I don't intend to discuss specific candidates for MVP, though there's a lot to be talked about there. I'm talking about the award itself, and the standards used. It seems to me that too often the MVP award is really given as a "Player of the Year" award, rather than an actual "Most Valuable Player". Think about the MVP awards won by Alex Rodriguez, on the last-place Rangers. Was he really that valuable, costing the team the price of at least 3 quality starters that might have moved them into 4th, or maybe even into contention? Whereas a guy like Curtis Granderson this year with the Yankees may not be Player of the Year, but between his bat and his defense, you can make a strong case for him being a big part of the Yankees' success this year.
There was a discussion earlier with Michael Kay, Paul O'Neill, and Ken Singleton during the Yankees-Blue Jays game, about whether pitchers should be eligible for the MVP, or if they should only be up for the Cy Young award. The thing is, the Cy Young award only awards the best pitcher, not the pitcher most valuable to their team. Now, Justin Verlander is probably a shoe-in for the Cy Young - but you can make the case that he's also the Tigers' MVP.
Do you think there should be a separate "Player of the Year" award?
There was a discussion earlier with Michael Kay, Paul O'Neill, and Ken Singleton during the Yankees-Blue Jays game, about whether pitchers should be eligible for the MVP, or if they should only be up for the Cy Young award. The thing is, the Cy Young award only awards the best pitcher, not the pitcher most valuable to their team. Now, Justin Verlander is probably a shoe-in for the Cy Young - but you can make the case that he's also the Tigers' MVP.
Do you think there should be a separate "Player of the Year" award?