11/21/24
September 07, 2002
Pitchers should not be considered for the MVP award, Barry Bonds said in an interview with MLB.Com published Friday. "I think it's embarrassing to everyday players," Bonds said. "It's an insult. They have their award and then everybody gets to fight for it in the playoffs or World Series. A pitcher can be MVP in the playoffs."
Okay, but if pitchers are out of the running, then shortstops for dead-last teams oughtn't be considered either. Nor should outfielders for teams fighting hard just for a wildcard spot--no matter how many home runs they hit.
posted by kjh at 06:43 PM on September 07, 2002
the Irish should be out as well.
posted by silent4lie at 06:54 PM on September 07, 2002
For the record kjh, the Texas Rangers aren't in "dead last". They are in 10th last in the majors and tied for 6th last in the American league (but are last in the toughest division in baseball). To give you an idea of why ARod should be considered for the MVP, imagine how much WORSE the Rangers would be in without him. That said, I think that Tejada should/will grab the MVP in the AL, unless he falls apart in September and ARod maintains his incredible season. If Ernie Banks and Andre Dawson can win the MVP for bad teams, I don't see why ARod can't either. Oh, and I think starting pitchers should be out of the running for the MVP, and relief pitchers shouldn't be considered for the Cy Young.
posted by grum@work at 06:59 PM on September 07, 2002
I grew up with the Rangers, but let's not pretend the "toughest division in baseball" really explains why the team is a steaming hot bowl of suck. They have crappy pitching, they went without clutch hits for months at a time, and two of the key players (Gonzalez and Everett) have been huge disappointments for most of the season. They would be close to the cellar in any division. There is one category in which the Rangers are league leaders: Unless they go 15-7 in their remaining 22 games, the Rangers will have gotten fewer wins per dollar out of their payroll than any team in Major League history.
posted by rcade at 09:41 PM on September 07, 2002
The MVP should be the player who is most valuable to his team's overall success, regardless of position or over record. This would, of course, presently take away every starting pitcher, as they account for, at most, 22-25 wins in a season. As a side, baseball teams could try using pitchers who can actually bat as hitters, and have the AL do away with the DH. This would allow for all this pitcher and MVP talk to go away. They could really earn it. Imagine if a player had a whale of a season, batting .330 and sporting an 18+ win record with a 2.00 or below ERA. MVP, yes? The Babe would say so.
posted by bcb2k2 at 11:36 PM on September 07, 2002
Besides, if a 1st baseman can win a Gold Glove while only playing the field for 31 games, a pitcher can be considered for MVP.
posted by bcb2k2 at 11:42 PM on September 07, 2002
I don't care who wins it. ANYONE should be able to win it, everyone from a manager to a ballboy. Whoever is most valuable.
posted by corpse at 09:40 AM on September 08, 2002
batboy, not ballboy. mind on tennis mind on tennis mind on tennis
posted by corpse at 09:41 AM on September 08, 2002
If you don't want to give it to pitchers, that's fine, but then you have to change the name. Maybe MVNP? (most valuable non-pitcher)
posted by Smackfu at 01:20 PM on September 08, 2002
I agree with Bonds, although it's certainly nothing to get worked up about. If the system is left as it is, pitchers qualify for the Cy and the MVP, batters only for the latter. Either do away with the Cy, or (my preference) add an award for the batters only. We can all get behind a Babe Ruth award, right?