Posted by tecwrg on 11/20/2013 7:50:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/15/2013 1:42:00 PM (view original):This.
"MLB could solve this problem by instituting a BBWAA award for the best offensive player (Ted Williams Award?) to go with the Cy Young. And then you can vote for MVP. The most valuable guy isn't always the best offensive player."
I've been saying this for years. In fact, there already is such an award, the "Hank Aaron Award", but it's currently a minor award with it's own weird voting system. It needs to be "elevated" to major award status (alongside Cy Young and MVP), and voted on by the BBWAA as the other two awards are.
Problem solved. Except for BL, who will still confuse "best offensive player" with "most valuable player".
How are "best offensive player" and "most valuable player" all that different? People keep making arguments - not just here, everywhere - that based on the name of the award ("most VALUABLE player") that it should consider importance to the team and team performance. If you want to make that argument in general, fine. But don't invoke the name. There seems to be a major issue with a whole lot of Americans' ability to understand the word "valuable." It means "worth the most," which as best translated into baseball terms would be "the best player." Maybe not "best offensive player," but "best player."
Valuable means "having worth/merit." So the "most valuable" is the guy with the "most worth." That's the best player. Doesn't matter what teams he plays on, or what everyone around him did, or what the team would have done without him. At least not based on the NAME of the award. So please, learn some English and drop the bullshit arguments that somehow because of the name of the award importance to the team is implied. That's bullshit. Literally the opposite of what valuable means.