mvp
i was arguing with ray on IM today about who should be mvp which all stemmed from the fact that he doesn't think ichiro is worth watching since ichiro isn't on a winning team. he said that the mvp should be on a winning team and that the mvp should lead the team. in my opinion, the mvp should be the player that had the most impact on that team. e.g. a-rod when he was playing for TX, he was up for mvp but his team sucked. and where in the world in "most valuable player" does it say "team"?this isn't like basketball or hockey where one person can consistently has control of the ball/puck and can actually lead their team. seriously, they have 5 people for each team on the court at a time so of course it's easier for an individual to have an impact on the entire team. baseball has a whole lineup that is playing "separately" from the rest of their team when at bat. baseball is too much of a team sport to say that one person's performance will carry or lead the team.
posted by Dana @ 4:32 PM
3 Comments:
hehe. did i get under your skin dude?
i still think that, even in baseball, an MVP needs to go to a person who helped his team win. No doubt that Arod was the Most Outstanding Player, but how much valuable were his 50 home runs on a team that was in last place in his division, and i belive 20 games out of first place????
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I have to agree w/ Dana on this point. Especially for baseball.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home