In a recent column, ESPN.com's Jason Stark disputed the notion that Alex Rodriguez should be the American League's Most Valuable Player this season.  I read the Stark column.  I must say, I like Stark generally, and usually find him funny.  Sometimes I find him convincing (on those occasions when he's trying to make a greater point, rather than simply pass along information, as is the case not infrequently).  This is definitely not one of those times.  In fact, I find this to be as poorly reasoned an argument as I've seen in some time.  I think a case can be made for his side of the argument, but I think he did a particularly poor job of making it.

 

Value...he harps on this term constantly, but essentially argues that value is inextricably intertwined with a winning club because...the BBWAA voters have apparently used that standard for a long time.  He writes:

 

"MVP voters have traditionally prioritized 'value' in terms of what it meant to teams that won, or at least contended.

 

"The lessons of history couldn't be more clear. There have been 145 MVP trophies -- and 141 of them went to players on teams with winning records. That's 97 percent, friends."

 

This is an argument?  We've used this standard for a long time, therefore it's correct and unimpeachable?  Ridiculous.  Borderline insulting, from an intellectual standpoint.  And certainly not convincing, unless you're already on board...and possibly not even then.

 

I also don't find the discussion of A-Rod's situational stats very convincing.  Stark essentially states that the Rangers went in the tank during a 3 1/2 week stretch during the first half of the season and A-Rod played badly at the same time.  He implies, without stating outright, that had A-Rod played well during the 2-20 stretch that Texas suffered through in June, he'd be a more worthy candidate for the MVP Award.  I'd submit that if A-Rod had played well during that stretch, the team wouldn't have gone 2-20...which is basically restating Stark's original argument (this is about winning). 

 

One could argue that the Rangers were a basically lousy club and that when A-Rod played great the team was mediocre, and when A-Rod didn't play well, they went completely in the dumper.  This is essentially what Stark says himself.  The team is living and dying with A-Rod's performance?  What greater statement could be made of A-Rod's inherent value to his team? 

 

I submit that the term "value" is open to a far wider interpretation than Stark would like to concede.  For instance, he discusses the relevance of a pennant race to determining the potential winner of the award.  Implied in this is that a team with a deep lineup that wins by a wide margin can't have a league MVP because the team probably could have won without "that guy."  

I presume that everyone sees the irony in this--not only can't a lousy team like the Rangers have an MVP, but a team that runs away with its division can't have one either (unless there's no pennant race that year).  In other words, you can't be on too good a team and win.  

This, in fact, happened in 1995 (just to use one example) when Mo Vaughn, who wasn't close to the best player in the AL that season, won the Award presumably because "without Mo, the Red Sox never would have reached the playoffs."  Albert Belle (just for one) ate Mo's lunch that year.  And he wasn't alone...on Belle's own team, Jim Thome and Manny Ramirez had better offensive years than Vaughn (along with Belle of course).  So did Edgar Martinez on the pennant race Mariners, and Frank Thomas, Chili Davis, Tim Salmon, Rafael Palmeiro (all on also-rans) and, arguably, John Valentin, who played on the same team as Vaughn (and played a more important defensive position, but never mind that).  

But the guys on the Tribe all played too well...the Indians won 100 of 144 games and they were just too good.  I can only assume that the objection to Edgar, who played on a team that had as heated a pennant race as any in recent memory, is that he was the DH, while Mo was making us all rethink the importance of the first baseman to a team's defensive posture.  (Pardon my sarcasm.)

 

How absurd is all this?  You can't be the most valuable player in the league if you're not on a team that: 

1) doesn't ultimately win; 

2) doesn't win by a very small amount; 

3) isn't saddled with too many other high performance players.

Unless:.

1) no other team is involved in a tight pennant race

2) or if you do have another player having a big year offensively, they slip beneath the radar screen somehow (e.g. Valentin's 1995 season)

3) or if there is another player who has a big year and plays for a team in a tight pennant race, he happens to be a designated hitter (e.g. Edgar's 1995 season)

The total lack of consistent reasoning behind all of this is rather maddening.  By Stark's definition, it's not so much the year a player had...it's who he had it for within the context of all the players on his team (kind of a Goldilocks Syndrome--not too bad, not too good...just right).

I don't know whether I'd vote for Alex Rodriguez for MVP this year, were I to have a vote--I haven't sized up the entire field to date.  I do know, however, that Stark's position on the matter, riddled with circular reasoning and illogical defining of the crucial term certainly wouldn't convince me that doing voting for A-Rod is a bad idea.

Here's another definition of "value" to chew on.  If A-Rod were to have played on any of the teams that are going to (relatively) narrowly miss the playoffs this season--the White Sox, Royals and Mariners--would they have made the cut?  Obviously one can never know for sure, but that's true of any of the players that Stark is touting (Miguel Tejada, Eric Chavez, Shannon Stewart, etc.) as well.  I think a pretty convincing argument could be made for Rodriguez leading both the White Sox and Mariners to the promised land, and I'm not sure that he wouldn't have been the difference for the Royals as well.  

If this isn't value, what is?