From: heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	)
Subject: Re: MVP
Organization:  University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center
Distribution: usa
Date: 29 DEC 92 09:00:51    

In article <1992Dec29.003918.18953@netcom.com>, mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes...

>In article <1992Dec29.002840.17858@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
> 
>>The MVP, Most Valuable Player, is the player who is determined to be the
>>most valuable to his team during the regular season.  If I've got three
>>great tailbacks on my team then *individually* they are not as valuable
>>as the team that only has one great tailback.  Do you understand the logic
>>here?  If Young isn't in there you put in Bono who "could start for any
>>other team" and he does the same thing.  How "valuable" does that make
>>Young?  Look at Barry Sanders, if Sanders goes out who comes in and takes
>>his place?  Do you think Sanders might be a little more valuable to his
>>team than Young is to his?  I think most people would say yes.  People who
>>weren't just being argumentative that is.
> 
>There's a qualification to this.  The player in question must be greatly
>contributing to his team's success in the season in question.  No matter
>how great Sanders is, his team is likely to finish 5-11, and Barry has
>been around for most of the year (no?).
> 
>You're being too literal here (no doubt inspired by the impending selection
>of a hated Niner).  The V in MVP hasn't been taken literally for ages, if
>ever.  The award almost always goes to a player who:
> 
>o has an outstanding personal season
>o is on a team that's kicking butt
>o is at a "skill" position on offense
> 
>I think this pretty well covers it.

I think you're both right to some degree.  I don't agree with Gordon's 
logic for denying Young the award but if he's saying that when trying 
to decide who is MVP you have to consider how much a team's depends on 
any one player, I would agree.  But by this criteria alone John Elway 
would be a lock (and should have gotten the award for the last 5 years 
in a row.)  Sterling Sharpe would be runner up.

But you can't give the award to someone just because he's by far the 
best player on his team.  Usually, when a player has an outstanding 
personal season his team depends on him a great deal.  They start 
losing if he's gone.  It's hard to separate the two.

BTW, being an offensive skill position player and being on a winning 
team are *not* criteria for the award.  It's just that, commonly, 
these are the players that are picked.

>So, Young's a QB (generally acknowledged to be the most important
>position).  He's not leading the league in passing, but he's way
>far out in front of #2 (at least in his conference; I don't have
>AFC numbers handy).  And his team will probably have the best record
>in the league.  No one has better claim to the award this year.

The term "most important position" is meaningless in football.  It's 
like asking what's the most important part of a car.  There is no most 
important part because there are lot's of parts without which the car 
doesn't run at all.

>If you're really interested in a crusade, start pointing out to people
>that the real inequity is that linemen and most defensive players never
>have a shot, and so are given their own little awards.  Did LT, Singletary

I believe defensive players *have* won the award.  It's an injustice 
that more haven't won it.  Suggesting that the award should go to a 
offensive player just because it always has is a crummy argument.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro