The Major League Baseball season may be over, but the off-season is always ripe with controversy and the occasional bought of activity. And this next week-and-a-half is no different considering that all the major individual player awards are finally being announced.

So I’ve started this thread for the baseball fans among us to debate, question, and generally discuss the players being honored.

Here’s the schedule for when the various major awards are supposed to be announced:

Monday, November 4, 2002:
AL and NL Rookie of the Year

Tuesday, November 5, 2002:
NL Cy Young

Thursday, November 7, 2002:
AL and NL Manager of the Year

Friday, November 8, 2002:
AL Cy Young

Monday, November 11, 2002:
NL Most Valuable Player

Monday, November 4, 2002:
AL Most Valuable Player

So make predictions if you like, but I was hoping that we could use this thread more as a forum to discuss the merits of the actual awardees, and get an idea if people thought the player being selected deserved the honor or not.

OK, we’re a little behind the power curve here, but let’s catch up.

AL Rookie of the Year

Eric Hinske (http://www.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/tor/team/tor_player_bio.jsp?frame=mlb&playerid=400134), Third Base, Toronto Blue Jays

Even though I follow the American League, living in Texas I must admit that I have had little opportunity to see or know much about Eric Hinske. My beloved Texas Rangers (the heartbreakers and dream-mashers that they are) play in the AL West, and they played Toronto a total of nine times this season (and six of those games occurred before May 3).

No rookie from the American really stood way out this season, so Hinske (to me) seems as deserving as any.
____________________________________

NL Rookie of the Year

Jason Jennings (http://www.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/col/team/col_player_bio.jsp?frame=mlb&playerid=407298), Pitcher, Colorado Rockies

Anybody that can win 16 games and maintain a respectable ERA playing half his games in Coors field deserves some kind of award. OK, an ERA of 4.52 is hardly challenging Bob Gibson’s record (1968, ERA of 1.12 if memory serves me), but in this day and age, and considering the light air of Colorado, it’s at least “respectable”.

Jennings appears to be head and shoulders above any other rookie this season, so I don’t see any real controversy here.
_____________________________________

NL Cy Young

Randy Johnson (http://www.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/ari/team/ari_player_bio.jsp?frame=mlb&playerid=116615), Pitcher, Arizona Diamondbacks

Can you believe this guy is 39 years old?? I guess he’s like wine; just getting better with age. Of course it helps to be eight feet tall and have arms so long you practically hand the ball to the catcher when you pitch, but that’s just me. I’m just glad he no longer pitches in the AL. :)

Curt Schilling was voted in second place and John Smoltz was third.

Schilling was certainly worthy with 23 wins, 316 strikeouts, and an ERA of 3.23, but I guess the award had to go someone, right? Personally, I would have edged Johnson over Schilling just slightly, given that Johnson had 24 wins, 316 strikeouts, and an ERA of 2.32.

Makes you wonder how well Arizona could have done in the playoffs if Luis Gonzalez hadn’t gotten hurt when he did.
_____________________________________

OK, so tell us all how you feel.

Hinske is living proof that there are plenty of guys in the minor leagues who could do just as good fo a job as 35% of "supposed" major leaguers if only given the opportunity.

GM J.P. Riccardi CLAIMED HIM OFF WAIVERS from the Cubs (think they could use him at 3B now?), then traded Bily Koch for him once he got to Toronto, gave him the job and he responded. His power and patience at the plate are tremendous. He might not turn into a Troy Glaus but he might be a Glaus-like player for the next few years.

Yet guys like Tom Goodwin, Brian Hunter, etc. still kick around the major leagues because they have the "proven major leaguer" label attached to them.

So far, nothing to really argue about.

And Randy getting the Cy Young was to be expected. He had another brilliant year. All of his stats have been improving year after year, and he is 39 years old. Not bad for an old fart ;)

Yeah, Randy deserved it as he cemented the award with an ungodly September record while Schilling struggled. Up to that point, I was pretty even, but Schilling got pegged late and it cost him.

I liked the pick of Hinske. No other rookie in the AL had the pub or the numbers to unseat. Jennings is arguable, but I don't have a real problem with him being chosen.

Next... Martinez vs Zito... I'd say Zito, even with the higher era.

Are any of you watching ESPNEWS right now???? I can't believe that Dusty Baker is leaving the Giants. I mean, going to the world series and to a game 7, and he's leaving! How stupid is that?!?

Zito, hands down. I like my Cy Young guys to be durable.

Dusty Baker leaving wasn't a huge shock - it's the Reinsdorf Syndrome. McGowan and Sabean are pissed off because they're not getting any of the credit for taking the Giants to the WS, so they're lowballing Baker so he'll leave on his own free will.

Of course, it hasn't worked yet with Reinsdorf or Krause, so I don't think it will in San Fran either.

WildFire444,

Everything that I've heard concerning Dusty Baker is that he wasn't looking to leave, but the ownership of the Giants appeared to not really want him to return. They didn't offer him a contract extention at the beginning of the season, and they've let him become a "free agent".

For the life of me I can't figure out why. I mean, why would you effectively run out of town the very manager that brought your team to the very edge of final victory? He was liked by the team, there's no indication was disliked by the fans (of course in don't live in CA, so I'm not directly privy to such information), so what's the problem? Money?

Seems silly to me.

Bad for the Giants, but good for whatever teams he lands with. And the rumor mill has it that he's probably headed to the Cubs.

Which leads to a whole different discussion. If the Chicago Cubs and the Boston Red Sox played each other in the World Series, would this be a sign that civilization as we know it was coming to an end? Discuss.

:)

Originally posted by tcjsavannah
Dusty Baker leaving wasn't a huge shock - it's the Reinsdorf Syndrome. McGowan and Sabean are pissed off because they're not getting any of the credit for taking the Giants to the WS, so they're lowballing Baker so he'll leave on his own free will.

I think you may have hit the nail on the head. Seems as plausible as any theory.

And I agree that Bakers' leaving wasn't expected, especially since baseball experts and analysts have been talking about it for months.

AL Manager of the Year

Mike Scioscia, Anaheim Angels (17 of 28 first-place votes)

Voting for all regular-season awards is done just after the regular-season and before the post-season begins, so when Scioscia was picked for AL Manager of the Year no one knew that the Angels would win the World Series. But even with that not a factor in the balloting, I think he’s deserving, especially considering that his team competed for the AL West title all year against a very strong Oakland team. And also consider that during spring training few gave Anaheim a snowball’s chance in hell of even thinking about the post-season, much less a World championship. I mean come on, before the World Series how many Anaheim players could non-Angel die-hard fans actually name? Salmon, Glaus, Anderson, Percival, and… well that was about it for me.

Art Howe (who got 9 first-place votes) was definitely a contender in the race for Manager of the Year, and he would have been quite deserving himself. His A’s did manage to pull out a twenty game winning streak after all, and they finished with 103 wins. Not too shabby. But Scioscia’s team started the season 6-14; oh and then proceeded to go 93-49 for the remainder of the season, a .655 winning percentage. Even less shabby.

I vote Scioscia, with Howe a substantial (but not too distant) second.


NL Manager of the Year

Tony LaRussa, St. Louis Cardinals (22 of 30 first-place votes)

OK, so here’s where we’ll probably have a little controversy. I don’t even want to suggest that LaRussa got “sympathy” votes because of the tragic death of Darryl Kyle, but he did lead the team through what was unquestionably a very tough time. And they finished with a 97-64 record. (Atlanta finished with 101 wins; Arizona had 98 wins.) So despite everything he did turn in one of his usual terrific seasons.

Bobby Cox, Atlanta Braves, got 9 first-place votes and Dusty Baker got 1 first-place vote. While I don’t necessarily disagree with LaRussa getting the award, I personally think Baker got the shaft with regard to the consolation prize. Baker’s Giants (despite Bonds) didn’t have the sheer wealth of all-around talent that the Braves had, and despite that they managed to squeak out 95 wins. While second place in a voting like this is akin to kissing your sister, Baker should have at least finished in second place.

OK, I’m done.

I can't argue with either of the Manager of the Year candidates - Scioscia had a team that was essentially last year's last-place squad overcome a horrible start and make the playoffs, while LaRussa had to overcome injuries and tragdy to lead his team to a division title everyone was ready to hand to the Astros or the Cubs in the preseason.

Baker should have gotten more votes than Cox, who I consider the most overrated manager in baseball history.

AL Cy Young Award

Barry Zito (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/oak/team/oak_player_bio.jsp?playerid=217096&club_context=mlb), Pitcher, Oakland Athletics (17 of 28 First-Place votes)

I get the impression that many (OK, at least a handful) of the baseball fans on this BBS thought that Barry Zito was deserving of the AL Cy Young Award. Well apparently the baseball writers agree.

Barry Zito is the anti-Randy Johnson. While Johnson relies on overpowering fastballs and racks up huge numbers of strikeouts, Zito relies on changing speeds and depends on getting batters to put the ball weakly in play. (And this season’s statistics say he did a good job of it.) Of course both pitchers seem to achieve VERY similar results when it comes to wins and anchoring their team’s pitching staffs.

But let’s throw some fuel on the fire. Pedro Martinez (http://www.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/bos/team/bos_player_bio.jsp?frame=mlb&playerid=118377) (Boston Red Sox), who received 11 first-place votes, didn’t have too poorly a season either.

Here’s a comparison of stats between Zito and Martinez:

......W L ERA G GS CG ShO Sv IP H R ER HR BB SO
Z: 23 5 2.75 35 35 1 0 0 229.1 182 79 70 24 78 182
M: 20 4 2.26 30 30 2 0 0 199.1 144 62 50 13 40 239

While Zito had more total wins, Martinez had a slightly better winning percentage. Zito pitched 30 more innings with 5 additional starts; Martinez gave up fewer hits and had 57 more strikeouts. Neither set the world on fire when it came to complete games, and both had outstanding ERA’s, although Pedro’s ERA was substantially better. But Zito allowed almost twice as many home runs and almost twice as many walks.

So did Pedro have a great season? Absolutely. And so did Barry. But Zito’s A’s won their division and Boston stayed home during the post-season.

So why did Zito win when it appears that either player was worthy in his own way?

Did Zito receive more run support? (I don’t know the answer to this.) And wasn’t Pedro on the DL for a stint this season? (I don’t remember if this is right.) Zito also pitches in the Oakland Coliseum which has enough foul territory to land a plane; Pedro has to deal with the Green Monster (even though that’s mostly a left-hander’s nightmare). Pedro also has to pitch more games against the Yankees; but Zito’s not exactly allowed to take it easy pitching against the heavy hitters of the AL West.

So, what do you do? Flip a coin?

As for me, while this is hardly scientific, all things being equal (and in many ways they were), I’d break the tie and pick Zito based on the fact that he won 23 games to Pedro’s 20.

You gotta have a winner somehow.

Well, my stat chart is fubar, but I think you can still read it.

Both managers of the year deserved it for their outstanding seasons. And Zito got the job done when it counted. If Pedro hadn't missed some starts, then looked bad down the stretch, he would have gotten it in a run away.

And Baker going to the Cubs... BRING IT! oh PLEASE! ;)

When Pedro pulled himself out of the last week of the regular season when his team was mathematically still in the playoff race (later, he did say 'well if we're still in it, I'll start' but the damage had been done), I think that turned a lot of writers off of him, at least as far as the Cy Young is concerned.

Did Pedro have as good of a year as Barry Zito? Absolutely. But writers love a) new guys and b) winners. Unlike the NL, where Johnson's numbers were SO overwhelming they had to give it to him again, Zito vs. Pedro became new vs. old, and trust the writers to go with the new flavor of the week.

tcjsavannah,

I've always been a bit of "spread the wealth" kind of sports fan as well. To me it gets very boring to watch the same teams (in whatever sport) win every year. That's why I was so enamored with the Angels getting to the World Series. I found it very easy to root for them since they had never won (in fact, never been to) the World Series.

Of course if it's my team that's winning year after year, then that's OK. :)

But seriously, the same thing goes for players like Zito. For me, if it's otherwise a toss-up, I'd go for the person that had never won.

Zito finished strong... Martinez didn't... The short attention span of the writers made it an easy pick. If Martinez had finished strong, he would have been a lock. He didn't.

The only problem with that kind of thinking is you end up with some award winners who you never hear from again (Lamarr Hoyt) or, upon retrospect, robbed other people of awards (Andre Dawson) - but hey, that just gives us more stuff to debate. :)

It's much more fun to debate things like that instead of college football, where a debate of who's the better team actually impacts who plays for the (mythical) national championship....

NL Most Valuable Player

Barry Bonds (http://www.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/sf/team/sf_player_bio.jsp?frame=mlb&playerid=111188), Outfielder, San Francisco Giants, 32 First-Place Votes

I don’t like Barry Bonds as a person, but it’s hard to not praise the kind of numbers that he’s putting up despite the fact that he’s 38 years old. How much better can a player get?

The Baseball Writers Association of America voted him the unanimous choice for NL MVP, because it’s simply impossible to deny the award to him.

His biggest stats were as follows:

(1) A .370 batting average (becoming the oldest first-time batting champion in ML history)

(2) He had 198 walks (and 68 were intentional—which was a new ML record)

(3) He had a .582 on-base percentage (which again broke a ML record set 60 years ago by Ted Williams)

(4) He mashed 49 home runs, had 110 RBIs, and finished with a slugging percentage of .799

So did he deserve the award? Absolutely.

But here’s a little tidbit from MLB.com in their write-up about the award that I thought was interesting:

With the latest award, Bonds becomes one of just six athletes in the four major U.S. sports to earn Most Valuable Player honors five times. He joined the NBA's Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (6), Michael Jordan (5) and Bill Russell (5) and the NHL's Wayne Gretzky (9) and Gordie Howe (6) in that class.

"I wish I was liked as much as them," said Bonds, who joked that he did not have enough room in his house for all the hardware. "I wish I had the same form of respect that they have. They're very admired. People really admire their achievements and their accomplishments, and everyone has had their ups and downs through the media.

"I wish mine could be erased and respected as much as theirs, but unfortunately, it never has."

I only have one thing to say to this. Barry, maybe if you weren’t such a jerk people would like you more.

I may admire the accomplishments, but that doesn’t mean I have to admire the man.

The NL MVP award was really a no-brainer this year as there just wasn't anyone to truly compete with Bonds statistic for statistic.

The real controversy will come on Tuesday when the AL MVP award is announced. There are many contenders for the award, but there is no "clear cut" candidate.

But I'm going to make a "bold" (OK, a wishful) prediction that Alex Rodriguez will win AL MVP.

Many people will insist that to truly be an MVP, a player has to come from a winning (or at least contending) team. And while such credentials are admirable, I don't think that lacking that "winning team component" should automatically disqualify a player if he is in fact very deserving of the award by having offensive statistics that are above and beyond those of any other candidate.

Let's look at a few statistics: A-Rod lead the major leagues in HRs (with 57) and in RBIs (142) and finished with a .300 average. He also played in all 162 of his team's games. He scored 125 runs and had a .623 slugging percentage. Besides that, he plays shortstop, a very physically demanding position, EVERY DAY. (A-Rod doesn't rotate in and out of the DH position; he does the Cal Ripken thing and plays the field every day.)

A-Rod's statistics are simply too overwhelmingly good to overlook, and there just isn't any other player that stands out head-and-shoulder above everyone else on any AL contending team. I would have to default to a player on a contending team IF that player had had such a truly outstanding offensive season as A-Rod, but I just don't think that said player is out there.

Miguel Tejada is the only other player that I think even comes close to competing offensively in the 2002 season with Rodriguez, and many of his statistics are comparable with A-Rod. But the truly telling difference is that Rodriguez hit 57 HRs to Tejada's 34. (That difference of 23 is a career year for most ML players!)

34 HRs is nothing to scoff at, but 57 is truly a monumental accomplishment, and something that hasn't been achieved very many times in baseball history.

So there you have it. My prediction (and my hope) that Alex Rodriguez is awarded with the AL MVP. I think he deserves it, and the fact that the Rangers sucked this season shouldn't be held against him.

So what do you think?

Disclaimer: I am a Texas Ranger fan, so of course I hold a small bias, but that still doesn't take away from the fact that A-Rod's season was MVP-worthy (at least in my opinion).

I think Alex Rodriguez is hands down the most valuable player, but I really don't think the writers will vote for him because of the hullabaloo over the last time they gave an MVP award to a last-place finisher (Andre Dawson, over - among others - Ozzie Smith and Jack Clark).

Tejada got the "buzz" towards the end of the year and had the SportsCenter highlights touting him, so he's my pick.

If they don't give it to ARod, then it just shows what fools they are. And Andre deserved it the year he won it. ;)

The award isn't MVP on a contending team... it's Simply "MVP"

But the question is:

Most Valuable Player?

Or Best Player?

I think if you choose a MVP candidate, that his teams excellence should have SOMETHING to do with it. My vote would have probably went to Tejada too. A-Rod plays for a bad team, and never gets the opportunity to shine in the spotlight of a pennant race.

Meanwhile, Tejada PRODUCED during a pennant race, which means he is the MVP.



Disclaimer: I remember when Jack and Ozzie got SCREWED by the Hawk winning it that year.

Again... it's MVP and not most valuable player on a good team.

The precident has been set in the past, with Dawson from the Cubs being the classic example. That year, the writers showed guts and gave it to the player that deserved it.

To give the award to somebody that had a lesser season just because there team played better overall is a joke. Just because one team may have had four real starting pitchers and the other team didn't doesn't lessen the season with the better stats on a worse team.

I hope the writers show some spine this year and give it to the player that is as obvious as Bonds was in the NL.

I only have one thing to say to this. Barry, maybe if you weren’t such a jerk people would like you more.


Cantankerous, have you ever met Barry Bonds? What makes you think he's a jerk? I'm guessing you have this opinion because of what some people in the media have said about him.

I have never heard an account of Bonds being a jerk to anybody except the media, and Jeff Kent. And lately I haven't heard of him being a jerk to anybody at all.

Personally, I give Bonds the benefit of the doubt and assume he's not as bad as some sprorts writers (particularly Rick Reilly) have said he is. Everybody tries to say he's not a team player, but everytime I've ever heard him in an interview, it seems like he doesn't care near as much about how well he did, all he wants is his team to win.

Originally posted by Ming
Again... it's MVP and not most valuable player on a good team.

The precident has been set in the past, with Dawson from the Cubs being the classic example. That year, the writers showed guts and gave it to the player that deserved it.

To give the award to somebody that had a lesser season just because there team played better overall is a joke. Just because one team may have had four real starting pitchers and the other team didn't doesn't lessen the season with the better stats on a worse team.

I hope the writers show some spine this year and give it to the player that is as obvious as Bonds was in the NL.

Well, they gave it to Tejada, and I think that was the right choice. How valuable was ARod? he didn't help his team win. If they didn't have him, they still would be in last place. To me that doesn't sound to valuable.

Flatlander Fox, I respect your opinion, but I don’t think that “Most Valuable Player” necessary has to equate to “winning team”.

I could say that I watched (in person and on TV) a lot of Rangers’ games this season, and A-Rod was an enormous contributing factor to his team, and made them better than they would have been (amidst all the poor pitching, the plague of injuries, and the constant underachievement from some other players) had his presence not been in the lineup. But of course that argument can be countered with the fact that despite his presence in the lineup, his team was never in contention.

But like Ming said, the precedent has been set for giving the award to a player with an overwhelmingly great season despite playing on a losing team (ala, Andre Dawson and Cal Ripken, Jr. in the 80s). And I agree with this view wholeheartedly.

MVP has no “official” definition within the rank and file of MLB, and everyone has an opinion on just what criteria defines a most valuable player. Personally I think it should go to the player that has the best season, unless there is some overwhelmingly outstanding candidate that specifically contributed time and time again to his team winning.

AL Most Valuable Player

Miguel Tejada (http://www.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/oak/team/oak_player_bio.jsp?frame=mlb&playerid=123173), Shortstop, Oakland Athletics

Well, it’s official. The award has been given.

I will not pretend to say that I think Tejada was not worthy of the award, because he had an outstanding season and he did meet much of the criteria in the last paragraph of my post just before this one that I thought was essential. But I still think that Alex Rodriguez was slightly more deserving. But opinions are like ***holes, everybody’s got one. :)

So, I won’t go any tirade about how A-Rod got gypped (because Tejada was not unworthy), but I will express my outrage over the tally of votes.

Here’s the way the voting went:


http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads/MVP_chart.jpg


Now who the hell voted A-Rod as sixth?? And why did Alfonso Soriano get so many votes? Because he’s the next golden child to emerge from the Yankee’s? Two first-place votes?? Hometown homers?

OK, I’ll tone the rant down a bit here. I would have voted for Garrett Anderson LONG before I would have voted for Soriano, as Anderson was infinitely more valuable to his team than Soriano. I mean, how do you pick a star among stars on a team like the Yankees? I don’t deny that Soriano had a good year, but it was nothing compared to A-Rod’s or Tejada’s statistics. I’m not going to say he had a poor statistical year, but come on.

Anyway…

The sports writers have spoken, and while no previous race was particularly gripping or controversial, I think the 2002 AL MVP voting will be talked about for a long time to come.

A-Rod for 2003 MVP!!

Sorry about the chart I was trying to post. I uploaded it using the "upload files" link but I guess it didn't work or I did something wrong.

Anyway here's a link to MLB.com that shows the chart I was trying to use:

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/awards/yr2002/mlb_awards_mvp.jsp?league=al

Scroll down to the bottom and you'll see it.

So the baseball writers were spineless after all... Yeah, Tejada had a "good" season... but MVP, not even close. Maybe it is time for two awards... best player, and MVP as voted on by the spineless sportswriters who think that being on a winning team is an important unwritten criteria ;)

I am shocked that the voting went the way it did.

I think it's a case of $$$$ envy if you ask me. Somebody's getting penalized for their contract it seems.

I'm looking at the numbers right now, and might recant my wholehearted support for Tejada. A-Rod had the best season EVER for a SS, and I think I may have overlooked that a bit in my insistence that he played on such a lousy team. He did, but where the hell would have they been without him?

Below are the statistics of the three guys up for the 1987 MVP. Note: The top set should be noted specially, as this particular person probably saved 75-100 runs a year with his glove.

AND, how many people can drive in 75 runs without a homerun?

But alas, the idiot writers saw fit to give the MVP to the bottom set, who only hit .287 FOR GAWDSAKES!!! ANd his team finished dead last...

G AB R H D T HR RBI SO BA SLG OBP SB
158 600 104 182 40 4 0 75 36 .303 .383 .394 43

131 419 93 120 23 1 35 106 139 .286 .489 .597 1

153 621 90 178 24 2 49 137 103 .287 .328 .568 11

Thanks for posting the stats, Flatlander.. Everyone looked at the gaudy home run numbers from the Hawk that year, but look at that horrible OBP!

Think about this - Bonds hit less HR this year and outslugged the Hawk by 150 points!

Now, I loved Dawson as a player - he never got the respect he deserved for playing on those good early 80s Expos teams, but when you get outhit by a shortstop and outslugged by a 1B from the same team, there's no way you were the best player in baseball that season.

I just looked at the voting tally, too, and those AL writers were smoking something fierce. Look down at the middle of the pack - David Eckstein over Nomar Garciaparra?? I agree, Eckstein's the "feel good" story of the year, but he couldn't carry Nomar's jock. (And I saw both players play in college, too.)

Anybody that watched the Cubs that year would know that Dawson was indeed the most valuable player that year. Without him, the Cubs may not have won a single game ;)

Anybody that knows that team has to be impressed that he was able to score 90 runs with the bozos that batted behind him, and to get 137 rbi's with the bozos that batted infront of him. He played (i think) in every game. They needed his 621 at bats ;)

The discussion regarding what exactly is an MVP brings up another side of that same subject.

Should pitchers be considered for the MVP? After all they already have their own award, the Cy Young.

And much like the debate regarding whether an MVP candidate is worthy or not if he comes from a losing team, pitchers being considered as MVP can present many differring opinions.

Pitching certainly contributes to the game in no small way. (We've probably all heard the phrase "good pitching beats good hitting".) But that's more along the lines of a pitching staff, especially considering that even the most resilient pitching arms will only appear in maybe 40% of a team's games. And that's a situational reliever that typically only faces a few batters per outing. Starters appear in maybe 35 or 36 games at best, and if there are no other quality starters on a team, that ain't gonna cut it for the makings of a good team.

Closers appear in more games, but again even the best closer is still dependant on the other pitchers to get the game to the late innings so that he even has a chance to close out a game. If the middle relievers can't hold a lead, a top-quality closer is of little value if the only way you want to use him is by having him pitch the ninth.

So, taking the long way, should pitchers be considered for the MVP? The short answer (in my book) is yes, but with EXTREME consideration for other mitigating factors.

In 1992 when Dennis Eckersley won the MVP, he had a phenomenal year, but he wouldn't have been able to accomplish the statistics that he achieved if his team didn't also have a phenomenal pitching staff that gave him so many save opportunities. What if he'd played for a crappy team? Presumably few people would have cared because his statistics certainly would have be significantly deflated (due to lack of opportunities).

An everyday player, whether playing for a good team or bad, can generally put up monster statistics if he has a career year. But more importantly, a position player plays every day. His importance is felt day-in and day-out, and therefore his contributions should be weighed significantly more than those of a pitcher.

What do you think?

I agree that pitchers should be given an opportunity to win the MVP, but because they don't play every day, they should only be awarded the MVP in a year where they are clearly dominant over the rest of the league.

I disagree with your point on closers, though. Even the worst teams in the league win 60 games, while even the best teams in the league lose 60 games. It's the middle 40 that separate the good and the bad teams. Given that, even the worst teams still have 60 potential save opportunities in a given season - remember, the league record is 57.

Don't discount what Eckersley did in '92 because he was on a good team. He had 51 saves that year. It was the MANNER in which he got those saves (posting amazing ERA, BB/K and H/IP numbers) that led people to vote for him for the award.

(As a side note, that wasn't even his best year - 90 was clearly superior. Only five runs all year?? An 0.61 ERA? Makes you wonder if one of the reasons he won it in '92 is because he was so dominant in '90 .. career achievement and all that)

I have a hard time thinking that a starting pitcher could win the MVP award... But I think a reliever has a good shot at winning it every year.

The closer might be one of the most important players on the team. 40 or 50 3-run-or-less-games is ALOT. The difference between a great closer and one who has six fingers ;) is 10 or 15 games. Which is easily the playoffs and respectability.

I've been off the board for a few days, so I'm probably late on the MVP talk, but everyone is focusing on how ARod wasn't as valuable because the Rangers finished dead last. But how bad would they have been with an average AL SS instead? They finish a lot lower, maybe on the order of 10 games worse. Would the A's still finished as high as they did without Tejada? Maybe, maybe not. I think if you take ARod out, you end up with a team that would have problems winning an AAA title, but I think the A's could have still won the division without Tejada or at worst, still made the playoffs which is all that really matters.

As far as pitchers winning the MVP, I'm on both sides of that fence. Closers pitch less that 100 IP all year. Quality SP go on average arond 200 IP (Zito had around 230 IP this season). So intuitively, they don't appear to provide as much as an everyday player, but think about it from this standpoint.

Tejada had 204 hits (an average on just over one hit per game and 131 RBIs (less than 1 RBI per game). On a game by game basis, who is more valuable? Zito who pitches every fifth day but when he does he goes 6+ innings with just over two runs allowed or Tejada and his one hit and one RBI? One could argue that Zito put his team in position to win every time out while Tejada's contribution may be based on the context of when his production happens. An RBI double when you are win 9-1 isn't very valuable and it probably wasn't necessary to win the game.
Over the long term, sure Tejada plays more games and racks up more stats, but did his production directly affect and win 23 games like Zito was credited for? Again, don't know unless I go digging through all the sabermetric arguments from Bill James and his like.

Intuitively, everyday players seem to get the nod because they play 150+ games in most instances, but if your contributions don't really affect the bottom line day in and day out, is it really that valuable?

With that said, I don't have a problem with a starter getting consideration for the MVP. For a RP, I have a harder time, but could make a similiar argument for them.