What MVP means

[xmarkd400x]

MVP means most valuable player. Lots of people like to talk about how many TDs a guy scores, or how many yards he has when talking about MVP. Those are arguments you can use to select a guy to the pro bowl. Those are arguments that are somewhat secondary to the MVP discussion.

For example, one year A-Rod was named MVP while he was on the Texas Rangers. The last place Texas Rangers. In my opinion he was a very good player that year, but should not have been considered for MVP. With him, his team was in last place. Without him, his team would have been in.... you guessed it! Last place.

MVP is for the player who adds the most value to the team. Now, I suppose you could be on a last place team and get MVP because without you your team would be even laster. Or not.

In short MVP is the player who, if injured, would represent the biggest loss to their team. Gaudy stats are secondary because 52 other players contribute to them.

 

[emoney_33]

MVP means most valuable player. Lots of people like to talk about how many TDs a guy scores, or how many yards he has when talking about MVP. Those are arguments you can use to select a guy to the pro bowl. Those are arguments that are somewhat secondary to the MVP discussion.

For example, one year A-Rod was named MVP while he was on the Texas Rangers. The last place Texas Rangers. In my opinion he was a very good player that year, but should not have been considered for MVP. With him, his team was in last place. Without him, his team would have been in.... you guessed it! Last place.

MVP is for the player who adds the most value to the team. Now, I suppose you could be on a last place team and get MVP because without you your team would be even laster. Or not.

In short MVP is the player who, if injured, would represent the biggest loss to their team. Gaudy stats are secondary because 52 other players contribute to them.

I cannot stand this argument. How is it right to punish a player because he isn't fortunate enough to be on a good team?

The Rangers would have been in last without Arod sure, but they would have been a whole helluva lot worse without him. Just because his team wasn't good enough to win more games, shouldn't take away from his value. A player's value should NOT be defined by how good his team is.

This argument turns an INDIVIDUAL award into a team award. The most VALUABLE player will be the player that has the best year. That's how it always should be, not who has the best year for a winning team.

 

[sieglo]

MVP means most valuable player. Lots of people like to talk about how many TDs a guy scores, or how many yards he has when talking about MVP. Those are arguments you can use to select a guy to the pro bowl. Those are arguments that are somewhat secondary to the MVP discussion.

For example, one year A-Rod was named MVP while he was on the Texas Rangers. The last place Texas Rangers. In my opinion he was a very good player that year, but should not have been considered for MVP. With him, his team was in last place. Without him, his team would have been in.... you guessed it! Last place.

MVP is for the player who adds the most value to the team. Now, I suppose you could be on a last place team and get MVP because without you your team would be even laster. Or not.

In short MVP is the player who, if injured, would represent the biggest loss to their team. Gaudy stats are secondary because 52 other players contribute to them.

Yes, this would be nice if it were the way things worked in the NFL. If it were the case, Brady would have multiple MVPs right now.... Especially last year where he picked up the team and carried the entire offense within a first down of another Super Bowl.

Unfortunately, reality is all about MVP equalling gaudy stats. Which Brady has this year -- quite possibly beyond anything seen before in the NFL. If we're going to be consistent, it shouldn't even matter if, in fact, he is the true most valuable player.

 

[ATippett56]

What MVP means .........

Well, it doesn't mean throwing six interceptions in one game and blaming injuries for your mistakes.

 

[PAPatsjunkie]

I guess this is what the MVP means.. except in 2003 and 2004?

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Then Marvin Harrison, WR for the Colts should be a lock. W/ him the Colts are a great team, w/o him the Colts are nothing.

 

[xmarkd400x]

This is a hard argument to make without getting skewered from any which way, but gaudy stats and helping your team are not mutually exclusive. Add to that that stats are the only means of measuring a contribution, and you have the argument that gaudy stats represent an MVP candidate.

This is my argument: MVP should be considered with less regards to stats than it is now. It should be the player who makes his team better. Look at Tom Brady. Look at how much better recievers look in NE than they do everywhere else. I guarantee you its not the water.

 

[Rob0729]

Unfortunately, stats and more importantly records along with the team's overall record are very much tied into the MVP vote for the NFL. Look at the offensive players that have broken major NFL records and went onto winning the NFL MVP (Manning, Tomlinson, Warner, etc.).

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

That is your literal interpretation, and it is faulty to conclude that it is the only one. I interpret the intent of the award to be to recognize the best player, but for that intent to have been murkied over many years.

I figure it all started with a writer or writers campaigning for their own guy and using a literal "valuable" argument because their guy was clearly an inferior player. This practice presumably caught on and has grown to be a viable interpretation.

Notice that this interpretation is widespread in baseball but not in football. We're talking football here, and Tom Brady is the best player on the best team putting up historic stats. He's the clearcut winner 10 weeks into the season.

 

[patsox23]

MVP means most valuable player. Lots of people like to talk about how many TDs a guy scores, or how many yards he has when talking about MVP. Those are arguments you can use to select a guy to the pro bowl. Those are arguments that are somewhat secondary to the MVP discussion.

For example, one year A-Rod was named MVP while he was on the Texas Rangers. The last place Texas Rangers. In my opinion he was a very good player that year, but should not have been considered for MVP. With him, his team was in last place. Without him, his team would have been in.... you guessed it! Last place.

MVP is for the player who adds the most value to the team. Now, I suppose you could be on a last place team and get MVP because without you your team would be even laster. Or not.

In short MVP is the player who, if injured, would represent the biggest loss to their team. Gaudy stats are secondary because 52 other players contribute to them.

This is not entirely true. What you're definining is how Major League Baseball defines MVP. It's not the same in the NFL, NBA or NHL.

 

[xmarkd400x]

That is your literal interpretation, and it is faulty to conclude that it is the only one. I interpret the intent of the award to be to recognize the best player, but for that intent to have been murkied over many years.

I don't think my opinion is the only one. However, on the interwebs opinions are responded to more frequently when they aren't prefaced with "I think".

 

[JJDChE]

In short MVP is the player who, if injured, would represent the biggest loss to their team. Gaudy stats are secondary because 52 other players contribute to them.

What if the player who gets injured has a great backup? What if Bledsoe was having an MVP type season when he went down in '01? What if you have a great player on a great team and even without that player the team would still do well?

The definition you've proposed penalizes a player for playing for a team with good depth, but more importantly puts more value on good players playing for crappy teams.

To me the MVP award is for the best player. Measuring a player's "value" to their team is a futile exercise. It's easier and more useful to figure out who is playing the best. Just watch them, you'll have your answer.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

I don't think my opinion is the only one. However, on the interwebs opinions are responded to more frequently when they aren't prefaced with "I think".

Good point. I'm sorry for my "I am more enlightened" tone.

 

[Ishdul]

The MVP should go to the best player. Two years ago, people were seriously suggesting Chauncey Billups for the NBA MVP because he was the best player on the highest-winning team and it was enough to make you want to kill someone.