MVP vs Newcomer of the Year

Luciano Emilio is up for two overall awards this year in addition to leading in the race for the Budweiser Golden Boot award. There has been some internal discussion amongst the DCenters about whether Luchi is more likely to win the Honda Most Valuable Player award or the MLS Newcomer of the Year award (or both!).

Here are some of the arguments, excerpted from e-mails.

The discussion began when I heard Rob Stone make a comment on Thursday Night Soccer a few weeks ago about Emilio v JPA for league MVP. Paraphrasing, he said that JPA would win the award because of the high quality of players on DCU versus the players on RBNY [snigger]. Essentially JPA stands head and shoulders above his teammates whereas Emilio is just another amazing player from DCU. At first I was confused, because I didn't think that had much to do with it, so I consulted with the DCenters.

D first answered with,

"Personally, I prefer [Ben] Olsen for MVP. If quality of support determines MVP, then Maurice Edu (Toronto FC) should be in the running."

and then Kinney chimed in with,

"It is a common argument among MVP voters. Do you vote for the best player, or do you vote for the player "most valuable" to their team. Take away Emilio and put in a decent striker DC United is still doing pretty well, take away JPA and what happens to the Metros? This is the type of thinking that leads to [Amado] Guevara being voted over [Jaime] Moreno, but without it [Michael] Jordan would have been MVP [in the NBA] for basically every year in the 90's instead of just four of them. This is especially the case in baseball or college football where the disparity is so huge; you usually don't see too many issues in leagues with parity. For example, looking at the history of MLS MVPs, the top scorer or point getter (MLS used to count points like hockey) has never lost out to another striker. This year might be the first. I think that is why Ives on his blog put Emilio as MVP but JPA as best newcomer."

Oscar responds thusly,

"It's an interesting dichotomy - I can see how a player could have one value to his team (Emilio) and have a different perceived value in the rest of the league. That is, while he might not be the MVP as a player for DC, drop him on any number of other teams, assuming he replicates his performance, and he'd be an MVP shoe-in, no problem.

I hate the Guevara/JPA MVP argument because in those cases, it's usually one player making a crappy team noticeably less crappy. If NY was #1 in the east, then you might convince me, but when they're losing to TFC..."

D finally decided we should define what to be the MVP actually means,

"Personally, I would evaluate the MVP of the league as "who had the most value to the league" instead of to the team. To me, Emilio's goal scoring has been more interesting and valuable on a league wide basis (since goals are highlights, and he's provided a ton of them). That also allows us, if we want to, to say Olsen is more valuable to the team, but perhaps less to the league."

Oscar then pointed out that D's definition could lead us down ridiculous paths,

"Umm, then you could argue that Sir David Beckham should be the MVP this year. It could work if you were crazy and insane, but it could be done."

Of course, no one is nominating Becks as league MVP. But also, no one is denying that his value to league is huge. RFK was sold out. The Meadowlands were at or near capacity. But what about longer term? As soon as the Galaxy left DC, attendance moved back to normal levels. But in the next few years, as more international players like Emilio, Fred, JPA, Denilson, C. Blanco, G.B. Schelotto, Beckham, etc) make their mark in the league and increase the overall level of play, isn't there an argument about these players having the biggest impact on the league, of being the "most valuable" to the league?

Two points here.

1. I'll answer my own question by saying, "of course". And that's why the league created the MLS Newcomer of the Year award. These players aren't rookies but their instantaneous value to the league has to be acknowledged.
2. Emilio, should he win the Golden Boot award, should be seen as the first player of his kind to come to the league and dominate it. Even if he is edged tonight by JPA against LAG, he's been leading the stat category for the whole season, and I think that other teams in the league have had to scramble to go out to sign internationals of their own. That's where Emilio's value to the league lies. Not only has he scored 20 goals this season, not only has he been named player of the week three times this season, but I consider him one of the first internationals to make other teams sit up and say, "hey - DCU might be on to something here."

Please add your own thoughts in the comments.

Quote of the Day

I will be getting to the Toronto Debrief presently, I just thought I would share this quote from Juan Pablo Angel with my fellow DC United fans. Hattip to Du Nord.

Angel looks back with satisfaction at his first four months in North America. "It has been terrific. I have enjoyed every single minute of my new life over here," he says. "The team is not the best in the league, and might even be considered one of the poortest, but in general everything is fine."

The Exaltation of Juan Pablo Angel

Pop Quiz: Who has more goals this year, Juan Pablo Angel, or the rest of the New York Red Bulls combined? The correct answer is the latter, but I'll forgive you if you thought it was the former. Angel has nine goals for the Red Bulls, and the remainder of the team has fifteen (Mathis with 5, Altidore with 3, and Kovalenko with 2 lead the pack). Yet there has been an emerging trend recently, the idea that Juan Pablo Angel is "tearing the rest of the league up." Let's think about why so much is being made of one player...

That Angel has made a difference is undeniable, and he certainly deserves much credit for providing a great deal of offensive punch for a team that was mediocre in scoring in 2006 (7th in terms of goals scored). Yet one can't help but detect a certain degree of Eurocentric snobbery in some of the praise he is receiving. The idea being advanced by a certain type of soccer commentator is that Angel is simply at a different level than the rest of MLS, and that your typical MLS defender is simply no match for what Angel brings to the field. One example is here, but there are others that you might read, or hear, from various people. These pundits simply believe that most MLS Defenses should just sit down on the pitch with their beverage of choice and appreciate the brilliance of Angel's play, since it is clearly impossible to mark the man given our stumbling, incoherent talent.

Has Angel been brilliant? Certainly he's had great moments, and done exactly what a designated player acquisition is supposed to do: Make an immediate, high level impact for your team. And for many of these commentators, it's an easy choice to make to praise Angel. They'd be uncomfortable making the same noises about Beckham, it would sound too much like they had become the giggling schoolgirls they detest. But Angel is a different story. He comes from West Ham, and that's Academy of Football! Aston Villa. You have to respect a player from that club. To boot, he was rarely more than mediocre there, clearly an indictment of the MLS level of play if a mediocre player can have such an effect here. Angel confirms and conforms to the natural prejudices of such writers, so all credit for the Red Bulls goes to him. It's such a lovely image, it's a shame to spoil it.

The facts that argue against Angel as the savior of New York are simple. The Red Bulls were resurgent even before he suited up to them for the first time. They had a respectable 3-2-2 record before Angel scored his first league goal against Columbus. They were clearly better than they had shown previously. The resurrection of Clint Mathis predates Angel, and while Angel certainly gives Mathis an easier time, Clint had already shown his form was better than we had seen in years.

Since joining the Bulls, it's not as though no team has figured out how to defend Angel either. United denied him service and would quickly deny him space when he did receive the ball, surrendering only a garbage goal after the game had been decided. And while I love United, it's not exactly a defensive line that I'd call "elite" at the moment. So clearly an average defense can hold Angel in check, and even better backlines may present rough going. How will Angel fair against New England, whose backline excels at neutralizing obvious scoring threats?

It also does a disservice to the many other players that are helping New York. We've mentioned Mathis, but credit should also been given to Dema Kovalenko, who fights for that team and provides a spirit they've rarely seen, and to Dave Van Den Berg, who has quietly put together a strong resume as someone who brings vision to the field. Further, the pundits are completely ignoring Bruce Arena. Some of this, no doubt, is because media personalities find Bruce somewhat distressing. He doesn't make their lives easy. Yet Bruce Arena is the one primarily responsible for remaking that team. He has gotten New York to play a game that accentuates their strengths and plays away from their weaknesses. They do have weaknesses, and injury problems in the back have certainly exacerbated them, but what Arena has done this year is remarkable. He knows what problems his team has, and he plays around them. The defense was problematic, but he had gotten New York to defend as a team, even if it means stranding Angel up top. When transitioning from defense to attack, the team never breaks pell-mell, but rather plays a controlled system designed to minimize potential countering opportunities to their opponents. That's Arena, bringing in players to execute his plans and training them well enough to do it. Look at the team's home/away splits (to borrow a baseball term). Arena has that team playing well in the Meadowlands, because he knows what to do to take advantage of the turf and environment. The result is the paltry 4 home goals conceded to date, second best only to Chivas USA, and that's with a below average defense for most games. However, Arena was the scape-goat of 2006, even I was disappointed with his choices, but I can recognize when he deserves credit as well. But giving him credit may be a bit much for his detractors, though much of the success in New York belongs to him.

It's a slightly more complicated story than "Angel dominates MLS," but it's the one I think has more basis in reality. And it certainly will make New York harder for other teams to deal with. Marking Angel out of a game is one challenge, but it is not the entire challenge.