PDA

View Full Version : A-Rod the MVP on a losing team, that says a lot about a player.....


Mike Gallo
11-17-2003, 08:09 PM
I do not know how the Texas Rangers would have finished in last place without him. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

Does the award go to the best overall player award or should the award go to the player most valuable to his team.

All sarcasm aside, Alex Rodrigues must have had a heck of a year statistically to win the most valuable player award. Only once before has a player from a losing team won the MVP. Andre Dawson in 1987 with the Cubs.

I think Dawson got it because he paid his dues to the league. When he won the award, I feel the writers compensated him later in his career for the find body of work he his in first leg of work with the Expos. Dawson was a five tool centerfielder with the Expos for ten years prior to his winning the mvp his first year with the Cubs.

I have friends who rave that A-Rod is the best player in the league right now. Since I do not follow the American league, I have never watched him play. I have other friends who claim that he plays poker and does not hold the same mvp status. From another source I heard he paid for the time charge for the entire table the entire night.

Should A-Rod deserve the award no matter how poorly his team finished in the standings because he has paid his dues, and his simply the most dominant player of his generation?

I do not feel a player from a losing team deserves the reward, I do not mean to minimize the award for A-Rod, however I just have a purists heart and I feel the award should go to a player from a winning team.

I just wonder if I stand alone here. For the record every person who I have asked prior to the award getting rewarded has told me A-Rod would get it this year.

Sooga
11-17-2003, 08:55 PM
Seems to me that A-Rod won not because he had a great (for him) year, but because no one else really had a fantastic one. And also, I have to say, IT'S ABOUT TIME A-ROD WINS AN MVP. He was robbed in '96 and '02, and he probably shoulda won in '01. He's a gold-glove caliber shortstop who also happens to hit .300 and 40-50 homers every season. What more does this guy have to do?

On another note, I absolutely cannot STAND it when people say, "How can A-Rod be valuable to his team? The Rangers would be good if they didn't have to shell out $25M for him every year." So if A-Rod were just a .270/20hr/80rbi player who cost less, he'd be a more valuable player? What a load... Anyway, congrats to A-Rod, and I hope this is the first of many more MVP's to come.

Josh W
11-18-2003, 03:01 AM
First, to MG...

I gotta think that a 'purist' wouldn't insist on the MVP going to a player on a winning team. It would go to the player that is the most valuable.

The problem lies in what we mean by "value". If we mean who is worth the most, in terms on contract, then, well, Arod wins (not cuz he has the biggest contract, but because he's WORTH the biggest).

However, people don't realize that he's one of the biggest (if not the biggest) why the Rangers aren't better. Really.

If the Rangers had an average shortstop making 3 mil a year (or whatever the avg. shortstop makes), it's easy to see how the Rangers would be better. They'd be able to spend 20 mil a year on other players to improve their team.

I'm a huge seattle fan. And I'm tired of hearing people talk about how 'amazing' it was that the M's were suddenly better when they lost Arod, JR, and Randy. Please. They were able to then add a ton of good roleplayers to their team (Sele, Olerud, Ichiro, Boone, Cameron, Garcia, etc...). Baseball is the least super-star oriented of the major sports. It takes a team.

And having Arod and his contract makes it very very tough to have a complete team. Yeah, he's worth a huge contract, but if he wants to win, he'll have to ditch it.

And, as much as it pains me to say, I think I agree with Sooga. He had a very good year. But had there been any other clearcut MVP candidate, he woulda lost. The Yankees were very balanced, as were the RedSox (hence three of the top 7 candidates). No winning team had a single player that was definitely their most valuable (hence the fact that they were a winning team).

Josh

Kurn, son of Mogh
11-18-2003, 09:12 AM
I think the key is this: Did any player on any of the playoff teams make a significant enough contribution that you could say, "without him, they don't make the playoffs.?"

I don't think you can single out any one guy on any of the AL playoff teams that fits the definition. Therefore A-Rod deserves it.

He also deserves it because he gave 100% every day even though his team was never in it, was always a good clubhouse guy, and just in general, seems to believe he has to *earn* his salary (HEAR THAT, MANNY???)

With all the talk about athletes being overpaid (not from me, I don't believe thay are, but that's a different discussion), you never hear A-Rod criticized like that.

If the next decade of his career mirrors the last, he'll be recognized as the gretaest player that ever lived.

andyfox
11-18-2003, 01:21 PM
Most valuable player is kind of a misnomer. It's more like a Player of the Year award.

I thought Delgado had a lock until he went in the tank the last month and a half or so. Statistically, Manny was probably the best, but who wants to vote for Manny?

Since a player's job is to win the pennant, there's a case to be made for the league MVPs to be the MVP on the pennant winning team. In that case, I guess you'd say Posada (or Pettitte or Rivera?) would be the AL MVP and Pudge (or Pierre?) the NL MVP.

Certainly A-Rod is the most valuable player in the league. If I was going to start a team, he'd be my number one pick.

My prediction is Pujols beats out Bonds for NL MVP, with Javy Lopez 3rd.

On another note, I see among the teams interested in Japanese shortstop Kaz Matsui are the Yankees and Red Sox. Don't they already have pretty good shortstops?

Kurn, son of Mogh
11-18-2003, 01:55 PM
On another note, I see among the teams interested in Japanese shortstop Kaz Matsui are the Yankees and Red Sox.

The Red Sox at least are in dire need of a shortstop. Nomar is gone after '04 unless he accepts far less than Jeter makes. Most writers here think he has no desire to stay anyway.

The Sox attempt to dump Manny was step 1 in trying to get A-Rod.

Mike Gallo
11-18-2003, 02:10 PM
Since a player's job is to win the pennant, there's a case to be made for the league MVPs to be the MVP on the pennant winning team. In that case, I guess you'd say Posada (or Pettitte or Rivera?) would be the AL MVP and Pudge (or Pierre?) the NL MVP.

I would even concede the award to Delgado. The Jays finished in third place.

MVP and Pudge (or Pierre?) the NL MVP.

Bonds or Pujols in the NL. St Louis made a serious run at the post season until the last month of the season.

Bonds played very well despite suffering from sleep deprivation and stress due to losing his dad.

My prediction is Pujols beats out Bonds for NL MVP, with Javy Lopez 3rd

I agree with this, but Bonds could win.

On another note, I see among the teams interested in Japanese shortstop Kaz Matsui are the Yankees and Red Sox. Don't they already have pretty good shortstops?

The Yankees have enough shortstops, but they want to stop the Mets ( cross town arch rivals) from landing him. It also wont hurt for the Yankees to have another Japanese draw for their Japanese viewing audience abroad.

southerndog
11-18-2003, 02:36 PM
I agree with this.. What if a player batted .410 and had 55 homers, etc.. and his team still didn't make it to the playoffs? He still had a great year, give him the award.. No big deal.

B-Man
11-18-2003, 04:15 PM
It should go to the player that is most valuable--as in, the player who contributes more, through offense, defense, base-running, leadership, intangibles, etc., than any other player.

It should not be limited to players on winning teams. There's already an award for being on the best team (it's called a championship).

I'm amazed that the voters actually got it right this year. A-Rod should have won it last year, too (and anyone that thinks Miguel Tejada was more valuable than A-Rod last year is smoking something pretty powerful).

Kurn, son of Mogh
11-18-2003, 05:08 PM
I think that when a player is so dominant, as in your example, then it's easy. When it's close, you have to defer to the "take him out of the lineup..." analysis.

Kurn, son of Mogh
11-18-2003, 05:11 PM
Good example:

Mo Vaughn beats out Albert Belle for MVP. In my mind, Edgar Martinez was MVP and it wasn't even close. Griffey was down for a big chunk of the season and Edgar kept them in the hunt.

The excuse I heard was "he's a DH, the MVP has to contribute on the field." Yeah, right, like Mo and Joey were anything but defensive liabilities.

Mike Gallo
11-18-2003, 05:31 PM
In my mind, Edgar Martinez was MVP and it wasn't even close. Griffey was down for a big chunk of the season and Edgar kept them in the hunt.

Excellent example. The Mariners would not have won the Western division if Edgar did not pick up the slack. For the record Edgar bat .356 with 116 rbi and 182 hits with 121 runs scored.

In 1995 Mo hit .300 with 126 rbi 165 hits and 98 runs scored. Who deserved the mvp that year?

southerndog
11-18-2003, 05:56 PM
It just proves that one year they may have gotten it wrong.. As a Bostonian I was still happy to see Mo bring it home /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

B-Man
11-18-2003, 06:13 PM
It just proves that one year they may have gotten it wrong..

As a Red Sox fan, I was also happy to see Mo win it, but he didn't deserve it, and that year was no exception--they give it to the wrong guy A LOT of the time.

Just in the last few years, off the top of my head, we've seen Tejada over A-Rod in 2002 and Pudge over Pedro in 1999--when Pedro had the most 1st place votes, but two writers left him OFF THE BALLOT, which goes 10 deep, because they decided to make up the rule that a pitcher can't win the MVP (even though one of those same writers (from NY, of course) voted for David Cone the previous season!).

In a lot of years, the voting is a joke. They did happen to get it right this year.

Boris
11-18-2003, 06:37 PM
I can't believe I'm getting sucked into this debate again. As much as I hate to stick up for Tejada now that he's self destructed every year in the playoffs I'm gonna do it anyways. A-Rod plays in a hitters park on a team that sucks. As a result his offensive numbers are going to be greatly inflated. No one is going to pitch around A-Rod when they're up by 6 runs. Texas didn't win a significant number of games in 2002 becuase of A-Rod. They were an improved club in 2003 because they have young talent that is developing very nicely.

A-Rod didn't deserve the award last year. You seem to think that the award should be the "player with the best statistics" award. But it's not. The MVP is the player that most contributed to a team's success. In 2002 that was Tejada. A-Rod only won the award this year because no one else had a really outstanding season. I thought Vernon Wells, Carlos Delgado and Magglio Ordonez were all pretty darn good this year though.

Munga30
11-18-2003, 07:58 PM
I'm intrigued by this statement:

"Baseball is the least super-star oriented of the major sports. It takes a team."

I find baseball to be the most individualistic of the major team sports. IOW, it's the game requiring the least ammount of teamwork, top to bottom. You may not need "stars" and you probably need to have the best overall "collection" of players, but I find the "team" aspect to be sorely lacking in comparison. That is, until someone gets plunked for crowding the plate.

Thoughts?

andyfox
11-19-2003, 02:39 AM
Vaughn won the award because the reporters hatred Albert Belle (and who could blame them?). Belle had 50 double sand 50 home runs that year.

Total Baseball gives Belle the MVP award with a 5.8 Total Baseball Ranking. (They have Tim Salmon in 2nd place with 5.6, and Edgar in 3rd with 5.5; Vaughn got a 1.8.) Bill James has Edgar as the MVP with 32 Win Shares. (He has Belle in 2nd with 30, and Salmon in 3rd with 29; Vaughn gets 24, tied for 8th place with Jim Thome behind Frank Thomas, Bernie Williams, Chuck Knoblauch and Manny Ramirez).

A terrible MVP choice, but they've made worse.

Josh W
11-19-2003, 07:57 AM
I agree as far as teamwork goes (except maybe double play combinations or something), but a superstar can be pitched around (ask Barry). A great pitcher pitches maybe 15% of the teams innings. A great fielder can only do so much.

In basketball, one player can take over a game. This routinely happens. However, teamwork is a much more integral part of basketball than baseball. Same with football. A QB, RB, defensive end, LB, etc, can absolutely control a game.

I guess what I'm saying is being a superstar helps less in baseball than in other sports. However, being a very weak link HURTS less in baseball than in other sports. Not sure if that makes sense...

Josh

Kurn, son of Mogh
11-19-2003, 09:28 AM
I agree with you. The primary action in baseball is the individual confrontation between pitcher and hitter. Teamwork exists on defense, and although it *is* underrated, baseball is still the least teamwork-oriented of the major team sports.

B-Man
11-19-2003, 09:54 AM
Boris,

If A-Rod and Tejada swapped teams prior to the 2002 season:

1.Do you think Oakland would have won more, less or the same number of games?

2. Do you think A-Rod and Tejada's stats would flip-flop, since Tejada would now be playing "in a hitters park on a team that sucks"?

The MVP is to be awarded to the player that is most valuable. I don't think you understand the concept of "value" if you really think Tejada is (or was, in 2002) more valuable than A-Rod.

Here's an analogy. I have a $10 bill, and Bill Gates has a $10 bill. Is my $10 bill worth more or less than Gates' bill? Under your way of thinking, Gates' bill is worth more, since he has a lot more dollars to go with it than I do. Is his bill actually worth more because he can use it to help him buy an island, and I can use it to buy Chinese food for dinner? Of course not. They are of equal value.

Don't think a player is more or less valuable because he has good teammates. Every team in baseball (including the Yankees and Red Sox) would have been better with A-Rod as their shortstop this year, last year... almost every year of A-Rod's career (there were one or two years where maybe you could debate Nomar, but thats about it).

Tejada had better teammates than A-Rod. He was not more valuable. Never has been, and probably never will be.

Boris
11-19-2003, 01:19 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If A-Rod and Tejada swapped teams prior to the 2002 season:


[/ QUOTE ]

Then Oakland would've had a 2 man baseball team.

I guess this is really the crux of our disagreement. I think the MVP award should be based on which player helped their team win the most games. I would never argue that Tejada is a better player than A-Rod. But the fact of the matter is that Tejada had a magical season in 2002 where he had numerous clutch hits and "Web Gems" in critical situations (in the regular season). A-Rod was on a team that was hopeless, with or without him.

[ QUOTE ]
I have a $10 bill, and Bill Gates has a $10 bill. Is my $10 bill worth more or less than Gates' bill? Under your way of thinking, Gates' bill is worth more, since he has a lot more dollars to go with it than I do. Is his bill actually worth more because he can use it to help him buy an island, and I can use it to buy Chinese food for dinner? Of course not. They are of equal value.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not making the connection with your analogy. But to answer your question, my $10 bill is worth way, way more than Bill Gates' $10 bill. It has to do with the decreasing marginal value of money. The concept helps to explain why people are generally risk averse. A dollar in my pocket has way more "value" than a dollar in Bill Gates' pocket.

B-Man
11-19-2003, 03:55 PM
Then Oakland would've had a 2 man baseball team.

I really hope we aren't going to start basing MVP awards on salary; is that what you are suggesting?

I'm not making the connection with your analogy.

The point of my analogy is that you are basing these players' respective values, in large part, on how good their teammates are, and that doesn't make any sense. A-Rod is no more or less "valuable" because he has or doesn't have Tim Hudson, Barry Zito and Mark Mulder pitching for his team or against him. Just like the $10 bill in my analogy can purchase an equal amount of goods no matter who is using it (it's not worth more in Bill Gates' pocket because he can package it with other dollars to buy an island, and under your argument, it's actually worth less to Gates, so Tejada would be worth less to Oakland than A-Rod would be to Texas, because Oakland has many more other dollars (good players), and Texas only has A-Rod. However, I don't think that concept is applicable in this situation).

The bottom line is that I think it is flawed logic to ascribe value to a player based on his teammates. His value comes from what he does, not from what his teammates do.

J.R.
11-19-2003, 05:05 PM
If the Rangers had an average shortstop making 3 mil a year (or whatever the avg. shortstop makes), it's easy to see how the Rangers would be better. They'd be able to spend 20 mil a year on other players to improve their team.

FYI

Texas' 2003 payroll 103.4 million. A-Rod made 22 million.

Boston's 2003 payroll 99.9 million. Manny made 20 million.

2003 salary reference (http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2003)

Manny's contract is quite similar to A-Rod's, and their repective teams spent about the same on the others around them. But few doubt A-Rod is "more worth" the money than Manny. (Of course neither should be paid such a sum, but A-Rod comes closer to earning his than Manny, IMO. I also don't know about cash flows and deferred money. Boston had great attendance in 2003, drawing 2.7 million, but they had a winner, while Texas drew 2 million, just below the MLB average)

Texas' problem was Chan Ho Park at 13 million for like 26 innings in 2003, Rusty Greer for 7 million for zero games, Carl Everett for 9 million (and they made a good move dumping him), and Juan Gone at 13 million only playing half the season. Raffy puts up nice numbers, but 9 million for a primary DH is also tough.

Boston only had 3 players above 10 million (Manny, Nomar and Pedro), so they spread the wealth well, but I will not accept that a team can't win because A-Rod makes 22 million. A-Rod won the silver slugger and MVP and unlike Manny, he comes to play every day, has a great work ethic and is a positive locker room presence and is a two time gold glove winner at perhaps the most crucial and pressure filled defensive position.

Look at the Mets (2nd largest payroll), they paid Mo Vaughn 17 million to hit .190 in less than 30 games, or even the Dodgers with the 4th highest payroll throwing 16.7 million to Shawn Green for .280, 19 and 85, or the Orioles, who paid Albert "Joey" Bell 13 million for nothing (though they did have an insurance contract that paid a portion of his salary). The Rockies paid 9 million to Denny Neagle for 35 innings and 12.6 million to larry walker for .284, 16 and 79. That's almost 1/3rd of the Rockies' 67 million dollar payroll.

There are far better examples of overpaid players whose money could be far better spent by there teams in other places than A-Rod. But to say the Rangers are bad because of A-Rod's contract ain't right.

Kurn, son of Mogh
11-19-2003, 05:14 PM
Of course neither should be paid such a sum

Why not?

J.R.
11-19-2003, 05:35 PM
I'm was an econ. major, so of course that statement is just subjective sillyness, that's why I put the IMO at the end of the sentence. I honestly think the owners made mistakes and did not act rationally in handing out huge contracts and putting baseball in such a precarious financial position (assuming the owners are honest about the numbers, which I have reservations about).

I don't fault the players, and if somebody's dumb enough to pay that much, well, I should say caveat emptor, but I love baseball and emotional connections kind of cloud my judgment. Of course you're right, there's not a good reason why the shouldn't get what they can, but I'm not detached enough to fully acknowledge that.

Kurn, son of Mogh
11-19-2003, 06:05 PM
I agree that there has to be a correction or the economics will just collapse.

I was trying to provoke a debate on income vs. personal value. You didn't take the bait. /images/graemlins/frown.gif