Just a few weeks ago, it seemed like everybody was weighing in with their opinions on the end-of-year MLB award voting. That's died down a little lately, as attention turned to the Red Sox and Rays and, to a lesser extent, the Braves and Cardinals. Playoff races get priority, and where there weren't compelling playoff races for a time, there are compelling playoff races now.
The MVP Award, And An Additional Consideration
People decide on their MVPs based on a number of considerations. Should a player’s salary be one of them? The author wants your input!
But the MLB awards are still a subject of conversation - see Rob Neyer's piece on Justin Verlander and the MVP - and the conversations will heat back up in the future. Especially the conversation about the American League MVP. There are a number of good candidates, from Verlander to Curtis Granderson to Jacoby Ellsbury to Jose Bautista to Dustin Pedroia, and I honestly don't know which way the voting's going to go.
With that in mind, I want to talk about the MVP a little bit. Not specifically this MVP, but the MVP award in general. And in particular, I’m curious: should a player’s salary be a consideration, or should it be ignored?
I can’t claim this thought as my own. I swear I saw it written by somebody else some years ago. I just don’t remember the name of the author, so I can’t track down a link. Just take my word for it: this is not my idea. This is me passing along somebody else’s idea.
If you believe that the MVP should be awarded to the league’s most outstanding player, then no, obviously salaries should not be taken into consideration. The best player is the best player on the field, and salaries don’t matter on the field. If one guy gets paid $30 million, and another guy gets paid $3 million, and the first guy has a 1.000 OPS while the second guy has an .800 OPS, then the first guy would be more deserving.
But what if you believe that there’s more to the MVP than simply finding the guy with the best numbers? What if you, like so many people, get hung up on the word “valuable”? The official voting criteria is less than specific about what makes a perfect candidate. This leaves room for interpretation on the voter’s part. This is why we’ve seen arguments citing a player’s performance in the clutch. This is why we’ve seen arguments citing a player’s team’s place in the standings.
And this is why I think salary might belong, too. If you’re going to worry about the word “valuable,” well, salary is part of what determines a player’s value, is it not?
Consider the following extreme and hypothetical example. Player A and Player B are equal in performance. Their numbers could not be more alike, and they are clearly the two best players in the league. Now, Player A has a salary of $20 million for a team with a payroll of $60 million, and Player B has a league-minimum salary for another team with a payroll of $60 million. Which player is more deserving of the MVP?
If you’re going to worry about the ‘V’, it would have to be Player B, wouldn’t it? His salary was less of a burden. Less of an obstacle, allowing for greater team flexibility. In theory, the team had more money to pay better players to put around him.
If you consider salary in that situation, you have to consider salary in all situations. Maybe to a lesser degree, since realistic situations aren’t so extreme.
Okay. Now then, if salary is a consideration for the MVP, does this unfairly penalize veterans who get paid more than young players do? Does it matter? Are good young players not commonly referred to as the most valuable assets in baseball?
And then, if salary is a consideration for the MVP, wouldn’t that kind of go against the spirit of the whole thing, where the MVP is supposed to be determined by individual (and, arguably, team) performance?
I’ve considered all angles that I can think of, and I don’t have an answer. I think there’s a very convincing case to be made that salary should matter, at least a little. On the other hand, I don’t want salary to matter, since I don’t think awards should be given based in any part on how much a guy gets paid. That just doesn’t feel right.
And that’s why I’m opening this up to a reader poll. You tell me what you think! Should salary be ignored, or should salary not be ignored? The choice is in your hands!
See More:
