Winning and the MVP

Last night during the Yankees-Red Sox game, ESPN had a poll question asking who was the AL MVP right now.  Despite the fact that Boston boasts two MVP candidates, the highest vote-getter was, of course, Mike Trout.  There were similar polls of both the ESPN.com writers and the MLB.com writers right after the All*Star Break, and the results were the same on each.  The winner?  Mike Trout.

That's completely mind-boggling to me.  Mike Trout is the best player in baseball.  There's nobody arguing that.  And the numbers he's putting up this season are similar to what he's done over the first six seasons of his career.  But do these writers think that because he's the best player in baseball and he puts up the same numbers every year that he should automatically be the MVP every year?  Because this year, he shouldn't really be in the conversation.

I'm not trying to debate Trout's greatness.  He finished first or second in MVP voting in each of his first five seasons, and he still finished fourth last year despite playing in just 114 games.

But the MVP is about more than just numbers.  Unless a player on a losing team puts up numbers that simply blow everybody away, it should be about winning, too.  Because the most important thing is winning games.  And the Angels aren't winning games.

The V in MVP stands for Valuable.  There's no denying Mike Trout's value to the Angels.  But they're a fourth-place team.  They'd still likely be a fourth-place team without him.  Can the same thing be said about the Red Sox and Indians?  Would they still be in first place without their MVP candidates?  Cleveland maybe.  Boston probably not.  

Which is why Mike Trout, at this point, should really be no higher than fifth in the AL MVP discussion.  Mookie Betts, J.D. Martinez, Jose Ramirez and Francisco Lindor are all putting up comparable numbers on teams headed to the playoffs.  To me, that means a lot more than a guy raking on a bad team.

That's, of course, the age-old debate when it comes to the MVP award.  Andre Dawson and Alex Rodriguez won MVPs playing for last-place teams, and Giancarlo Stanton was the NL MVP last year.  But, there also wasn't really a standout performer on a good team in the National League last season, which is part of the reason why Stanton and Joey Votto went 1-2.  In general, though, that's the exception, not the rule.  There's likely going to be someone putting up MVP-type numbers on a playoff team.  Which the Angels are not.

A similar question has also been asked about the Mets' Jacob deGrom and NL Cy Young.  He's kinda in the same situation as Trout.  His numbers are insanely good, but because the Mets never score when deGrom pitches, he's just 5-7 on the season.  I think that's a more reasonable debate than Trout for AL MVP.  Because the only National League pitcher anywhere near deGrom numbers-wise is Max Scherzer, who I think would be your likely winner right now.

Same thing with Cy Young, at least to me, as it should be with MVP.  If a guy on a bad team blows the competition away (or the good teams don't have anybody worthy of being in the conversation), no problem.  But the team's success should enter the discussion.  Because it is important.  How much value do you bring if your team doesn't win?

In 2010, it went the other way, which I still don't think was the right decision.  Felix Hernandez won the AL Cy Young while posting a 13-12 record for an awful Mariners team.  David Price finished second while going 19-6 on a Rays team that won the division.  The whole "wins shouldn't matter" debate was used, and ultimately got Hernandez the award.  But, just like it wasn't Hernandez's fault the Mariners weren't any good, it wasn't Price's fault the Rays were.  And, I might add, Hernandez didn't pitch in a game that mattered after May, while every game Price pitched that season mattered (the Rays won the division by one game over the Yankees).  Shouldn't that also count for something?

While I digressed a little bit there, I think you can still see my basic point.  I'm not opposed to a player on a losing team winning MVP/Cy Young.  But, especially if it's a close race, team success also need to be taken into account.  Because how much value does a guy bring when the team isn't any good one way or the other?  (Yes, I do understand that it's a little different with Cy Young, but I still hold firm on my stance.)

So, no, Mike Trout is NOT the AL MVP this year.  Not when he's only driven in 30 runners that weren't himself.  Not when you have two MVP candidates in Boston, either of whom would be a deserving winner (and might end up taking votes away from each other).  Not when you've got the best player nobody ever talks about doing literally everything in Cleveland.

His simply being Mike Trout isn't enough of a reason to vote for him for MVP.  I hope the voters realize that.  Especially since there are four guys on playoff-bound teams that wouldn't be remotely close to where they are without them.  Now that's value.