PDA

View Full Version : Settling this MVP debate about being on a playoff team



Jeffy25
09-06-2010, 03:53 PM
The Guidelines for MVP Voting

"Dear Voter:

"There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

"The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:

"1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.
2. Number of games played.
3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.
4. Former winners are eligible.
5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

"You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from one to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot.

"Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, and that includes pitchers and designated hitters.

"Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration."


I figured I would start a new thread, so people could actually see this post.

It is interesting how people interpret the rules their own way, or vote as complete homers...(I am looking at you Tom Hardicourt).

jaysfan46
09-06-2010, 03:56 PM
Just because it's not a written rule, doesn't mean it isn't an unwritten rule for most voters.

Jeffy25
09-06-2010, 03:57 PM
Just because it's not a written rule, doesn't mean it isn't an unwritten rule for most voters.

Again, interpreting the rules.

IMO should get you kicked off the voting panel....Pitchers and DH's are just as up for the award as well, and there are several writers that refuse to accept this.

bosox3431
09-06-2010, 04:12 PM
Just because it's not a written rule, doesn't mean it isn't an unwritten rule for most voters.

Dosen't mean they're right either

vr67
09-06-2010, 04:22 PM
So Josh HAmilton is not a lock to win it, Cabrera is!

DodgersFanFor23
09-06-2010, 04:27 PM
This guy must work for the BBA.

Crucis
09-06-2010, 10:59 PM
So, Jeffy, try doing some more research. How often has the MVP winner come from a non-contending team? I suspect that it is rather rare, perhaps no more than once every 10 years.

Furthermore, given that those "rules" are rather vague, I see nothing that would legitimately prevent voters from having an unwritten qualification that strongly favors candidates from contending teams.

Furthermore, the fact that your highlighted sentence saying that the winner need not come from a playoff or contending team does NOT logically mean that there can't be an unwritten qualification that strongly favors players from contending teams, since such a favoring of such players does not mean that players from non-contenders are disqualified. It only means that they are far weaker candidates, because a MVP candidate on a contending team is simply more valuable by the fact that his efforts are helping to keep and carry his team into contention, while the player on a non contender is only piling up stats for a losing team.

In short, nothing here sways me from believing that such an unwritten qualification not only exists, but is entirely legitimate according to the MVP voting guidelines.

Jeffy25
09-06-2010, 11:08 PM
So, Jeffy, try doing some more research. How often has the MVP winner come from a non-contending team? I suspect that it is rather rare, perhaps no more than once every 10 years.

Furthermore, given that those "rules" are rather vague, I see nothing that would legitimately prevent voters from having an unwritten qualification that strongly favors candidates from contending teams.

Furthermore, the fact that your highlighted sentence saying that the winner need not come from a playoff or contending team does NOT logically mean that there can't be an unwritten qualification that strongly favors players from contending teams, since such a favoring of such players does not mean that players from non-contenders are disqualified. It only means that they are far weaker candidates, because a MVP candidate on a contending team is simply more valuable by the fact that his efforts are helping to keep and carry his team into contention, while the player on a non contender is only piling up stats for a losing team.

In short, nothing here sways me from believing that such an unwritten qualification not only exists, but is entirely legitimate according to the MVP voting guidelines.

This is exactly what is given to the voters each year. Just because they choose to ignore the rules does not mean they are correct in their interpretation. If you choose to ignore this information as fact, and continue to interpret the rules in your own way, then I really have nothing better to discuss with you. You are literally choosing to stay ignorant, and I can't help you when that is your choice.

Some voters also say that pitchers and DH's are not deserving of the MVP, but it also, clearly says otherwise.

And the MVP has come from a non contending team more often than maybe you realize.

In 2008, the MVP Albert Pujols' St. Louis Cardinals were not in the playoffs.

Ryan Howard's 2006 Phillies

Barry Bonds in 2001 and 2004, his Giants did not make the playoffs.

I looked at one decade, and only one league, because that is all the time that I need to find out that several players have won MVP awards and not made the playoffs.

And even if they did, it wouldn't mean the writer's got it correct, something they quite often mess up....ever since Palmerio won a GG in 99 after playing first only 28 times on the year, the writer's have proven they do not know how to properly elect award winners...(and that wasn't their first mistake either)

The problem is when writer's, or people such as yourself, create your own 'unwritten rules' to things that do not have unwritten rules, in fact, they have specific written rules.

I don't know how much more clear it has to be, it is written in the rules, and you call it vague? So that means since it is vague, you can interpret it however you want?

"I'm sorry officer, the speed limit sign was sort of vague, sure it said 35, but I wasn't sure if that was KM's or MPH or what, so I interpreted it how I felt"

Sandman
09-06-2010, 11:24 PM
I think its a factor the same way that leading the league in RBI or batting average is a factor. The guy on the playoff team or best team will always get more votes if both players have equal stats.

Gigantes4Life
09-06-2010, 11:26 PM
So, Jeffy, try doing some more research. How often has the MVP winner come from a non-contending team? I suspect that it is rather rare, perhaps no more than once every 10 years.

Furthermore, given that those "rules" are rather vague, I see nothing that would legitimately prevent voters from having an unwritten qualification that strongly favors candidates from contending teams.

Furthermore, the fact that your highlighted sentence saying that the winner need not come from a playoff or contending team does NOT logically mean that there can't be an unwritten qualification that strongly favors players from contending teams, since such a favoring of such players does not mean that players from non-contenders are disqualified. It only means that they are far weaker candidates, because a MVP candidate on a contending team is simply more valuable by the fact that his efforts are helping to keep and carry his team into contention, while the player on a non contender is only piling up stats for a losing team.

In short, nothing here sways me from believing that such an unwritten qualification not only exists, but is entirely legitimate according to the MVP voting guidelines.

Correlation does not equal causation.

However, this might because teams with really good players are usually a good team. When you have the best player on your team for that season, chances are you're going to win some games.

rkelly7
09-07-2010, 01:42 AM
The Guidelines for MVP Voting

"Dear Voter:

"There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

"The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:

"1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.
2. Number of games played.
3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.
4. Former winners are eligible.
5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

"You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from one to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot.

"Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, and that includes pitchers and designated hitters.

"Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration."


I figured I would start a new thread, so people could actually see this post.

It is interesting how people interpret the rules their own way, or vote as complete homers...(I am looking at you Tom Hardicourt).

Put Pujols on the Royals or Pirates, add 10 HR and 25 RBI to his average totals over the past 5 years, so he is basically Pujols on crack, and he won't win the MVP, just b/c the rules state what an MVP consists of doesn't mean the voters follow the guidelines

stupid thread
/thread

Jeffy25
09-07-2010, 01:52 AM
Put Pujols on the Royals or Pirates, add 10 HR and 25 RBI to his average totals over the past 5 years, so he is basically Pujols on crack, and he won't win the MVP, just b/c the rules state what an MVP consists of doesn't mean the voters follow the guidelines

stupid thread
/thread

Just because some voters are stupid enough to not follow the rules does not mean that Pujols would not be deserving of MVP's and it does not mean this thread is stupid, in fact, I bet 90% of the posters on this forum have no clue what the actual rules are.

Also, the whole reason for the thread, is because people are interpreting and making up their own rules for the MVP....

Jeffy25
09-07-2010, 01:54 AM
The worst example I could find off the top of my head of someone making up their own rules for the vote is here http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/34594194.html

Tom Hardicourt

Gigantes4Life
09-07-2010, 02:06 AM
Put Pujols on the Royals or Pirates, add 10 HR and 25 RBI to his average totals over the past 5 years, so he is basically Pujols on crack, and he won't win the MVP, just b/c the rules state what an MVP consists of doesn't mean the voters follow the guidelines

stupid thread
/thread

Put Adam Dunn on the Yankees his entire career and I bet you he wins a Gold Glove.

Doesn't mean it's right, just like Jeffy's comments aren't wrong.

You can call it a stupid thread, but I'll call what you just said a stupid post.

Ovratd1up
09-07-2010, 02:06 AM
I just failed.

hoggin88
09-07-2010, 02:06 AM
The worst example I could find off the top of my head of someone making up their own rules for the vote is here http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/34594194.html

Tom Hardicourt

Holy ****, he voted Pujols 7th? :facepalm::facepalm:

That's the kind of **** that just drives me crazy.

Jeffy25
09-07-2010, 02:10 AM
Holy ****, he voted Pujols 7th? :facepalm::facepalm:

That's the kind of **** that just drives me crazy.

It was a total homer vote...

He didn't post his votes this year...what a surprise ;)



We have a MVP award, for the most valuable player in the league for the season, regardless if he plays on a successful team or not. Pitcher or hitter.

We have silver slugger awards for best hitters

We have cy young awards for the best pitcher in the league

And nothing says one player can't win all of the above, and the rules are actually, very clear for each award. It's a shame that people want to interpret the rules themselves when they are told specifically what the qualifications are for the vote.

I just don't like that the vote comes from the media, I would rather see executives from each team, mixed with mlb executives, mixed with online voters into one giant pot of votes...with people who understand the rules, that can also lose their votes if they don't follow the rules.

Gigantes4Life
09-07-2010, 02:12 AM
The worst example I could find off the top of my head of someone making up their own rules for the vote is here http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/34594194.html

Tom Hardicourt

This comment made me lol:


yeah! dont worry braun, your gonna get it next year! what other award is there to win? gold glove? oh yeah, he made NO erros this year. great job, keep it up forever, hopefully with the brewers

Pinstripe pride
09-07-2010, 08:31 AM
that doesn't mean voters won't still use playoffs as a criteria

GeronimoSon
09-07-2010, 09:01 AM
"The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:

"1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.
2. Number of games played.
3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.
4. Former winners are eligible.
5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

"You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from one to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot.

"Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, and that includes pitchers and designated hitters.

"Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration." Who was the "seer" back in 1931 who had 'advanced knowledge' of the coming DH?.. just kidding..

The MVP award for each league has been pretty good over the years. There have been some quirky picks and some outright bad selections (two that come to mind: Mo Vaughn winning over Albert Belle, Dustin Pedroia winning over his fellow teammate, Kevin Youkilis, as examples). This award, like so many others, has a lot to do with how the voters perceive the value of the player.. eg.. wouldn't Edgar Martinez get extra votes for being a DH, his defense was so atrocious, not playing in the field should have been a plus?..

The rules listed are not black and white. They are judgements..judgements that say Andre Dawson was the key/most important contributor for his offense and defense on a last place club.

BTW.. whoever said this was a bad thread.. doesn't like to be wrong. Sadly, that's where they find themselves way too often...

Jeffy25
09-07-2010, 10:55 AM
^^^^ good post ^^^^

whitesoxfan83
09-07-2010, 02:36 PM
Jimmy Rollins- 2007 MVP Winner: .296/.344/.531/.875

Consider the others:

Prince Fielder: .288/.395/.618/1.013 (missed PS)
David Wright: .325/.416/.546/.963 (missed PS)
Chipper Jones: .337/.425/.604/1.029 (missed PS)
Albert Pujols: .327/.429/.568/.997 (missed PS)
Hanley Ramirez: .332/.386/.562/.948 (missed PS)- Played the same freaking position in the same division!

If you go through the MVP voting for the last 10 years you'll find situations filled with this crap.

The best guy almost never wins and playoffs are certainly used as a factor every season.
Regardless of what anything else says, just look at the results for your answer.

Rylinkus
09-07-2010, 02:39 PM
Jimmy Rollins- 2007 MVP Winner: .296/.344/.531/.875

Consider the others:

Prince Fielder: .288/.395/.618/1.013 (missed PS)
David Wright: .325/.416/.546/.963 (missed PS)
Chipper Jones: .337/.425/.604/1.029 (missed PS)
Albert Pujols: .327/.429/.568/.997 (missed PS)
Hanley Ramirez: .332/.386/.562/.948 (missed PS)- Played the same freaking position in the same division!

If you go through the MVP voting for the last 10 years you'll find situations filled with this crap.

The best guy almost never wins and playoffs are certainly used as a factor every season.
Regardless of what anything else says, just look at the results for your answer.


And there are countless CY Youngs awarded based on win totals and Gold GLoves based on offensive stats, but it doesn't make it the proper way to give out these awards.

whitesoxfan83
09-07-2010, 02:43 PM
And there are countless CY Youngs awarded based on win totals and Gold GLoves based on offensive stats, but it doesn't make it the proper way to give out these awards.

Im not saying its proper, im just pointing out its the way things are.

People want to continue to argue Cabrera and Bautista over Konerko or Felix and Buchholz over CC but they fail to realize the voters dont give a **** about the stats and being on a playoff team goes further than any stat line could.

Jeffy25
09-07-2010, 04:19 PM
Im not saying its proper, im just pointing out its the way things are.

People want to continue to argue Cabrera and Bautista over Konerko or Felix and Buchholz over CC but they fail to realize the voters dont give a **** about the stats and being on a playoff team goes further than any stat line could.

And the point of this thread, is to show that those voters are simply interpreting the rules their own way, which IMO, should make the votes be taken away from them.

Regardless of the way people do vote, they are voting against the rules and deciding what Most Valuable Player means based on what they think it should mean.

I am not a fan of this either, my boy Albert may not get another MVP because of this very reason this season.

misterd
09-07-2010, 06:01 PM
Again, interpreting the rules.

IMO should get you kicked off the voting panel....Pitchers and DH's are just as up for the award as well, and there are several writers that refuse to accept this.

It is up the voter to interpret the rules as they see fit (as the letter says). The question is what "valuable" means, and for that there is little agreement.

hoggin88
09-07-2010, 06:04 PM
And the point of this thread, is to show that those voters are simply interpreting the rules their own way, which IMO, should make the votes be taken away from them.

Regardless of the way people do vote, they are voting against the rules and deciding what Most Valuable Player means based on what they think it should mean.

I am not a fan of this either, my boy Albert may not get another MVP because of this very reason this season.

Do you think he deserves it?

Jeffy25
09-07-2010, 06:25 PM
Do you think he deserves it?

To be perfectly honest, I think Adrian Gonzalez has been the most valuable player to his team this year in the NL, with Roy Halladay right behind him.

Votto and Pujols are neck and neck at 3rd, with Votto with the slight edge.

;)


And my man crush on Pujols holds no end, but I am not a blind homer, and try to stay honest.

Pujols will also benefit because he has won it before, and for some reason, voters also think that matters.

Jeffy25
09-07-2010, 06:27 PM
It is up the voter to interpret the rules as they see fit (as the letter says). The question is what "valuable" means, and for that there is little agreement.

That interpretation is left for what is not included in the rules.

It isn't up to interpretation if pitchers are eligible or if the player needs to be on a contender, it is not subjective in literally two areas, and those are the two areas that people dispute? Seriously? What is disputable are things like, what are enough games played? What is considered valuable on the field, not the two things actually dictated in the letter.



/lawyered


:)

blams
09-07-2010, 06:27 PM
Again, interpreting the rules.

IMO should get you kicked off the voting panel....Pitchers and DH's are just as up for the award as well, and there are several writers that refuse to accept this.

It also says that the voter is allowed to interpret the "value" of the players how they see fit. If they believe that a loser cannot win it, then so be it. I don't agree with it either, but that doesn't really clear up anything. It says "need not" which is not a definite stance.

Jeffy25
09-07-2010, 06:30 PM
It also says that the voter is allowed to interpret the "value" of the players how they see fit. If they believe that a loser cannot win it, then so be it. I don't agree with it either, but that doesn't really clear up anything. It says "need not" which is not a definite stance.


That interpretation is left for what is not included in the rules.

It isn't up to interpretation if pitchers are eligible or if the player needs to be on a contender, it is not subjective in literally two areas, and those are the two areas that people dispute? Seriously? What is disputable are things like, what are enough games played? What is considered valuable on the field, not the two things actually dictated in the letter.



/lawyered


:)
:)