From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: MVP
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 02:28:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.002840.17858@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>Geez, I was warned to not get into a discussion with you.  Now I know why.
Yes, because I get logic/facts to support my point.  Better get advice 
from someone who's more logical.

>The MVP, Most Valuable Player, is the player who is determined to be the
>most valuable to his team during the regular season.  
Is that your interpretation or the voters'?

>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.  
If you got three great tailbacks on your team, but one has to sit out
the season because of injury and one doesn't play at all due to a contract
dispute, then how isn't the one that actually plays as valuable as the
lone great tailback on another team?

But this is NOT how I got into this argument. What got me into it was
your "It doesn't even sound to me like Young is the best QB on his own 
team, how could he be the MVP of the league?" How can two inactive
QBs be better than one who actually played 16 games? There is no 
evidence that they are better QB. One had an injured elbow and was
unable to throw. The other one, though healthy, can't beat out Young. 

>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?  
1) That's a totally different issue that I'll address.
2) If Young isn't in there you put in Bono and he does the same thing
!= Bono actually played better than Young, because the antecedent of
your proposition is NOT true. So the fact remains:

  Young played better than Bono.

regardless of whether Bono is better than Young by other criteria.

As far as "having capable back ups => the player is not that valuable"
is concerned, this is a flawed logic. I addressed that a
month ago. With your logic, Eric Andelsek and Mike Utley should be
co-MVPs in 1992.

>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.
Guess who'll get more MVP votes this year, Sanders or Young? Why?

Apparently your "Sanders > Young because if Sanders goes out who
comes in and takes his place?" logic does NOT hold in MVP voting.

>Young has had a great year and is statistically the best QB in the league.
>He took over for their other QB who was statistically the best QB in the
>league.  Some of the "experts" around here think that Bono is just as good
>as Young.  To me that reads that any *one* of them is not that valuable to
>their team as, say, Barry Sanders is to his team.
It just means that you have a different MVP selection criteria,
namely, the "without XXX his team sucks" criteria. I have been on this
thread for years in the Magic vs Jordan and Gretzky vs Lemieux MVP
wars. Unfortunately, your criteria is only a minority opinion that
doesn't hold in MVP voting. As far as NFL's AP MVP is concerned, since 
the 80s, the teams that produced the MVPs combined for a .807 winning %, 
an average of 12.9 wins/season. All of them were division winners. All 
but one were #1 seeds in the conference.
 
In other words, the award is always given out to the key player on
a powerhouse. Don't like it? Start a campaign for the WHHTS "without
him his team sucks" award.

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com