Should A-Rod be MVP

[marc]

A-Rod is the anti-MVP.

Not only do his personal "heroics" contribute little toward the success of his team, and not only are these eye-popping stats sometimes easier to come by when you are not in the pressure of a pennant race, but. . . .

A-Rod's ridiculous salary dramatically accelerated baseball's self-destructive path that this year's last-minute strike settlement likely wasn't enought to avert.

If you're giving an award for best statistics, fine.  Call A-Rod "Player of the Year".

But if you're looking for a most valuable player, look elsewhere.  Miquel Tejada, maybe.

[marc]

Well, I'm not sure there is a spot any further down the ladder than last place.


With all due respect, the question of where you would draft a player if you were starting a team from scratch has nothing to do with the MVP award, which goes to the player who has proven himself to be the most valuable in a given year.  This year, A-Rod has the best stats, but he has been unable to lift his team out of the cellar.  Tejada, on the other hand, was placed in the middle of the lineup when his team was ten games out and has led them to the playoffs while putting up some amazing numbers of his own.  He has the whole package--stats plus value.  A-Rod may have had a better statistical year, but I can't see how he was more valuable than Tejada or Torii Hunter, or Soriano or several others.  Baseball is a team game, and how good a year you have depends in part on how well your team plays.

And while A-Rod may have a great atttude, I still feel he has to accept some responsibility for his contract.  Contrary to popular myth, many players do not simply accept the highest offer, but instead look at other factors.  Some even accept lesser salaries in order to keep their teams competitive.

Several magazines give a "Player of the Year" award at the end of the season.  Let A-Rod settle for this.  But if he wants to be judged "most valuable", let him play for a contending team.

[marc]

But the Rangers remain a last place team.  The question, then, is not what more could A-Rod have done, but what value did what he did accomplish have.

The difference in the AL situation and the NL situation is that there is one NL player who has superior numbers and plays for a contender:  Barry Bonds. Unlike A-Rod, he possesses both components of the equation.

[spurly]

Well Sam,

I think the MVP should definitely go to A-rod.  Without him and his production the Rangers probably would have won 20 or 25 less games.

To me that makes him valuable, even though his team didn't finish in first or second.  He is valuable just because he kept the Rangers from being the worst team in the league.

Tom Hicks, the Rangers owner, has said he is through spending money to get a winner, so A-Rod might find himself surrounded by poor talent for a while until the farm system produces.  His strategy, if I remember his quote right, was to sign the best player in baseball, and surround him homegrown talent.

I hope it works before A-Rod retires.

Kevin

[spurly]

Okay all you baseball fans.  Should A-Rod be this years American League MVP?  Can the MVP come from a last place team, or could they have finished last without him.

Thoughts?

[samloveall]

I beg to differ.  Without A-Rod's "personal heroics", the Rangers would be even further down the ladder than they are now.  And I won't hold his salary against him.  My philosophy has been, "You'll pay me HOW MUCH for doing THIS?  Okay."  He has been the same unselfish, productive player since the day he came up in Seattle.  Great in the community, great in the clubhouse, great on the field.

The MVP question is one I settle by asking myself, "If i were starting a team from scratch today, which one position player in the league would I want to draft first?"  This year, for me, the clear answer has been either Bonds or A-Rod.  Tejada?  Maybe 6th or 7th.  Who would you least want to get rid of is you had to lose somebody from your team?  THAT guy should be the MVP.  A-Rod is absolutely a great choice.

[samloveall]

Perhaps the question is, "Most Valuable for who?", or, "Most Valuable for what?"  If the question is, "Who was the most valuable player for a contending team", then you get a different answer than if you ask, "Who was the most valuable as far as improving their team this year", or, "Who was most valuable for taking pressure off the rest of the team".  

I would argue against your assessment of Tejada and the impact he had on the A's.  If Tejada had turned in A-Rod numbers, and Zito and Mulder and Hudson had turned in years more like the rest of their careers, then Oakland wouldn't have been anywhere near the playoffs.  In fact, if even ONE of the three had been at more normal levels, then Anaheim clinches the pennant.  And even Tejada's teammate, Eric Chavez, who is currently 7th in AL home runs, says (quoted by Dan Patrick), "Give it to A-Rod."

I would suggest that no single player will EVER be able to lift his team out of the cellar, so that shouldn't count against Rodriguez.  As you say, it is a team game, and one player just does not often have that kind of effect.  And when it DOES happen, it is, I think, far more likely to be a starting pitcher who can stop a three-game skid.  So maybe we should be looking for an MVP among the top starters, instead of the position players.

What was Alex supposed to do?  Turn in the offense he did and defense he did, AND pitch 20 wins, AND hit in three other spots in the lineup each game?  Is it Alex's fault that the other three teams in the division are great teams with more than 90 wins apiece for the season?  Tell me what more he could have done to help the Rangers win.  Are the Rangers the lousy team they are because he didn't do enough?

If the MVP should be the guy who drives a team to the playoffs, then you've gotta give serious consideration to Scott Rolen.  The Cardinals . . . excuse me; I should say, My Beloved Cardinals were holding on to first place, but constantly in danger of slipping back, until Rolen came along.  From shortly after he got there, the Cards pretty much sewed up the pennant, and were not much in danger of even being tied for first after that.  So does Rolen get MVP support?  Not from here.  Maybe I should rethink that, though.

[samloveall]

But Marc, taking that standard to its logical end would mean that you couldn't vote for the MVP until you see who wins the World Series, and then the MVP has to come from the winning team, because that team's players are the ones who will have gone to the most valuable conclusion -- a world championship.  Any other candidate can be eliminated by saying, "Well, he only took them to the playoffs", or, "He only took them TO the Series, but didn't win it, so he couldn't have been the most valuable."  Again, it comes down to the question, "MVP of or for what?"  Until that is firmly established, the argument has no conclusive answer.

By the way, Kevin, YOU started all this, Mr. Texas Ranger Fanatic!  What do YOU think?

[marc]

Never suggested that a team has to win it all (or even make the playoffs) for a player to contend, only that most valuable means the player must have helped his team accomplish something, and I'm not sure being better than the other last place teams qualifies ;) .