MVP /= Most overlooked - Why do people do this???

[Ding Dong Johnson]

most valuable does not automatically mean most productive, not that I agree with Theriot as team MVP by any means

 

Give me an example of when a player is somehow more valuable than what he produces. For the sake of discussion...not being argumentative.

 

This is purely hypothetical, but suppose Soriano, Ramirez, and Lee have seasons typical of their career norms with a supporting cast eerily similar to the previous season in which there was a 15 game improvement in wins. The biggest statistical difference happens to be the addition of DeRosa, who puts up an ERA+ around 105 while his career number is closer to 90 and also provides a defensive upgrade at his position. An argument for DeRosa as MVP under this scenario isn't ludicrous.

 

I think it is ludicrous. Simply outperforming career norms doesn't qualify as a most valuable season.

 

even if his added value means more to the performance of the team?

[MPrior]

The biggest statistical difference happens to be the addition of DeRosa, who puts up an ERA+ around 105 while his career number is closer to 90 and also provides a defensive upgrade at his position. An argument for DeRosa as MVP under this scenario isn't ludicrous.

 

If DeRosa put up an ERA+ of 105, all while playing a solid second base and hitting well to boot, I'd have no trouble giving him the MVP.

[MPrior]

most valuable does not automatically mean most productive, not that I agree with Theriot as team MVP by any means

 

Give me an example of when a player is somehow more valuable than what he produces. For the sake of discussion...not being argumentative.

 

This is purely hypothetical, but suppose Soriano, Ramirez, and Lee have seasons typical of their career norms with a supporting cast eerily similar to the previous season in which there was a 15 game improvement in wins. The biggest statistical difference happens to be the addition of DeRosa, who puts up an ERA+ around 105 while his career number is closer to 90 and also provides a defensive upgrade at his position. An argument for DeRosa as MVP under this scenario isn't ludicrous.

 

I think it is ludicrous. Simply outperforming career norms doesn't qualify as a most valuable season.

 

even if his added value means more to the performance of the team?

 

Seriously, though, just because DeRosa is (in your hypothetical) the primary statistical difference between the two teams, that doesn't mean that he's more valuable to the current team. If you took DeRosa out and put a replacement level player in, the difference would likely not be as big as if you took ARam out and put a replacement level player in.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

most valuable does not automatically mean most productive, not that I agree with Theriot as team MVP by any means

 

Give me an example of when a player is somehow more valuable than what he produces. For the sake of discussion...not being argumentative.

 

This is purely hypothetical, but suppose Soriano, Ramirez, and Lee have seasons typical of their career norms with a supporting cast eerily similar to the previous season in which there was a 15 game improvement in wins. The biggest statistical difference happens to be the addition of DeRosa, who puts up an ERA+ around 105 while his career number is closer to 90 and also provides a defensive upgrade at his position. An argument for DeRosa as MVP under this scenario isn't ludicrous.

 

I think it is ludicrous. Simply outperforming career norms doesn't qualify as a most valuable season.

 

even if his added value means more to the performance of the team?

 

Seriously, though, just because DeRosa is (in your hypothetical) the primary statistical difference between the two teams, that doesn't mean that he's more valuable to the current team. If you took DeRosa out and put a replacement level player in, the difference would likely not be as big as if you took ARam out and put a replacement level player in.

 

I understand. I'm not saying that DeRosa deserves the MVP in my hypothetical situation, I'm saying it wouldn't be out of line to consider him as being the most valuable to that situation.

[BigSlick]

It seems like every time a conversation starts about who a team's MVP is, people love to bring up the most overlooked or seemingly undervalued player rather than the player who has actually been most valuable. They'll say things like, "I'll tell you what, David Eckstein is MY MVP." Usually this tends to happen most with the "gritty" guys. It drives me absolutely nuts. You can't argue with these people either.

 

 

Hell, it happened in last year's World Series, didn't it? Scott Rolen should have won it. Hell, even Yadier Molina out-hit Eckstein.

 

Why???

 

 

 

Case in point, Mike Murphy on the Score continues to tout Theriot as his Cubs MVP, Jesse Rogers called DeRosa his. These guys have been solid contributors, no doubt, and they aren't big names. That doesn't make them more valuable than players that have been far more productive.

 

I mean, are you joking? Could anybody with a brain really think that Ryan Theriot means more to this team than any of Aramis, Lee, or Soriano mean?

 

Oh, and Murph called Marmol his pitching MVP. Again, a great contributor. But losing Lilly would hurt us a lot more. Hell, losing any starter would hurt the team more than losing a dominant setup man.

 

 

They should just say, "Ryan Theriot is my overlooked contributor."

 

Calling him MVP is just laughable hyperbole and it's absurd.

 

/semi-rant

 

Even the staunchly anti-clutch FJM guys say that the MVP should have a little something to do with "clutchness", and for that reason I think supporting Marmol as our meaningless MVP makes sense.

 

Marmol has seemingly been impenetrable in late game scenarios saving our ass time and time again. He's been our Bullpen Ace, and I actually hope he never moves to Closer because closers are so misused in this game.