Posted by Jtpsops on 10/11/2017 12:09:00 PM (view original):
"As I see it, there are 2 differences between these two players. Difference #1, player A is marginally better. Difference #2, player B's teammates are substantially better. Neither player A nor player B had anything to do with picking those teammates, maintaining their health and conditioning, setting the lineups and rotation, etc. Player A did not contribute to that better team beyond his 7.3 wins contributed. He is not contributing any additional value by having better teammates. That's 100% out of his hands."
You're missing the point. Replace Player A with an average player, his team wins fewer games and they still miss the playoffs. Nothing has really changed. Replace Player B with an average player and his team fails to win the division and maybe misses the playoffs altogether.
Player B had a major impact on the success of his team. Player A's team wasn't successful, so his performance really had no impact. I'm not discounting stats. A great statistical season is impressive no matter what. But I don't think it's ridiculous to factor in each player's impact on their team's overall success. There is value in that.
Like I said, I see the MVP as a player award. It's not a team award. It's not given to the best player from the team that wins the league. It's an individual award. And as I said in the original post, I want it to be about what happened on the field, not what happened in the GMs office. I don't see how having a better GM, wealthier owner, better manager, or whatever advantages Player B had makes him "more valuable." If we could actually synthesize production on the field into a single number that was guaranteed to be accurate, and player A amassed 7.5 wins to player B's 7.3, I give the award to Player A every single time. Again, how is it to Player B's credit that he has better teammates? I want awards to be deserved. They should be crediting players for what they've done. How is having good teammates an achievement?