All weekend and again tonight I had to endure the idiotic commentary of baseball announcers discussing the AL MVP race. Generally, it’s a two horse race between David “Big Papi” Ortiz and Alex “No Soul” Rodriguez. Good arguments can be made for each player, but the announcers sure aren’t making them.
Last weekend, they were saying that the winner would be determined by which team won the weekend series… that is ridiculous. 3 games out of 162? C’mon.
Let me put forth two sets of reasoning I would consider valid for choosing an MVP:
- Best Player – I don’t think that you can make a good argument that the best player in the league isn’t the most valuable. If a player is the best in the league, how could another player be more valuable?
Put it this way: given the same pitching staff, how would a team of 9 A-rods do again a team of 9 Big Papis? I’d generally say it would be no contest. Both are good hitters, but A-rod is a gold glove SS and can run. To me, he’s the best all-around player in the league – hence the MVP.
- Most Helps His Team – A strong argument could also be made for the player that most helps his team. The problem is that most people use anecdotal evidence exclusively when trying to make this claim. I don’t have the raw data, but it can be measured.
Given any situation in a baseball game, the stats guys can determine the probability of either team winning a game. When a player does something (gets a hit with two outs and drives in the go-ahead run for example), the change in probability that their team will win the game is measurable. This may be the most pure way to measure a player’s true
value 
Also, the idea that a player somehow becomes more valuable by playing for a better team is perposterous. Take last year’s AL MVP, Vladimir Guerrero for example. Was Vlad more valuable to the Angels than he was to the Expos? I’d argue it was the other way around.
The comments are open, rant away…