2015 MLB MVPs

Valen, I kind of agree with you except for that award doesn't count defense or baserunning.
I think the problem is in the award name "MVP". It's probably too late to change now (tradition) but I think it should have been called something like "Player of the Year" a long time ago.

I also agree that this award should go to the best players, not the best player on a winning team

The rules actually say that you should vote for the best player regardless of his team strength, but many voters and pundits have stupidly grafted a "on a good team" requirement onto the rules anyway. We have team awards already, it's called the postseason. The best individual player should win the MVP, period, I don't care if he plays for the Phillies or not.

The MVP over the years has morphed in to a best player on a good team award. I think it should be a league award. Player who was most valuable to the league. Ignore team records.

First of all, how exactly can a player be valuable to a league? That is so unclear it's almost nebulous. However, if you're talking about Player-of-the-Year award, some publications already do that. However, it's almost entirely stats oriented and ignores intangibles and or the less-clearly-tangibles. An MVP award factors in things like a catcher running a pitching staff, a player being hot at all the right times for a team, et al.

Because of that I tend to put more stock in the annual Henry Aaron award. I wish that the MVP could become obsolete and each year we talk about the Henry Aaron award instead.

And I also don't see the sense in abolishing an award that rewards pitchers and players, as well as defensive and offensive performance. It's important to give an award that takes into account all players and all important aspects of the game. It's also important to give one that measures a player's importance to a team, if not always its playoff contention. The MVP award does this.

So, the Hank Aaron award is fine, if a bit uninteresting. It's usually pretty clear by the end of the year who the best hitters in their respective leagues are. However, it definitely shouldn't supplant the much more interesting and all-encompassing MVP award.

The rules actually say that you should vote for the best player regardless of his team strength, but many voters and pundits have stupidly grafted a "on a good team" requirement onto the rules anyway. We have team awards already, it's called the postseason. The best individual player should win the MVP, period, I don't care if he plays for the Phillies or not.

Firstly, the rules don't just say you should vote for the "best player regardless of team strength." They say you should vote for this:

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.

2. Number of games played.

3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.

That's decidedly different from just voting for the "best player regardless of team strength." So, voters factoring in how well the team has done aren't just "stupidly grafting on a good team" requirement; they are partially measuring the player's value by the team's success. In other words, if a player's team did terrible, just how valuable was that player's performance? Some would say they could have just done as poorly without him. And when a player's contributions can be seen to significantly contribute to a winning team's success, many voters logically give that player credit for that significant contribution.

So, while a player's team's performance certainly shouldn't be the primary determinant of his value, it is certainly a valid part of measuring that value, and should be taken into consideration when evaluating a player's legitimacy as MVP.

Strength of his offense and defense. Contributions to "his" team.

Zero mention of "on a good team". Zero.

Rules are clear, it's turning them on their head to say or imply otherwise.

I win. Like usual

Strength of his offense and defense. Contributions to "his" team.

Zero mention of "on a good team". Zero.

Rules are clear, it's turning them on their head to say or imply otherwise.

I win. Like usual

Settle down, Nasty. We're not in the playground anymore...

You didn't closely read my post making clear the value of a player's offensive and defensive performance is partially measured by his team's success, as that success greatly shows its impact, as well as the intangibles mentioned in rule #3.

So, voters factoring in how well the team has done aren't just "stupidly grafting on a good team" requirement; they are partially measuring the player's value by the team's success. In other words, if a player's team did terrible, just how valuable was that player's performance? Some would say they could have just done as poorly without him. And when a player's contributions can be seen to significantly contribute to a winning team's success, many voters logically give that player credit for that significant contribution.

So, while a player's team's performance certainly shouldn't be the primary determinant of his value, it is certainly a valid part of measuring that value, and should be taken into consideration when evaluating a player's legitimacy as MVP.

Since you have still failed to counter that, I could truthfully say "I win, like usual"...as I usually do win. However, as I said above, we're not on the playground anymore...

All of this debate raises the question of how valuable is a great player to a losing team? Andre Dawson in 1987 is the best example. The Cubs finished last in the NL East with a 76-85 record, 18.5 games out. We can be fairly sure they would have lost considerably more games without him, but last is last.

Ozzie Smith finished second in the '87 MVP race. He had a .392 OBP for a Cardinal team that won the East by just three games. Would the Cardinals have won without the Wizard? That's where the subjective part of picking an MVP comes in. If I had a vote in 1987, Ozzie would have been my guy. I feel he was more valuable to the Cards than Dawson was to the Cubs.

All of this debate raises the question of how valuable is a great player to a losing team? Andre Dawson in 1987 is the best example. The Cubs finished last in the NL East with a 76-85 record, 18.5 games out. We can be fairly sure they would have lost considerably more games without him, but last is last.

Ozzie Smith finished second in the '87 MVP race. He had a .392 OBP for a Cardinal team that won the East by just three games. Would the Cardinals have won without the Wizard? That's where the subjective part of picking an MVP comes in. If I had a vote in 1987, Ozzie would have been my guy. I feel he was more valuable to the Cards than Dawson was to the Cubs.

We think YOU are an MVP Paul! Most Valuable Paul!!! CAN I GET AN AMEN FROM THE CONGREGATION!!!!

All of this debate raises the question of how valuable is a great player to a losing team? Andre Dawson in 1987 is the best example. The Cubs finished last in the NL East with a 76-85 record, 18.5 games out. We can be fairly sure they would have lost considerably more games without him, but last is last.

This is a good case for the discussion, Pwooten, as it really well showed the two competing--and relatively legitimate--views on the matter. For me, Dawson's production was so awesome on a team without much production from anyone else, it really could be legitimately argued that time that the Cubs would have lost significant more games without him. And, while last is last, he kept it from being an ungodly last.

That being said, that is a rare occasion, and in most cases there will be a viable excellent player on a winning team whose production significantly contributed to his team's winning season, and thus provided more significant value to it, and would beat out a player's year similar to Dawson's.

Ozzie Smith finished second in the '87 MVP race. He had a .392 OBP for a Cardinal team that won the East by just three games. Would the Cardinals have won without the Wizard? That's where the subjective part of picking an MVP comes in. If I had a vote in 1987, Ozzie would have been my guy. I feel he was more valuable to the Cards than Dawson was to the Cubs.

As to Ozzie and subjectivity, I agree with you here as well. Firstly, there is subjectivity involved in all of the value judgments in MVP voting, and the subjective/objective value judgments of offense vs. defense and production for a winning team vs. production for a losing team came into play. So, in essence there were two legitimate positions:

1. Dawson's tremendous offensive production, and solid defense, outweighed Ozzie's sublime defense and solid offense that helped a winning team win.

2. Smith's sublime defense and decent offense helping a winning team win outweighed Dawson's tremendous offense and solid defense for a team that hardly won at all.

To me, both are legitimate positions that can be supported by logic, statistical evidence, and the voting rules. It just shows the great spectrum of legitimate subjective insights involved in MVP voting that isn't as present in the voting for the other awards.

I understand what you're saying, but I'd say Ozzies value is just magnified by virtue of being on a better team. If he'd have had the same production, but been on the Cubs, the Cubs still don't make the playoffs. If Dawson was on the Cards, maybe they win the division by 7 games rather than the 3 with Ozzie.

Or, another way to think of it - maybe without Dawson, the Cubs only win 60 games...so his value is greater in terms of impact, but because the rest of his team sucks he's deemed less valuable.

I don't know, seems like since "Value" is such a subjective term, it drives the argument in circles. Absolute value - kind of what the SOM salaries try to reflect, versus Relative value - how a player fits the needs of his particular team.

And even my descriptions of value could be sliced apart...fun to discuss nonetheless

EDIT: I started writing mine after PWootens post...once I submitted I saw 2 posts in between!