MLB MVP Musings

Point by Point here is comes:
1. I am biased, get over it. So are you. My guess is neither of us get a vote in the MVP award this year, so who cares.
2. I don't accept arguments for MVP based on WAR. It is far too abstract of a concept rather than a real stat to determine the MVP. WAR is helpful I think in determining player value, since in that case the principle of buying wins matters. But in terms of production, I'm not buying. WAR has its place and this is not it. It is the single most overrated concept in baseball right now. Additionally, there is no universal consensus on WAR, but usually two main schools of determining it (Fangraphs or Baseballreference) which use different defensive measures. But in general I also take issue to stats that claim such abstract values, especially in a game with such intangibles, where some kinds of production are more important (especially based on the role one has with the team), and especially when applied to an award race that usually is very close and based not on the abstract but on the actual. Ask this year's Baltimore Orioles who are just awesome at winning one run games if the value of a run on their team is higher than the value of a run on a different team. Not all wins or runs are created equal.
3. Which is why the MVP ought favor players who play for contenders. Bottom line, is while a two players may have had similar production (or even generate the same number of wins) the value of the wins and production is different because of what it means for the team. To be sure it takes more than a player to make a contender, which makes this a bit unfair in that your teammates help establish the value of your production, but that is the nature of a team game. And being a good team player, and thriving off of your teams success is in fact, a real quality in my mind for an MVP of a team sport. Every once and a while a player will do so well it does not matter how his team did, because even though his production was of less value than that of a player on a contender, he was just so ridiculously good that he made up the difference by producing a large amount of lesser valued production. If we were to say it mathematically, say a run for a noncontender is only worth .75 value of a run of a contender player. If the noncontender scored 110 runs compared to the contender's 75, the overall value of that production is still better. That's a bit of a abstract example of measurement, I am not saying that is the actual measure, but the point is to say it does not mean players on noncontenders can never be MVPs, but it means the award ought favor contenders, and thus it will require a fair amount more from the player on a noncontender. So I'll say it, they were right in making Braun MVP last year over Kemp. I know Braun had a great team around him. But the fact that he was the clear MVP even when they got excellent production from Gallardo, Fielder, Axford among others in my mind actually says more. On a team filled with great players he stood out as the best.
4. I also think the value to that contender matters. What I mean here, is that when the race boils down perhaps to players of two different contenders, now the question of how much of that is the guys around them matters. An example here might be the race between Beltre and Pujols in 2004 (I think). Even though in most categories Pujols was better than Beltre, it was not enough to ignore that Beltre was far and away more valuable to the Dodgers that year than Pujols to the Cardinals. It sounds strange, but let me show you what I mean. That season Pujols and Beltre were real close in many offensive categories: Pujols hit .331 (.415 OBP) with 46HR 123 RBI, 196 hits (99 for xtrabases) while Beltre hit .334 (.388) with 48HR 121 RBI, 200 hits (80 for xtrabases). You can see in how some of these categories, though close Pujols is better, this is also true in stats like runs, OPS (1.072 to 1.017), and so on. If I were voting on just these, it would be close but I would probably give it to Pujols. However, Beltre when one looks at the cast around him was far more valuable to the Dodgers and their postseason birth than Pujols. Pujols was one of 4 starters hitting over .300 for the Cardinals. Only Paul Loduca (who only played 91 games) hit over .300 for LA. In addition to Pujols the Cardinals had two other players hit over 30 HR (Jim Edmonds actually also hit over 40). No other Dodger hit over 30HR that year. Shawn Green hit 28, Steve Finley had over 30, but he was picked up midseason and only hit 13 with LA. The Cardinals had 3 100RBI guys, Beltre was the lone 100RBI guy for his team (Green was second with 86, next was Milton Bradley with 67). The Cardinals had 3 guys with 100+ runs, 5 with 80+. Beltre was the only 100+ run player they had, Green their only other 80+ run scorer. All this shows, that while the numbers were similar, the Cardinals that year had a very imposing lineup around Pujols and would have had one without Pujols. The Dodgers on the other hand did not. This is why among similar players on different contenders the MVP ought to favor those who stood out more to their team (and were more valuable to it). Ironically enough, neither of these players won MVP that year. It was given to Bonds. I was really mad, but it is hard to dismiss a .600 OBP. This year is a good example then of both how to value similar players on contenders when stats alone would favor the wrong one (Pujols), and an example of when an individual performance outweighed contention.
5. I have a hard time justifying an MVP for a non-full season of work. This is why while I'm ok with Pitchers being MVPs, I think it really takes one excellent year for someone who does not play every game to beat out everyday players. It takes a lot. This also then goes for example for Angels phenom Trout. He is having a monster year. Rookie of the Year hands down. But as folks say MVP I'm weary. He does lead the league in some categories, so that helps build a case that he didn't need to be a full season player to be MVP, but when in some key offensive categories you're lacking, that makes me say, sorry nt MVP. To me you must treat it like a midseason aquisition: could garner some votes, but you have to prove that the value you gave in that little time far exceeds a full season value. To me that is really hard. The only time I've been convinced of this in recent years was the 2008 CC Sabathia acquisition for the Brewers. That was a deal which brought the Brewers to another level, was the only reason they made the playoffs, and CC's value in that abbviated time was more than any Brewer pitcher and most full season players, and it came in part because he went constantly then on 3 days rest (closing some of that part-time role gap). But even then he was no Cy Young, just worthy of some votes. The Angels are hot right now, and if Trout can really deliver clutch performances in this time of the year, he may be deserving. But to me, that is an uphill battle. And I'm not convinced...yet.
6. Ryan Braun should not get some MVP snub because of this offseason. I always found it funny that people wanted his award revoked because of a test that was found positive AFTER the season (and therefore after the votes). There is no evidence he used PEDs during the MVP season, only some evidence that alledged he used after the MVP season. It's like Ichiro testing positive today and people wanting his 2001 MVP revoked, only there is a greater gap of time in between. But both came after the fact. But he also won his appeal, however you feel about it, he did. Get over it. But BWAA writers tend to hold grudges. And this, as I will likely do a whole blog about some other time, is bad for baseball. It's like vigilante justice, it actually leaves a bad mark. Braun is having another MVP like campaign. As of today he leads the NL in HR (37) RBI (98), slugging % (.604), OPS (.993), and total bases (301) and is exceeding or coming close to many of his MVP numbers in 2011. But I will be surprised if Braun gets any serious consideration. Now I don't think Braun should win, for the same reason Kemp did not last year. Milwaukee is not a contender, and Braun is not so far above the competition of players on contenders that I cannot justify him being the MVP. But if Kemp got serious consideration, tons of votes, 2nd in the league in MVP, then Braun ought to have a pretty similar outcome. If Braun gets a total snub and no recognition on the ballot no one can cite last year's vote as the reasoning. Braun rightly won last year, but Kemp was also rightly a top 5 vote getter. Braun would rightly not win this year, but rightly be a top 5 vote getter. But I suspect the voters will carry their grudge from last year and in vigilante style snub Braun their own way. Such things though will make the award a farce, just like the Hall of Fame is slowly becoming. I think there are MVP's, and MVP type seasons. Both ought to be properly recognized on the ballot.
7. Traditional stats matter. They have for a long time and for good reason. Every era something gets undervalued. I think today batting average is. I understand the importance of OBP, I believe wholeheartedly in the value of good OBP. But we ought not dismiss BA. A hit is more valuable than a walk. Period. It can move runners from 1st to 3rd or score runners. It has a greater impact on a pitcher's mentality. And, it is a greater accomplishment. Why is it that many central American players come with horrible plate discipline? Because they know it's the ability to hit that will get them to the majors. If you can hit but lack discipline, that can be taught. Or you can still be a solid MLB player if you're a good enough hitter. But if you can't get hits, strike out a lot, you likely will not be an MLB player, even if you can walk unless you also have power in your game--since a lot of shortcomings are overlooked for the sake of power. A .300/.360 line will always be better than a .225/.360 line. Also, power and RBI matter. There is a reason the best run producers are put in that spot in the lineup. There is a reason they are walked more. RBI I usually hear as dismissive because it depends on the lineup around you. True. You cannot take it alone. But we should not dismiss a stat just because it is dependant on the players around you. This is a team game, and thus the best players will thrive in the opportunities their team gives them. Stats that require team performance are good when they are high, it means you are doing something well for your team. All that means is some people have poorer RBI's than they should (Joey Votto anyone) not that RBI are overrated. This is where stats about runners in scoring position are helpful. Here you can see both how often they come to the plate in such situations and how well they do. BAw/RISP + RBI is a very telling stat. And they are concrete as to what you actually have done production wise. It is also important to understand where they are in the lineup. 75 RBI from a leadoff man is much more impressive than 75 RBI from a cleanup hitter, because they are driving in runs in a lineup spot that does not typically get nearly as many opportunities (especially in the NL). When I hear people dismiss traditional stats like BA, HR, and RBI and argue completely on WAR, OBP, and OPS I giggle, then tell them they are wrong. Not because those don't matter (well...WAR doesn't haha) but because BA, HR, and RBI do matter. Money ball is right in that some other stats were highly undervalued. But people who take that to mean the other stats don't matter are wrong. Just ask those same Moneyball A's who had AL MVP Tejada's .308 average, 34 HR, and 131 RBI.
8. The MVP is best when it doesn't have to be shared. I mean this in two ways: first when a player only gets one major award. I really don't like when someone gets Rookie of the Year and MVP, or Cy Young and MVP. I get that if a pitcher is good enough to be MVP or a Rookie is the MVP he's gonna get the other one, but I prefer when baseball gets to crown as many champs as possible. I also like when teams don't hog all the rewards. Be it if Kemp had won and there would be both Cy Young and MVP to the 2011 Dodgers (how bad would they look if they had a Cy Young pitcher and league MVP OF and still were that horrible?), or when some team takes home all the Gold Gloves. It's like when the All Star team starting lineups look more like an interleague game between the Yankees and the Giants. It just isn't as enjoyable. UNLESS, of course, it happens for the team I root for. Then I am willing to grant the exemption, as all good fans ought.