Quote:
Originally Posted by majesty95
I think some of us disagree on the definition of "most valuable". Personally, I believe it is the player most responsible for his team's success. Meaning if you remove him from the team they would be considerably worse. Others seem to think it is "best player" which, to me, goes against the entire name of the award.
I have no problem giving the award for a season to a player on a team that did not win their division or possibly make the playoffs. If a guy has a 10 WAR that team would have been significantly worse without him. However, if that team is 62-100, it doesn't matter if a guy hits .420-80-200 his team still sucks so was he really THAT valuable? They would have sucked with or without him.
In a playoff series I think it is kind of the same. If a game goes 7 games and the only reason one team got to the 7th game was because of an outstanding performance by one player, then I could possible see him getting the MVP providing there wasn't a similar standout on the winning team? However, if a team gets beat 3-1 or 4-1 or swept, they were never in the series (much like the 62-100 team was never in the race) so there wasn't any "value" to be gained or lost.
|
However, individual players are not valued by how well their team does. It is based on how well THEY do. That is why you can have a player like Alex Rodriguez on a mid grade or low ranked team that ends up as one of the highest paid individual players of the league.
MVP of a game, series or season is based on the MLB constitution and rules definition (also in the NHL, NBA, NFL and EFL). Outstanding individual performance is the factor, and that is why players on the losing team can get it.
It is a tradition established in Pro sports that has been adopted through Minors, College, Highschool and Little Leagues.
I actually qualifications as given by the MLB rules. It is further defined on a number of sources including MLB.com and Baseball-reference.com. That is all it requires to keep a genuine experience feel.