PayRod.....

[mmmmmbeeer]

IMHO, value is set at demand. If I put an antique (Arod) on EBay it's sale value is not set by me (rangers) but rather by the amount of demand, or worth, that the antique holds with prospective buyers (the AL). A-Rod, by being the best player in the American League, is certainly the most valuable player in the league. The fact that he plays for the Rangers is irrelevant. Get wishlists from all the AL GMs, with no financial considerations, and I could almost guarantee A-Rod would be on the top of every list. That's why he's valuable and that's why he makes more money than any other ML player.

[BrandoFan]

I can see an argument being made for any and all of ARod, Stewart, Ortiz, Posada, Boone, Delgado, etc. It all depends on your personal criteria for what MVP should actually mean. And when it comes down to it, that is what is being debated here more so than the individual players.

 

There is nothing even remotely complicated about this:

 

-Those who picked A-Rod were RIGHT because his offense-defense-speed value was HIGHER (albeit marginally since Delgado, Manny, Wells, Nixon and Boone were pretty damn good as well) than ANY other player in AL.

 

-Those who who didn't were WRONG, and when they mention names like Stewart and Posada and Tejada, it becomes even more apparent why they're wrong.

 

Doing it any other way brings unacceptable amount of BIAS and AMATEURISM into the equation.

 

I am all for intangebles like clutch-ness and giving SOME extra points for being on a winning team....but, seriously, Carlos Beltran over A-Rod? Whaa?

 

And no, we shouldn't RENAME the award (Julie Sweica!) just because some people are either too dumb or too contrarian to agree on what it SHOULD stand for.

 

It should be the ONLY pure award where merit is EVERYTHING and all that other stuff is secondary. Thankfully, in baseball intristic value is easier to figure out than in basketball...and yet here were are, with completely polarized opinions.

[YASNY]

There is nothing even remotely complicated about this:

 

-Those who picked A-Rod were RIGHT because his offense-defense-speed value was HIGHER (albeit marginally since Delgado, Manny, Wells, Nixon and Boone were pretty damn good as well) than ANY other player in AL.   

 

-Those who who didn't were WRONG, and when they mention names like Stewart and Posada and Tejada,  it becomes even more apparent why they're wrong.

 

Doing it any other way brings unacceptable amount of BIAS and AMATEURISM into the equation.

 

I am all for intangebles like clutch-ness and giving SOME extra points for being on a winning team....but, seriously, Carlos Beltran over A-Rod?  Whaa?

 

And no, we shouldn't RENAME the award (Julie Sweica!) just because some people are either too dumb or too contrarian to agree on what it SHOULD stand for.

 

It should be the ONLY pure award where merit is EVERYTHING and all that other stuff is secondary.  Thankfully, in baseball intristic value is easier to figure out than in basketball...and yet here were are, with completely polarized opinions.

I didn't say I agreed with any of the arguments for the other players. I just said that an argument can be made. It's all a matter of subjective opinion. You have expressed your opinion, though you present it as hard fact. Which it is not.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

YAY!

What a f***ing joke this is. I thought half of being MVP is being a guy that makes the others around you better players. This phony plays for the s***ty tex-ass rangers for chrissakes! He is all out for himself and his wallet and cares nothing about his team or the game.

 

f*** HIM! :fyou

[SoxFanForever]

What a f***ing joke this is.  I thought half of being MVP is being a guy that makes the others around you better players.  This phony plays for the s***ty tex-ass rangers for chrissakes!  He is all out for himself and his wallet and cares nothing about his team or the game.

 

f*** HIM! :fyou

[BrandoFan]

I didn't say I agreed with any of the arguments for the other players. I just said that an argument can be made. It's all a matter of subjective opinion.

 

Well f*** me gently with a chain-saw, the arguement could be made that Mark Grudzelanek was the NL MVP....It's biased and/or stupid, but it can be made, that's what's important, right?

 

You have expressed your opinion, though you present it as hard fact. Which it is not.

 

Most Valuable Player IS (or should be) the BEST player. Period.

 

It's one thing if you don't want to give it to A-Rod because you feel that there is another player in the league whose VALUE is higher (read: one who is objectively worth more in terms of runs/wins because if his defense-offense-running). I mean, there is certainly lots of room for debate within the "Best Player" guidelines because different people weigh stats differently, overrating one aspect of the game and underrating another. I have NO problem with those who disagree with me IF they present a well thought-out and fair arguement. (Example: it's perfectly reasonable to choose Delgado because of his RBI production, etc).

 

However, as soon as you concede that MVP should be team record-related first and foremost, you open the door for all sorts of uninformed and biased nonsense.

[YASNY]

Most Valuable Player IS (or should be) the BEST player. Period.

 

Again, you express your opinion as a hard fact. There are all kinds of tangibles that different people with different opinions take into consideration. That is why they have so many different voters. The MVP is determined by a MAJORITY, which eliminates the chance of one very closed minded person from determining who should and who shouldn't be MVP.

 

I'd say this election by a majority is a helluva concept. It should even be considered for minor things .... like the presidential elections.