Come To Think of It...Part II: MLB's MVP Award Bias: Is There Value in Losing?

While writing my last article, it became clear to me that there is a definite discrepancy between the fans who believe the MVP award should go to the league's top player versus those that think it should only go to a player on a winning team.

After all, it's the most valuable player, as the award's name suggests.

There is a difference, people. The best player is the top player without regard to how his team finishes in the standings. The thinking is that it is not player X's fault that his team finished last, he did everything (and then some) to help his team win.

He's not the GM and wasn't responsible for putting the team together, so why should he be punished for producing big numbers on a second-tier team?

However, the counter argument says that the award is indeed named "Most Valuable Player," and it implies that for a player to have value, his team must have won something. Or at least won more than it lost.

The thinking here is that the team could have finished out of the playoffs with or without player X, so how valuable could be actually be?

Under that argument, player Y wins the award because he had the best stats of all the players on the winning teams.

In either case, both player X and Y may have similar statistics. Yet, because one player plays on a winning team, he is a viable candidate and the other is not. Fair or not, that is the bias many sportswriters have taken toward the voting.

Occasionally, a player will put up such monster numbers as to trump all bias and win the MVP award for a poor team. It has happened multiple times with my Cubs, for example. Andre Dawson in 1987 and twice with Ernie Banks in '60s. But it is fairly rare.

I bring this up because in the American League, there is a strong push for Josh Hamilton to win the MVP award.

First off, he has produced some terrific numbers. But perhaps just as importantly to some voters, his is the feel-good story of the summer, a riches to rags to riches made-for-TV movie just waiting to be written.

But he plays for a team whose only chance at the playoffs is the wild card. They sit 14 games back of the division-leading Angels and face teams such as Tampa Bay, Boston, and the Yankees in their quest for the WC.

So, should the award be for the most valuable player or the best player? Perhaps if they renamed the award the Hank Aaron award, it would be more clear. But as long as it's called the MVP award, that bias will continue to exist.

Should a teams' position in the standings impact a player's ability to be a candidate for the MVP? Is that really what we want?

Come to think of it, I don't know. When you come to think of it, let me know.