The logical extension of Stark’s argument is that the top player on the pennant winner be awarded the MVP. That’s bogus. No, that’s not correct, what you write. Stark points out the number of players who came from teams with winning records, not teams that won pennants, primarily, along with an historical context for how past MVPs have been chosen. You yourself in an earlier post on this site presented a similar type of contextualization with the Cy Young award, I believe, invoking the etymology of the award as a justification for rewarding a player with more wins (or something like that, I will scour the archives) as opposed to simple dominance. I therefore don’t understand why this irritates you so – his argument seems to fall within your logic system of some sort of semi-historical intent or patterning to help establish precedent and therefore the “meaning” of an award. He also doesn’t assert that Ortiz should have been the MVP, in fact he disclaims that intent, though your edited clip implies he thinks otherwise – that’s a bit dishonest on your part. In fact, he only tries to contextualize “value”, a contextualization that we two will apparently never agree upon. I side more with Stark, whereas you feel that “value” is non-contextual, I don’t see how it can be anything but contextual. A great player on a horrible team adds no value, the team has zero value in the grand scheme of things, and that’s something that even George Steinbrenner and I can actually agree upon. And never the twain shall meet. p.s. So much for not beating the dead horse.