It’s time for a little clarification. What exactly does “MVP” stand for in Major League Baseball? Does it mean the most valuable player, or the best player? I’m fine with either; but the thing that has me so irked is MVP voters can’t seem to decide between the two.
I don’t think anyone can argue Alex Rodriguez was the best all-around player in the American League this year. When his career is over he might end up being the best player … ever. Of course, I don’t expect many Red Sox fans to agree, but it’s true. His .321 batting average, 48 home runs and 130 RBI justify him being named the 2005 AL MVP … if it’s awarded to the best all-around player in the league.
If it’s awarded to the most valuable player, then, without question, David Ortiz would have been named the MVP this year.
And I’m not even a Sox fan; I’m from Philly.
Just last year, the AL MVP went to Vladimir Guerrero, who, based on his numbers in September, was the most valuable player in the league. He carried the Angels to the postseason by hitting .363 in his team’s final 30 games.
This year Big Papi did the same thing. Not only did he put together his best month of the season while the Red Sox were trying to lock up a spot in the postseason, he got hot when his team got cold. The numbers are quite staggering.
While the Red Sox as a team batted .260 in September with 33 home runs and an OPS (on-base plus slugging) of .754, Ortiz was dominant, hitting .320 with 11 home runs and an OPS of 1.095.
Right now, Ortiz is the most feared hitter in all of baseball, and he displayed that by coming through in the clutch for Boston time and time again. A-Rod was good in September, just like he was all year, but the Yankees would have had a much better chance of making the playoffs without him than the Sox would have without Ortiz. The Yankees had four players hit over .300 in the month of September, while Ortiz was the only Red Sox player to accomplish that feat.
Now, I know the argument about fielding, and I think that played a major role in the selection. However, if a designated hitter isn’t going to be viewed as an equally valuable member of a major league baseball team, then either make them ineligible for the MVP or get rid of it altogether.
How do you measure the value of fielding? The World Series champions, the Chicago White Sox, weren’t even in the top 10 in team fielding percentage, yet they came out all right. And how many times can you say Rodriguez won a game for the Yankees with his defense? More times than Papi came up with a game-tying or game-winning hit?
But that brings me to my next point. The people voting for the award cannot possibly have an equal account of all the candidates. Baseball writers watch the teams they have beats for and baseball isn’t like the NFL; there are games every day for seven months. In football it’s much easier to catch all or the majority of games.
That’s where MLB has its biggest problem. Reporters are supposed to report the news, not make it, and by having baseball writers vote for the MVP, that’s what’s happening. Why not have the players and coaches vote for who is the most valuable player in their league? They have the best vantage point.
Not that they should be taking tips from the NHL, but maybe establishing a second award would help. The NHL has the Lester B. Pearson Award, which is presented to the National Hockey League’s outstanding player as selected by the members of the NHL Players’ Association.
The very least MLB could do is establish some criterion for judging the value of a player. If the criteria is one’s overall game, then eliminate the DH from contention because there will always be the fielding argument. But if it’s a player’s actual impact on whether or not their team wins games, apologize to Papi and make sure he’s MVP in 2006.
– Max Lederman can be reached at [email protected].
