means the most valuable player to his team, a player cant be valuable to his team if his team is not having a great year.
i think ootp should re-fine their mvp rules, they will have 2 option, either recode their mvp rules or add the real "mvp" trophy with mlb rules and just change the name of the one they're currently using as most-impressive-player"

bull. Valuable is the player who contributed the most to his teams success- thus the best player that year. End of story.

Dwoldson had the right idea- Id like to see OOTP ignoring the idiotic stats such as RBI and bA, and lean more towards OPS or RC, and hopefully adjusting for factors such as position (an A rated fielder at SS is far more value over a E rated fielder at CF, ceterus paribus) and some small adjustment for defensive performance.

[Spielman]

Originally posted by AnotherAlias
Andre Dawson won the MVP for the last place Cubs in 1987.

A 'Best player in the league' case could be made with him.

Not a very good one, though.

Signed:
Jack Clark
Will Clark
Eric Davis
Pedro Guerrero
Tony Gwynn
Dale Murphy
Mike Schmidt
Ozzie Smith
Darryl Strawberry
Tim Raines
Andy VanSlyke
Tim Wallach

[Crapshoot]

Originally posted by Spielman
Not a very good one, though.

Signed:
Jack Clark
Will Clark
Eric Davis
Pedro Guerrero
Tony Gwynn
Dale Murphy
Mike Schmidt
Ozzie Smith
Darryl Strawberry
Tim Raines
Andy VanSlyke
Tim Wallach

Im worried now- you're a little too in tune with my thoughts...

[Crapshoot]

btw, you forgot Nolan Ryan- Orel Hershiser might have been better as well. And if we really want to push it- Todd Worrell (okay, that's pushing over the cliff).

[Chappy]

Originally posted by CBL-Commish
That's logically wrong. You're telling me A-Rod wasn't valuable to his team last year? Are you actually saying that? Without A-Rod the Rangers would have won about 55 or 60 games instead of 72.

Actually, without A-Rod the Rangers could have made the playoffs. They could have taken the $25 million they paid him and had 3 $8 million pitchers. They had enough power in their lineup without A-Rod. Enough, even, that they could have had a really good defensive SS that only hit .220 and still won more games.

[Chappy]

Regarding the original topic of this thread, I think the game bases MVP awards on a formula based around the OPS. In my league, the player with the highest OPS USUALLY wins the MVP. Of course, the OPS leader doesn't always win, so there is obviously more to the equation than that.

What I'd like to see is (as I've suggested before) an "MVP Vote" implemented in OOTP. As OOTP players, we could even get one vote. Anyhow, different 'voters' woud weigh their selections differently and pick their top three for each award (Hitter, Pitcher, Rookie) and then the points would be added up much like they do in real award voting.

On top of that, to satisfy everybody, on the Advanced League Settings screen there could be a box you check/uncheck that says "Voters take team record into performance when voting".

[Crapshoot]

Originally posted by Chappy
Actually, without A-Rod the Rangers could have made the playoffs. They could have taken the $25 million they paid him and had 3 $8 million pitchers. They had enough power in their lineup without A-Rod. Enough, even, that they could have had a really good defensive SS that only hit .220 and still won more games.

Lets see- the Rangers payroll was approximately 90 mil last year. They spent 13 mil on Chan Ho park, 3 mil on Jay Powell, 3 mil on Todd Van Poppel, 8 million on Ivan Rodriguez. That's more than 25 million that was nowhere near A-rod in production- as a group.
While its fun to make this pronouncement about the Rangers and blame the best player on the team (hell in the AL) for his team's problems, it shows a great deal of ignorance. Without A-rod, that lineup is a lot weeker- and the object of the game is to score more runs than the other team - thus an 8-7 win is just as good as a 2-1 win. The comment about the defensive shortstop who hits .220 forgets that A-rod is a good defensive SS, who happened to win the Gold Glove last year. It also shows a lack of understand about the value differential.

[Rasmuth]

I would love to see an option where you can choose the award winners...like a toggle whether to have the computer pick or manually choose

[Chappy]

Originally posted by Aadik
Lets see- the Rangers payroll was approximately 90 mil last year. They spent 13 mil on Chan Ho park, 3 mil on Jay Powell, 3 mil on Todd Van Poppel, 8 million on Ivan Rodriguez. That's more than 25 million that was nowhere near A-rod in production- as a group.
While its fun to make this pronouncement about the Rangers and blame the best player on the team (hell in the AL) for his team's problems, it shows a great deal of ignorance. Without A-rod, that lineup is a lot weeker- and the object of the game is to score more runs than the other team - thus an 8-7 win is just as good as a 2-1 win. The comment about the defensive shortstop who hits .220 forgets that A-rod is a good defensive SS, who happened to win the Gold Glove last year. It also shows a lack of understand about the value differential.

My point is that without him eating up $25 million, they'd be in a better place to pick up what they need; pitching.

I was going to bite my tongue, but instead I must say: Only a team that would pay a SS $25 million would give Van Poppel $3 million.

[Crapshoot]

Originally posted by Chappy
My point is that without him eating up $25 million, they'd be in a better place to pick up what they need; pitching.

I was going to bite my tongue, but instead I must say: Only a team that would pay a SS $25 million would give Van Poppel $3 million.

and your point is pointless- there was an extra 25 million dollars (all on contracts after A-rod's except Ivan Rodrgiez) that was spent basically on pitching, and it was awful. As for Van Poppel, first you argue that they should spend it on pitching, and then you say they shouldnt have- well hindisght is 20-20, but the poit remains that the blame here lies on their player assesment team- not on A-rod.

[Chappy]

Originally posted by Aadik
and your point is pointless- there was an extra 25 million dollars (all on contracts after A-rod's except Ivan Rodrgiez) that was spent basically on pitching, and it was awful. As for Van Poppel, first you argue that they should spend it on pitching, and then you say they shouldnt have- well hindisght is 20-20, but the poit remains that the blame here lies on their player assesment team- not on A-rod.

I never blamed A-Rod, I'm blaming Rangers management. Any sane person in A-Rod's shoes would have taken the money. Of course, they probably would have realized that if the team is paying them more than 25% of most teams salaries, it would have adverse effects on your team's ability to stay competitive.

I do think that money would have been better spent on pitching. And I also think it should have been spent on pitching OTHER than Van Poppel. He had a career ERA of 5.52 before joining the Rangers. They paid him $3 million a year anyway. This "extra 25 million" you are claiming may have been spent on pitching, but it was spent on 2 releivers (one as I said a minute ago with a 5.53 career ERA) and the rest on Park, who was a disappointment. But if they ALSO had the 25 million they blew on A-Rod they could have gone after a couple more STARTERS and a GOOD releiver or two and given Park, Rogers and Valdez a little help.

[Crapshoot]

Originally posted by Chappy
I never blamed A-Rod, I'm blaming Rangers management. Any sane person in A-Rod's shoes would have taken the money. Of course, they probably would have realized that if the team is paying them more than 25% of most teams salaries, it would have adverse effects on your team's ability to stay competitive.

I do think that money would have been better spent on pitching. And I also think it should have been spent on pitching OTHER than Van Poppel. He had a career ERA of 5.52 before joining the Rangers. They paid him $3 million a year anyway. This "extra 25 million" you are claiming may have been spent on pitching, but it was spent on 2 releivers (one as I said a minute ago with a 5.53 career ERA) and the rest on Park, who was a disappointment. But if they ALSO had the 25 million they blew on A-Rod they could have gone after a couple more STARTERS and a GOOD releiver or two and given Park, Rogers and Valdez a little help.

But see Chappy, that's the point- in hindsight, they aren't good relivers or a decent starter- but the Rangers thought so. With A-Rod, they have gotten the best production in the AL the last 2 years, and they can pretty much guarentee that they will continue to get that- while with the pitching, there are no guarentees. My point still stands, on an alternate plank as well- not only is A-rod the best player in the AL- (and if you did a salary/production comparison for all the free-agents in the last 10 years, he would turn out pretty well) and thus justified in what he's making, but that there is no guarentee (especially with pitching) that the 25 million would have had anywhere near the impact that A-rod has had.

[crackpott]

I just wanted to pipe in because people keep pointing out A-Rod's gold glove. If you're going to argue that Tejada didn't deserve the MVP because he wasn't statistically the best player, that's fine. But then you can't turn around and argue A-Rod was actually the best defensive shortstop in the AL when Bordick had one of the best seasons at SS in a long time.

A-Rod: .987 4.73 RF
Bordick: .998 5.07 RF

edit: Yes, I'm aware of the number of innings. Which may hurt Bordick's gold glove chances, but you can't legitimately claim A-Rod was the best defensive shortstop last year. Hell, these are the same people who voted a DH in as a gold glove winner a few years back.

[Crapshoot]

Originally posted by crackpott
I just wanted to pipe in because people keep pointing out A-Rod's gold glove. If you're going to argue that Tejada didn't deserve the MVP because he wasn't statistically the best player, that's fine. But then you can't turn around and argue A-Rod was actually the best defensive shortstop in the AL when Bordick had one of the best seasons at SS in a long time.

A-Rod: .987 4.73 RF
Bordick: .998 5.07 RF

edit: Yes, I'm aware of the number of innings. Which may hurt Bordick's gold glove chances, but you can't legitimately claim A-Rod was the best defensive shortstop last year. Hell, these are the same people who voted a DH in as a gold glove winner a few years back.

there really wasn't that much to it crackpott- while Bordick had more fielding winshares as well (7.56 to 7.07), that translates to 0.1 games. Rodriguez is far more defendable as a GG winner than Tejeda is as MVP.

[Falcon52]

Originally posted by Aadik
there really wasn't that much to it crackpott- while Bordick had more fielding winshares as well (7.56 to 7.07), that translates to 0.1 games. Rodriguez is far more defendable as a GG winner than Tejeda is as MVP.

Actually I disagree. Atleast about the part that Tejada should not be MVP (I think it was a previous post of yours). I've already stated that I don't agree with the definition they use to select MVP, BUT based on this definition, Tejada was more deserving that A-Rod.

Put it this way, take A-Rod out of Texas and they're still a last place club. It's a moot point whether they win 50 games or whatever they did last year. Because basically they're still last place. Take Tejada out of Oakland and it's debateable whether they win their division. Seattle had a great year, and perhaps if Tejada wasn't in Oakland's lineup, Anaheim would have finished first and Seattle would have claimed the Wild Card.

[Salihna_Al_Assad]

I dont know about you, but when i watch A-ROD, i just dont see how can he be considered gold-glove caliber . Yes he make all the basic fielding plays but he's just not in the vezquel, ordonez p.reese level.

Also, im one of the few that actually think A-ROD hurts the RANGERS more then he helps them. specially at this time, when the mlb has a transparent salary cap and like SHOPPY post indicated, the RANGERS would have been fine without him cause they had one of the best offensive teams even before A-ROD signed with them.
And the goal is not to score as much runs as possible, the goal is to give up 1 less run then your opponent. If your ideology was true then the rangers would've been champs and A-ROD mvp every year.

If you take A-ROD off the rangers squad, then use his huge $25million on players like MUSSINA at $10M and a soon-to-be free agent like ZITO at $12M, i guarantee you'll have a winner in TX.