A.L. MVP 2013

I don't know why his age would make any difference for MVP consideration.

 

And irrelevant to the discussion of AL MVP.

 

Thought you were questioning Trout's historic play.

 

A guy is pretty valuable to a team if pitchers can't even pitch around him

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/miguel-cabreras-most-incredible-strength/

 

Trout helped his team get several wins it wouldn't have gotten without his services. So did Cabrera. Where other teams finished in the standings shouldn't come into play.

 

One team was much more successful than the other. That absolutely comes into play, as it should. As I said, with Trout, the Angels had a losing record. Without him, they just have even more losses. Take away Cabrera and the Tigers miss the playoffs rather than winning their division.

 

I think it matters, too.

As I explained in this debate last year, I look at it as there is, presumably, an end game to the regular season. And that end game is getting into the postseason, preferably by winning one's division or even securing home-field advantage until the World Series. This doesn't mean I think that Cabrera is more winny than Trout. Just that his contribution helped his team fulfill the season's team goal.

 

If Player A is worth, say, seven wins and the team around him sucks, his value is still seven wins. If Player B is worth six on a better team and his team makes the playoffs, that doesn't make Player B more valuable.

 

I understand that argument.

My argument is that the seven additional wins are rendered largely irrelevant by the fact that said player, through no fault of his own, did not contribute value to a playoff team.

 

But why should he have to contribute value to a playoff team? In other words, let's say for the sake of argument that Giancarlo Stanton were to hit 65 HR, drive in 130 and have the highest OBP in baseball next year for a Marlins team that finishes 65-97. Does he not win the MVP either? Where do we draw the line?

 

That's what McGwire did in '98, except better (his numbers and team finish), and he didn't win.

 

I don't have a satisfying answer to that. A sliding scale for comparing non-playoff players and playoff players is a sort of compromise, and most probably employ it, but that isn't very satisfying, either. And, taken to its logical conclusion, under my approach, should Stanton even be on a voter's ballot at all? Or is he disqualified?

I don't pretend to have all the answers. But I do think that the argument that the winner should be from a playoff team is one with at least some merit.