Some more arguing about what an MVP really is

40 Comments

At the outset I’ll state that I disagree with a lot — and awful lot — of what Ken Rosenthal says in his latest column.  The biggest disagreement is Rosenthal’s stance that an MVP should play for a contender. I’ve been over that territory many times before, so I won’t regurgitate it here.

But despite the disagreements, I do like a lot about Rosenthal’s piece. Mostly because, unlike so many, he is out front in acknowledging the subjective nature of the MVP ballot. And it really is. Those of us who want to vote with a more sabermetric approach often ignore that, insisting on making it as objective as possible. Those who vote in other ways also ignore the subjectivity of it, insisting as a matter of natural law that “valuable means X” when there is no certainty about it at all. We’re all importing our own criteria.

So like I said: Rosenthal, I believe, is wrong about a lot of the stuff in the column. But the key word there is “believe,” because when it comes to the MVP, so much of it comes down to belief.  That may be cold comfort for a couple of people fighting over MVP candidates, but it’s actually kind of clarifying in some way. If for no other reason than it almost compels us to not take any MVP argument — or result — too terribly seriously as an assignation of merit.