His (and your) means of contextualization is random and requires bizarre feats of tautological reasoning. How can he who is most “valuable” be anyone but he who is the best player? The best player produces the most runs for his team on the field (offensive production plus the runs he saves on defense). In Sabermetric terms, this is an absolute value. And A-Rod wins. Period. So the assertion that Texas would be no better off without him is false. They would have been dramatically worse off. That this is not reflected in where they fell in the standings has nothing to do with his specific performative value. The idea that the MVP should be from a “winning team” (how winning? where’s the cut off?) is ridiculous, imho. Weighing one player’s contribution to his team versus another’s is a hopeless process, and you can end up with some bit player winning the award. Also, if it’s really about contribution to team performance, why aren’t relief pitchers given more weight in the voting? Historically, these guys never win. Who’s been more valuable than Mariano to the Yankees over the last 8 years? Where’s he on Stark’s ballot? How about Keith Foulk this year? Behind David Ortiz?
Posted by YF on 11/18/2003 11:42:27 AM