Nl mvp

[Bene Futuis]

Looks like a 4 man race to me:

[revo]

Interesting race, because three of those top players were on non-competing teams, and Turner came over mid-season.

I'm going with Tatis.

[Bene Futuis]

Interesting race, because three of those top players were on non-competing teams, and Turner came over mid-season.

I'm going with Tatis.

You're dinging the others for being on non-competing teams yet voting for a Padre? They missed the playoffs by double digit games (further away than the Phils).

Personally, I think the "he needs to be on a playoff team" idea needs to be permanently retired.

[Gregg]

Looks like a 4 man race to me:

A very tight 4 man race. Wow.

[chancellor]

Any of the four are worthy, but I think worthy and most famous will win out this year, so it's Tatis who I think will be the NL MVP.

I'm going to ploink my money down on Juan Soto next year. Once he figured it out at the AS Break - whatever "it" was - he was simply absurd.

[revo]

You're dinging the others for being on non-competing teams yet voting for a Padre? They missed the playoffs by double digit games (further away than the Phils).

Personally, I think the "he needs to be on a playoff team" idea needs to be permanently retired.

The Pads were in the race until late August when they totally collapsed.

It seems like the Phils were never really in it. Obviously the Nats never were.

Trea had a fantastic season, but being split between two teams hurts him a bit.

[DMT]

This poll might not even have the winner listed. Crawford, Riley, Goldschmidt, O'Neill, and Freeman are all going to get votes.

[Todd Zola]

Trea had a fantastic season, but being split between two teams hurts him a bit.

Why? it shouldn't have any bearing.

In full disclosure, I'm in the camp that the MVP does not need to play for a playoff-bound team. I see it as most outstanding player - or just the best player.

[harmon]

I know defence takes a back seat in these decisions, but it shouldn't.

That's enough for me to move Turner above Tatis.

[Gregg]

I know defence takes a back seat in these decisions, but it shouldn't.

That's enough for me to move Turner above Tatis.

Yes it should come into play for MVP in the NL. It was my tie breaker to vote Turner as well.

[revo]

Why? it shouldn't have any bearing.

In full disclosure, I'm in the camp that the MVP does not need to play for a playoff-bound team. I see it as most outstanding player - or just the best player.

I can understand a "best overall player" philosophy, but I just don't believe that *always* wins the award these days (and they have the Hank Aaron award for that), and often in the past it hasn't. I don't think that's changed much.

[Todd Zola]

I can understand a "best overall player" philosophy, but I just don't believe that *always* wins the award these days (and they have the Hank Aaron award for that), and often in the past it hasn't. I don't think that's changed much.

The Hank Aaron Award is for the best hitter, not overall player. Even so, that doesn't answer why Turner's case is hurt by playing for two NL clubs.

[chancellor]

I can understand a "best overall player" philosophy, but I just don't believe that *always* wins the award these days

Yup, this. Clearly, the winner needs to be a great player - and the NL MVP race has a good number of them. But the fame component will factor in too, and Tatis leads this field going away in charisma and fame.

[revo]

The Hank Aaron Award is for the best hitter, not overall player. Even so, that doesn't answer why Turner's case is hurt by playing for two NL clubs.

A few reasons:
- an MVP should have 'helped' the club win all season long; or, if not, been the spark of a tremendous run (i.e. Sutcliffe, McGwire, Sabathia, etc). You've said you don't think 'helping a club win' is a factor, so this probably doesn't mean anything to you, but it does to many, including those who vote;
- It's arguable which late-season Dodger acquisition helped them more - Turner or Scherzer;
- The Dodgers have many players who were MVP candidates pre-Turner's acquisition, such as Muncy & Bueller. They could dilute the "Dodger" vote;
- an MVP has never been traded in-season. Of course, that could change, but that plays directly into the "helping your team win" idea. But that said, what if Turner was traded to an AL team instead of an NL team? Would he still be an MVP candidate? If not, why not, since you're just judging based on his overall stats?

[Todd Zola]

A few reasons:
- an MVP should have 'helped' the club win all season long; or, if not, been the spark of a tremendous run (i.e. Sutcliffe, McGwire, Sabathia, etc). You've said you don't think 'helping a club win' is a factor, so this probably doesn't mean anything to you, but it does to many, including those who vote;
- It's arguable which late-season Dodger acquisition helped them more - Turner or Scherzer;
- The Dodgers have many players who were MVP candidates pre-Turner's acquisition, such as Muncy & Bueller. They could dilute the "Dodger" vote;
- an MVP has never been traded in-season. Of course, that could change, but that plays directly into the "helping your team win" idea. But that said, what if Turner was traded to an AL team instead of an NL team? Would he still be an MVP candidate? If not, why not, since you're just judging based on his overall stats?

My answer to the first three is my interpretation of value is irrespective of how it influences the team's stead. I realize it's non-conventional, but I'm not alone.

The fourth is a flaw with the system with players switching leagues. That said, it's better for promotional purposes to have recipients in each league, so the trade-off is the odd "CC Sabathia" type year.