JJ WATT MVP
Scottiec2288
Posts: 911 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
JJ Watt was robbed of MVP last night. He was hands down Defensive player of the year receiving all 50 votes. Rodgers didn't even win Offensive player of the year and wins MVP. Is this some kind of Joke!!!
0
Comments
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>JJ Watt was robbed of MVP last night. He was hands down Defensive player of the year receiving all 50 votes. Rodgers didn't even win Offensive player of the year and wins MVP. Is this some kind of Joke!!! >>
If they would just go ahead and rename the award MVQB, it would be easier to understand. To me, the fact Houston didnt make the playoffs is irrelevant.
Houston maybe wins 2-3 games without Watt. No other player is more important to his team than Watt. Rodgers is a slam dunk for 2nd though.
<< <i>JJ Watt was robbed of MVP last night. He was hands down Defensive player of the year receiving all 50 votes. Rodgers didn't even win Offensive player of the year and wins MVP. Is this some kind of Joke!!! >>
Being from Wisconsin I didn't care who won. Watt was dominant for the league as a whole but Rodgers was dominant for his team. It depends which way you look at it. And you do have to remember this is the AP we are talking about. Most of these guys voted Floyd Little in the HOF the other year.
<< <i>
<< <i>JJ Watt was robbed of MVP last night. He was hands down Defensive player of the year receiving all 50 votes. Rodgers didn't even win Offensive player of the year and wins MVP. Is this some kind of Joke!!! >>
If they would just go ahead and rename the award MVQB, it would be easier to understand. To me, the fact Houston didnt make the playoffs is irrelevant.
Houston maybe wins 2-3 games without Watt. No other player is more important to his team than Watt. Rodgers is a slam dunk for 2nd though. >>
It's an MVP award not an MOP award. Watt is most outstanding, arguably, but Pack don't make playoffs without Rodgers.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>It's an MVP award not an MOP award. Watt is most outstanding, arguably, but Pack don't make playoffs without Rodgers. >>
Just wondering what you, and the others who said something similar, feel about Joe Gordon winning the MVP over Ted Williams in 1942, when Williams won the Triple Crown. Different sport, same issue.
Is it the Most Valuable Player award - the player who added the most value to his team - or the Most Valuable Player on a Good Team award, and everyone on a bad team is ineligible?
<< <i>
<< <i>It's an MVP award not an MOP award. Watt is most outstanding, arguably, but Pack don't make playoffs without Rodgers. >>
Just wondering what you, and the others who said something similar, feel about Joe Gordon winning the MVP over Ted Williams in 1942, when Williams won the Triple Crown. Different sport, same issue.
Is it the Most Valuable Player award - the player who added the most value to his team - or the Most Valuable Player on a Good Team award, and everyone on a bad team is ineligible? >>
Personally, I didn't think Andre Dawson deserved to win the MVP either. They can finish last with him or without him.
I would have voted for Ted Williams, however, as the Sox were in contention that year, finishing second, and the disparity between Williams and Gordon was much greater, imo, than the disparity between Rodgers and Watt. I don't think anyone, outside of the most ardent Houston or Watt fans, can claim that Rodgers was NOT deserving..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Personally, I didn't think Andre Dawson deserved to win the MVP either. They can finish last with him or without him.
I would have voted for Ted Williams, however, as the Sox were in contention that year, finishing second, and the disparity between Williams and Gordon was much greater, imo, than the disparity between Rodgers and Watt. I don't think anyone, outside of the most ardent Houston or Watt fans, can claim that Rodgers was NOT deserving.. >>
I'm with you on Dawson, for sure, but not because his team finished last but rather because he simply wasn't very good that year.
But Dawson aside, your position is that players on good teams don't necessarily have to win the MVP, but they should be given a substantial head start over players on bad teams, and only if a player on a bad team outperforms a player on a good team by, say, 50%, can he get his name in the MVP discussion. I'm not crazy about that standard.
As an aside, determining who is better among two baseball players is a relatively straightforward exercise, with a very low margin of error. Determining objectively who was better among two football players is virtually impossible, and it is impossible comparing an offensive player to a defensive player. I don't have any real objection to Rodgers winning the MVP, but I do have a philosophical objection to eliminating from consideration the player who may very well be the "best" in the league (if there was any way of knowing that) simply because his teammates stunk. Sure, if the Texans had lost every game by 40 points then it would be hard to argue that Watt added much value, but the fact is they won quite a few games, and they won most of them, maybe all of them, primarily because Watt was on the team. I'd have voted for Watt mostly because I am sick and tired of QBs and RBs winning the award every damn year, but also because I think he has just as much claim to being the "most valuable player" as anyone else in the league, regardless of how bad his teammates were.
I would agree. Also, I think it's important to note that voting for an MVP is a much more subjective endeavor, by definition, than voting for who is the better player.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
It is an individual award and should not be awarded on the basis of team performance. In fact, a great player on a bad team has MORE value to his team than a great player on a great team.
MVP award over the years in many of the sports seems to be the most argued about.
Ted Williams won the Triple Crown twice and batted .406 in another year and wasn't MVP in any of those years. While a batting streak is impressive, I fail to see how it helps a team any more than batting .400 for an entire year. 1947 was a complete joke, Williams' WAR was TWICE that of DiMaggio's. OPS was 1.133 to .913 so it was obvious the writers voted against Ted because he was hard to get along with.
Watt is quite impressive, but Green Bay is not going to be very good without Rogers. Quarterback is going to be a MVP position in football as it is a super high value position.
As stated in another thread, Mickey Mantle could/should have won MVP about 7-9 times between 1954-64 if you go by WAR, 1958 was a complete joke, he was the best player AND played on the best team!
"Well, we can't give it to the same guy every year"........................why not, if he is the best????????????????
Looking to BUY n332 1889 SF Hess cards and high grade cards from 19th century especially. "Once you have wrestled everything else in life is easy" Dan Gable