Pujols: MVP should come from playoff team

[redsoxrules]

Pujols open his mouth and i dont agree with him one bit

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6221610

[riverside sluggers]

Philly fans have a new target this season

[Fried Neckbones]

I remember a similar argument when A-Rod won when he was playing for a last-place Rangers team. How do people feel about the creation of an "Ernie Banks Award" for the most outstanding player, in addition to the player who was most valuable? The key difference being that the winner of the Ernie Banks award is pure indivudial performance, while the MVP would more closely align to what Pujols suggests and factor in team achievement as well.

[redsoxrules]

I remember a similar argument when A-Rod won when he was playing for a last-place Rangers team. How do people feel about the creation of an "Ernie Banks Award" for the most outstanding player' date=' in addition to the player who was most valuable? The key difference being that the winner of the Ernie Banks award is pure indivudial performance, while the MVP would more closely align to what Pujols suggests and factor in team achievement as well.[/quote']

 

thats BS it takes a full team to make the playoffs , put pujols with the KC royals and they still finish last place . a player shouldn't be penalized for playing on a crappy team and not win MVP because of it , pujols is just pissed cause he didn't win it , thats why he made that comment , if he was on a last place he would have said otherwise

[Fried Neckbones]

thats BS it takes a full team to make the playoffs ' date=' put pujols with the KC royals and they still finish last place . a player shouldn't be penalized for playing on a crappy team and not win MVP because of it , pujols is just pissed cause he didn't win it , thats why he made that comment , if he was on a last place he would have said otherwise[/quote']

 

Oh, I agree with you that the team shouldn't matter, but it always seems to enter into the argument somehow, year after year. Again, this was an idea tossed around when A-Rod won with the Rangers - creating two MVP type awards - one for pure numbers and one for, for lack of a better term, overall contribution to the success of the team.

[Ray10]

Wow that was a dumb comment considering that it takes more than one guy to take a team into the playoffs. The MVP should be the best overall player whether his team makes the playoffs or not.

[Gom]

I agree with Pujols. It's not the best player award, it's the most valuable. I disagreed with Arod when he won it in Texas with a last place team, same with Dawson in the eighties. I think Ortiz should have won it in 2005. The Red Sox needed him more than the Yankees needed Arod.

 

To me, the most valuable player should be a person who takes them to the post-season. It's the semantics of the award. Do you think the most valuable player award should go to the player who takes a team to the post-season, in which without that player, that team probably doesn't make it, or to the player with the best statistical season, regardless of standing?

 

If it goes to the best statistical player, then they should call it the Ted Williams Award, or something like that.

[BSN07]

I agree with GOM. There should be two awards. Ted Williams isn't a bad name either, for this one should go to the player with the best overall personal performance( DH's, and everyday players only tho, no pitchers, they have the CY Young). The the MVP should go to the player who contributes the most to his team, as in game winning hits/HR, total wins, playoff births ect. . There's enough formulas out there today to figure out which player has had the most impact on his team, get like the top five in every league and let the writers decide who they feel to be most valuable to his team. Same goes for our Ted Willaims award, take the top 5 or so from each league and let someone decide who had the best personal performance. Let's not go with just HR and RBI tho. Lets take into consideration OBP, OPS, runs scored, assists, steals, hits, extra base hits, games played. All of that should be considered not just guys who hit the most HR.

[NoPepper]

thats BS it takes a full team to make the playoffs ' date=' put pujols with the KC royals and they still finish last place . a player shouldn't be penalized for playing on a crappy team and not win MVP because of it , pujols is just pissed cause he didn't win it , thats why he made that comment , if he was on a last place he would have said otherwise[/quote']

 

I agree with RSR. What's next, Hall of Fame only for players who made it to the post season?

 

In fact, certain numbers, are more impressive for players on bad teams.

 

If a team is bad due to hitting, RBI's mean more since there are less chances. If pitching is the problem, HR numbers are without benefit of hitting against said pitching. Why a team doesn't win isn't the fault of any one player.

[rician blast]

Personally I think post-season awards are overrated and because of their subjective nature should be taken somewhat more lightly.

 

I'm not sure what Pujols motivation was for making the comment. Was he asked directly "do you think you should have won the MVP?" or did he just fire-off his comments out of anger that he wasn't selected?

 

If its the former, I'd have liked to hear him say "keep the award...I got one in 2005 and now have a World Series title to go with it," and leave it at that. Just don't know the context of the comments.

[Bosoxwest]

There should be two awards for sure. But I disagree with Pujols' point, as it relates to the current system. A goodly portion of teams have almost no chance of making the playoffs, so to take away the MVP award from those teams will hurt them even further - who's going to go to/stay with a team if you cannot win the MVP before the season even starts.

 

Moreover, under Pujols' argument, where do we draw the line? Now, according to him, you have to make the playoffs. Next year, maybe you have to get through the first round. Then you have to get to the Series. Then you have to win it.

 

The award is most valuable player, which in it's simplest definition just calls for the player who has the most value to his team relative to all the other players. You could almost argue the other way - no one on a playoff team should win MVP because they are obviously surrounded by better players who help them out. So their relative value is less.

 

It's semantics, I realize, but I'd hate to take that goal away from guys who are playing their heart out for crappy teams.

[AirPantapas]

I don't understannd why that if Howard didn't carry his team the why should Ortiz be counted against that. like Howard Ortiz should have won as he was the best offensive player in the AL.

[schillingouttheks]

Ortiz is a DH, remember? That's why he didn't win it last year, and a large reason of why he didn't win it this year.

[Gom]

Ortiz is a DH' date=' remember? That's why he didn't win it last year, and a large reason of why he didn't win it this year.[/quote']

 

Ortiz should have won because he was a much bigger reason his team made the post-season than Arod. Howard shouldn't have won because his team didn't make it. My opinion.