Bill James Take On A-Rod For MVP

[Max Power]

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/ne...ives&fext=.jsp

Agree or disagree?

[poorme]

He's obviously the best player in the AL.

Unfortunately no amount of logic or debate can resolve what the voting criteria is. MLB needs to spell it out and not leave it to each person's opinion.

[SmedIndy]

I think James is on the money, especially regarding the BBWAA.

Perhaps they should create more awards like hockey has that allows the stat kings to get an award, then the MVP is separate.

[Skip]

I also agree with James here. His poker analogy was apt. The ace is still the most valuable card, even if that value is not realized.

At the same time, baseball wouldnt be the same if we didnt get to have this debate every year, so I can live with the status quo just fine. It's not like its going to keep A-Rod out of the HOF or anything.

[nyyfanfrombirth]

Of course A-Rod is the best player in the AL. I guess my objection is to the words "Most Valuable." James makes it clear that to him, it basically means the best. To me, when I hear "most valuable," it means that the player helps its team to contend. If A-Rod weren't on the Rangers, they'd be even worse, but does that really matter? Not to me because they'd still be in last place. I wish they would more clearly define the award instead of making it so nebulous, but then it would remove a favorite topic of conversation (and argument) for many. Would we rather it be more clearly defined or would we rather argue about and discuss it? I don't know which is better.

[JamesI]

I agree with Bill James here. A-Rod is having a special enough season to make up for being on a looser. But Tejada is going to win the award.

[rcartman28]

Rodriguez SHOULD win the award, but it's not like the voters have an outstanding track record about handing it out to the actual best player.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Originally posted by poorme
Unfortunately no amount of logic or debate can resolve what the voting criteria is. MLB needs to spell it out and not leave it to each person's opinion.

From Total Baseball VII:

In 1922, the American League Trophy Committee adopted a set of rules governing the selection of an annual award-winner. The rules specified that "the purpose of the AL trophy is to honor the baseball player who is of greatest all-round service to his club and credit to the sport during the season; to recognize and reward uncommon skill and ability when exercised by a player for the best interests of his team, and to perpetuate his memory."

The rules further instructed voters to seek out the "winning ballplayer", reminding them that "combined offensive and defensive ability is not always indicated by any system of records."

The BBWAA started their award in 1944. As far as pitchers go, the rules state: "keep in mind that all players are eligible. That includes pitchers, starters and relievers." In the last 24 years, two voters have been replaced because they were dumb enough to state that they couldn't vote for a pitcher.

Nothing is mentioned about a team's record being considered in the MVP voting. It is an individual award, not a team award. The best player on a great team may be of considerably less value, as an individual, than the best player on a lesser team. This has been the case many times.

[KCBOOMER]

I would much prefer this award to be the "Player of the Year" rather than MVP which seems to involve some form of smoke and bones to decipher. Other wise you end up electing Gino Toretta to win the Heisman Trophy.

[LeGrandOrange]

I agree with Bill James...stop the presses, I've just agreed with Bill James!
My vote is his as well...he's the best hitter in the American League, and is probably the best six-tool player in the game. What he brings to the table is so great that it makes up for the slightly bad record. And after sweeping Seattle, I think it proves that they can be decent.
And while what your definition of "valuable" is is likely different from mine, it applies to everyone. I mean, think about it...this team might be an absolute disaster if they had, oh, Royce Clayton instead of Alex.
Intangibly he sort of cancels out, because I don't hear about any leadership he does, maybe I just don't listen, who knows.

But I think that he's got such a big advantage there that all the record "advantages" that you can give Tejada, Soriano, or Giambi will not allow them to overtake him.
Of course, it's all about the writers here.

BTW, are those guys that voted A-Rod 6th and 7th in 1996 still in the BBWAA?

[thomasstearns]

James is dead-on right.

And his poker analogy makes me think that we should have other awards with a poker flare. The Suited Connectors Award (your 6 and 7 of diamonds), for example would could showcase the best pair of hitters on the same team. This year's race would be Soriano/Giambi vs. Rodriguez/Palmeiro, with Anderson/Salmon and Tejada/Chavez as the darkhorses.

The Hidden Pair Award could go to the best hitter-pitcher combo in the league. Zito/Tejada are probably the frontrunners, with the Boston pick'em of Lowe/MArtinez/Ramirez/Garciaparra chasing. People would still be fretting that the Indians broke up Colon/Thome.

And they could have a Joker's Wild Award to give the Eckstein's of the world something (more) to fight for. Crazy guys who just seem to Get It Done! The underdog Eckstein vs. the Goliath Jeter. We could call it The Honorary Jason Kendall of Year 2000 Award.

[sweaver]

Well, if Miguel Tejada says Alex Rodriguez should get the award, who are we to argue?

[VNV Nation]

James of course makes a compelling argument, which he does in writing almost anything. He is just a great writer.

But he seems more swayed by the fact that A-Rod has been jobbed in the past than the fact that all of his wonderful stats are essentially irrelevant. I can't really agree with that -- he thinks A-Rod should win but it's OK if Bonds doesn't win?

As a historian he seems more concerned with the historical implications of not giving the best player in the league a single award. There's no doubt that A-Rod should have won in 1996 and 2000 but I don't think that should be a factor in this year's vote. Bonds is much more deserving than A-Rod.

[pwdennis]

Originally posted by VNV Nation
James of course makes a compelling argument, which he does in writing almost anything. He is just a great writer.

But he seems more swayed by the fact that A-Rod has been jobbed in the past than the fact that all of his wonderful stats are essentially irrelevant. I can't really agree with that -- he thinks A-Rod should win but it's OK if Bonds doesn't win?

I don't think this is the argument he is making at all. Even a cursory reading of WIN SHARES should dispel this notion.He definitely feels that Bonds, like Mantle,Mays and Williams before him should have won a lot more MVP awards.

[VNV Nation]

Anyway, the National League's best player, Barry Bonds, probably won't and perhaps shouldn't win the award. ... I'm not really bothered by the fact that the best player doesn't win the award every year, even if he's the best player every year.

...
The case of Alex Rodriguez, on the other hand, seems more troubling. Alex Rodriguez, nearing the halfway point of his career, has yet to win an MVP Award, and may not win it this year...


...
I think the time has come to hand him the award.

This doesn't sound like James cares much that the best player doesn't win th award every year to me, and that he's basically arguing A-Rod is long overdue.