Most Valuable Player, Most Valuable Questioning
Dear MLB and Baseball Writers of America,
On Monday you awarded Albert Pujols his NL MVP award. I believe this decision was the correct one and he truly deserves the award for being the most valuable player to his team in the National League. However, I do not agree with the list of follow up's in the order they appear. Based on what I have listened to and read in years past compared to more recent years, I do not understand the criteria for how these decisions are made.
Is there any criteria at all? I do not understand how a handful of this year's nominees were ranked so high on the list, or how some of them made the list to begin with. Let me start with the following: For the runner up for MVP, the writers unanimously chose Ryan Howard. I am baffled as to how you can consider anyone for MVP when that
player a) plays in hitter's ballpark and b) produces INCONSISTANT numbers throughout the year except for ONE hot month and a half. Howard, to start the season, was batting .143. After months of batting no higher than .230 he still received high votes. His final numbers are incredible, no doubting that, but does being the "leader" of this year's World Championship team, mean that Ryan Howard automatically deserves to be the MVP?
Now let me briefly address another issue: the amount of time a player plays for his team. How can you, the voters, give any recognition to Manny Ramirez or C.C. Sabathia? Manny, a MVP in past years, wanted to be traded from Boston to another team so he acted like a child to get his way. Most of you same writers were screaming about what he was doing in the clubhouse and on the field and how it was unprofessional. However, for two good months he had out of six months of baseball, you somehow decided he was eligible for an MVP. For Sabathia, the same argument applies, but with slightly different circumstances. Sabathia was "lights-out" for Milwaukee, but for only half a season. How does half a season in the National League qualify him for consideration for the league's MVP? Both of the players' stats were outstanding for the amount of games they played with their new teams, but why should either of them have the chance to beat out a player who did the same for his team for an entire season? That is not how the voting system should work. It is a very inconsistent method and the final tend to be outlandish.
Ryan Braun, one if not the most clutch players in the National League this season, had an incredible year for the Brewers. His stats were not as great as the other's (37 HR's, 106 RBI's .285 batting average) but his key hitting and clutch homeruns should have made Braun a valid MVP candidate. Another example is the New York Mets "wonder boy" David Wright, who gets shafted every year. Because of the performance of the Mets as a whole for last the two seasons, David Wright went virtually unnoticed on the "MVP charts". Shame on you writers for listing him 7th in the voting.
I am not just stating my opinions, but actual facts. I am stating that neither league should award an MVP to a player that has played less than 85% of a season on his team.
Categories
MLB0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Most Valuable Player, Most Valuable Questioning.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.globalsportsbuzz.com/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/582
I believe Albert Pujols does deserve to be the NL MVP. He is an outstanding player and although he did not lead his team into the playoffs and carry then to a World Series championship he still put up numbers deserving of the award. You can not punish a player for not being able to carry the team totally on their shoulders, baseball is a team sport and it takes a team to win the World Series. As far as a single player goes to win the MVP Pujols no doubt had the numbers to get himself this honor