Mike Trout and the Need for Logical Consistency
On Monday night, Ken Rosenthal wrote something of a plea to his fellow BBWAA members; stop looking for reasons to give the MVP award to anyone besides Mike Trout.
My fear is that in 20 years people are going to say, “Trout led the majors in combined OPS-plus from 2012 to ’16 and won only one MVP in those five seasons? What the heck were the writers thinking?”
Shame on us if, instead of celebrating Mike Trout, we keep looking for the next best thing.
It’s a good piece, and given Rosenthal’s standing in the baseball writing community, it could have some influence on the 30 voters who have AL MVP ballots this year. And if you’ve read FanGraphs for the last few years, you probably know that most of us writing here agree with his stance; the idea that Trout is somehow less valuable because his teammates stink is not an argument that I give much credence to.
But I also have been doing this long enough to realize that a good number of people are entrenched on this issue, believing that production on a losing team is not valuable; we’ve all heard some version of “The Angels could have finished in last without him” trope. The (unfortunate) reality is that this idea isn’t going away any time soon, and it’s likely that a bunch of AL MVP voters will continue with the tradition of voting for the best player on a playoff team.
So here’s what I would like to add to Ken’s plea to our BBWAA brethren; if you’re going to argue that Trout cannot be more valuable than one of Mookie Betts, Josh Donaldson, or Manny Machado, because his teammates didn’t let him turn his production into value, then extend that belief throughout your ballot. Own the idea of value being exclusively created by team wins and playoff appearances, and apply it to every place on the ballot, not just the top spot.
The results of the last four MVP votes show just how inconsistently this philosophy is applied, as Mike Trout has finished second in all three of the years he didn’t win the award. The year he did win, of course, the Angels won 98 games and advanced to the playoffs, but in the other three years, he finished behind Miguel Cabrera (twice) and Josh Donaldson, who played on playoff teams, and clearly got a voting boost because of it. But in those years, he finished ahead of other great players on playoff teams; Adrian Beltre and Robinson Cano in 2012, Donaldson in 2013, and Lorenzo Cain last year, for instance.
Those guys weren’t as good as Trout in those years, but if Trout’s performance couldn’t create enough value to rank ahead of Cabrera or Donaldson because his team was bad, why did it create enough value to rank ahead of other great players whose teams did make the postseason? Why are we only applying this idea that production is not value to the top spot on the list, then ignoring it entirely in spots 2 through 10. Either Trout’s performance on a losing team is valuable or it isn’t; putting him behind one inferior player on a winning team, but in front of the other players with similar cases, doesn’t work logically.
With all due respect to Betts, Donaldson, and Macahado, the race, once again, isn’t all that close. This isn’t like last year, where Donaldson was basically Trout’s equal, and there was nothing wrong with picking one or the other. As Neil Weinberg wrote a few weeks ago, Trout is running away with the title of best player in the AL no matter what kind of metrics you want to use. He’s been the best hitter in the league, the third best baserunner, and he plays an up-the-middle position. If we’re basing the voting on production, it’s just not close; no one is anywhere near matching Trout’s individual performance.
So if a voter wants to apply a big enough penalty for playing on a losing team to push any of the three winning-team candidates ahead of him, then that penalty necessarily has to be large enough to push Trout behind all three of them. And maybe even behind Adrian Beltre, who has combined terrific context-neutral numbers with a crazy clutch performance for a team that is winning the AL West almost entirely because of clutch performances.
If Mike Trout isn’t valuable enough to finish first this year, he’s also not valuable enough to finish second. There’s just not a consistent logical thought process than can translate his production into value at a rate that allows him to finish behind Betts but ahead of Donaldson or Machado. Really, if you’re going to argue that the Angels could have finished in last place without Trout too, then he shouldn’t even really appear on the ballot at all; there are clearly 10 players on winning teams who have produced real value this year, after all.
But no one actually believes that production on a losing team is entirely valueless, which is why Trout keeps finishing second. Everyone agrees that Trout has been one of the most valuable players in the AL this year. And if he can be one of the most valuable, he can be the most valuable.
Let’s stop treating the top spot on the AL MVP ballot like it is some kind of special place reserved for only certain types of candidates, especially when the voting instructions expressly state that “the MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.” Like Rosenthal said, let’s acknowledge the elephant in the room; one of the greatest players in baseball history is performing at historic levels before our eyes, and he deserves recognition for his accomplishments.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
That doesn’t fit the writer’s narrative though, so it won’t matter. They have players they WANT to vote for, and they build a case around that one player and deny all the other facts.
are you talking about Cameron here?
Cameron’s last paragraph addresses this question.
I would say it depends on how Close it is. Everything within one WAR or so probably can be decided either way if narrative or traditional counting stats say so. For example if one Player has 8.9 WAR but the other one has only 8.0 WAR but wins the triple crown that guy wins, Hands down and probably rightfully so.
but if one leads by clearly more than 1 win it is hard to justify snubbing that Player.
The article in question acknowledges this fact, noting that last season Trout only finished a little ahead of Donaldson so there was more than enough room for writers to give him the nod over Trout without even the staunchest Sabermetricians really grumbling about it. That will not be the case this year. Trout is currently lapping the American league. He is on pace to finish a full 1.5 WAR ahead of the second guy on the list. He could conceivably crack 9 WAR for the forth time in his young career with only one MVP to show for it.
1.5 WAR is a large amount, but only if you have full confidence that the WAR calculations are precise. Considering that fWAR and bWAR are different, that confidence is shaken. According to fWAR Trout is currently up 1.4 bWAR on Betts. In bWAR he is up 1.1. He’s also up 1.5 on Betts in WARP, but I’m not sure if Betts is #2 by their calculations or not.
If I were to guess, a full win is definitely well within the “fudge factor” adjustments for some MVP voters, especially when the performance of the two teams is so starkly different. 1.5 is probably within the range of a subset of those voters as well.
If Trout led by 1.5 +/- by one measure, but Betts was up by another measure, I might take your point. The fact is, Trout leads by ALL MEASURES. There’s no reasonable argument against his selection as MVP either statistically or by any other method of evaluation (eg. the “eye test”). He is significantly better than anyone else in baseball, let alone the AL. He has been since he got here. He is a generational player, and a sure fire Hall of Famer barring major injury, and he just turned 25. Don’t miss this folks.
He might be even more than a generational player – check out this chart I saw posted by High Heat Stats today:
Most WAR, Age 20 to 24 seasons
MIKE TROUT 47.3
Ty Cobb 43.9
Mickey Mantle 39.5
Alex Rodriguez 38.6
Rogers Hornsby 36.5
Jimmie Foxx 34.8
Trout has had the most WAR of any player through age 20, 21, 22 and 23. Also age 24 by rWAR, but he’s a couple of tenths shy of Cobb at fWAR. Should pass him by the end of the season.
Just to put an exclamation point on those WAR numbers, Bryce Harper will have about 21-22 career WAR by the end of this season (at 21.2 right now)
Bingo. I’ll just add that Betts is not second at BBPro–K. Seager is–and the gap between Betts and third at the other two sites is considerably less than the gap between Trout and Betts. So even if one wants to argue that the uncertainty in WAR is greater than the gap between Trout and Betts, logically, there is no reason to take Betts, either.
I dare say you reconsider. Perhaps you may not find it “reasonable” but the preference for players on winning teams is a perfectly acceptable interpretation of “valuable.”
The other problem is you are accepting that WAR values are the end all, be all of value. This is a statistic that did not exist 20 years ago and still is not standardized nor is there any expectation that it will be any time soon. If you we able to tell me the exact WAR value, perhaps through some sorcery, and told me Trout was really 2 wins more valuable than Betts, I would find that believable. If you told me he was a half win more valuable, I would also believe that. It is not a precise measurement especially when it comes to defense. I love the statistic but I consider anything within a half win difference to be basically a rounding error and have my doubts at times for even full win differences, especially for unusual cases.
Paul, I can understand some skepticism of WAR and the desire to not make it the end-all, be-all. However, my question to you would be what statistic (or statistics) would you suggest that could show that someone else is more valuable than Trout? Or is this sentiment solely based on the fact that Trout does not play for a winning team? Because while a lot of us Trout supporters do use WAR heavily, our arguments aren’t exclusively based upon it. As Dave mentioned, Trout has been the best hitter in the league, and third best baserunner, while playing a premium position.
I do not disagree that Trout is the best player in the AL and barring some bizarre outcomes in the next couple of weeks will remain so. I’m also deeply suspicious of Betts being near Trout in WAR, given Betts is being boosted by right field defense. However, MVP voting based solely on the best player is not how MVPs are voted on and never has been.
The argument put forth here is that when a player is 1+ WAR higher than anyone else, he should win the MVP automatically. Given the imprecision of WAR and the disputes on how it should be calculated – measuring defense is HARD and even offense has its quirks with park factors and the like – I vehemently disagree with that assertion. Under certain circumstances, a 1 WAR difference could be an illusion, a rounding error, a mistake. A 2 WAR lead could in reality be actually a 3 WAR lead or a 1 WAR lead. Given that voters, even if they are logically consistent, will value subjective measures differently, even indisputable 1 WAR or even 2 WAR leads can be overcome for MVP consideration. This is perfectly reasonable.
Hmm. With all due respect, I think you might be misunderstanding what the argument is. I don’t think anyone here is saying the WAR leader should be the automatic MVP. So if you’re simply making a general, principled statement about not being slaves to WAR then I agree – but I don’t think you’re really countering anyone here. After all, what Dave was trying to explain (and what others have echoed) is that pretty much every metric suggests Trout is the most valuable player.
v2micca – Great answer. Within 1 WAR, I can at least see the reasoning of having a different player win the MVP assuming that the player’s team is in the playoff picture. Seems to me it’s just common sense.
I’m usually not crying about negative votes, but please help me understand. We are at FG here, so do you really not have enough confidence in WAR to not see a 1.5 Gap as significant?
I have no Problem with a guy ignoring lets say a .6 WAR difference but 1.5 is a pretty big gap if you have any faith in WAR. Yes there are different WARs and that is a source of uncertainity if it is really Close but if trout clearly leads all three that is a sign there is something to it unless you are one of those guys who gets his Information at ESPN and Yahoo (now that remark deserves some downvotes:)) and believes there is some Kind of built in trout Bonus in WAR.
Great read, but disagree. It is not an “all or nothing”. My personal opinion is that, when looking at MVP voting, a player’s “floor” for their value should be their WAR, but other factors (such as making the playoffs) can help. I built a model that looks at the improvement to each team’s odds of making the playoffs if the player had been swapped with a completely average player at the same position. I then discount this “playoff bump” since the benefit of each margin win (the most important/valuable for most teams on the cusp), should not solely be given to one player.
So trout would still be worth his 8.7 WAR, since his team had no chance of making the playoffs with or without him. But a player like Mookie Betts, who has 7.3 WAR, might get a 1.2 times “playoff multiplier” as his WAR were better leveraged by his team.
Pros to this way of looking at things: Mike Trout still might win MVP, and still values great performances on bad teams (or great performances on Amazing teams, like Bryant in NL). Also negates the negative of championship index that basically only values teams on the cusp.
Cons: Some people still don’t like the idea that a player provided more “value” based on the performance of his team mates (fair). However, playoffs matter, and not all “performances” are equally valuable. Joe Carter’s homerun to win the WS was more valuable to the histories of baseball than one by Nick Markakis on a Tuesday in June.
Feel free to disagree, but I am not a fan of the “all or nothing” approach.
Fixed: “Feel free to disagree, but I am not a fan of the “logical consistency” approach.
There’s no logical consistency in insisting that contention must be a binary variable.
Value is not a “logic” proposition. A historically great player plays for a historically bad team that is going nowhere with or without his “value” contribution.
The point isn’t that picking Trout is the only logical option, it’s that placing Trout in the middle of that group doesn’t make sense. Either you put him ahead or consistent reasoning would put him behind all of them.
Also, the smugness of some of these logic dogmatists makes playing the devil’s advocate more enjoyable.
Why do playoffs matter? Isn’t it mostly about money? So why not give the MVP to the player who increases attendance the most?
I’m inclined to agree. There is a false dichotomy being constructed here. Either you value team success or you value individual excellence. There is a more nuanced middle ground. Picking an MVP seems as much art as science.
People who value team success ought be unconcerned with individual awards. Unless they value team success but need a face to put with teh team success.
Back in my day we called that a team captain.
The whole MVP debate is about as fun as the HoF voting, for the same reason — the gatekeepers have destroyed its cachet, at least to this fan.
You suggest that your argument is nuanced and Dave’s is crude, but I don’t see it at all. Dave IS talking about Trout’s contributions to his team – he just doesn’t think that his contributions should somehow be blotted out (or even docked a slot or two in the MVP ballot) because the guys who share a locker room with him don’t pull their weight.
As I see it, we already have awards for teams, in the form of playoff appearances, trophies, and whatnot. The MVP is for players, and Mike Trout has contributed more to his team than any player in the American League.
I’m not suggesting that the authors argument is crude. I’m suggesting it seems needlessly narrow and rigid. The suggestion that trout should either finish first or be left off the ballot completely strikes me as oddly miopic.
Chill, so how can you logically explain this hypothetical example: if you have 4 guys on playoff-bound teams (call them A, B, C, and D) with practically indistinguishable stats (except that one maybe stands out a tiny bit, let’s call him A), and then you have one guy who beats all of them statistically in most categories and is generally regarded as the best all around player in the game (let’s call him T), and then your MVP vote order goes: A, T, B, C, D. Why was “T’ not good enough to be placed ahead of “A” but good enough to be shoe-horned between “A” and “B,C,D”. THAT’s what Dave is saying makes no sense because, obviously, the criteria used for the first place vote is not CONSISTENTLY APPLIED for the 2nd, 3rd, etc. place votes.
I am amazed at how many people on these comments seem to have missed the entire point of this article.
I understand the point of the article. I just disagree with it. My favorite MVP race was way back in 1985. Mattingly beat out Brett to win the hardware. In the last week of the season George Brett hit 5 home runs and lead his team to a division title even though the royals had trailed by a game and a half entering the final week of the season. Brett did this with Steve Balboni batting behind him. Mattingly meanwhile had an amazing season batting after Rickey Henderson and in front of Dave Winfield. The stats may have clearly favored Mattingly (all the traditional ones did – I don’t have the WAR numbers in front of me) and yet for my money George Brett was obviously the MVP. Mattingly was just as obviously the second place finisher in MVP that year, in my view. Mattingly may well have been the better player that season but Brett was nearly as good, and much much better than anyone when it counted. Does that push Mattingly further down the ballot ir off it completely? Of course not. Brett’s performance pushed to the front of the line, in my view, it didn’t obviate Mattingly’s performance completely, it just trumped it. Again in my view. Trout is unquestionably the most complete and outstanding player in baseball today, maybe if all time. That doesn’t automatically mean that his performance is the most valuable in any given season. I don’t find those two truths in any way incongruent. Ymmv.
A needlessly narrow or rigid argument is a crude argument (as in something that shows little finesse or nuance). And you misstate Dave’s argument. He’s not saying Trout should be #1 or off the ballot. He’s saying that by the logic of those who claim Trout shouldn’t be MVP (b/c he did not play in meaningful games) he should be #1 or left off the ballot.
I don’t think I’m misunderstanding the article in the least. I think you’re misunderstanding my statements. No worries. You and the author have made your points of view quite clear. I continue to respectfully disagree.
Mr. Cameron isn’t advocating an ‘all-or-nothing’ approach. I thought he was, for a bit, but Dave is trying to refute the “all or nothing” position that, because Mike Trout is not on a playoff team, he is not a viable candidate for MVP. He’s saying that the Writers don’t treat “being on a playoff team’ as a pre-condition for receiving MVP votes; they treat it as a factor. And if you treat it as a weighted factor, not as a “necessary but not sufficient condition” you cannot disqualify Trout from the MVP conversation. Cameron concedes that playing for a playoff team is a factor that people appear to use as a kind of tie-breaker, and he doesn’t really quarrel with that.
Careful what you wish for..maybe Trout will end up not getting any votes!
Seriously, there are many examples of this inconsistency. When Cabrera won in 2013, he did have a higher wRC+, and voters argued that overcame defensive deficiencies (though it didn’t). But when Donaldson won last year, the wRC+ gap between Trout and him was at least as great as that between Cabrera and Trout in 2013, with far less a gap in defense, and yet voters argued the difference in hitting between them was not that great.
Also, while it’s true Trout and Donaldson were in a virtual WAR dead heat last year at FG, Trout had more of an edge at BBRef, and blew Donaldson away at BBPro. And even if one wants to discount BBPro completely–not even good enough for a tie-breaker?–a near dead heat doesn’t justify Donaldson’s not simply winning, but by an enormous margin in first place votes.
Yes, Trout had a 52 point lead in OPS, which is a sizable gap, and played in a stronger pitchers park than Donaldson. The defensive evaluations vary a lot from site to site, but it is pretty safe to say that they are both competent but not spectacular at their positions, which are roughly equivalent on the defensive spectrum. To me, it was a slam dunk for Trout even last year.
I don’t think that is safe to say about Donaldson at 3B.
Trout had a 172 wRC+ last year compared to 154 wRC+ for Donaldson. To make up for that, Donaldson would need to be WAY better than Trout on defense. According to most defensive evaluations, he was better, but not enough so to make much difference. For example, in the Fielding Bible voting, Donaldson was 4th at his position, while Trout was 8th. I’m sure you can cherry pick a defensive evaluation that bears out your point, but overall the picture seems to be that Donaldson is slightly better than Trout at his position, at least last year.
Here comes the cherry-pickin’… Josh Donaldson career at 3rd: 48DRS 10.5UZR/150. Mike Trout career in CF: 10DRS 0.3UZR/150. 2015 only: JD 11DRS 9.8UZR/150. MT 5DRS 0.3UZR/150. I don’t see slightly better, I see Donaldson had more DRS in 2015 than Trout has in his career.
Yes, and that defensive edge goes into WAR, and is the reason they were close in WAR at FG and BBRef. OTOH, BBPro actually rated Trout as the better defender in 2015, and as a result he enjoyed an edge of almost 2.5 WAR over Donaldson. You can argue that DRS and UZR are better defensive metrics than BBPro’s FRAA, but the point is, it took the defensive metrics most favorable to Donaldson to make their total WAR close.
My argument was that Donaldson is a better 3B than Trout is a CF. I was replying about a statement made about their defense only. I see more “spectacular” than “competent” for Donaldson at 3B.
The true lack of logical consistency for me about rewarding a player for his team making the playoffs is that no writer ever looks at the players splits from games his team won to those he lost. If value provided when your team misses the playoffs is worth less then why any credit for value when you lose? if you believe one surely the other follows. it’s extremely unlikely to be a big split but if it was there i’d expect it to be put against the player following the daft narrative logic writers use.
This is a straw man. You are pretending the argument is that players only have value if they are on winning teams. That is not the argument. The argument has always been that for a player to win MVP on a losing team their performance has to be massively better than everyone else in the league (e.g. ARod when he won with Texas). There is no logical inconsistency in thinking Trout’s performances have been exceptional relative to the league but not exceptional enough to rank him first in your voting if you think there should be a penalty for playing on a bad team.
So you’re saying the penalty is just enough for Trout to finish second but not big enough for someone like Beltre to pass him? I dunno….seems to be a bit inconsistent to say he has to be massively better than everyone else, when he gets second, not third or fourth on most ballots….
The issue is that each individual voter who takes the traditional approach to the award applies their own penalty, so there is no real way to know whether they have been logically inconsistent or not. However it isn’t necessary that they have been, as Dave is alleging with his either/or scenario.
So you’re saying people arbitrarily change their ballots based on their feelings and the result is not logically inconsistent? Including the fact that they apply different penalties or rewards to different players/teams under the same guise of “playoffs”?
He is saying there is no uniformity. Each voter has their own criteria, their own value/function for the “loser penalty”, so the cummulative result can be inconsistent while the individual voters are each consistent with their function.
Trout could end up at number two because everybody rates him at two or because some see him at one, some at three or five, some at nine. They may value him the same every year (he is nothing if not consistent) but the field varies year to year so his positioning might float depending on the narrative for the competition.
Exactly.
So, fjtorres and London Yank, your answer is *shrug*. Seems a bit of a poor way to think on a site devoted to trying to understand baseball better, but whatever.
The discussion is about understanding the MVP voters rather than baseball in this case. I haven’t actually suggested any answer, but a shrug seems about right.
This isn’t a baseball discussion at all.
It is a baseball *writers* discussion about the “consistency” of baseball writer who, like it or not, are writers first and foremost. So everything they say or do is framed on terms of story, not facts.
It is about trying to build an objective framework out of the writers’ subjective values.
Not a trivial task.
It was easy to sell Donaldson last year. He was the new guy in town and his presence turned the Jays from the AL East afterthought to a contender.
Machado and Betts have fair arguments (as does Kris Bryant), but are just not dominating players. Nobody has been game planning the Red Sox and worrying about Mookie Betts until last month. Machado continues to thrive with deep ball threats hitting 1-7 at Camden.
East coast bias does exist to an extent… fewer people are watching Trout, and ESPN pimps the Red Sox… it will be an uphill fight for justice in this case. He’s going to get “Schmidt” on.
I don’t see how Kris Bryant could possibly have an argument when he has produced 0.0 AL WAR this year.
Actually, by the logic that a player must make the difference in a playoff race,, Bryant would be a strong candidate for AL MVP. If the Astros had drafted him when they had the chance, they would be going to the postseason this year for sure. Bryant’s not ending up in the AL has almost certainly had a huge impact on the AL playoff situation.
Why is “getting into the playoffs” inherently valuable? Especially when it only guarantees one to three actual playoff games.
If Mookie Betts goes 0-6 with six K’s all with the bases loaded in a one run Wildcard game, isn’t that substantially more important than any marginal “Playoff win shares” he added up to that point?
If the playoffs are the #1 Most Valuable Consideration, just wait to give the MVP until after the playoffs when all the “only games that matter” have actually been played.
Yep. Bill James once said that if you took the “MVP has to come from a playoff team” to its logical conclusion, then Bucky Dent should have won the MVP in 1978.
That definitely is not the logical conclusion of the argument. The first 162 games were important for both teams as well.
But, if Dent doesnt hit that HR and they lose, then the games didnt matter because they would have not won the championship. they could have gone 154-0 or 0-154 and the end result is the same without Dent hitting that dinger.
The argument has never been that the team has to win the WS or make the WS. It has always been about getting your team to the playoffs.
Wait, what? The goal is just to make the playoffs now? I think I would prefer a title or three rather than “relax, we made it, just happy to be here!”
London Yank – what argument, when? Where is it now written that your team only has to make it to the playoffs to have a player eligible for MVP votes, but the distance they get into the playoffs has no impact?
MVP voting takes place before the playoffs start specifically so the playoffs do not influence the votes. The distance a team gets in the playoffs is irrelevant to MVP voting.
The traditional view of MVP voting has been to favour the best player on a playoff team. This is the reason Ted Williams routinely lost out to Joe D. There is no rule. MVP voters are given leeway to vote however they wish according to rather vague guidelines. This is just the traditional approach.
I think Ted may have lost to Joe D a few times because of the way he treated the press as well, but point taken, even if I don’t agree with the sentiment in the 2nd paragraph.
Imagine if Gary Sanchez dethrones Trout as WAR leader next year, and the Yankees don’t make the postseason. Think Sanchez will not win the MVP?
Voters are generally not so kind to Yankees players. See for example the HOF cases of Mike Mussina, Willie Randolph, Nettles, Munson, and the MVP votes of Jeter in 2006 and 1999.
Comments about the Yankees not being favoured by BBWAA voting are always poorly received at FanGraphs. What are the examples of undeserved awards for Yankees players though? There are plenty of examples of Yankees players being overlooked as I have pointed out.
Joe Gordon and Yogi Berra over Williams, maybe?
As for your MVP examples:
1999 – Jeter would have been a good choice, but so was Pudge. It’s hard to argue that the vote was the result of Yankee-hate, given that Manny R. led the AL in fWAR, and finished eighteenth, to Jeter’s second.
2006 – Morneau was a strange choice, but Jeter was third in WAR that year, and finished ahead in the vote of both players with more WAR.
The same general comments apply to your HOF examples. There are lots of candidates who some of us think are deserving of the HOF who haven’t been elected—Schilling, e.g., was as accomplished as Mussina. And Jeter will almost certainly be a first ballot HOFer, despite having less career WAR than many players who haven’t made it on multiple attempts. Don’t see any Yankee bias here.
The narrative is that there is a bias in favour of Yankees players. The example you cite are instances where a small market player has been selected over a deserving Yankee. Those examples are clear support for my argument. The counter to my argument would be a pattern where Yankees are chosen over more deserving small market players. I don’t think those examples exist.
The Angels will stink with or without Trout, so he is “valuable” just to himself? MVP has never been about the best statistics, if that was the case Willie Mays would have 11-12 MVP’s. The latest statistical methods do not prove that elusive “valuable”, the player that just elevates their team to a success they couldn’t have without them is the value
factor. If it was the best statistics MVP then they should just call it the best statistical player and drop the value piece of it.
If that is the case, then they should have two separate awards, one for BEST player, and one for the player that most elevates their team to playoff level.
I often see Trout compared to Mantle but it seems to me that Mays is the better comparison. Mays led the NL in overall WAR 9 times, but only won 2 MVPs. Obviously WAR didn’t exist back then, but if it did, I’m sure the same excuses would have been made.
I think Trout also suffers a bit from the Michael Jordan thing. Voters get tired of voting for him so they look for someone else to vote for. Plus, since all of Trout’s seasons are great, none of them really stand out. Unlike, say Donaldson last year,or Betts this year where the voters can say “look at how much better he was…that must be the reason why his team won”.
I totally agree, except for that they haven’t really voted for him yet, so I’m not sure how they got tired of it. 😉
Voters vote for players who rustle their jimmies. Trout’s excellence has become commonplace and the Angles’ season has been *drab*
The idea that these awards are worth our time is long past. It’s a writer popularity contest, as it is in all sports. Steve Nash and Derrick Rose over LeBron in the NBA, is way more laughable than Miggy over Trout.
As writers become more analytically oriented, they will vote for more WAR leaders, because their jimmies are rustled by watching themselves reject traditional narratives. But voter pleasure will still reign supreme
Trout is consistently good, the Angels consistently blah: no narrative. Most voters are media so the narrative matters to the voters. Often more than the numbers.
It’s a side effect of having writers voting on the awards. These are people who’s entire career is about attracting attention. The absolute worst choice to make is the boring, predictable one. No one reads the “Dog bites man” story. Giving not-Trout the MVP, and all the column ink that gets spilled along with it is like heroin for a sports writer. They just can’t help themselves.
Yeah, the writers invented the MVP award to give themselves something to write about. That’s the purpose of the award, so complaining about the voters valuing takes over substance essentially negates the award itself.
The first version of the MVP award was started by a car maker to advertise cars.
That’s a very good point.
I’m on the other side of this debate. The argument made here is that when they named the trophy most valuable player they really meant best player. That is the entirety of the argument. Gennaro has also evaluated team wins and the monetary value that they bring to the franchise, and have concluded that the sweet spot for franchise wins is the 5 or so wins that separate the non playoff teams from the playoff teams. Those wins are worth a fortune to the clubs that succeed. If a player’s WAR contribution clearly seems the difference between a team being a playoff contender and not, that contribution is worth millions to their team, and the fans, and his team mates. See Donaldson in Toronto last year. Value is not the same thing as quality. All wins are not worth the same to either the fans or the franchises, or baseball. As September rolls along, baseball is filled with fascinating story lines…and none are about the Angels, and whether they win or lose. The idea that they should do away with the voting for the MVP and just let Fangraphs annoint the WAR leader is silly. And this is not a shot at either WAR or Fangraphs. The appeal of sports is always about the finish, the winner and the loser. Those who participate in those special narratives are what sports is all about. Players whose contributions are critical to that narrative are, at that moment, special. As a fan, you watch other teams fans get to cheer and hope and dream in September and you are jealous. It is not Trout’s fault that he is playing on a lousy team. It is not fair. But that is life, and life is not fair. And Value is never objectively measured…it is time and location dependent. This September the wins and loses of the Angels are only relevant in th discussion if the team that they are playing is relevant. That is like arguing that the Bautista bat flip home run was no more valuable than any of his other home runs. Occasions matter, and some more than others.
That’s argument for giving Trout no votes at all. Which is fine, if you believe the MVP is the best player amongst those on playoff contending rosters. There is, however, no consistency in making Trout the runner-up.
No it is not..it is an argument that assigning value is subjective, and should be. I’m saying that if you believe that someone’s contribution to their team was the difference between the team making the playoffs or not, you have a right to consider that in your decision. You seem to be arguing that if you are considering that it is the only thing that you are considering, which is also silly.
That’s an opinion to have, certainly. I’m not going to try and talk you out of it.
But this article is not talking about that.
Then what is it talking about? It seems to be a collections of arguments which imply that there is inconsistency in the voting because when people prioritize certain things they do not do it uniformly, so there should be uniform criteria, which implies Trout should win. I’m simply pointing out that not only is value subjective, but that there are all sorts of valid considerations in assigning value to players output, and that is as it should be. Most people agree that Jack Morris is not a Ball of Fame candidate, but it is hard to find say a pitching performance by Kershaw which was as valuable to his team as the Morris game, and you know exactly what I am talking about. Context adds value on occasion. That is the entirety of my point.
The real problem is transparency. WAR is not perfect, but it is transparent. We know exactly how it’s determined, which means it can be subject to public criticism to root out inconsistencies and other flaws.
In contrast, no evaluation that involves subjectivity is completely transparent. When people make a subjective determination of value, they weigh various factors, exactly as WAR does. The difference is that no individual has total access to all those factors, nor to the precise amount each is weighted. Much of this process is unconscious. That’s why it’s easy to find inconsistencies in any such scheme.
If people really believe that being on a playoff contender adds value, they should bring the notion out of the partially unconscious darkness that it now lies in, and develop an explicit scheme that shows exactly how much value it adds.
If Mike Trout can’t be MVP because he didn’t help his team make the playoffs, Kris Bryant shouldn’t be MVP, as the Cubs would have won 90+ games without him. (For the record, as of today Trout and Bryant would get my votes.)
This is how I’ve chosen to approach the argument, too. If a team could come in 1st without the player, then the player didn’t add value, right? This is actually a really fun thought experiment, if anyone wants to follow it through. It eliminates all of the players on 4 teams that are leading their divisions. Some years, I bet you could even restrict the pool to wildcard teams.
MVP = Best player on a playoff contender that couldn’t have made it without him 🙂
That means no Cubs, Indians, Nats, or Rangers(!) period.
Top 5, by WAR, are C. Seager, Betts, Donaldson, Altuve, and Machado
And if a millionaire gives a five-dollar bill to a homeless person, did the bill’s value change? I would argue that on a subjective level, the answer is yes — a homeless person will place more value on a fiver than a millionaire would. But objectively, the value remains the same – a five-dollar bill will buy five dollars worth of merchandise regardless of who spends it.
That would be the logical extension, yes. But I’m aiming for consistency here, too. If ‘value’ is thought of as ‘helped team to playoffs’, then it should be applied to players whose team easily made the playoffs, too.
Agree. I was replying to my comment, not yours. 🙂
Totally agree. If the Cubs replaced Kris Bryant with his backup – say, Javier Baez or Tommy La Stella – it would cost the team maybe 5 wins. The Cubs minus 5 wins not only run away with the NL Central, they likely sew up home field throughout the playoffs (they’re currently 8 games ahead of Washington). Therefore – to borrow the argument chuck e makes above when he invokes Vince Gennaro’s sweet spot for wins – Kris Bryant has contributed nothing that meaningfully affects the Cubs success in the regular season. I honestly don’t see how you can argue against Trout for MVP and not take on this logical absurdity.
I’m not so sure Bryant wins the NL MVP.
Bryant not only has the Cubs runaway to contend with but also Rizzo and three Cy Young caliber pitchers on his own team.
I think the narrative gives it to Seager.
It really wasn’t all that close last year with Donaldson, especially if you factor in the context of their home parks. 52 OPS points is actually a pretty sizable difference, and Toronto is a better htiters park than Anaheim.
Rosenthal’s main argument seems to be ‘hey guys – in 20 or 30 years, we’re all gonna be seen as morons for again and again and again overlooking the best player for MVP.’ And to that I say, ‘good. That’s as it should be. You guys screwed up.’
This is yet another example of baseball’s marketing being insanely out of touch with reality. Mike Trout is better at baseball than Peyton Manning ever was at football; he’s analogous to, say, LeBron James or Steph Curry in the NBA. But those sports care about how their games are marketed; they WANT attention for their best players, and so no one argued when they were clearly the best; they just gave them the MVPs.
MLB seems not to want that for its players.
Mike Trout is a marketer’s dream. He’s not just the best – he’s historically excellent. He plays in a big market. He’s never been in even a whiff of trouble or drama or any off field shenanigans. In another sport, he’d have been pushed to the front in year one and would have four or five MVPs, tons of endorsements, and be the face of the league. In baseball, he’s called ‘boring,’ and has had less ink than Tim Tebow or Yasiel Puig this year. It’s insane.
And it’s the writers’ fault. I hope people DO look back and mock them for it in 20 years.
This is a good point. It counters the “he’s not valuable because he didn’t make the team/league any money. Playoffs generate revenue” argument. Stars generate revenue too. If Trout isn’t “valuable” enough in this sense, it’s the writers’ own fault, not his. Maybe they’re worried that putting the same guy on video game covers too many years in a row with get tiresome?
Well said.
I agree wholeheartedly, but I’m going to have fun with the following statement:
“Mike Trout is a marketer’s dream…He’s never been in even a whiff of trouble or drama or any off field shenanigans.”
At this point, if I’m Trout’s agent I’m encouraging him to leak a sex tape.
Abolish the award or change the parameters. Otherwise we’ll be having this discussion for the next 50 years. Debating about WHO should be the MVP is fun. Debating about what the award even means is getting very tired.
Rosenthal is right – people will look back and laugh at the current crop of morons who neglected Trout in his prime. The sad part is that Rosenthal is even understating Trout’s value by failing to mention his base running and defense in an up the middle position.
I fear most voters don’t think too much about this. They put Trout in the top 3 or so just so they won’t get shit for leaving him too far behind: “What are you talking about? I value Trout! He’s second on my ballot!”
There’s no one approach that is best, from what I can see, there could be several definitions of valuable, and you’re not wrong for thinking about more than one. Some years, the Most Valuable thing may be the player who propels his team to the next level (Donaldson), or it could mean best player in the game (Trout), or an impressive statistical oddity (Cabrera). Really, logical consistency can’t be determined for every voter, or else you’re trying to create rules where there are none.
This is probably the best counterargument I’ve heard to Dave’s piece. I don’t agree with this line of thinking, but I think I’d be okay with a BBWAA writer who came out and said, “You know what? I don’t really care who the most valuable player is exactly. What I care about is cultivating memories. I don’t want to look back in 20 years and see Mike Trout’s name as MVP for 5+ years. I want to think, hey, that was the year Josh Donaldson went nuts down the stretch. And that year was the one where Miggy won the Triple Crown.” And so on. Again, I don’t agree with that approach. But I think it’s defensible and internally consistent. What bothers me is when these writers choose a narrative approach and then try to shoehorn it into some argument about actual value. I’d like them to at least own the idea that their ballots are based on intuition and gut feelings rather than any kind of cogent process.
Here’s a good idea. Let’s just call it the Mike Trout award, and then it can go to the next best player every year, so it doesn’t get boring. Otherwise, I’d love to see Mike Trout’s name on the MVP for 5+ years, if that’s what he deserved.
No, it’s NOT a counter-argument to Dave’s article AT ALL. Dave isn’t arguing that it’s necessarily wrong to have different criteria for an MVP. What he IS arguing that the SAME criteria should be CONSISTENTLY APPLIED for a first place vote, a second place vote, etc. If you vote Trout 2nd, ahead of a guy who is statistically very close to the guy you voted first, and that third place guy also played meaningful Sept games, then if you were applying the criteria consistently, why wouldn’t you vote Trout 3rd then?
Yes, I get Dave’s argument completely and I agree with it, so you can undo your Caps Lock key. However, the above IS a counterargument in the sense that a voter can claim with some validity that there are values greater than consistent logical criteria. Again, I don’t agree with that POV, but I do think it’s something worth grappling with in a non-dismissive, non-condescending way. Evidently you disagree.
So in other words, if we can’t use consistent logical criteria, then just throw all reason out the window completely? I’d say an award with that line of “thinking” is completely meaningless if there’s no consistent logical criteria. I guess you can say the MVP award we have now is probably meaningless in that regard.
I understand that you, Wu-Bacca, do not agree with that POV, and it’s fine to have differing opinions, as things in this world are generally not black and white. I was just pointing out that the particular post that I was replying to was incorrect to state that it was a counter argument to Dave’s piece because he wasn’t really countering the main thrust of what Dave was trying to say. THAT was what I had a problem with. And sorry you don’t like my use of caps for emphasis.
Look, I agree with you – I think MVP voting should follow consistent, logical criteria. There are a lot of counterarguments on this thread to Dave’s argument, almost all of them weak and wrongheaded. But of those counterarguments, the one I find most compelling (clearly not compelling enough to change my mind, but most compelling of the weak, wrongheaded arguments) is the idea that we should just dispense with consistent, logical criteria altogether, and strive for something that honors memories, gut impressions, intuition, etc. Again, I want to be clear that I don’t agree with that (I think ultimately that argument breaks down against Dave’s, b/c I think Dave himself would say, hey, if that’s your criteria, go for it, but just be consistent and honest about it). But I do think it makes for an interesting discussion.
I don’t think that Trout finishing second necessarily implies any logical inconsistency at all. It implies either a) logical inconsistency of individual voters and/OR b) a voter base with strong disagreements among themselves about who deserves the MVP. We know b) is true already, . Could a) also be true? Yes, but it would take breaking down each individual ballot, not just vote totals, to prove it. Hypothetically, you could have 1/3 of the voters who vote Trout first and 2/3 who put him somewhere down ballot below all the guys on playoff teams. These guys split the remaining 1st place votes. It isn’t too hard to see how Trout could finish 2nd on total points while each individual voter’s ballot is logically consistent in a vacuum.
I’m not sure Dave said that Trout finishing 2nd implies a logical inconsistency. What he said, more or less, was that some writers have gone on record as saying they won’t put Trout 1st on their ballot (b/c he didn’t play meaningful games down the stretch), but then they place him 2nd – AND that the voting results from the past few years support the notion that many writers vote this way and engage in this logical inconsistency as well.
But the actual vote totals are public. Every year he didn’t win Mike Trout got an outright majority of the second place votes. 22/30 in 2015; 19/30 in 2013, 21/28 in 2012.
So the hypothesis that he’s not getting votes for second because people are either voting for the best player, or voting first for all the best player on a winning team candidates runs solidly into a wall of facts that say, “No, that could happen in some alternate universe, but it’s not what’s happening in this universe with this BBWAA.”
I don’t think there’s really a hypothesis that Trout ISN’T getting second place votes. The hypothesis in this article is that he IS getting those votes, and it’s illogical that the criteria for a first place vote is DIFFERENT from that of a second place vote. Otherwise why vote Trout second, when the guy you’re voting third was also playing meaningful baseball in Sept just like the guy you’re voting for first place did. It’s almost like the voter is “throwing Trout a bone” by voting him as a “runner-up”, knowing he’s too good to be voted 4th or 5th.
Lets not forget that one of those years that Cabrera won over Trout because he was on a playoff team, the Angels actually finished with a better record than the Tigers! To this day it blows my mind. The only reason the Tigers made the playoffs and the Angels didn’t is because the Tigers don’t play near the ocean. Geography was a deciding factor in the mvp vote.
Not only do MVP voters dock you if your teammates stink, they also give you credit if the players on the other teams in your division stink.
I would like to say that “logical consistency” is overrated. Untold number of people have died because they remained logically consistent in ways that eventually proved fatal. The key is to remain logically consistent until if and when it becomes clear that the logic is flawed in some way.
That said, I do agree that MVP voters should, all things being equal, use neutral consistent criteria from year to year. That said the rewarding of playoff teams members is not something new and not exactly a precise mathematical formula. Expecting perfect consistency on this matter is somewhat like expecting that a painter to use the exact same style and subject matter over and over again. It is also somewhat odd that you treat the voters as if they have a hive mind; there are 30 voters with 30 different ways of rating players. You cannot expect perfect consistency from a group of 30 individuals especially when the group membership changes.
Just be glad they seem to have gotten over the “whoever has the most RBIs is the MVP this year” ridiculousness. Which would probably result in David Ortiz winning the MVP. Which is… surprisingly plausible.
“Untold number of people have died because they remained logically consistent in ways that eventually proved fatal.”
“Expecting perfect consistency on this matter is somewhat like expecting that a painter use the exact same style and subject matter over and over again.”
Has anyone by chance ever told you you have a gift for hyperbole?
Well, you did.
For the record, the first is not hyperbole. It is an entirely accurate and true statement. Continuing to do the same thing that always works is great until it no longer works.
When invoking the untold number of people who have died in the name of logical consistency (I’m guessing you’re referring to Stalin, Mao, etc.) in a discussion about baseball award voting, then yes, that is hyperbole.
After this year’s 2nd place finish, Trout shall henceforth be known as “The Bridesmaid”
WAR and “value” are subjective, theoretical concepts. Also, most writers tend to drink a lot.
Should obviously go to whoever sells the most jerseys.
also who fucking cares. nobody should feel shame about a sports award.
Dave, I can’t agree with you more. In fact, I believe it was the article here making the case for Trout as AL MVP, where I commented this exact same thing:
“But I am completely unable to comprehend a thought process that would justify leaving him out of the top 4” — Me too, but for those that feel they need to give the award to a player on a contending team, then there’s no reason for [a voter] to put Trout in their top 4. To say that Trout isn’t one of the game’s top 4 players (this year, or any year), is patently absurd, and further underscores the lunacy of giving the award to anyone else.
Maybe this exchange gave inspiration for this article?
This is crazy. Even back in 1958 and 1959, the writers were enlightened enough to give Ernie Banks back-to-back MVP despite the Cubs being as crappy then as the Angels are now.
Oh yeah, Mr. Cub did lead the NL in RBI both years. Nevermind.
“Why are we only applying this idea that production is not value to the top spot on the list, then ignoring it entirely in spots 2 through 10?”
The problem with this argument is that it begs the question. It’s entirely possible that individual voters are applying some form of logical constancy in their voting. For example, a voter could order his ballot by BBref oWAR with a plus 2+ WAR value given to those on playoff teams.
Cameron isn’t arguing just for logical consistency, he’s arguing for a voting pattern that is consistent AND is in accord with how he defines “valuable.”
Obviously, the logical consistency is that it doesn’t really matter who comes in second, just like it doesn’t matter who plays on a last-place team. It’s a token honor.
If the award goes to best player, Trout is obviously the best player, so he could win it almost every year, and that wouldn’t be interesting, and my vote wouldn’t be important.
Said many BBWAA voters.
I love how the voters ignore what the players say, that playing meaningless games is harder than when you’re in the playoff hunt. When a championship isn’t the carrot motivating you, yet you still dominate, THAT says something. That’s worth a 1st place vote.
Its not one or the other. You can apply both, most valuable and best player . If a best player is on a lousy team and is head and shoulders above the rest, then he gets it still even if his games were not meaningful. If its fairly close, within the limits of WAR accuracy which is probably +/- 20% at best, then it goes to the player who plays more meaningful games.
Every ball player will tell you it gets harder to play when the games mean something and the pressure is on. Also, lets not forget luck, a lucky player who helps his team because he had plenty of opportunities and still produces is still valuable even if it may be something he won’t repeat and his production exceeds his talent level.
Stop trying to make things black and white. Its just isn’t it. If they want to call it best player award, then its simple. Its not, and valuable is just one of those things that can mean different things to different people
I do wish we had something like WPA which gives a measure of a players contribution to his teams playoff chances instead of WPA which is limited to the game only. Then perhaps we could quantify this a bit better, but until then, its the wild west. Just using WPA, I think you have to say Trout is a clear winner this year. Nobody comparing to Donaldson or Miggie this year.
So if value is defined by some based upon where it is added on the wins curve (where value to a borderline playoff team is greater than value added to either an overwhelming or underwhelming team) that’s mathematical hogwash and should be dismissed but if value is defined as a rough calculation of expected wins provided by the player with all content ignored it should be gospel?
Analytics is wonderful and has changed the way we view and analyze baseball but to demand that everyone agrees to quantitatively define an award who’s directions for nomination include such subjective vagaries as “General character, disposition, loyalty and effort” is silly.
The reason why Trout finished second in those years is more likely because of the many people voted him to finish first because he’s the best player, not that everyone who voted for Cabrera had Trout as number 2. And feeling like Trout’s being the best player in baseball makes him valuable but not worthy of the top spot (i.e. less valuable than stats would indicate based upon where his WAR falls on the aforementioned win curve) is not nearly as asinine a distinction as Dave Cameron makes it or to be. MVP is not MOP, otherwise this would be cut and dry, however so long as the award is defined as clearly as a Choose Your Own Adventure book (do they still have those?) this argument will persist. At least he’ll win the Hank Aaron award which makes it clear it’s parameters are to be judged on offensive statistics.
Let’s imagine an alternative hypothesis as to why a bunch of well-informed and knowledgeable people down-grade Trout to 2nd or 3rd place…
What if it is simply that the games the Angels play are less important, which allows Trout to build slightly inflated numbers?
Playoff bound teams may spend half the year neck-and-neck with division rivals and fight intensely in every series. Compare that with the Angels showing up to play against the A’s 19 times in games that haven’t mattered since the beginning of the summer. How many of Trout’s accomplishments were just a bit easier because the other team wasn’t committed 100% to the win? Not saying that any of the teams would throw a game but there is a different intensity to playoff, or playoff contending, baseball.
Compare the Angels second half schedule and game intensity to the AL East where you’ve had Baltimore, Boston, and Toronto trading position for months. Every game was high stakes for all three teams, even when they went to play Tampa, because on any given night they might fall off the pace.
Now consider how that difference impacts metrics. Assume that Trout’s offensive numbers are just a bit higher because he was playing against defenses working at 90-95% instead of 100%. Assume Trout’s defense looks just a bit better since he was defending against runners who were confident they already had the win because, well, they were playing the Angels so why risk a hamstring injury?
Now imagine voting for MVP and thinking in the back of your head “what would Trout’s numbers be if he played in 162 _real_ games?” Maybe that’s just enough to make them distrust the purity of the numbers.
Check your premise. The proposition that BBWAA writers are ” a bunch of well-informed and knowledgeable people” is highly suspect.
The premise of this thought exercise is that players try harder in the heat of a pennant race. I think there’s little to no data to support that (e.g., players on bad teams aren’t better in April, when they’re still in a pennant race, than they are in September, when they’re out of it). It seems to me far more likely that players have huge motivation to constantly give their best effort, regardless of whether they’re in a pennant race, namely: they’re striving for their livelihoods – making sure they stay on the team, earning money, providing for their families and their futures. (I also wonder how your argument squares with the fact that Mike Trout put up BETTER numbers from 2012-2014, when he played in far more meaningful, pressure-packed games, than he has this year.)
When he was in his early 20s, Ken Griffey, Jr. was arguably the best player in baseball, but for his entire career he was awarded one MVP award (and in a season in which his team made the playoffs). If I recall correctly, many writers did not vote for Griffey because they assumed he would win numerous MVP awards once he reached his late twenties and early thirties and maxed out on his abilities. I think the same might be happening to Trout, in which writers don’t consider the next best superstar on a winning or losing team on the same level. It’s like writers believe other superstars are performing at the absolute peak of their abilities, whereas with Trout, there’s an expectation that he can hit 65 home runs and be a 13 WAR player at his peak when he’s 28 years old and only then will he be deserving of votes. But until then, let’s give other guys extra credit for playing on a playoff team.
Hopefully Trout continues to remain healthy and wins the awards he deserves, because if he runs into injury trouble, as Rosenthal writes, it would be a shame if 20 years from now, we look back and see Trout with one MVP.
Ted Williams only ever won two MVP awards. Do you feel this diminishes what he did?
Williams didn’t have the greatest relationship with the press, which may have created bias against him in the minds of voters. He also wasn’t exactly a standout defender or a force on the base paths, but was what he was: “the greatest hitter that ever lived.”
“If I recall correctly, many writers did not vote for Griffey because they assumed he would win numerous MVP awards once he reached his late twenties and early thirties and maxed out on his abilities”
I think this likely has a fair amount to do with what has happened to Trout so far. When possible, give the edge to someone who is older and has less “chances” remaining.
This article and its discussion of failed logic in voting is reflective of the times we live in.
One more way to look at this. If “most valuable” is taken most literally, it should measure most $ added to the pockets of that player’s owners. This would be consistent with the view that helping the playoff odds adds more value than playing in games that mean nothing for the pennant race.
However, it also means that you have to consider how many fannies a guy like Trout puts into the seats of his home team. I’m willing to bet that if you work the numbers that way, he ends up head and shoulders above the rest of his peers. As always.