i hate "old-schoolers"

[Lofunzo]

1) ESPN Classic

2) MVP: In any given year, especially under the 8-team playoff format, there is a player who has thrown his team on his back and carried them a la Vlad this year. The MVP doesn't have to be from a playoff team, but it sure helps. The non-playoff MVP should be the extremely rare exception, such as Barry this year, where we all know the Giants would have been hard-pressed to win 60 without him, but instead were viable contenders. MVP coming from a last place team or a team that was never in it? I have to disagree with that pick since if the guy were really valuable to his team, they would have won a few more games.

I agree with everything except the last statement and I'll tell you why. I also think that it's rare but here's the deal. Let's say that you have team A, and they finished in dead last with a 60-100 record. Let's take an Andre Dawson type guy who dominated on a terrible team. Assuming that if he wasn't on the team, they would have only won 30 games, he is actually quite valuable. As a comparison, Sheffield had a great year but I think that even if he wasn't on the team, they probably would have made the playoffs. Who's more valuable here??

[GotowarMissAgnes]

possibly in the present day expansion doesn't show any more signs, but right after the last 2 times there was expansion in baseball it would have had the biggest effect on pitching. that is 10 to 12 players that are probably going to be called up from the minor leagues. and some #4 starter could end up being moved up to a #2 starter or something. that would have an effect for a few years you would think.

By the same token, there were 25-30 position players who would have been in the minor leagues.

And of course, the assumption that the top 40-50 players in the minor leagues are not just as good as the bottom third of players in the league is questionable.

[LBJackal]

Sheff, because Dawson costed the 'spos a higher draft pick, and the Yanks still made the playoffs

But yeah, I also don't believe in the "you must make a playoff push to be considered for the MVP" unwritten rule that is out there Delgado was robbed in 2000!

[boogshine]

Let's say that you have team A, and they finished in dead last with a 60-100 record. Let's take an Andre Dawson type guy who dominated on a terrible team. Assuming that if he wasn't on the team, they would have only won 30 games, he is actually quite valuable. As a comparison, Sheffield had a great year but I think that even if he wasn't on the team, they probably would have made the playoffs. Who's more valuable here??

Sorry, if you're going to finish in last place, you're sitting around saying "why do we have so much invested in this superstar? it's not doing us any good. let's get rid of him and get someone else." hence, the Texas Rangers dumped A-Rod. If he was really VALUABLE to the team, they would have hung on to him. What the Rangers realized was, more value could be derived elsewhere, regardless of how good the player was. It's not like the D-Backs weren't seriously considering trading the Unit for future talent, else the Dodgers wouldn't have made the trade to set that up. For lousy teams with superstars, it really doesn't matter whether they win 30 or 60 games.

In the case of winning ballgames, there is an increasing marginal utility. Ten games from 85 to 95 wins are a lot more important than ten games from 42 to 52 wins. Therefore, a player must show, demonstrably, that his last-place team would have been, by far, the worst team in the history of baseball but is instead only a sorry team that will soon ship its superstar to a contender for minor leaguers. This, I don't think, can happen since a team can win 40-60 games just by showing up every day. So, really, I don't think there's ever a case where a superstar is more valuable to his sucky team than the guy who got his team over the playoff hump. It could be argued that Chone Figgins was more valuable to the Angels than Randy Johnson was to the D-Backs this year. Without Figgins filling in for all the injuries, the Angels might not have made the playoffs. Without Johnson, the D-Backs would have...um...finished last. Shoot. Value.

[Lofunzo]

There are arguments from both sides here and a case could be made for either 1.

[boogshine]

i agree...no reason it has to be an unbreakable rule...i just feel healthier making a hearty case for the p.o.v. i tend to lean toward. new to the board, but i'm having fun so far.

[thetongueofire]

yeah if two guys, one from a non-playoff team and the other from a playoff one, are real close and you wanna give the edge to the guy on the playoff team that's cool but if i know the guy from the non-playoff team was even somewhat better than the guy on the playoff team, then it's just dumb.

[thetongueofire]

btw welcome to FBC, boogshine.

[LCBOY]

And of course, the assumption that the top 40-50 players in the minor leagues are not just as good as the bottom third of players in the league is questionable.

I agree. I mentioned this in a prior post. I used Dallas McPherson, the Angel's top prospect as an example. I made the argument that this year he was a better player than Neifi Perez, Terrence Long, and Rickie Ladee. Yet these players had major league jobs all season while McPherson was in the minors. If for instance the Padres trade for McPerson and release Long next season that would increase the "quality" of the major leagues because you are replacing a below average player wit ha better player. But as Rob Neyer put it so well the Padres, like alot of other teams, worship at the alter of the "Proven Veteran".

[wkelly91]

Let's say that you have team A, and they finished in dead last with a 60-100 record. Let's take an Andre Dawson type guy who dominated on a terrible team. Assuming that if he wasn't on the team, they would have only won 30 games, he is actually quite valuable. As a comparison, Sheffield had a great year but I think that even if he wasn't on the team, they probably would have made the playoffs. Who's more valuable here??

Sorry, if you're going to finish in last place, you're sitting around saying "why do we have so much invested in this superstar? it's not doing us any good. let's get rid of him and get someone else." hence, the Texas Rangers dumped A-Rod. If he was really VALUABLE to the team, they would have hung on to him. What the Rangers realized was, more value could be derived elsewhere, regardless of how good the player was. It's not like the D-Backs weren't seriously considering trading the Unit for future talent, else the Dodgers wouldn't have made the trade to set that up. For lousy teams with superstars, it really doesn't matter whether they win 30 or 60 games.

In the case of winning ballgames, there is an increasing marginal utility. Ten games from 85 to 95 wins are a lot more important than ten games from 42 to 52 wins. Therefore, a player must show, demonstrably, that his last-place team would have been, by far, the worst team in the history of baseball but is instead only a sorry team that will soon ship its superstar to a contender for minor leaguers. This, I don't think, can happen since a team can win 40-60 games just by showing up every day. So, really, I don't think there's ever a case where a superstar is more valuable to his sucky team than the guy who got his team over the playoff hump. It could be argued that Chone Figgins was more valuable to the Angels than Randy Johnson was to the D-Backs this year. Without Figgins filling in for all the injuries, the Angels might not have made the playoffs. Without Johnson, the D-Backs would have...um...finished last. Shoot. Value.

I agree your arguments Boogshine, very well stated.