Slappy beats Papi

[MFS62]

Why is it that when folks write about good/ great players who had a bad post season, they keep forgetting Gil Hodges' o-fer in a World Series?

And he was beloved. Priests in Brooklyn asked their congregations to pray for him.

Later

[Vic Sage]

]This gets me into the definition of most valuable.To me, its is the player who helped his team most, and if he weren't in their lineup, how well would they have done.

This is one of those discussions that drives me crazy.

IMO, the notion that an MVP is based on the type of team he plays on is ludicrous.

When Branch Rickey said to Kiner, "we finished last with you, we can finish last without you", did that provide any basis for understanding the kind of player Kiner was, relative to every other player in the NL that year? Was it Kiner's fault he played on such a bad team that his Herculean performance couldn't lift the team out of the cellar?

Most winning teams have a guy that, for a multitude of reasons (including "intangibles" like charisma and leadership), would be considered "most valuable" by the players on that team. Certainly Jeter is seen that way by Yankme fans and the media, and he had a lot to do with his team making the playoffs. Of course, his contributions would've been meaningless this year without the more productive 2-way play of the 3bman playing next to him. So giving Jeter the credit is the logical fallacy of over-crediting "the last straw".

If the MVP is simply that "special guy" on the best team of a given year, then the players of the division-winning teams should each nominate 1 guy, and then the players should vote for the MVP from amongst such nominees.

But that was not why the MVP was created. It was created in a more literate and literary era, when a phrase like "most valuable" was merely a way to say "the best", because how could the best player NOT be the most valuable one? This is borne out by the early voting history of the award, where it was often given to players on non-championship teams. It was only later that the illiterati decided to apply a narrower construction, and it became more difficult for great players on losing teams to be given due consideration for the award.

Now, there is an "Aaron Award" or something, that, theoretically, goes to the best hitter in each league. I believe it was created, in part, to repair the problem created by the MVP voters who created their own self-imposed limitations on MVP eligibility by making team success a significant criteria for the award. But this new award is of such low stature and visibility, and is equally limited in its definition (insofar as it ignores defense and "intangibles" that should otherwise go into a discussion of the BEST PLAYER AWARD), as to fail in its objective.

The Aaron is equivalent to a Silver Slugger, without a positional component. The MVP is a "BEST PLAYER IN THE LEAGUE" award... and team performance should be irrelevant to such a discussion. It's about picking the MOST VALUABLE player in baseball, not most valuable to a particular team.

If you put Jeter, Papi and A-Rod up for auction (assuming economic rationality on the part of the bidders), do you really doubt that A-Rod would go for the highest price? What do you think that has to say about relative "value"?

[Guest Rotblatt]

I'm with you, Vic.

Although I wouldn't be surprised if one or two very foolish GM's would, in fact, pay Ortiz more money than they would A-Rod--at least if we're talking one-year contracts here--solely because they think he's a choker.

Maybe I'm wrong, though.

[Valadius]

I agree. Team performance should have nothing to do with the MVP award. What should have to do with it, though, is whether the player is personally responsible for winning games: clutch hits, walk-off home runs, game-saving defensive plays, that kind of thing.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Such foolish GMs --- if they exist --- would be unlikely to have a team otherwise good enough that alleged playoff choking matters.

[Elster88]

I think the idea of a player being a choker in the playoffs was created (and is only given any credence) on the radio, on the internet, and in Steinbrenner's office (Mr. May, indeed).

[Vic Sage]

]What should have to do with it, though, is whether the player is personally responsible for winning games: clutch hits, walk-off home runs, game-saving defensive plays, that kind of thing.

but that, too, is the fallacy of the last straw.

"clutch" is a function of sample size, not an innate character trait, until data studies prove otherwise; walk-off HRs are worth no more than the HRs hit earlier in the game; game-saving defensive plays may occur in the first inning, and recognized only in retrospect, and are not quantifiable except in the most subjective of analyses.

I agree that an MVP is more than just stats, but the further afield from quantifiable production that you go in considering other aspects of what makes someone the "best player", the greater the burden of proving such criteria are legitimate.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Well, I agree mostly. Walkoff homers are indeed hard to establish as worth more than homers hit earlier in that game --- but, by definition, they are more valuable than homers in gerneral because they always come in wins. Homers in general may frequently come losing efforts. That's a truth worth exploring for it's actual weight, though it likely won't bear that much weight.

But in that sense, Rusty Staub's 132 1984 plate appearances must be understood to be more valuable (though to what extent I don't know) than your typical 132 plate appearances, because they disproportionately fell in game-changing high-leverage situations.