2007-11-11 13:23:27 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Baseball
should be the best overall player on a team...for example Andre DAwson won the NL MVP in 1983 i beleive on the last place Cubs
2007-11-11 13:26:34 · answer #1 · answered by nas88car300 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If we are looking for the most VALUABLE player, that would have to be someone who had more to do with his team winning than anyone else on his team, and his team would suffer a great deal by his loss, maybe more so than any other one player on any other team in the league.
I almost want to say the team must make the post season. This makes it easy. Your MVP will often be the guy who follows this statement "heck without that guy, there is no way his team makes the playoffs or makes a post season run."
I think Andre Dawson won in 1987 when he had a ton of stats, but the Cubs finished in last place. While he may very well have been the best hitter, there is no way he could have been the most valuable. His loss to the Cubs would have been dear, but they still would have been in last place.
So put me down for an MVP coming from a team with a shot at the playoffs on September 20th. That covers me a bit if the clear choice plays for a team that chokes down the stretch.
2007-11-11 22:13:52 · answer #2 · answered by Joe G 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think there should be separate awards for MVP and the best player. The best player in the league is not always the most valuable. A good example of what I mean occurred in 1987. Andre Dawson was named MVP even though the Cubs finished dead last. The Cubs could have finished last without him. On the other hand, the Cardinals won the NL pennant that year with Ozzie Smith coming in second in the MVP voting behind Dawson. Would the Cardinals have won the pennant or even their division without Smith? Probably not. So... Smith was far more valuable to the Cardinals than Dawson was to the Cubs. The award is for the Most Valuable Player, not the best player. Usually, they are one and the same, but not always.
2007-11-12 00:01:34 · answer #3 · answered by cool_breeze_2444 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sports writers like to spark controversy by saying the MVP has to be on a playoff team, but I completely disagree. MVP quality players face the same pitching (or hitters) that every other player faces, so that doesn't nullify their numbers. If anything, being on a worse team and performing better than players on playoff teams should augment their achievements.
2007-11-12 02:47:31 · answer #4 · answered by baseball_is_my_life 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If I had a vote, I would look at who was the most valuable player to the game itself.
That could mean an outstanding player whose team would not have made the playoffs without him.
That could mean a player who had such a clearly superior year to everyone else that even playing for a bad team wouldn't eliminate him.
It could even mean a player whose performance electrifies fans in a good way.
It should NOT be most RBI for a playoff team, even though that is historically a good way to guess who will win.
2007-11-12 05:17:20 · answer #5 · answered by Bucky 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would make more sense to have any player be the MVP. It shouldn't matter if they went to the playoffs or not. You can have great players on a team who isn't good.
I don't like either of these players, but here are examples:
Barry Bonds
A-Rod
2007-11-11 21:33:19 · answer #6 · answered by Let's go Red Sox! 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
MVP means most valuble player. The MVP is given to the player who helps his team most. This year, for example, Prince Fielder hit 50 hrs, but the Brewers lost to the Cubs after holding a 9 game lead in July. Meanwhile, Matt Holiday hit 36 hrs, bu helped the Rockies reach the world series. Which one halped his team more probobly will bring home the MVP.
2007-11-11 22:43:29 · answer #7 · answered by sonicboompattis 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think it should be the best player. But sometimes even if they aren't the best overall player if there on a Playoff team usually they have a better chance at getting it.
2007-11-11 21:34:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think an Mvp is a Player who was just the best in there league it doesn't matte if there team had crappy pitching like in 2003 Arod won the MVP the Rangers sucked but he was that good that year
2007-11-11 21:26:43 · answer #9 · answered by Janet ♥(YFFL) 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it should be the player who helps the team win the most games, so probably on a playoff team, it is like how the manager of the year is usually from a playoff team
2007-11-11 22:04:34 · answer #10 · answered by Matt C 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well this year A-Rod will be MVP, he's the best player in the league and he's on a playoff team.
2007-11-11 21:44:43 · answer #11 · answered by Mz.Rodriguez 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋