Losing Team Getting Series MVP

[majesty95]

Has anyone else experienced this? I thought I read something like this was addressed in a patch but I'm still seeing it fairly often (at least more than it seems it should be). The most recent example was Bob Allison of the Twins getting ALCS MVP in a series the Twins lost 3-1. Did this ever happen in real life?

[stl jason]

1960 - Bobby Richardson (World Series)


edit:

for LCS:

1982 - Fred Lynn
1986 - Mike Scott
1987 - Jeffrey Leonard

[Matt Arnold]

We did tone it down in the last patch, iirc. Did the players who won have much better stats than anyone on the other side?

[BusterKing]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

We did tone it down in the last patch, iirc. Did the players who won have much better stats than anyone on the other side?

Regardless, how can you be a most valuable player when your team actually lost ? Doesn't make sense. There is no value in losing and sport is about winning or losing.

[Bigrod]

Originally Posted by BusterKing

Regardless, how can you be a most valuable player when your team actually lost ? Doesn't make sense. There is no value in losing and sport is about winning or losing.

Makes perfect sense to me..Why should a player who gives the best individual performance be penalized just because his team loses.
Give me one good reason please.

[r0nster]

Didn't Paul Molitor get WS MVP in 1982 after losing series

[stl jason]

Originally Posted by r0nster

Didn't Paul Molitor get WS MVP in 1982 after losing series

no, Darrell Porter won in '82

[majesty95]

If I remember right he did have a better series than anyone but, as mentioned, how are you "valuable" when your team loses 3-1? I could see if it was a 7 games series and the player single handedly kept their team in it. But does it really matter how well you did on a losing team if you got shut down pretty easily? Nobody was obviously that valuable on the losing team.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by majesty95

If I remember right he did have a better series than anyone but, as mentioned, how are you "valuable" when your team loses 3-1? I could see if it was a 7 games series and the player single handedly kept their team in it. But does it really matter how well you did on a losing team if you got shut down pretty easily? Nobody was obviously that valuable on the losing team.

Disagree completely. A team's loss doesn't mean a specific individual player wasn't more individually valuable than anyone else in the series. If you stuck 2013 Mike Trout on the 2013 Astros and had them play a championship series against the 2013 Red Sox you're basically saying that there is absolutely nothing he could do to be the most valuable player in the series.

[Shadoshryke]

Originally Posted by Bigrod

Makes perfect sense to me..Why should a player who gives the best individual performance be penalized just because his team loses.
Give me one good reason please.

This is very true. Even in real baseball situations.

MVP does not mean "MVP of the Winning Team, otherwise it would be called MVPWT.

In football and in baseball, the MVP can be the person with the highest overall contribution to any team, even if the team loses. For instance, if a pitcher is the reason that the series keeps at a tie until the last game, then another pitcher in the team is the reason for the lost, that first pitcher can get the MVP.

Remember that MVP in a game like this is not based on "feelings and perception" but stats. So if the pitchers on the winning team were not the reason for the wins (batting average and defensive plays by fielders main contribution with no direct outstanding player) then the losing teams pitcher that has the most outstanding plays can win MVP.

It is a matter of who makes the most dramatic plays and consistent performance.

It is rare, but it can happen.

[Shadoshryke]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Disagree completely. A team's loss doesn't mean a specific individual player wasn't more individually valuable than anyone else in the series. If you stuck 2013 Mike Trout on the 2013 Astros and had them play a championship series against the 2013 Red Sox you're basically saying that there is absolutely nothing he could do to be the most valuable player in the series.

Agreed. This is based on the definition and requirements for MVP:

In sports, a most valuable player (MVP) award is an honor typically bestowed upon the best-performing player or players on a specific team, in an entire league, or for a particular contest or series of contests.

This is regardless of whether the team wins or loses. It is based on individual performance.

Winner of MVP while on losing teams in professional sports include:
Chuck Howell - NFL - 1971
Jerry West - NBA finals - 1969
Bobby Richardson - MLB World Series - 1960

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Shadoshryke

Agreed. This is based on the definition and requirements for MVP:

In sports, a most valuable player (MVP) award is an honor typically bestowed upon the best-performing player or players on a specific team, in an entire league, or for a particular contest or series of contests.

This is regardless of whether the team wins or loses. It is based on individual performance.

Winner of MVP while on losing teams in professional sports include:
Chuck Howell - NFL - 1971
Jerry West - NBA finals - 1969
Bobby Richardson - MLB World Series - 1960

J.S. Giguere NHL 02/03
Ron Hextall NHL 86/87
Roger Crozier NHL 65/66

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by Shadoshryke

This is very true. Even in real baseball situations.

MVP does not mean "MVP of the Winning Team, otherwise it would be called MVPWT.

In football and in baseball, the MVP can be the person with the highest overall contribution to any team, even if the team loses. For instance, if a pitcher is the reason that the series keeps at a tie until the last game, then another pitcher in the team is the reason for the lost, that first pitcher can get the MVP.

Yep, just think about pitchers. Let's say that there were a couple of rainouts in the World Series and a starting pitcher performs like Madison Bumgarner did last year but did it in starts of Games 1, 4, and 6 but his team loses the rest of the games to lose the series. I can't agree with the thought process that says that guy wouldn't deserve MVP.

[Matt Arnold]

I had a series where Trout won the MVP on the losing side. He hit around .400 in the series, and essentially nobody on the winning team dominated. One guy had 3 HRs, but only played in like 2/5 games. The only pitcher who started 2 games barely lasted past the 5 or 6th both times (lots of low scoring games won by the bullpens). Marte was the best player on the winning team, hitting about .300 with a bunch of steals, but he had like 2 RBI the whole series.

I don't like giving it to guys on the losing side, but every now and then he really becomes the only choice. Definitely in a close race, I give the edge to the guy who won the series, but it's definitely not a hard and fast rule.

[Shadoshryke]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

I don't like giving it to guys on the losing side, but every now and then he really becomes the only choice. Definitely in a close race, I give the edge to the guy who won the series, but it's definitely not a hard and fast rule.

I think this is the key in that last statement. You say "the guy who won the series". However, it is the TEAM that won the series, and does not mean that the best performer on the winning team actually contributed to the over all win.

For instance, a guy that hit 4 home runs on 5 AB in the series when 5 others on the same team hit 3 HR and multiple multi-base hits, cannot be said to be a primary contributor to the win. He was just a contributor.

On the losing side, if he kept things from being complete shutouts by hitting 8 HR, multiple multi-base hits and had an BA of over .340 for the series, and made the winning team keep working for their wins, serious outstanding performance during the series, then you are going to have the MVP on the losing side.

Or he came in as a closer on 4 of the three games and shut out all batters on the opposing side, keeping the score to withing 3 each game instead of 8 or higher difference to all but save the game, then you have a serious performer that made up for poor SPs. Or a RP or CL that wins 3 games by seriously impressive Saves, that turn into the three wins are can be noted as happening due to that pitchers outstanding 3up3down runs. That gives you an MVP runner up.

This is because this individual performance (the requirement for MVP) was outstanding from the rest of the players on both teams.

[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.

[majesty95]

FWIW, I disagree with this MVP as well. It seems almost entirely based on AVG and negates the facts that Killebrew had 11 RBI in 3 games!

[olivertheorem]

RBI = irrelevant in the grand scheme of things


And yes majesty, that hypothetical .420-80-200 guy really is that valuable even if his team's record isn't that good. Baseball is rather unique among the major sports in that what a given player does is (largely) independent of what the other players on his team do. You can be a really good, really productive player on a bad team. You can produce the most value with your arm/bat/glove in a series and still come out on the losing end through no fault of your own.

This is the whole reason WAR and stats like it were developed: to figure out who REALLY was producing the most value independent of team context.


PS: Yeah, Oliva deserved that over Killebrew. How many of Killebrew's RBI were due to Oliva batting .538 in front if him, I wonder.

[Lou Gehrig]

Originally Posted by Shadoshryke

In sports, a most valuable player (MVP) award is an honor typically bestowed upon the best-performing player or players on a specific team, in an entire league, or for a particular contest or series of contests.

This is regardless of whether the team wins or loses. It is based on individual performance.

Couldn't agree more. Well said.

[Shadoshryke]

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.