A (non-sabermetric) Look at the Arguments for Miguel Cabrera to Win MVP

Miguel Cabrera had a fantastic season, one of the best hitting seasons in the last 10-12 years. Not quite Barry Bonds level, but it certainly is on the same general level as the best from Alex Rodriquez, Manny Ramirez, Albert Pujols, Carlos Delgado, David Ortiz, Vladimir Guerrero and probably a few others. As a result, Cabrera has a lot of support to win the MVP, based largely on his winning the “triple crown” and the Tigers making the playoffs.

Mike Trout also had an amazing season. I’m not really going to make the case for Trout, because it’s made very well here and here (warning, stat-heavy) and plenty of other places (here). The purpose here is to provide a simple discussion around the arguments that Cabrera’s supporters typically make in his support.

Argument 1: TRIPLE CROWN!

I understand that simultaneously leading the league in Batting Average, Home Runs and Runs Batted In is not a common occurrence and is not easy to do. I am not making an attempt to frame it as something that is easy to do, or something that is not indicative of a great season. Let’s look at the triple-crown categories and the role they play into Cabrera’s MVP case:

Batting Average: Cabrera had a higher batting average than Mike Trout by 4 points. I’m not sure if people truly understand the differences in batting average actually. But, just so we’re clear here, 4 points is not a difference of 4 hits per 100 at-bats. It’s a difference of 4 hits for every 1,000 at-bats. That’s 1 hit every 250 at bats (roughly 50 games), or 3 hits over the course of a season. It means that the odds of Mike Trout getting a hit and the odds that Miguel Cabrera getting a hit are both 33%.

Mike Trout had a higher OBP than Cabrera by a slightly greater margin. If the goal of baseball is to not make outs, so that you can hopefully create runs – do you think that getting a hit a slightly higher percentage of the time is more important if it means you make outs a slightly higher percentage of the time? Should one hit every 50 or so games make a player more valuable if they actually made 1 or 2 more outs in those games? If Trout had won the Batting title, and Cabrera beat Trout in OBP, would that have made Cabrera less valuable than Trout? If you think it wouldn’t have, then you’ve just negated the argument that Cabrera winning the triple crown makes him the MVP.

Congratulations Miguel Cabrera, for that 1/250 lead in batting average, but you’re pretty lucky that whoever came up with the triple crown decided that batting average was more important than on-base percentage.

To further my point about rewarding batting average versus outs made, while Cabrera did get those extra 3 hits to win batting average, he also created an additional 28 outs that are not tallied by BA/OBP/SLG by hitting into double plays (Trout had 7).

Home Runs: Cabrera hit 1 more home run than Josh Hamilton. Hey, I think that’s awesome. But let me ask you this – suppose he didn’t. Suppose Hamilton didn’t miss a bunch of games and hit 2 more homeruns. Would that have changed Miguel Cabrera’s season? Or, more importantly, his “value”? WHY? Why is the performance of a player that is not Mike Trout or Miguel Cabrera at all relevant to the argument of who, between Trout and Cabrera, should be MVP? If you can’t answer that question, sorry, but the entire “triple crown” argument is moot. Think about it – Mike Trout could miss out on winning an MVP because Josh Hamilton missed too many games. The only person Josh Hamilton missing games should impact in the MVP voting is Josh Hamilton.

Runs Batted In: Cabrera had 139 RBI. That’s great. Trout scored 129 Runs. Can we agree not to discuss this again? RBI and Runs are situational and talking about RBI is just like talking about Batting Average and Home Runs again with the added context of “opportunity”. If you think RBI are an “important” statistic in measuring value – you don’t understand context. Is a hit with no one on in the 8th inning of a tie game of less “value” than the same hit that knocks in 2 runs in the 5th inning extending a lead to 9-1? Do you see why it’s not? These are not actual game scenarios or an indictment on the nature of Cabrera’s RBI, but instead just an example to show that context matters.

Also, Cabrera is pretty lucky that whoever came up with the triple crown decided that RBI should be a triple crown category instead of runs.

You could craft a narrowly focused position that Cabrera was more valuable because he capitalized on his relative RBI opportunity better than Trout. I’ve seen that done. It doesn’t amount to many runs, but you could do that. But then I’d say – what about runs Trout saved with his glove versus runs Cabrera cost his team with his glove? What about runs created with Trout’s legs that Cabrera cost his team with his? What about runs Cabrera cost his team by creating a league leading 28 double plays? See, if you do this across all of the ways that these players impact the game, those “added” runs disappear extremely quickly. That’s the danger of taking such a narrow focus. You ignore too much.

If you think that the Triple Crown makes Cabrera’s season “one for the ages” or more “special”, I’ll just say this: There have been far more seasons like Miguel Cabrera’s in the history of baseball than seasons like Mike Trout’s. There’s been many seasons like Cabrera’s, or better, since 2000.

Argument 2: The Tigers Made the Playoffs

This one is awesome. The Tigers made the playoffs, and Cabrera played great. If Trout was so valuable, how come his team didn’t make the playoffs? Arguing this with someone is like when you say “we should spend less on our military; we spend more than the next 17 or so countries combined” and they respond with “you hate America and Freedom and our troops!” It’s hard to bring that person into a logical, rational debate.

Sadly, I’ve seen this argument a lot – perhaps more than the triple crown argument. Here are some counterpoints to think about:

- They are in different divisions. The Tigers are in an easier division.

- The Angels actually won one more game.

- They are only 1 of 25 guys on the roster. The rest of their rosters played, oh, we’ll just say….more than an incidental role in the performance of the team.

- In my HR example above, if you think it’s kind of silly to let Josh Hamilton’s inability to hit 2 more homeruns factor into the Trout versus Cabrera vote, well now you’re letting like 100 other player’s performance factor in.

- Let’s say the White Sox play great down the stretch and don’t puke up the division lead – would that have made Cabrera less valuable then Mike Trout? Why? If you think it doesn’t, then you’ve just negated this argument.

- Let’s say Justin Verlander was injured on May 1 and the Tigers finish 5 games back - would that have made Cabrera less valuable than Mike Trout? WHY? If you think it doesn’t, then you’ve just negated this argument.

I get that this can be hard if you're wired to think like your local talk radio hosts or beat writer, because the MVP award is really about overall contributions to the team, but you need to look at those contributions in a vacuum. If you’re unsure what I mean, stick your head up a vacuum and you’ll see. See how there’s no other baseball players up that vacuum? See how Justin Verlander is nowhere in that vaccum? A baseball player gets 4-6 plate appearances per game and a handful of chances in the field. To vote for Cabrera as MVP because the Tigers made the playoffs is, to be blunt, dumb. Prince Fielder, Justin Verlander and a host of other players (on the Tigers and on other teams) all combined to make that (barely) happen.

Argument 3: He Moved to Third to “Make Room” for Prince Fielder

Prince Fielder joining the Tigers was happening whether Miguel Cabrera moved to third or not. I’m actually not sure any other point should be made. He’s “more valuable” because Prince Fielder is really good? What if Fielder had been terrible, would that have made Cabrera less valuable? Why?  If this is your argument, you've just decided that Cabrera should be the MVP and you're grasping at anything to support it. 

Barely related side note – Derek Jeter refused to move to third base in 2004 when the better fielding Alex Rodriguez joined the Yankees. A-Rod outplayed Derek Jeter that year and Jeter STILL received more MVP votes.

Argument 4: He Was “Clutch” Down “the Stretch” and Trout SUCKED Down “the Stretch”

Cabrera’s performance was great in August and September, which is timely. But the extremes I’ve seen presented here are not accurate. Note that I’m going to honor this argument on its face and not enter into a debate of the value of games in May versus games in September.

This argument really isn’t about Miguel Cabrera, it’s about Mike Trout. Cabrera’s best month was August (.357/.429/.663), but he was consistently great all year, particularly after the all-star break. Mike Trout’s best month was July (.392/.455/.804), and then he was progressively worse after that. The first point I’ll make is that, short of being 2001-2004 Barry Bonds, it’s virtually impossible to not play worse than Mike Trout in July. Miguel Cabrera played worse in August and September than Mike Trout did in July, too.

So what did Mike Trout do in August and September that was so bad? He didn’t hit as well as Miguel Cabrera, but no one is saying Trout deserves the MVP for out-slugging Cabrera. The problem here is that it assumes we’re comparing two #3 hitting sluggers that can’t run and are non-factors (or negative factors) on defense. We’re not comparing Miguel Cabrera to David Ortiz here. We’re comparing him to a guy who is playing one of the two most valuable defensive positions (excluding pitcher), batting first, stealing lots of bases and taking many more that lesser runners would not AND hitting extremely well.

Trout was still that much better at every other phase of the game. Those difficult to measure parts of the game that involve preventing runs and causing runs to occur where lesser players would not have.

(There is a stat for this, but I’ve promised to make this non-sabermetric. But according to that stat, Trout was actually more valuable than Cabrera every month of the season, once he started playing. But let’s just pretend that stat doesn’t exist, because it seems to inspire what its acronym is pronounced as.)

So Trout had an amazing July, and Cabrera had an amazing August.  Then, in Sept/Oct, the difference between Cabrera (.333/.402/.675) and Trout (.289/.396/.500) works out to about 3 hits for 6 more bases. Trout walked 6 more times and stole an additional 6 more net bases, if that helps you bridge those differences. Cabrera hit into 5 double plays in September, if that helps as well. That’s the problem with focusing on a short time period with selective endpoints and why you need to focus on the entire season.

(You may do the math and notice that Trout needed an additional 5 hits to catch Cabrera in BA, but at 3 hits Cabrera’s lead in BA is actually the same as Trout’s lead in OBP, because Trout walks more – so I’m calling it even there.  Also, BA is like 1/20th of any story in comparing two players).

The biggest knock against Trout, honestly, has nothing to do with September. It is that he came up too late to impact his team in April.

Argument 5: No, You Don't Understand - He Made the Playoffs AND Won the Triple Crown

Taking multiple bad arguments and twisting them together doesn’t work either.

Summary:

However you want to evaluate the merits of their performances; please let it focus on THEIR PERFORMANCES. Don’t let what Josh Hamilton didn’t do, or Justin Verlander did do, or the White Sox didn’t do, etc. allow you to feel differently about what Miguel Cabrera and Mike Trout did do.

I know someone may read this and say “ha! But your argument is based on hypotheticals, because Hamilton did miss those games and didn’t hit those home runs and Verlander did play all year, so etc etc”. My point is only that if your MVP ballot hinged on what those guys did/did not do, you’re not answering the question of “who was the most valuable player”, you’re answering the question of “who had a great year and also had a number of extraneous, non-controllable circumstances go their way?”

Don’t do that.

Scott Miller – Digging up the Dirt

Okay okay I’m about to finish my paragraph supporting Albert Pujols for MVP. I needs to hammer this baby home with that final sentence that summarizes exactly how MVP-like Pujols was this year. Should I drag out numbers? No, numbers don’t tell the story. Perhaps recall an at-bat, or a play? Too singular. Lots of people have great plays. I’ve got it, a quote! Yes, a quote from a highly respected baseball man! A broadcaster or writer? A current player like Greg Maddux? A former player? A hall of famer like Nolan Ryan or something? I’ve got it, a GM! People are really intrigued by GMs!

Hey, Kevin Towers, tell me what you think of Albert Pujols!

"Pujols is a frickin' ­­­baseball player," Padres general manager Kevin Towers says.

Frickin’? Is he trying to be Dr. Evil? Oh well. Almost done.

Amen.

Done.

Jon Heyman More Valuable than Tom Verducci, but Verducci Better

There’s nothing that draws out crazy failures in logic like MVP and CY Young voting. I just stumbled onto CNNSI and checked out Tom Verducci and Jon Heyman’s picks, and there’s a whole lotta wrong to be discussed. To be honest, I didn’t follow baseball as much this year as I have in prior years. I had a really busy summer at work and personally. It’s also pretty late and I’m tired. So instead of doing a bunch of research and using numbers to dissect their picks, which strike me as odd, I’ll just try to approach it more high level, with some basic logic.

First, Verducci, who is generally decent. Unlike Heyman, who must have incriminating pictures of someone important at SI.

NL MVP

1. Albert Pujols
2. Lance Berkman
3. Ryan Howard
4. Ryan Braun
5. Manny Ramirez
6. Brad Lidge
7. CC Sabathia
8. David Wright
9. Johan Santana
10. Hanley Ramirez

The guy is just posting his opinion, so just because I think Chase Utley should be on the ballot and he doesn’t have him, I’m not going to throw a fit. But Manny Ramirez played in 53 games. Brad Lidge had a great year. He threw 70 innings with a 1.95 ERA. But I have a fundamental problem with closers being MVP’s unless they are historically awesome.

But here’s my bigger problem. Based on the above list, how is Verducci’s CY ballot not:
Lidge
Sabathia
Santana

?

Here it is:

NL Cy Young

1. Tim Lincecum
2. Johan Santana
3. Brandon Webb

Verducci tells us the CY is meant to honor the best pitcher in the league, and correctly says that the pitcher with the most wins isn’t necessarily that pitcher. But how the fuck isn’t the best pitcher more valuable than the second best pitcher? How is the most valuable pitcher not one of the 3 best pitchers? And how is the best starter not more valuable than 2 other starters? In my mind, any attempt to reconcile this position is a failure to understand the singular nature of baseball performances. It’s not Lincecum’s fault the Giants suck. He can’t control what the other 4 pitchers do, or what the hitters do.

Similarly, Verducci had Francisco Rodriguez ninth as the most valuable pitcher in the AL, but not among the top 3 pitchers. Aren’t the pitchers who pitch better more valuable?

Now to Jon Heyman.

NL MVP

1. Manny Ramirez, Dodgers. The savant saved the storied franchise, slugging .743 and lifting the Dodger dogs to the NL West title.

Okay, but 53 games? Even if you include all his games in Boston, Pujols still had 147 Runs Created vs. Ramirez’s 134. Ramirez RC number in the NL was 60.9. The Dodgers won the NL West because the NL West sucked. If they were in the NL East, and the Mets were in the NL West, Heyman’s first 4 players are Mets. Why is this so hard?

2. CC Sabathia, Brewers. Carried them with three straight outings on three days' rest, and oh yes, had a league-leading seven complete games.

It’s just a philosophical difference here on Ramirez and Sabathia that’s not worth debating further. Sabathia is more defensible (to be on the Cy ballot), to me. For the rest of them, I’ll just show the list without the explanations because I have the same point that I had with Verducci.

3. Ryan Howard, Phillies.
4. Brad Lidge, Phillies.
5. Albert Pujols, Cardinals.

Pujols just finished his best season. He posted the best OPS+ in baseball (190) since Barry Bonds in 2004. The best by someone not named Bonds in the NL since Sammy Sosa in 2001 (64 homers, .437 OBP). Manny Ramirez’s (highest full season OPS+ was 186 in 2000) was higher in his 53 games in LA. I’m going with the guy who played 148 games in the NL.

6. Ryan Braun, Brewers.
7. Johan Santana, Mets.
8. Carlos Delgado, Mets.
9. Chase Utley, Phillies.
10. Lance Berkman, Astros.

So his CY ballot must be Sabathia, Lidge, Santana?

NL Cy Young

1. Santana. Gets edge over CC for ERA title and for being in the NL all year.

But, in the MVP race…….you had….Sabathia SECOND, and said you could easily have flipped him with Ramirez! Why….here…does being the NL all year mean more??

2. Sabathia. Sheer second-half dominance.

What about the first half? Does that count?

3. Lidge. Though tough to leave out Webb and especially Lincecum (18-5, with a league-leading 265 strikeouts) in this year with at least five deserving candidates.

NL Cy Old: Tom Gorzelanny. Ugliest numbers ever, including a demonic 6.66 ERA.

Ugliest ever? Cy Old is lame and doesn't make sense. Wouldn't the Cy Old be....like.....the best old pitcher?

AL MVP

1. Francisco Rodriguez, Angels. An alltime great season with a record 62 saves.

Ladies and gentleman, your AL MVP…..the 4th best closer in the league!

2. Carlos Quentin, White Sox.
3. Dustin Pedroia, Red Sox.
4. Justin Morneau, Twins.
5. Kevin Youkilis, Red Sox.
6. Joe Nathan, Twins.
7. Joe Mauer, Twins.
8. Jermaine Dye, White Sox.
9. Josh Hamilton, Rangers.
10. Evan Longoria, Rays.

Apparently Grady Sizemore and Alex Rodriguez were not as valuable as any of these 10 players because the other players on their teams did not play as well as the other players on the above teams.

Okay, so his Cy Young ballot must start with Rodriguez and Nathan?

OF COURSE NOT.

AL Cy Young

1. Cliff Lee, Indians.
2. Roy Halladay, Blue Jays.
3. Francisco Rodriguez.

I know that Heyman thinks this makes total sense and that I'm just a geek and he would say that I don’t understand baseball and pennant races and cracker jack and locker rooms and sweat, but this is a giant failure to exercise defensible logic.

I suppose Verducci and Heyman feel that good closers are very valuable, but they aren't necessarily worthy of being deemed the best pitchers, but how can Heyman defend having two starters 1 order in the MVP balloting (Sabathia / Santana) with good separation between them, but then have the order reversed in the CY balloting?

Jemele Hill Can Not Be Taken Seriously

Here is Jemele, on April 4th:, on the subject of the NBA MVP:

I'm sorry, but that's absurd. No question, Kobe has put up some unbelievable numbers this season. But if New Orleans finishes first in the West and Chris Paul doesn't win the MVP, this award officially can't be taken seriously.

Here are Jemele's top 5 MVP picks, in order:

Kobe Bryant: I know I recently wrote that Chris Paul deserves the MVP, but the Hornets appear to be slipping a bit while the Lakers are still surging. Besides, if Kobe doesn't win it this year, he may go down as the greatest player to never win an MVP. That's as bad as giving Steve Nash two MVPs.

Oh i see, the Hornets have won tonight and are now tied for first with the Lakers (pending the Lakers game that is in the first quarter). Since they fell like .5 games behind the Lakers as of the time this was posted on ESPN.com, Kobe Bryant is the MVP?

Hmmm, doesn't the paragraph above sort of sound a bit like she's even saying that Kobe should win because it's "his time". This is what Jemele said last week:

But giving Kobe the MVP just because "it's his time" or "he's learned to be a team player" is a disservice.

Is she serious? Is she? That was 11 days ago?

Chris Paul: Paul is having one of the finest seasons a point guard has ever had. He made the Hornets a contender in the West, a feat that absolutely no one expected. If CP3 had won in L.A. last Friday, I may have reversed field. Honestly, this MVP race is so close, so that's still a possibility.

1 regular season game decides the MVP now?

In case you gave her a shred of credibility at this point, her number 5 is Hedo Turkoglu - who is not the most valuable player on his team.

Jemele Hill Creates Another Argument to Refute, Volume 10

I imagine it’s difficult in many respects to be a columnist (especially for a magazine or newspaper – harder deadlines), but it can’t be that hard to come up with topics right? Right now, the NBA MVP is a good topic of conversation, as it’s been an intriguing and outstanding NBA season and there are a few names to talk about. But Jemele Hill doesn’t tend to write pieces with the mindset of, say, “Chris Paul should be the MVP”. She apparently doesn’t think that this is interesting enough. She instead positions her column “EVERYONE is saying Kobe Bryant should be the MVP, and that’s wrong”. The problem? It’s not true. I’ve heard/read MVP support for Paul, Bryant, Lebron James, Kevin Garnett and I've even seen Tim Duncan's name mentioned. I just don’t have the impression that it’s a slam dunk for everyone. In fact, I think I’ve heard the most support for Jemele’s pick, Chris Paul.

In her latest column, Jemele acts like it’s a foregone conclusion that Kobe is the MVP in the eyes of most basketball media. I think Kobe’s getting plenty of press, but so are the other candidates.

This is nothing new for Jemele. In this column she argued that the negativity that you were putting on Randy Moss late last year by criticizing his success was unfounded! In this column she argued that Barry Bonds should be in the all-star game, despite his performance during the season, because he’s breaking an all-time record. She glosses over the fact that Bonds was playing at an all-star level and clearly should have been the Giants’ All-Star representative.

Anyway, let’s get to the newest work.

What movie did Al Pacino win Best Actor for?

(a) "Scarface"(b) "Dog Day Afternoon"(c) "The Godfather"(d) "The Godfather: Part II"(e) None of the above, because Academy Award voters are stupid

Hmmm, well Brando won for the Godfather. Nicholson won for Cuckoo’s Nest the year Al Pacino was up for Dog Day Afternoon. He didn’t get nominated for Scarface. I didn’t see any of the movies that had an actor nominated that year so I can’t comment. Pacino not winning for Godfather Part II would seem to be a terrible miss. I didn’t see Art Carney in Harry and Tonto but he better have been damn good.

Wait, what’s going on, I’m on ESPN.com right?

Actually, this is the same analogy she lead her column off with last year.

When I hear people say that Dirk has the MVP wrapped up, it makes me think the race has become just as political and illogical as the Academy Awards.

She’ll either borrow from or contradict that column a few times here.

Pacino, a seven-time Oscar nominee, finally won Best Actor in 1992 for "Scent of a Woman." To date, it's Pacino's only Oscar, and any Pacino fan will tell you that seeing him win for "Scent of a Woman" was like seeing Ice Cube for the first time without his jheri curl. It just wasn't right. It didn't make sense. And you felt cheated.

This is why I don’t read Jemele Hill much. She makes little sense. Wouldn’t you have felt more cheated if you saw him lose for Scent of a Woman, if you felt he had been cheated in the past?

Sadly, the NBA MVP race has become just as warped and backwards as the Academy Awards. The definition of MVP seems to change every year, and all too often players are rewarded for sentimental reasons and discredited using other ludicrous rationales.

Almost every sport’s MVP race is as warped and backwards as the Academy Awards. That’s because it’s an award voted on by tons of people with conflicting views and interests. The NBA is no different.

It's no different this season, which somehow universally came to be known as "Kobe's year," even if the Lakers don't finish with the top seed in the Western Conference.

Classic Jemele Hill bullshit. It’s UNIVERSALLY “Kobe’s Year”. She’s right! I haven’t heard any support for Chris Paul, Kevin Garnett or Lebron James! No, no that’s not right. Not at all. Jemele Hill is about to create another argument to disagree with. The “only Kobe Bryant is getting MVP attention, and that’s wrong!” argument.

Next week from Jemele Hill – “No one is paying attention to Barack Obama for the Democratic Nomination.” Or, “Why didn’t No Country for Old Men get any Oscar buzz!”

I'm sorry, but that's absurd. No question, Kobe has put up some unbelievable numbers this season. But if New Orleans finishes first in the West and Chris Paul doesn't win the MVP, this award officially can't be taken seriously.

This award officially couldn’t be taken seriously in 1962 when Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 points and 26 rebounds and lost to Bill Russell (19/24), presumably because Russell had much better teammates. It’s had off years since then too.

Also, "unbelievable" is now the most overused term of exaggeration on the planet. If you told me in October that Kobe Bryant's numbers would be 28.6 points, 6.4 rebounds and 5.4 assists while shooting 46% from the field...the last thought I would have is "that's unbelievable!" I probably would have said....."um, yeah.....that's pretty much what he does every year, minus a few points."

It would be criminal to overlook one of the most brilliant seasons a point guard has ever had. Paul averaged 24 points, 13 assists and nearly 3 steals per game in March. In fact, he's on the verge of becoming the first point guard since John Stockton to lead the league in both assists and steals in the same season. Nobody expected anything from the Hornets, and they're poised to win perhaps the most competitive conference we've ever seen in the NBA.

Paul’s been great and is a worthy MVP pick, so I’m not griping about that, but I don’t follow her last sentence. The conference is awesome, but it’s without a true all-time powerhouse regular season team. It’s good 1-9, but that doesn’t mean it’s harder to win than say, the Eastern Conference in 1996 if you’re a team that’s not the Chicago Bulls. Good luck winning 73 games to win the top seed.

I like how she cherry picks March stats too. Lebron James in March? 31 points, 8 boards, 7 assists, 48% shooting. Actually, that's basically his line for the year as well.

That's the very definition of MVP -- individual brilliance coinciding with team success. I'm a Kobe supporter, and I still stand by my assertion that Kobe is a more skilled player than Michael Jordan was.

I stand by my assertion that your column on Kobe being more skilled than Michael Jordan was about as well argued as Britney Spears’ child custody case. (Get it? She like never showed up for court? It was all over the entertainment news sources – so it’s pretty topical. Aww fuck you.)

The fact that Jemele thinks she has to remind readers how much she likes Kobe Bryant is laughable. She defends/supports him all the time. Remember this mess comparing Bryant to Alex Rodriguez? I'm actually a Kobe fan but she backs him nonstop.

But giving Kobe the MVP just because "it's his time" or "he's learned to be a team player" is a disservice.

No shit. Who are you arguing with? Oh that’s right, yourself.

This is what has become most frustrating about the evolution of the MVP race. Over time, merit has become less of a factor.

Not entirely accurate. So when Steve Nash won ’05 and ’06, it was because he was “due”. Oh…..I don’t think so. Iverson, Garnett, Duncan...these guys didn't win because of merit? In fact, I challenge you Jemele Hill to point to this happening in a recent year.

In the 1996-97 season, the MVP was thrown in Karl Malone's lap strictly because voters seemed sick of giving it to Michael Jordan, who won the MVP five times.

So the MVP has evolved into a race where merit is less of a factor, and it’s more of a lifetime achievement deal, and the last example of this is over 10 years ago? See, I think the voters have been trying to give it to the most deserving player each year (for their performance in the year) and that’s why you’re reaching back 10 years. Jordan not winning in ’97 was a little nutty, the Bulls won 69 games and Jordan was the best player in the league.

Before that, the benefactor of ABJ (Anybody But Jordan) was Charles Barkley, who was named the MVP for the 1992-93 season even though Jordan averaged 32 points, 6.7 assists and 5.5 rebounds.

Okay, but Barkley averaged 26 points, 12 boards and 5 assists to lead the Suns to the best record in the NBA. See, it’s more interesting when you don’t just spout out half the story. I would have given it to Jordan but Barkley was an entirely defensible, worthy winner.

LeBron James probably didn't get the consideration he deserved last season because of the "he has plenty of time to win an MVP" argument.

Dirk Nowitzki – 29/9/3 leading the Mavs to the best record in the NBA. Should he have won MVP? No, I don’t think so. Did Lebron (27/7/6) lose because he is young and has plenty of time……naw…. He didn’t get the same voting consideration because Dirk’s team won 17 more games. Flip the records around and Dirk isn’t in the top 5 in voting and Lebron walks away with the thing. Writer’s always put a premium on team success in their MVP voting. This is not a mystery.

Two-time MVP winner Tim Duncan should have gotten stronger consideration last season, too. But Duncan is the NBA's version of Russell Crowe.

Tim Duncan throws phones at people?

After Crowe won Best Actor for "Gladiator," the Academy overlooked him for both "The Insider" and "A "Beautiful Mind." Crowe won't win another one because he's too consistently good. Same goes for Duncan.

Um….hmmmm… Crowe was nominated for The Insider in 1999. He won for Gladiator in 2000. So you’re theory both sucks and is inaccurate. Saying he won’t win another one because he’s consistently good is beyond moronic. He might not win another won because it’s very very hard to win multiple best Actor Oscars. The most anyone has won is 2! There are a lot of NBA players with more than 2 awards (with less history). Katharine Hepburn did win 4 in the female category though I guess. Why the fuck am I looking this up again? Ohhhh right….because Jemele’s telling me the MVP is like the Oscar. This sounds familiar. Hmmm….oh right, she told me this last year:

Sounds just like when people were arguing that Russell Crowe shouldn't win an Oscar for "A Beautiful Mind" since (a) he'd already won one for "Gladiator"…

Boring. Also, were people even saying that? She has used the same example two friggin years in a row and I don't remember that being some sort of hot issue back then. Didn't Hanks win two in a row in the early 90's?

What really makes no sense about this argument, is that she's saying that the MVP voters are reluctant to reward players who are consistently good, therefore Duncan doesn't get enough MVP attention. Um...hmm....Jordan won 5. Bird won 3. Magic won 3. Kareem won 6. Nash won two in a row. Very recently! This goes against the premise of your argument.

And only in the NBA could Shaq, the most dominant center of all time, have one MVP while Steve Nash, who has never gotten his team to the NBA Finals, has two.

Playoff performance means jack shit in NBA voting. It’s a regular season award. Also, your pick, Chris Paul, has never led his team to an NBA finals. See how that’s unfair?

Also, Jemele knows this, as this is what she wrote last year:

Winning a championship is not a requirement for a MVP. Yeah, I know I just killed Malone above, but he won two MVPs and didn't win a title. Allen Iverson and Kevin Garnett also have MVPs, but no titles. Sure, Iverson and Malone made it to the NBA Finals, but this is a REGULAR-SEASON award.

Not only does she create arguments to counter, she counters her own arguments – she just trusts that you’re too dumb to remember.

That's why it's difficult to argue against Kobe, knowing he was cheated out of at least one MVP -- the one Dirk Nowitzki shamelessly won last season.

Shame on you, Dirk Nowitzki. How dare you be voted as MVP by a bunch of random writers! Go back to Germania! (sorry, I had to)

But while Kobe's renewed commitment to team ball makes for a cute catchphrase, it's a misnomer. Obviously Kobe has matured, but he's a better teammate primarily because he's got a fellow All-Star in Pau Gasol, a deeper, more skilled bench, and an emerging star in Andrew Bynum. Teamwork becomes much easier when your teammates can actually do something with the ball.

Which brings me to another frustrating element of the MVP race. Why are good players considered stronger MVP candidates when they have more help? (See: Kevin Garnett, the 2003-04 MVP.) Isn't the concept of "value" based on doing more with less?

I hate trying to confine the MVP award this way, it drives me nuts. It should be about who played the best fucking basketball. Anyway, no, value is about playing basketball very well while doing the most in proportion with what you have – be it a lot or a little. This is getting a little too esoteric for me, back to the column…

That should be the only criteria. And if it is, Paul is the MVP over Kobe, LeBron and KG. LeBron has had a fine season, and he certainly ranks high in the value department, but Cleveland's team success isn't significant enough to warrant LeBron winning. KG's presence transformed the Celtics, but it certainly helps that he has All-Star security blankets Paul Pierce and Ray Allen.

No, no no I will not let you get away with this. You just said that Kobe Bryant was cheated out of the MVP last year. Then you said Lebron James shouldn’t win because his team’s success is not significant enough. Kobe’s Lakers were 42-40 last year. Lebron’s Cavs are 42-34, on pace for about 45-46 wins – with some shit-ass teammates I’ll add. Yes, the West was better last year, but this is really just you making up qualifiers as you go along to conveniently support your arguments.

This is what Jemele wrote last year supporting Bryant:

But at the same time, it's not fair to eliminate Kobe Bryant because the Lakers are only a 6 or 7 seed. Kobe has the least talented teammates to work with of the MVP candidates and that his team is even in the playoff hunt is a miracle. Besides, most NBA players regard Kobe as the best player in the league and that should mean something, too. Team success is an important component, but it can't be the entire equation.

Given that those were here sentiments supporting Kobe last year, how does she eliminate Lebron James so easily this year?

Cleveland's team success isn't significant enough to warrant LeBron winning.

Huh?

But, if recent MVP races are any indication, politics will win again.

So congrats, Kobe.

I was watching Sports Reporters as I began writing this, and John Saunders started his final point. He said, “I know I’m not the first one to push for Chris Paul to win the MVP…”.

Tell that to Jemele Hill.

Jemele’s next column…. "will someone please talk about the rise of oil prices!”

Let’s Talk Most Valuable

Sorry folks, I was on vacation for a week and generally haven’t been reading much beyond The Big Lead and the FJM’s lately. It’s either a testament to your devotion to reading this blog or a sign that you have no life that the “recurring visitors” that I get has remained constant. I'll go with the former.

Today I listened to (Boston) Sports Talk Radio during my lengthy commute to work, and by the end I was sort of yelling at my radio in annoyance at the general tone of their NBA MVP discussions. Here’s a little synopsis of the events:

Gerry Callahan and John Dennis are the hosts, and they both (Dennis more vehemently so) conveyed that Kevin Garnett should be the NBA MVP. They had their share of points and whatnot, but I can make this real real simple. Here are the basic reasons that were given to support Garnett:

1. Ultimately will be the best player on a team with the best record in the NBA.

2. Ultimately will be the best player on a team that had the biggest turnaround in NBA history, and he wasn’t on the team last year so he has been the major reason for that impact.

Now, let me tell you the real reasons why they believe that Garnett should be the MVP:

1. They are sports talk radio hosts in Boston.

2. They are not sports talk radio hosts in New Orleans, Los Angeles, or Cleveland. If they were, they’d be using the many arguments for those players instead.

Now, we first need to take a step back a little bit. The award, for right or wrong (wrong) is called “Most Valuable Player”. While I will always believe that the intent of the award should just be to award the basketball player who played the best basketball over the course of the basketball season (Most Outstanding Performance at Playing Basketball - MOPPB), it is unfortunately called the MVP – which does have a better ring to it.

Why am I discussing this? Because at one point John Dennis read a dictionary definition of the fucking word valuable. They frequently noted that the award was not for the most outstanding, but the most VALUABLE, in support of Garnett. This is maddening, but unfortunately we’re left with the word valuable to deal with.

So why do I disagree with them? Let’s discuss the two main arguments put forth:

1. Ultimately will be the best player on a team with the best record in the NBA.

Well that’s definitely a nice place to start an MVP argument, and the Celtics’ 24-5 record against the West means that for right or wrong we sort of have to throw out the conference argument. But the Celtics were 7-2 when he was out, which, while not being many games, is right on par with their overall winning percentage. Note that I don't think this is a disqualifier, but I note it just to point out that he has pretty good teammates contributing to that best record, if that's what you're hanging your hat on. Garnett isn’t carrying this team by any stretch. Paul Pierce is still the best offensive player on the Celtics, and he and Ray Allen alleviate a tremendous amount of the scoring load off of Garnett, versus what Mr. James is going through in Cleveland. But basketball isn’t all scoring, and Garnett has been a good rebounder and has anchored the best defense in the NBA. If you blindly believe that the MVP should go to the best player on the best team than there’s just nothing I can say, Kevin Garnett is your man.

Personally, I think that the MVP should go to a team with at least a .500 record, but other than that there’s too much to consider to just give the best player/best team the award. If you have a team with 3 stars and 5 good complementary players and they win 67 games and another team with 1 star, 2 good complementary players and a bunch of scrubs and they win 58 games with the Superstar averaging 30/8/8….then my MVP vote is probably going to the player on the second team. It’s really not as simple as checking the standings.

I don’t think John Dennis would have made much of an argument for Chauncey Billups winning the ’06 MVP (unless he lived in Detroit), or Clyde Drexler beating out Michael Jordan for the ’91 MVP. Allen Iverson would have to cough up his ’01 hardware to Tim Duncan, who would have to hand his ’02 MVP award to…Chris Webber. It’s just not that simple.

2. Ultimately will be the best player on a team that had the biggest turnaround in NBA history, and he wasn’t on the team last year so he has been the major reason for that impact.

Now this is why I wrote this post, as what he said in defense of this point led me to literally yell at the radio. Dennis pointed out that the Hornets won 39 games last year! They were 39-42. Not nearly as bad as the Celtics! The Lakers were 42-40! The Celtics were 24-58….this year they have the best record! The implication being that best player they added was Garnett, therefore he’s the MVP, because the other teams were already not-so-bad. Clearly they’ve improved, but they didn’t come from the same depths that the Celtics did!

Do you see the flaw in this logic? That led to me yelling this in my car:

CHRIS PAUL WAS ON THE MOTHER FUCKING HORNETS LAST YEAR YOU FUCKING MORON! KOBE BRYANT WAS ON THE LAKERS! THEY ARE THE REASON WHY THEIR TEAMS WON THOSE GAMES LAST YEAR!

With me yet? You can’t give the MVP to Garnett on the basis of the turnaround unless you have some magical ability to forecast what Cleveland, LA, and New Orleans records would have been last year minus their MVP candidates (not nearly as good). Next year, when the Celtics probably regress by a few games, will Dennis eliminate Garnett from MVP contention because they went backwards? Of course not, and he shouldn’t. It’s a stupid criteria for basing the highest individual achievement in the sport on. Let’s talk about which basketball players played the best basketball THIS YEAR, why does last year mean anything at all? The Celtics roster is totally different anyway – it’s basically like a new team.

In summary, let’s just rename the award please.