Very interesting article, DG: let's keep this open until the end of the season, and see what MVP's make a difference; to me, an MVP on a losing team is a mis-nomer; an MVP should be someone who leads a team to a winning season, not one who has great stats on a losing team.
Posts: 3671 | Location: Ridgewood, N.J. USA | Registered: 05-30-03
I tend to disagree; the award should be just what it says--the most valuable person to ANY specific team, regardless of record...When Steve Carlton won HALF of his team's games in '72, what player could be any MORE valuable to a team? People have kinda twisted the award over the years--favoring people on winning teams only--which eliminates a helluva lot of great players whose GM's don't have the money to build a supporting cast around them...
Bob, I understand your point, but I guess we disagree on sementics; I don't understand how a player can be a most valuable player, if he doen't help the team be a "most valuable team".
Posts: 3671 | Location: Ridgewood, N.J. USA | Registered: 05-30-03
