This one doesn’t really fall under the heading of “education.” It’s more like a good discussion, which is pretty rare for Twitter these days, so I thought it was worthy of being highlighted. It started this way: I run this as family-friendly newsletter, so I won’t translate BMF for everyone. Use your best googling skills wisely folks. I will say, though, that I agreed with that assessment of
An interesting take. A good mix of both value on the field and in the smaller things not often seen by fans is what an ideal MVP is for sure, but also, unless the stats are head and shoulders above the next best player in the league, the award should be given to a player on a contending team. A team that by the end of the season is fighting for a postseason berth.
In November, after all the awards were announced, I wrote a piece on my blog that included the last 88 MVPs (since 1980), and only eight of them were given to a player on a team under .500. Go figure, four of those are from the last 10 years on one dreadful franchise called the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. If you want to see those names, you can check out what I wrote here:
I do, too, but I see the point in giving a good player a boost for clubhouse/character contributions. I don't think so much extra credit should be given that a guy like Baylor zooms ahead of fifteen better guys, but I can see it in the case of someone like Gibson in '88, when he really was a top-5 player and set the tone for that team on top of that.
As a tie-breaker, sure. As a whole thing, spare me.
An interesting take. A good mix of both value on the field and in the smaller things not often seen by fans is what an ideal MVP is for sure, but also, unless the stats are head and shoulders above the next best player in the league, the award should be given to a player on a contending team. A team that by the end of the season is fighting for a postseason berth.
In November, after all the awards were announced, I wrote a piece on my blog that included the last 88 MVPs (since 1980), and only eight of them were given to a player on a team under .500. Go figure, four of those are from the last 10 years on one dreadful franchise called the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. If you want to see those names, you can check out what I wrote here:
https://baseballfanperspective.substack.com/p/the-big-four-mlb-regular-season-awards-0e1
I think it's a bad idea to choose an MVP based on "vibes," which is what this was. See also: Jim Konstanty in 1950, among others.
I do, too, but I see the point in giving a good player a boost for clubhouse/character contributions. I don't think so much extra credit should be given that a guy like Baylor zooms ahead of fifteen better guys, but I can see it in the case of someone like Gibson in '88, when he really was a top-5 player and set the tone for that team on top of that.