The Meaning of MVP

Is it just me, or does it seem like every August and September brings out the same tired debate over what really constitutes an MVP award?  They've been giving out the darned thing for decades, and we still can't figure out a concrete way to define it and decide who deserves it.  Some choose to define it literally, while others want to provide extra credit for intangibles, such as leadership and grit.  Still others believe the trophy should go to the player with the best statistics, regardless of his team's finish.  Because baseball is a 25 man sport, after all, and one man can only do so much for his team.  Albert Pujols can only come up to bat four or five times a night and play one position in the field

But even so, this year's competitive race looms especially troubling for the voters, because so many players in both leagues are enjoying monster seasons and have multiple pros and cons.  Some play for stacked lineups in hitter's havens while their peers wallow for middling teams trapped in pitcher's parks.  In the AL you can make legitimate cases for Jose Bautista, Curtis Granderson, Adrian Gonzalez, Dustin Pedroia, Jacoby Ellsbury, Michael Young, Miguel Cabrera and Justin Verlander.  The NL has Matt Kemp, Prince Fielder, Ryan Braun, Justin Upton, Jose Reyes, Shane Victorino, Ryan Howard, Troy Tulowitzki and Philadelphia's starting rotation.  Honestly, I could see almost any one of these guys ending up with the award.  Obviously, their individual Septembers will play a large role in distinguishing their candidacies, but if I had to pick right now, I think the voters will go with Ryan Braun and Curtis Granderson because of their great all-around seasons for first place teams.  But no matter who's name gets called in November the choices will come with a healthy dose of analysis, controversy, and discussion.

But I want to get back to that pesky definition thing for a second.  In my opinion, the award should go to the guy with the best statistics, and if it's close between a pitcher and hitter the edge should go to the hitter for playing everyday.  I interpret the award as one intended for the most outstanding player, with everything else that gets thrown into the mix carrying far less significance.  You can't quantify intangibles (who's a better leader; Joe Mauer or Derek Jeter? Who's a better teammate; Matt Holliday or Lance Berkman? impossible to tell) so I don't give them much weight unless a player so clearly lifts up his teammates on a daily basis that it can't be ignored.  I don't really care where his team finishes in the standings, because one player can't affect his team's pitching or his manager's decisions or his front office's payroll.  All he can control is his aggregate contribution to his team, so that's what I would base my decision on. If a player has an outstanding season, then he deserves recognition regardless of his team's record.

Therefore, Joey Bats and Kemp deserve the trophy.  They both lead their respective leagues in bWAR by sizable margins.  Bautista's season, statistically speaking, has been nothing short of superlative.  He was unquestionably the hottest hitter on the planet in the season's first two months and currently leads the major leagues n homers, walks, OBP, SLG, OPS and OPS+.  He's battled through injuries and has continued to produce even as pitchers try to take the bat out of his hands.  In addition, he plays competent defense in right field and third base, so he's not just a one-dimensional slugger.  The Blue Jays are a .500 team, but without him they wouldn't even be that good.  Kemp's Dodgers have a nearly identical record to Toronto and would be just as forgettable if not for the off-field controversy swirling around the team from its ownership issues, but despite playing in a thin lineup and getting walked intentionally just as often as Bautista he still leads the Senior Circuit in total bases and OPS +.  With eight more four-baggers and three more steals the five tool stud would become the fifth member of baseball's exclusive 40-40 club, and if he gets red hot he'll have an outside shot at the Triple Crown.  He's also played an improved center field and, along with Cy Young candidate Clayton Kershaw, provided one of the few bright spots in a largely disappointing season for the disgraced franchise.

But both players break the unofficial rules, which usually stipulate that the MVP should come from contending teams.  I already explained why I think that one is unfair, but I'll look at two other rules.

Rule-Designated Hitters don't win the award.
I get the argument on this one; if a guy only contributes in one facet of the game, he shouldn't be eligible for the award.  David Ortiz was a prominent victim of this mindset when he racked up 2.49 MVP shares and averaged 42 big flies, 128 RBI with a gaudy 1.014 OPS from 2003 through 2007, yet failed to walk away with the award because voters deemed Alex Rodriguez (three times), Vladimir Guerrero and Justin Morneau to be more valuable (which is fair since Big Papi never led the league in offensive WAR).  However, I think a designated hitter still deserves consideration.  I believe if a DH posts overwhelming offensive statistics that no other player can compete with, say a .350-50-150 line, then he should win.  He's doing all he can to help his team, and by not playing the field he is also contributing by removing his subpar defense from the field. 

Rule-Starting pitchers don't win the award
Since 1971, Roger Clemens has been the only starting pitcher to win the award, probably because pitchers have their own award in the Cy Young.  Voters also tend to devalue starters because they only throw every fifth day (the award does mention playing time should be a factor), and therefore don't impact their teams as much when they're on the bench for 130 or so games.  WAR shows why this is not true, that pitchers can be worth just as much (or more) than hitters, and Justin Verlander will definitely earn some votes for his masterpiece season.  Like DHs, though, I believe a pitcher must have overwhelmingly dominant statistics (see Pedro Martinez's 1999-the guy was mugged), and while Verlander's numbers are impressive they must be viewed within the proper context; offense is down across the sport and he pitches half his games in the cavernous Comerica Park.  He's got the Cy Young award in the bag and will probably finish in the top five of the MVP race, but since the Tigers' record in games he starts is nearly identical to those of other teams (Yankees, Red Sox, Angels) when their respective aces take the hill means he isn't significantly more valuable to his team than guys like Jon Lester, C.C. Sabathia and Jered Weaver.  If he had this kind of season five or ten years ago during the offensive explosion, I think his case would be a little stronger, but this Year of the Pticher just takes some of the shine off his year because there are so many pitchers, from James Shields and Roy Halladay to Cliff Lee and Dan Haren having great seasons.