I don't agree with the way writers vote on this award.... I never did. They are voting based on individual stats, not value. Although I do agree that you have to have great individual stats to be a nominee, when it comes down to the award voting, the criteria of the selection should be who among the nominees is considered to be the most VALUED player to his team. Thus the name, MVP. MVP infers that the individual has value to something (either a team or another person) Now with that said, although I agree that A-Rod is the best overall player among the nominees, he is not the most valued player to his team. If A-Rod did not play for the Yankees, I believe the Yankees would have been in the playoffs regardless. However, if Ortiz had not played for the Red Sox, there is no way the Red Sox would have come close to the playoffs. Thus, Ortiz is a more valued player to the Red Sox then A-Rod is to the Yankees. Yes, A-Rod won and deservingly so under the current criteria and this is just my opinion (using my logic). However, baseball should change the name of the award to the "Best All Around player" award.
I wonder how many thousands of dollars he made off Pete Rose and their “little” side bet? Hmmmmm
Eh, it was the right call either way. Both players brought alot to the game for their respective clubs...apparently it was just as split with the writers because it certainly wasn't a landslide win for Arod. It could have gone either way.
i vote to change the award process. AL/NL Pitcher of the Year, Reliever of the Year, Player of the Year, AND THEN the MVP (for a REAL MVP, not the guy with the great stats when nothing's at risk that's not even the best player on his team). Honorary Mention: Best infield raker, Best Guy who paints the White Line up the 1st and 3rd base line award, and my personal favorite, Creepiest Mascot.
I don't agree with the way writers vote on this award.... I never did. They are voting based on individual stats, not value. Although I do agree that you have to have great individual stats to be a nominee, when it comes down to the award voting, the criteria of the selection should be who among the nominees is considered to be the most VALUED player to his team. Thus the name, MVP. MVP infers that the individual has value to something (either a team or another person) Now with that said, although I agree that A-Rod is the best overall player among the nominees, he is not the most valued player to his team. If A-Rod did not play for the Yankees, I believe the Yankees would have been in the playoffs regardless. However, if Ortiz had not played for the Red Sox, there is no way the Red Sox would have come close to the playoffs. Thus, Ortiz is a more valued player to the Red Sox then A-Rod is to the Yankees. Yes, A-Rod won and deservingly so under the current criteria and this is just my opinion (using my logic). However, baseball should change the name of the award to the "Best All Around player" award.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how many thousands of dollars he made off Pete Rose and their “little” side bet? Hmmmmm
Eh, it was the right call either way. Both players brought alot to the game for their respective clubs...apparently it was just as split with the writers because it certainly wasn't a landslide win for Arod. It could have gone either way.
ReplyDeleteTime to move on. Bring on the Hot Stove Season!
i vote to change the award process. AL/NL Pitcher of the Year, Reliever of the Year, Player of the Year, AND THEN the MVP (for a REAL MVP, not the guy with the great stats when nothing's at risk that's not even the best player on his team). Honorary Mention: Best infield raker, Best Guy who paints the White Line up the 1st and 3rd base line award, and my personal favorite, Creepiest Mascot.
ReplyDelete