First Half Awards

[Turn 2]

Yeah, but the liklihood of them beating out the Padres, Dodgers, or D-Backs is slim to none.

[CrimsonTribe]

Funny, I thought it was the Most Valuable Player Award, not the Most Valuable Player on a Contending Team Award. All players have value, just because it isn't realized by a crappy team doesn't mean it isn't there.

[Turn 2]

Funny, I thought it was the Most Valuable Player Award, not the Most Valuable Player on a Contending Team Award. All players have value, just because it isn't realized by a crappy team doesn't mean it isn't there.

Very True

[love_that_reefer]

Funny, I thought it was the Most Valuable Player Award, not the Most Valuable Player on a Contending Team Award. All players have value, just because it isn't realized by a crappy team doesn't mean it isn't there.

So you aren't going to try and explain how a guy on a last place team has value? What honor is there in being awarded best guy on a 100 loss team? There is none. Be realistic! A MVP rises his team over expectations such as a guy like Bonds did in the 2003 and 2004 and how Pujols and Howard did. These are valuable guys. What was so valuable about Arod leading a team to a last place finish. It's value, not best!

[love_that_reefer]

Yeah, but the liklihood of them beating out the Padres, Dodgers, or D-Backs is slim to none.

It's not likely but because of him they are only 5.5 games out and still in this hunt at the mid way point which is what we are picking guys for. Without him, they are probably below the Giants which is just sad.

[hot_corner_gurl]

Ok I'm going to propose a hypothetical situation. Let's say that there was this pitcher on a losing team and there was no Cy Young award. Say the team lost 100 games and was therefore 62-100. But this pitcher was a phenomonal pitcher. He had a heater, a change, a wicked slider, and a nasty curve (sounds like Zito, only better). He was a leader in most pitching catagories. He won 25 game for his team and lost only 5. He was the winning pitcher in almost 50% of his teams victories. Tell me if and why he wouldn't deserve the MVP.

[love_that_reefer]

Depends on who else is up for it obviously. There is a flaw in your situation saying he was the winning pitcher in 50% of the games with only 25 wins. Say he did go 25-5 and had just an unbelievable year but finished last. What about the player who played everyday and hit .330/41/117 and lead his team to a WC? It's all about who else is out there. Arod won it years ago because there was no clear cut winner and the votes were spilt up thus winnign by default.

[perforatededge54]

He would. It's just an example of baseballs tradition being both a blessing and a curse. MVPs are typically position players.

[CrimsonTribe]

Why should I explain that a guy who is playing has value? He obviously has value and there are measures for that such as VORP (which AROD leads the majors in at this point). Just because that value doesn't put his team in contention doesn't mean it isn't there. You should be explaining how said value doesn't exist because frankly, you're not making sense on that front.

Don't get me wrong, I understand your argument that a player who helps to put his team in contention seems more valuable, but he gets a benefit of having better players around him. His value is realized, while the player on a bad team's value unfortunately isn't. Why should he be penalized for that?

As for "ris[ing] his team over expectations," seems pretty subjective to me.

[perforatededge54]

Not to mention Bonds has won MVPs on losing teams. You're creating a double standard.

[love_that_reefer]

You are asking the wrong question. Without the Arod on the Yankess, where would they be? Probably right where they are. Without Bonds on the Giants, they would be in the cellar. How is this even a debate? It's not that he seems more valuable, he is more valuable. That's the whole point. With those better players around him, if he's not there they don't do anything! You have to have that certain someone to take them over mediocrity! Pretty simple.

Pretty subjective? Please put down your picks. I would love to see them.

And no Bonds has never won a MVP on a losing team. Nice try though

[hot_corner_gurl]

Depends on who else is up for it obviously. There is a flaw in your situation saying he was the winning pitcher in 50% of the games with only 25 wins. Say he did go 25-5 and had just an unbelievable year but finished last. What about the player who played everyday and hit .330/41/117 and lead his team to a WC? It's all about who else is out there. Arod won it years ago because there was no clear cut winner and the votes were spilt up thus winnign by default.

Ok so this guys team won 62 games and that pitcher won 25...that's 50% of the victories...how do you not get that? And I know that it depends on who else was out there having a good year.

A guy shouldn't be judged just because of the team he is on. It's most valuable player. Player. The team shouldn't play a huge factor. It's the guy who had a phenomonal year and was able to help his team. You said earlier that you could be playing LF for the Giants and they'd still be in last place. Well, yeah! How can you expect a guy to single-handedly carry a team to the playoffs? That's why it's called a team! A team wins the WS, a player wins the MVP. Just cause Carl Crawford is on the Rays doesn't mean that he can't win the MVP. Just cause the Yankees aren't playing up to par doesn't mean that A-Rod can't win the MVP. I really have no clue where you're coming form, reefer. Your "theory" isn't making sense...

[love_that_reefer]

Ok so this guys team won 62 games and that pitcher won 25...that's 50% of the victories...how do you not get that? And I know that it depends on who else was out there having a good year.

A guy shouldn't be judged just because of the team he is on. It's most valuable player. Player. The team shouldn't play a huge factor. It's the guy who had a phenomonal year and was able to help his team. You said earlier that you could be playing LF for the Giants and they'd still be in last place. Well, yeah! How can you expect a guy to single-handedly carry a team to the playoffs? That's why it's called a team! A team wins the WS, a player wins the MVP. Just cause Carl Crawford is on the Rays doesn't mean that he can't win the MVP. Just cause the Yankees aren't playing up to par doesn't mean that A-Rod can't win the MVP. I really have no clue where you're coming form, reefer. Your "theory" isn't making sense...

Ok the first part I missed totally and now feel dumb about it. I spaced on the win total even though 25 +25 =50 As for the rest of it, I have pretty much explained. For your situation, the guy who played everyday and had the .330/41/117 and helped take him to the WC crown has more value because without him, they would be right where the pitcher's team would be. Plus like you said it's a team effort and someone had to score for the pitcher. I understand its a team effort and not just one man can do it all but one man stands above the rest and leads his team and has more value!! It's the MOST VALUABLE award, not has some value award. That's how Morneau won it last year. Mauer did great and so did Santana but without Morneau they do come close to the sniffing contention. Because he stood above the rest and lead that team, he was most valuable to that team!

[CrimsonTribe]

You are asking the wrong question. Without the Arod on the Yankess, where would they be? Probably right where they are. Without Bonds on the Giants, they would be in the cellar. How is this even a debate? It's not that he seems more valuable, he is more valuable. That's the whole point. With those better players around him, if he's not there they don't do anything! You have to have that certain someone to take them over mediocrity! Pretty simple.

Pretty subjective? Please put down your picks. I would love to see them.

And no Bonds has never won a MVP on a losing team. Nice try though

I'm wondering the same thing.

Pretty subjective b/c expectations are subjective, therefore exceeding them must be.

If you put AROD on the Tigers and Magglio on the Yankees, would the Tigers be better and the Yankees be worse? VORP says yes.

[love_that_reefer]

VORP People who put stock in that are hilarious!!!