What qualifies a player to be an MVP? Is it the most valuable player to his or her team? Or is it the most stastically valuable player to his or her team?
I personally think an MVP is the player who if you take them off of their team the success of that team decreases. I'll give you all a great example of how I would define an MVP. I'll use Ben Sheets, pitcher for the Milwaukee Brewers, it just so happens that he's also, usually, the best stastical pitcher on the team as well. But back to my point a lot of people see how the Brewers struggle when Sheets goes on the DL....that is an MVP a guy who affects team, not always with stastics....but just how he is the ultimate teammate.
Another great example of this is Marvin Harrison of the Colts. The Colts offense was very much out of sync when Harrison was out for part of this season....an MVP is a guy who doesn't have to make all the plays but makes everyone else around them that much better.
I think there's a huge difference between calling an athlete the Most Valuable Player and calling them the Most Outstanding Player..the MOP(most outstanding player) awards, in my opinion, should go to the stastically best player. To me the MVP is the ultimate we're sunk without you award....the MVP award, in my opinion, isn't a stastics alone award.
That leads me to the great debate about the NBA MVP award winner, Kobe Bryant. I think Chris Paul should have won that award. He fits my own personal criteria for an MVP. I think the leagues MOP should go to Kobe though. I think the Hornets would be more sunk if they didn't have CP3 then the Lakers would be sans Kobe Bryant.
What are your thoughts about MVP awards?