I stated two weeks ago that I believe that Alex Rodriguez should win the MVP Award, and I haven't changed my mind. At the time, I thought Alfonso Soriano was Rodriguez' biggest rival... but now Oakland has won 20 in a row and Miguel Tejada has also become a serious candidate. They are both terrific players having outstanding seasons, but there is a small problem in that A-Rod does, well, everything better than Tejada.

The funny thing about the MVP Award these days is how little the debate has to do with the players anymore. The one constant in this year's debate is that everybody thinks that Alex Rodriguez is the best player in the American League. I have yet to hear anyone suggest that A-Rod is anything but the best.

That's why he is my choice for MVP. I think that the MVP Award should go to the best player in the league. It is simple and logical, and puts the focus on studying the numbers and trying to figure out who the heck is the best of the best. Yes, the Rangers have had a disappointing year, but wins are a team stat; this award is about recognizing individuals.

The truth is, however, that no such criteria exists in award voting. Individual voters may vote for the best player in the league or the best player on the best team in the league or the best player whom they have never voted for before or, if all else fails, the player with the most RBI. There is no consistency to the voting. Cal Ripken won the MVP in 1983; a year later, he had the exact same season, and received one measly vote.

What the MVP debate has become, then, is a debate over who has the best definition of what an MVP is. Instead of choosing which player best fits the given criteria, writers are constructing their own criteria to best fit their favourite player. And they can choose anybody; it is impossible to argue against A-Rod's statistics, therefore the debate has to be turned away from stats towards something that cannot be measured. Fans who want to read about baseball are instead subjected to endless philosophical essays from the sports media about why their definition of an MVP is so much better than anyone else's.

As if that isn't enough, we also get subjected to hilarious, bogus facts, like the one about how Rodriguez could become the first player in 15 years to win the MVP while playing on a last-place team. Hey, don't look now, but not only are the Rangers not the worst team in the league, they're not even close. (And on a similar topic, how did Alfonso Soriano suddenly become such an irreplacable player on a team that won four World Championships without him?)

Cut the crap, guys; thirty years from now, no one is going to care about the personal biases of today's sportwriters. They're only going to wonder why Alex Rodriguez did so poorly in the MVP vote, just like my generation wonders how the heck Hank Aaron only managed to win one award.

Decide on what the MVP is, and work from there. If it's the best player in the league, then vote for Alex Rodriguez. If it's the best player on a playoff team, then vote for Jason Giambi or Bernie Williams. If it's the best player on a playoff team whom you haven't voted for in the past, then it's Miguel Tejada or Alfonso Soriano. Or hell, just vote for the RBI leader, who in this case is... Alex Rodriguez.

As for the National League... well, yes, I have heard arguments in favour of Lance Berkman or Shawn Green, but they have been few and far between, especially since Barry Bonds just hit about .440 in August. Geez, it's taken Barry a .367 batting average, a .575 on-base percentage and a .816 slugging percentage to ensure that the best player in the league might actually win the MVP.