I admire Jayson Stark, but I just don’t feel like he’s on the right track here. Yes, the voting does indicate some confusion among the electorate as to what precisely constitutes “valuable,” but I can not agree with his corresponding assertion that the wrong man was chosen for the wrong reasons. His logic is flawed. His first criteria is tautological. His second is impossible to determine (also, why should this mean absolute position rather than games behind–you can make a good argument that Texas without A-Rod would have been much farther back in the standings). The history of the MVP award, in any event, is anything but clear when it comes to establishing a standard. As for Ortiz vs. A-Rod. Granted, Ortiz had great second half numbers. But A-Rod has great numbers for the entire season, and he plays shortstop. Only one team wins the pennant. The logical extension of Stark’s argument is that the top player on the pennant winner be awarded the MVP. That’s bogus.
Posted by YF on 11/18/2003 12:07:45 AM