Most Valuable Stats | Proudly Pinstriped

A rumination on how we award honors in baseball, and how we should. Hitter: We can talk about average. We can talk about homers. But let's talk about RBI's. Because you can be great in the first two categories, but not help your team. But you can't put up a lot of RBI's without contributing to the bottom line. And to give credit to the guys who get on base in front of you, let's add runs scored and RBI's and call the winner the MVP. And I don't care if your team made the playoffs or not. Maybe you made them better than they would have been, but just not good enough. You're not God; you're just the best baseball player. Pitcher: Forget wins and losses. Cy Young lost more games than anyone. Nolan Ryan was next, I believe. The only thing that matters is ERA. That's the measure of how well you pitched, not whether your teammates got up on the wrong side of the bed that day. Two weeks ago, Clemens gave up eight runs in one inning and got a no-decision. Good day? I don't think so. Your job as a pitcher is to keep the other team from scoring. There's a stat for that. It's called ERA. Fielder: This one's WAY too subjective. Win it once, it's yours for a few years. Fielding percentage? You're rewarding the guys who aren't good enough to get to the ball in the first place to make an error. I can stand there with my hands in my pants all day and field 1.000. Big whoop. I propose a new stat: number of putouts at your position compared to everyone in the league at your position. The answer? Best fielder at your position! The reward? Gold Glove.

Comments (6) Add A Comment

August 22, 2007 05:53 PM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

RBIs sometimes depend on the situation. Some players get more at bats with runners in scoring positionn, which results in higher RBIs.

PhillyFan

Medford Lakes, NJ

Total Comments (1236)

August 22, 2007 06:00 PM ET

I agree with you but i think they should have two different awards for hitters instead of the MVP they should have a Offensive Players of the Year for the players with the best stats, then a MVP for the players who was the Most Valuable Player to that teams sucess. Like last year for the NFL, Drew Brees was defintely More valuable to his teams success but Ladamien no doubt had better stats than Brees.

Jordan: You'll Never…

Lansing , IL

Total Comments (651)

Yes...that's why I added runs scored, to reward the guys who get on for the guys hitting behind them.

Yankee64

Total Comments (6746)

August 22, 2007 08:07 PM ET

The MVP will always be controversial.

Personally, I don't think it should have anything to do with the team's success. It should go to the guy who puts up the best numbers. How valuable he was to his team depends on too many things outside his control. It's just like ERA vs. W-L. ERA is what you do, while W-L is what you do mixed in with what the rest of your team does.

I think pure offense (factor in fielding in a tie-breaker, and no DHs allowed!) should get the award. If the best player in the game happens to be on the worst team, he shouldn't be penalized because he couldn't help them enough.

August 22, 2007 08:14 PM ET

Making it the Most Valuable Player instead of the Most Outstanding Player makes it controversial, which is, of course, the point. What fun would we have if we couldn't argue over stats?

Steelercooz

St. Paul, MN

Total Comments (3566)

August 22, 2007 08:27 PM ET

Agreed. And I have no problem adding in defense to reward the alll-around player and keep the DH out of the running. I just don't think your team's stats should matter; your pitcher blows a game that keeps you out of the playoffs, so you're not the MVP? Makes no sense to me. The award should go to the best player, win or lose.