Mvp?

GonzoStyle · 09-02-2002, 01:30 AM

After a heated discussion in chat yesterday.

What do you believe should be the criteria for MLB MVP?

Should it be based on personal stats?

Or how beneficial or 'Valuble' said player was to his teams sucess?

For example, should A Rod win cause his numbers as an individual player are great?

Or should he lose cause his numbers are great, yet he didn't make his team any better or 'Valuble'.

In my opinion it is an Individual award based on personal excellence, not a team award.

diceisgod · 09-02-2002, 02:50 AM

Curt Schilling and Randy Johnson are the Diamondbacks.

PollyannaFlower46 · 09-02-2002, 03:11 AM

I think it shouldn't be based soley on his stats alone...it should be their overall contribution to the successfulness of the team. If the player is contributing to the sucess of a team rather than just their own career, that is far more valuable.

The Sleeper · 09-02-2002, 04:48 AM

Quote:it should be their overall contribution to the successfulness of the team. If the player is contributing to the sucess of a team rather than just their own career, that is far more valuable.

in baseball, i think contributing to the team and to your career are one and the same. You can't gage how important one player is to the team, unless they are a pitcher who dominates the game like Schilling. But since pitcehrs have the cy young award, they aren't gonna win MVP most years, so if you are gonna pick position players, it should be based on stats. For example, you would think Giambi was an integral part of the A's, however he leaves and they turn into the best team in baseball. So you never really know how valuable someone is, making the term MVP obsolete. It should be a best player award and ARod should win in the AL, and Schilling in the NL.

Sir O · 09-02-2002, 05:24 AM

If it were the "Best Player Award" then A-Rod would win hands down. Since it's not, he won't, nor does he deserve it. The words MOST VALUBLE in the term M.V.P it means the player who is the MOST VALUBLE to his team. A-Rod plays for one of the worst teams in the American League, and despite A-Rod's impressive individual numbers if you subtract him from that team the diffrence in that team's win loss record wouldn't be much different. A home run is a home run, but a home run is also pretty worthless when you lose the game 10-4. While Alfonso Soriano's numers are not as good as A-Rod's, I'd consider him as a more worthy MVP candidate because the contributions he's made to his team have led to greater success for his team.

For the record, the AL MVP is Miguel Tejada and NL MVP is Curt Schilling.

JerseyThunder · 09-02-2002, 06:40 AM

Fuck baseball it's football season!! :-D :thumbs-up: :bouncer:

Keyser Soze · 09-02-2002, 07:00 AM

I concur with everything Sir O said. The problem is they need to rename the award because it never goes to the MVP, it goes to the best player in the league.

The Sleeper · 09-03-2002, 12:24 AM

I changed my mind, Tejada should be MVP, I still stand by most of my statements though.

GonzoStyle · 09-03-2002, 12:45 AM

If it's how much a player benefits his team then tori hunter and vlad guerrero should be front runners for the MVP award.

The Sleeper · 09-03-2002, 12:47 AM

Definetly Vlad, he's singlehandedly keeping baseball in Montreal.

DGW · 09-03-2002, 01:10 PM

Tejeda and Schilling

Galt · 09-03-2002, 04:32 PM

Schilling won't win the NL MVP.

He's been good, but there's no way he holds a candle to the year that Pedro had in '99 or '00 and he didn't win the MVP. I haven't been following baseball as much this year, but it'll probably be Bonds, Berkman, Pujols, Green Sosa, or Vlad.

I'd pick AL MVP (since they do have a Hank Aaron award for best hitter which will go to AROD again this year) as Soriano over Tejada

Teenweek · 09-04-2002, 12:30 PM

Soriano