- Commissioner’s statement on Ventura, Marte
- Ronnie O’Sullivan: Masters champion ‘felt so vulnerable’ in final
- Arron Fletcher Wins 2017 WSOP International Circuit Marrakech Main Event ($140,224)
- Smith challenges Warner to go big in India
- Moncada No. 1 on MLB Pipeline’s Top 10 2B Prospects list
- Braves land 2 on MLB Pipeline’s Top 10 2B Prospects list
- Kingery makes MLB Pipeline’s Top 10 2B Prospects list
- New Zealand wrap up 2-0 after Bangladesh implosion
- Mathews, Pradeep, Gunathilaka to return to Sri Lanka
- Elliott hopes for rain for Poli
Bryant rising to top in crowded NL MVP race
- Updated: September 13, 2016
Voters for the 2016 National League Most Valuable Player award are faced with a dilemma.
It’s not an ethical dilemma. It’s not even an empirical dilemma. It’s more of a definitional dilemma.
We start from the basic premise that two of the prime candidates for the award are Cubs — Kris Bryant and Anthony Rizzo. Their credentials are clearly in order.
Daniel Murphy of the Nationals is deservedly in the conversation along with rookie Corey Seager of the Dodgers. Nolan Arenado of the Rockies is having a terrific season, but recent history with this award suggests that players from sub-.500 teams do not generally have this award bestowed upon them. You can feel free to insert your own favorite candidate for purposes of this discussion.
As a voter in this election, I’m listening closely to the two basic schools of thought on this matter. One is that with two MVP candidates on the same team, someone else must be the most valuable player. I have heard Murphy advocates use exactly this argument.
It is, on one hand, sensible, and on the other hand, arbitrary. It also underscores the basic notion of “most valuable player” being potentially different than “the best player.” That could be the same individual, although that split occurred in the American League MVP voting in 2012 and 2013 when Mike Trout of the Angels may have been the best player in the …
