Trout, Cabrera, and the Elusiveness of "Value"

For the second consecutive year, Miguel Cabrera has won the American League MVP over the objectively superior candidate, Mike Trout. In the long run, this isn't really a big deal. Cabrera had great, MVP-worthy seasons. Trout at least finished second both times, and not eighth or something crazy like that. But what is a big deal is the questionable logic that influential baseball writers are resorting to in order to justify the Cabrera-over-Trout position.

The best example is an article written at FoxSports.com by Jon Paul Morosi. He's a member of the Baseball Writers' Association of America, meaning he gets to vote on these annual awards and will receive a Hall of Fame ballot in a few years. His article, titled "Miggy's MVP a good call  by voters," features the following sub-headline:

"Mike Trout had a superb season, but Miguel Cabrera led his team to the playoffs."

This is the crux of the Cabrera-over-Trout argument. Basically: how much "value" could Trout really have provided if his team didn't make the playoffs? Because the official BBWAA guidelines for this award are nebulous, Morosi is free to use this subjective argument. Here's how he explains himself in the article:

"In 2013, as in 2012, the question was not whether Cabrera or Trout deserved the honor. They both did. The issue, instead, was how each voter defined “value.” The official voting criteria empower us to choose the meaning of “value” for ourselves. Based on my interpretation, as one of the 28 BBWAA voters for this award, I ranked Cabrera first and Trout second."

Fine. But this is where it gets really good:

"Statistically, did Trout have the superior all-around season? Yes, he did."

I wish I could frame this quote and carry it around with me at all times. Let's see it again:

"Statistically, did Trout have the superior all-around season? Yes, he did."

Good lord, man. Morosi outright acknowledges that Trout had the better season. He's not even going to dispute that point. So now he's got to come up with a sound reason why the player who had the inferior all-around season deserves to be called the Most Valuable Player.

"Trout is a better defender than Cabrera, and he adds value through his baserunning. But MVP voters aren’t asked to fill out our ballots based on raw numbers. We must consider the context of each candidate’s performance. We are supposed to weigh the “value of a player to his team,” as the instructions suggest. And I believe a player is most valuable to his team when he helps it win."

As if Mike Trout doesn't help his team win. Good one, dude.

"In the baseball industry and among fans, team wins dominate – as they should. Boston hosted a duck boat parade for the Red Sox when they won the World Series. I’m still waiting for the first civic rally to honor an individual OPS title."

A few reactions to this moronic paragraph:
1. Who won the individual OPS title? Miguel Cabrera. So deriding that statistic kind of undermines the whole "Cabrera-for-MVP" thing.
2. The Boston Red Sox winning the World Series is a team accomplishment achieved in the postseason. The MVP award is an individual accomplishment achieved in the regular season. These two things have nothing in common.
3. Team wins are obviously important. But the MVP is an individual honor. Team wins are awarded to entire teams. The MVP is awarded to a single player. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

"Trout’s performance was exceptional. But what was the true value of it? In August, while a gimpy Cabrera won AL Player of the Month honors and moved the Tigers to within range of a division title, Trout amassed an OPS of 1.090 and hit six home runs. He swiped six bases and finished with more walks than strikeouts. It was another crowd-pleasing display of Trout’s breathtaking ability.

But what impact did that month’s .590 slugging percentage have on the Angels’ 2013 season? It carried some significance, surely. It had value. But was it the most valuable? In my estimation, no. That distinction belonged to the man whose ability to play at an elite level, through pain, made certain his team sprayed champagne as AL Central champions for a third consecutive year."

Everyone got it? Trout had the better season, but it was mostly worthless because his team didn't make the playoffs. Well, maybe Morosi hasn't looked closely at the annual letter sent out by the BBWAA to the MVP voters, because its opening paragraph contains this critical sentence:

"The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier."

The official guidelines for the MVP award specifically note that the MVP winner doesn't have to make the playoffs. And yet, Morosi didn't vote for the candidate he himself acknowledged as the superior one just because that candidate didn't make the playoffs.

That position is fairly indefensible on its own. What makes it downright irresponsible is the fact that Morosi wrote a column three years ago, on the 2010 AL MVP race, in which he used the exact inverse of his 2013 voting philosophy to support his MVP choice. The obvious logical contradictions between the two articles suggest either hypocrisy or severe memory loss.

Back then, the MVP choice was between Josh Hamilton (who ended up winning) and, yet again, Miguel Cabrera. Both of them had great offensive seasons, but Hamilton's Rangers won their division while the Tigers finished in third place, leaving Cabrera out of the postseason. In other words, Cabrera in 2010 was ironically a lot like Trout in 2013 -- a worthy candidate whose MVP chances were crippled by not making the playoffs.

Based on the principles Morosi laid out in his Trout article, we would expect him to have supported Hamilton back in 2010, because he made the postseason and Cabrera didn't. And yet, Morosi wrote a column in September of 2010 titled "Cabrera has MVP edge over Hamilton." Here's how he justified that position back then:

"The BBWAA, of which I am a member, acknowledges that the definition of “value” is subjective. Each individual voter must decide. And while I am not part of the MVP electorate this year, I believe a player’s “value” is best defined as how difficult he would be for the team to replace."

Yeah -- this definition of "value" is entirely different from the one he used to disqualify Trout this year. In 2010, Cabrera's team finishing in third place and missing the playoffs didn't affect his value. In 2013, Trout's team finishing in third place and missing the playoffs rendered his season virtually useless. Cool stuff. Morosi elaborated:

"When Hamilton is hurt, manager Ron Washington can summon David Murphy, who would be a full-time player on many other teams. By comparison, how good would the Tigers be if they didn’t have their MVP candidate?"

One could easily apply this same logic to the Cabrera-Trout debate this year. When Cabrera was hurt and terrible in September, the Tigers were still good enough to win games and make the playoffs. The Angels would've been unspeakably bad without Trout keeping them somewhat respectable. The logic that Morosi used to support Cabrera in 2010 could easily be used in the same way to support Trout in 2013. So of course he just ignored that argument and came up with a new one that supported his desired conclusion.

Another one of his pro-Cabrera points in 2010 was this:

"Take away Hamilton, and the Rangers still have a very good lineup. Take away Cabrera, and Ryan Raburn is the potential cleanup man."

Again: one could say this same exact thing about Cabrera and Trout in 2013. Take Cabrera off the 2013 Tigers and they still would've had a very good lineup, with Torii Hunter, Prince Fielder, Victor Martinez, and Jhonny Peralta. Take Trout off the 2013 Angels and you're left with a sad bunch of guys led by the corpse formerly known as Josh Hamilton. Yet Morosi made no mention of this argument in his more recent MVP column, because the logic would have benefited the wrong player this time around.

Three years ago, Morosi made up a definition of "value" that justified his support for a player whose team finished in third place and missed the playoffs. This year, Morosi made up a whole new definition of "value" that justified his decision to withhold support from a player whose team finished in third place and missed the playoffs. Yes, the BBWAA lets individual voters determine the meaning of that nebulous word on their own, but that doesn't give guys like Morosi the license to keep moving the goalposts and inventing new criteria every single year.

The problem with Cabrera winning two MVPs over Trout isn't the "injustice" of that decision. They're both great players, and who really cares about a stupid award, anyway. The real problem is what these last two MVP races have revealed about some of the sport's most visible and influential writers. Those that are committed to portraying Cabrera as the more valuable player have been willing to resort to flimsy premises like "individual value is tied to team accomplishments" and "great offense renders great defense and base-running irrelevant." The intellectual inconsistency and basic misunderstandings inherent in these weak rationales undermine the credibility and authority of the writers who resort to them.

the most valuable player is the player you'd pay the most to recover via ransom were he to be kidnapped
— Jeff Sullivan (@based_ball) November 14, 2013

My MLB Awards Ballot

The list of baseball awards that are handed out each November keeps growing, from Gold Gloves and Silver Sluggers to Coach of the Year, Rookie of the Year, and even the Rolaids Relief Man Award. But only two really matter: the MVP and the Cy Young, recognizing the best player and best pitcher in each league. Because in fifteen years, some of these players might find themselves on a Hall of Fame ballot, and writers will judge their candidacies on how they performed in these awards. This stuff matters. And if I had a vote, here's how I would use it.

AMERICAN LEAGUE MOST VALUABLE PLAYER

1. Mike Trout, Center Field, Los Angeles Angels
Trout beats out Miguel Cabrera, and by a fair margin. Cabrera did have a very slight advantage at the plate (but not by much). Trout more than made up for that gap by being one of the best defensive players in the league at a valuable position. For good measure, Trout also piled up additional value on the basepaths as an unstoppable runner. Cabrera played in more games because Trout missed April, but Trout ended up with only 58 fewer plate appearances, a negligible number. Trout had one of the most sensational seasons in baseball history and deserves to be recognized.

2. Miguel Cabrera, Third Base, Detroit Tigers
Cabrera deserves to finish in second place because of his unparalleled offensive numbers: a .999 OPS, 44 home runs, 377 total bases, and of course the Triple Crown. He doesn't impact the game in as many ways as Trout, particularly on defense (he's faking it at third base) and on the bases (no basestealing to speak of and 28 double plays grounded into). But Cabrera is the best player in baseball when he's standing in the batter's box, and that counts for something.

3. Robinson Cano, Second Base, New York Yankees
Cano put up elite offensive statistics (.313/.379/.550 with 33 home runs) while playing second base every day with Gold Glove defense. As the best player on the best team in the American League, Cano might have won this award in a different year.

4. Adrian Beltre, Third Base, Texas Rangers
Beltre and Cano are in a virtual tie for third place. They put up remarkably similar offensive numbers and both played great defense (Beltre at third base), though without adding any baserunning value. Cano wins the tiebreaker on account of positional scarcity. AL third basemen as a group hit .257/.315/.405, while second basemen hit just .244/.309/.365, making Cano's contributions slightly more valuable given his peers at his position.

5. Josh Hamilton, Center/Left Field, Texas Rangers
Hamilton looked like he was a shoo-in to win this award after the first two months of the season. Unfortunately, he finished the year poorly, dropping his line down to .285/.354/.577 with 43 home runs. Setting his flaws aside, those are still excellent numbers.

Honorable Mentions
Prince Fielder, First Base, Detroit Tigers
Justin Verlander, Starting Pitcher, Detroit Tigers
Adam Jones, Center Fielder, Baltimore Orioles
Joe Mauer, Catcher, Minnesota Twins
Edwin Encarnacion, Designated Hitter, Toronto Blue Jays

AMERICAN LEAGUE CY YOUNG

1. Justin Verlander, Detroit Tigers
Here are two pitcher seasons:
Player A: 251 innings, 2.40 ERA, 250 strikeouts, 57 walks, 0.92 WHIP
Player B: 238.1 innings, 2.64 ERA, 239 strikeouts, 60 walks, 1.06 WHIP

Player A and Player B had very similar seasons. Player A was slightly better. But Player B wasn't far behind. He was short about two starts' worth of innings, and a few more baserunners over the course of the season led to a handful more runs.

Player A is Justin Verlander in 2011, when he was deemed worthy of BOTH the Cy Young Award and the MVP. Player B is Justin Verlander in 2012. There was hardly even a dropoff from his MVP season. It's hard to argue that anyone else deserves this year's Cy Young more than Verlander.

2. David Price, Tampa Bay Rays
Price came the closest to unseating Verlander at the top. His ERA was slightly lower--2.56 compared to 2.64--but that's a meaningless difference considering Verlander threw more innings (238.1 to 211). That's three complete games' worth. Verlander also had the better strikeout-to-walk ratio, lower WHIP, and was subject to a much poorer defense behind him (after all, Miguel Cabrera was manning third base all year). Still, Price's numbers were good enough to win in most seasons. He very well might win next year.

3. Felix Hernandez, Seattle Mariners
Sure, he "only" won 13 games. He also put up a 3.06 ERA in 232 innings with stellar strikeout and walk ratios. And he threw a perfect game. He gets ranked below Price in part because his home is Safeco Field, the most pitcher-friendly ballpark in the American League.

4. Chris Sale, Chicago White Sox
Every once in a while, a pitcher makes the rare conversion from reliever to starter. Chris Sale handled that that transition better than anyone in recent memory. The rail-thin lefty put up a sparkling 3.05 ERA in 192 innings and was one of four AL pitchers to strike out at least a batter per inning.

5. Jered Weaver, Los Angeles Angels
Weaver and Sale had very similar seasons. Weaver did have a slightly lower ERA, but Sale's strikeout rate was far better and Weaver's home ballpark is very pitcher-friendly. It's almost a wash between the two. Neither threw enough innings to challenge the top three on this ballot.

Honorable Mentions
Hiroki Kuroda, New York Yankees
Jake Peavy, Chicago White Sox
Matt Harrison, Texas Rangers
Fernando Rodney, Tampa Bay Rays
C.C. Sabathia, New York Yankees

NATIONAL LEAGUE MOST VALUABLE PLAYER

1. Buster Posey, Catcher, San Francisco Giants
This National League race is very very close. Unlike Trout and Verlander in the AL, there doesn't seem to be an obvious selection here. Posey offers the best balance of offensive production (.336/.408/.549) with defensive contributions (as a a catcher). His team also won its division, unlike the next few candidates. Posey isn't the obvious choice, but he looks like the best choice.

2. Ryan Braun, Left Field, Milwaukee Brewers
Braun's 2012 was almost identical to his 2011. And Braun won this award in 2011. So what changed? Without Prince Fielder, his Brewers missed the playoffs. There's some voter fatigue. And the elephant in the room: he tested positive for an illegal substance late last year but wasn't disciplined thanks to mysterious irregularities. Hopefully, that won't affect Braun's vote total. Braun should finish in the top three.

3. Yadier Molina, Catcher, St. Louis Cardinals
Molina is the wild card in this race. Compare him and Posey:

Posey: .336/.408/.549, 24 home runs
Molina: .315/.373/.479, 22 home runs

Posey has a slight offensive edge. But Molina is far better defensively. In fact, he's the consensus best defensive catcher in baseball, and completely shuts down opponents' baserunning. So how much is that advantage worth? Is it enough to overcome that slight offensive gap? Because it's impossible to quantify, Molina ends up at third on this ballot. He very well could deserve to be higher. Catcher defense is just too hard to measure.

4. Andrew McCutchen, Center Field, Pittsburgh Pirates
What can you say about McCutchen? A .327 average, .400 on-base percentage, and .553 slugging percentage. 31 homers. 20 steals. A fantastic all-around player. He should win this award someday.

5. David Wright, Third Base, New York Mets
Unfortunately, he plays for the Mets. If he didn't, perhaps more people would have noticed his stellar season: a .306 average, a .391 OBP, 21 homers, and great defense at third base for a terrible team in a pitchers' park. Not too shabby.

Honorable Mentions
Chase Headley, Third Base, San Diego Padres
Aaron Hill, Second Base, Arizona Diamondbacks
Aramis Ramirez, Third Base, Milwaukee Brewers
Michael Bourn, Center Field, Atlanta Braves
Matt Holliday, Left Field, St. Louis Cardinals

NATIONAL LEAGUE CY YOUNG

1. Clayton Kershaw, Los Angeles Dodgers
This race is literally a toss-up. See for yourself:

Player A: 233.2 innings, 2.73 ERA, 230 strikeouts, 54 walks, 1.05 WHIP
Player B: 227.2 innings, 2.53 ERA, 229 strikeouts, 63 walks, 1.02 WHIP

It's very close. Because the difference in innings is basically negligible, I prefer Player B for his slightly better rates. Player B is Clayton Kershaw. Advanced metrics liked Kershaw better, too. But this is splitting hairs.

2. R.A. Dickey, New York Mets
Player A in that comparison above is Dickey, and one can easily make the case that he deserves to be #1 on the ballot. He has the benefit of being a 37-year-old knuckleballer with a feel-good story, and there's probably some voter fatigue with Kershaw, who won the Cy Young last year too. Kershaw was just a smidge better than Dickey. If Dickey wins the award, it'll be a perfectly defensible decision.

3. Gio Gonzalez, Washington Nationals
Gonzalez wasn't far behind Kershaw and Dickey. He owned the best strikeout rate in the National League and though he failed to throw 200 innings, he did post a nice 2.89 ERA. Gonzalez is a darkhorse candidate to steal the award thanks to his 21 wins and a potential split vote between Kershaw and Dickey. That wouldn't be fair to the top two, who were on a tier of their own.

4. Johnny Cueto, Cincinnati Reds
The ultimate low-profile workhorse. Cueto quietly piled up 217 stellar innings with a 2.78 ERA. The advanced metrics don't like him because his strikeout rate is low and he seems to enjoy a lot of luck, but he gets the job done.

5. Matt Cain, San Francisco Giants
Cain's numbers were almost identical to Cueto's: a 2.79 ERA in 219.1 innings, and he too didn't enjoy gaudy strikeout numbers. Cueto gets ranked higher because he pitches in homer-happy Great American Ballpark, while Cain benefits from the spacious confines of AT&T Park.

Honorable Mentions:
Kyle Lohse, St. Louis Cardinals
Cole Hamels, Philadelphia Phillies
Cliff Lee, Philadelphia Phillies
Craig Kimbrel, Atlanta Braves
Aroldis Chapman, Cincinnati Reds

Verlander and Cabrera

Would the Tigers still have beaten the Athletics in their five-game playoff series without Miguel Cabrera?

Probably. He reached base six times in five games, driving in one run and scoring another.

Would the Tigers still have beaten the Athletics in their five-game playoff series without Justin Verlander?

Almost certainly not. He threw 16 innings (including a complete-game shutout in the deciding Game 5 on the road), allowed one run in the series, and basically got the Tigers two of their three victories by himself.

I still believe Miguel Cabrera was more valuable to the Tigers than Justin Verlander over the course of the entire regular season, and he should finish higher on the MVP ballot because of that.

But in a few weeks, Cabrera will win the MVP over Mike Trout. And writers who voted for Cabrera will defend their decision by claiming "Cabrera carried his team," which is what real MVPs do. At that point, I will think back to this Detroit/Oakland playoff series, and I will wonder, "Did Cabrera carry Verlander, or was it Verlander who carried Cabrera?" And I think I know the answer to my question.

Why Mike Trout Should Be The MVP

Let me preface this by saying: Miguel Cabrera is awesome. He won the Triple Crown, he's going to the Hall of Fame, and he's either the best or second-best hitter in baseball (depending on what you think of Joey Votto). That's amazing. So I don't mean to disparage him when I say that he's not the American League's Most Valuable Player this year. I'm saying that, as good as Cabrera has been, Mike Trout has been even better, which perhaps starts to describe how truly epic the Angels outfielder's season has been.

Miguel Cabrera is the best hitter in baseball. Mike Trout is the best player. He's almost Cabrera's equal at the plate (more on that later...) and is miles better than Cabrera at every other facet of the game. Advanced metrics like Wins Above Replacement can quantify Trout's advantage in value over Cabrera. I don't even think that angle of the pro-Trout argument is necessary. Common sense says that Mike Trout should win the American League MVP, and it really should be unanimous.

But a lot of people disagree. So here are the most popular MVP arguments made for Cabrera and against Trout, and why most of them are either misleading or complete bogus.

"Cabrera won the Triple Crown, so he deserves the MVP."

No, he doesn't. Winning the Triple Crown is an awesome historical achievement. It's also three arbitrary statistics pulled out of a hat and given a cool name. What if the three statistics were Runs, Stolen Bases, and Spectacular Home-Run-Robbing Catches? Then Mike Trout would have just won the "Triple Crown." It hasn't been done in a long time? Since 1967, you say? Sure, then my counter would be: Mike Trout just became the first player EVER to hit 30 home runs, score 125 runs, and steal 45 bases. If one wants to play the 'historical' card, well, it works both ways.

Now, it is relevant that Cabrera put up great numbers in the Triple Crown categories: a .330 batting average, 44 home runs, and 139 RBIs. But the MVP is an individual award, and two of those statistics are poor evaluators of individual value. Batting average counts all hits as the same, doesn't include sacrifices or walks, and only counts double plays as one out. RBIs are dependent on opportunity, luck, and where a batter hits in the lineup. These statistics, while mainstream, just aren't the best way to determine value.

And if people cite Cabrera's advantage in RBIs over Trout (139 to 83) as evidence of his superior baseball skills, well, those people should be flogged. Cabrera hit in the middle of the order while Trout hit in the leadoff spot ahead of the Angels' worst hitters. If you're going to look at RBIs, then you're obligated to also look at runs scored. Trout led the league in that category with 129 in 139 games played. Either you consider both RBIs and runs, or you thrown them both away. It makes no sense to immortalize RBIs as part of the Triple Crown and ignore runs. They're the two sides of the same statistical concept.

"Cabrera made the playoffs, and Trout didn't."

Reaching the playoffs is a team accomplishment, not an individual one, so it doesn't have much of a place in a debate over an individual award like the MVP. Is it Trout's fault that the Angels had a terrible bullpen, or that Ervin Santana had a thing for giving up home runs, or that Mark Trumbo forgot how to hit after the All-Star Break?

Anyway, here's the best part. The Angels went 6-14 without Trout on the roster; in other words, they were on pace for 48.6 wins over a full season, which obviously would have been the worst record in baseball. The Angels called up Trout from the minor leagues on April 28th, and from that day on they went 83-59. Over a full season, that that's a 94.6-win pace, which would've been good enough to make the playoffs. I'm obviously not saying that Trout alone was responsible for that massive swing in win total, but traditionalists often ask themselves the following hypothetical question when deciding on an MVP: "Where would Team X be without Player Y?" Well, we kind of know the answer in this case. Look at the difference between the two Angels teams.

But on the most simple level? Cabrera's Tigers finished with 88 wins in the easiest division in baseball. Trout's Angels finished with 89 in the toughest division in baseball. The fact that Cabrera is going to the postseason instead of Trout is completely attributable to a poorly-constructed divisional system with an unbalanced schedule. The Angels are better than the Tigers. Cabrera supporters simply can't make any claim that involves playoffs.

"Cabrera carried his team."

The worst argument of them all. A) it's subjective, B) it's completely un-provable, C) it implies that Trout didn't do the same, and worst of all D) it implies that Cabrera had no help. Are we completely ignoring the fact that the Tigers also had the best pitcher in baseball, Justin Verlander, and one of the best hitters in baseball, Prince Fielder? Did they not do any carrying of their own? What about Detroit's 3.10 team ERA in the final month of the season, 2nd best in the American League? Did that have nothing to do with the team's late-season run at the division title?

"Cabrera helped his team win a division title."

The Tigers get to play in the AL Central. Its second-place team was the White Sox, who won 85 games, which would've been good enough for only a 4th-place finish in the other two AL divisions. It's the only division in baseball that had three teams win less than 45% of their games. Detroit got to play dozens and dozens of games against the Twins, Royals, and Indians, three of the worst pitching teams in baseball. Perhaps one of the most unimpressive, meaningless titles that can be bestowed on any team is "2012 AL Central Champions."

"Cabrera was better than Trout when it mattered most: September."

It's true that Cabrera was a better hitter than Trout over the final month. He hit .333/.395/.675. But Trout wasn't exactly a slouch: he hit .289/.400/.500 over the same period (and his OBP was better than Cabrera's, so he was still committing fewer outs). And this is implying that all value is derived from hitting, which isn't true; even when Trout's slumping, he's providing value with his legs and glove. That's not the case for Cabrera.

Then there's the assumption that games in September somehow "matter more" than games in other, inferior months. Nope. Wins in, say, May and July (months when Trout was a better hitter than Cabrera) count just the same as wins in September. Just ask the Angels: they essentially missed the playoffs because of a bad stretch in April.

"Trout didn't play in April, so Cabrera played more games."

This is the converse of the previous argument. You shouldn't be able to make both claims simultaneously. You can't say "September counts way more than every other month!" while also saying, "Trout didn't play in April, so he can't win!" Totally incongruous. Either the months all count the same or they don't.

Cabrera did play in more games than Trout. Trout still came to the plate 639 times, compared to 697 for Cabrera. Plus, Cabrera had a lower on-base percentage than Trout (.393 to .399) and grounded into more double plays (28 to 7), so whatever small advantage he has in playing time is totally nullified by the extra outs he made. Cabrera did play roughly 100 more innings in the field, but Trout was such a better defender in his innings at a more important position that the difference barely matters.

Finally, in 2010, Josh Hamilton won the MVP even though he played in only 133 games. That was 17 games fewer than the second-place finisher, but voters agreed that Hamilton was so much better in his fewer games that he merited the award. Who finished second that year? Miguel Cabrera. It's not like there's no precedent.

"Cabrera changed positions so that the Tigers could sign Prince Fielder, helping his team win."

Heck, if Cabrera didn't change positions for Fielder, what would that say about him? No, hang on, that's not the point. People are suddenly heaping credit on Cabrera for what they perceive as selflessness when he moved to third base to allow Prince Fielder to play first. They've even gone so far as to credit Cabrera with the value Fielder brought to the team, as if Cabrera was solely responsible for signing him and paying his salary. No, the Tigers wanted Cabrera to DH; he didn't consider himself a DH and wanted to move to third instead. The Tigers let him. This created an offensive hole at DH (ughh Delmon Young, the worst) and a defensive liability at third. The Tigers probably would have won more games if Cabrera had been a DH and the team had gotten a defensively sound third baseman to help the pitching staff prevent runs.

I'm not trying to detract from Cabrera; his personal value is obviously greater as a third baseman rather than a DH. This whole angle is just hopeless flawed. Thirty times this year, Trout moved off center field so that his manager could field a better team. No one recognizes that or gives him credit for it. There's just no evidence to suggest that Cabrera is any more of a "team player" or "selfless" than Trout. This is stupid, we're done with this one.

"Cabrera deserves it. Trout can win Rookie of the Year; he has a whole career to win MVPs."

Awards aren't given out based on career achievement or whose turn it is. They're based on merit, and Trout is the more deserving candidate. Hey voters, if you think Cabrera "deserves" an MVP, why didn't you give it to him last year?

Cabrera, 2012: .330/.393/.606/1.033, 166 OPS+
Cabrera, 2011: .344/.448/.586/.999, 179 OPS+

Cabrera's 2011 was in some ways better than his 2012. The only thing that's better this year is the sexy stats: the home runs and RBIs, probably because Cabrera now has Austin Jackson in front of him and Prince Fielder behind him. So Cabrera maybe should have won the MVP last year, but the voters thought that his teammate, ace Justin Verlander, was more valuable. He won the MVP instead. This year, Verlander is having basically the exact same season, but everyone is falling over themselves to crown Miguel Cabrera king of the world. If everyone decided Verlander was the more valuable Tiger just last year, and Verlander basically just repeated last year's season, why has Cabrera suddenly leapfrogged Verlander in terms of value? I will tell you why: because of home runs and RBIs. Cabrera didn't have enough to win the MVP in 2011, and now he has enough to win in 2012. Home runs and RBIs. They're all anyone cares about. It wasn't fair to 2011 Miguel Cabrera and it isn't fair to 2012 Mike Trout.

"Picking Trout over Cabrera puts too much stock into Wins Above Replacement."

No one's saying that the leader in Wins Above Replacement (a rough measurement of a player's all-around value) should automatically win the MVP. That's a straw man argument. WAR just backs up what we observe: that Mike Trout is the most valuable player in the league because he impacts every facet of the game at the highest level.

WAR is just one small piece of the vast pie of evidence supporting Trout's case. It is, however, one of the most delicious. There are two different ways of calculating WAR, but both methods have Trout at the top of this year's leaderboard (with either 10.4 or 10.7 WAR; no other player had more than 8). Baseball Reference.com has Trout's 10.7 WAR season as tied for the 20th-best season by a position player in baseball history (tied with Willie Mays in 1964 and Ted Williams in 1946). The only players in baseball history who have had better single seasons: Ruth, Hornsby, Yastrzemski, Bonds, Gehrig, Ripken, Wagner, Cobb, Mantle, Morgan, and Mays. And Trout didn't even play a full season. WAR could be overstating Trout's value a little, or even a lot, and 2012 would still rank as a historically elite season.

You don't need WAR to prove Trout is the most valuable player in baseball. It's just the icing on the cake.

"Cabrera was so much better offensively than Trout that baserunning and defense don't matter."

Of all the arguments here, this is the one that's most reasonable. A Cabrera supporter could claim that the superior offensive player should get the nod because there's no exact measurement of Trout's 'baserunning' or 'defensive' value, so we can't be sure.

This is still wrong, because the argument can be made that Trout was just as good a hitter--and perhaps a better hitter--than Miguel Cabrera this year.

First of all, their triple-slash lines are closer than one would expect: .330/.393/.606 for Cabrera compared to .326/.399/.564 for Trout. Cabrera's advantage comes in the slugging department, giving him 377 total bases compared to Trout's 315, but Trout closes that gap with his 49 stolen bases.

Another way to compare the two players at the plate is to look at adjusted-OPS, or OPS+, which takes a player's on-base-plus-slugging% and adjusts it to account for league and park factors. An OPS+ of 100 is league average; every point over or under that represents a percentage point better or worse than average. When you adjust for the fact that Cabrera played his home games in a park slightly favorable to offense, while Trout played his home games in a ballpark that suppresses offense, the American League leaders in OPS+ this year looks like this:

1. Mike Trout: 171
2. Miguel Cabrera: 166

However, a lot of people don't like obscure context-neutral statistics when it come to MVP voting. So there's another very simple metric that includes context, called RE24. An article about it was recently posted at Fangraphs.com. RE24 is the difference in run expectancy between the beginning and end of a hitter's at-bat. For example, when a hitter comes to the plate with runners on first and third with two outs, teams are expected to score an average of 0.33 runs in that situation. So a three-run home run would give the hitter a +2.67 bonus in RE24. It works in the opposite way if a hitter detracts from his team's run expectancy, thus losing points. It might seem like Cabrera would lap the field in RE24 because he has so many RBIs, hits for so much power, and is acknowledged as "the last player you'd want to face with men in scoring position."

The American League leader in RE24 is Mike Trout (+56.52 runs). Cabrera ranks fifth (+45.18) after Edwin Encarnacion, Prince Fielder, and Joe Mauer.

Again: this isn't taking baserunning into account, or defense, or position, or competition, or ballpark. This is just a straight-up measurement of how much better-than-average a player is at helping his team score runs. Trout comes out better than Cabrera.

Now throw in the fact that Trout is a 21-year-old rookie center fielder, who is probably the best baserunner and best defensive player in the sport, who plays in a pitcher's park, in the toughest division in baseball, for a team that instantly transformed from a loser into a winner when he was called up, and....why are we still having this discussion?

This is the Problem

This might shock you, but the General Manager of the Detroit Tigers, Dave Dombrowski, thinks Miguel Cabrera should be the MVP. When making his case, he had this to say about advanced statistics like Wins Above Replacement that prefer Mike Trout over Cabrera:

"You can use WAR stats and all of that, but when people used to talk about most valuable player, it used to be, ‘Take that player away from the club and see where that club would be.’ You take Miguel Cabrera out of our lineup right now, and you see where we would be.”

That's literally exactly what WAR is.

This is Wikipedia's definition of WAR, with the most relevant part in bold:

"Wins Above Replacement, commonly known as WAR, is a non-standardized sabermetric baseball statistic that is used to show how many more wins a player would give a team as opposed to a "replacement level", or minor league/bench player at that position."

This is the problem with people who discount WAR when it prefers Mike Trout over Cabrera. They throw it away without even trying to understand what it actually is. Even General Managers of baseball teams.

This Is Bad Logic

ESPN.com had the following poll up on its website:

The potential answers to the poll are poorly set up. The fact that we should evaluate Miguel Cabrera's MVP case differently depending on whether or not he wins the Triple Crown is bogus. Apparently, 30% of people would pick as their MVP regardless of his Triple Crown chase. BUT 41% of people would pick Cabrera as their MVP only if he DOES win the Triple Crown. I would love to meet those people and talk to them for a little while. This is what I would say:

"Hi, 41% of ESPN.com visitors who took this poll. I have a scenario for you. Pretend Miguel Cabrera finishes the season with 43 home runs, okay? Now, if Josh Hamilton ends up with 42, Cabrera would win the Triple Crown, so he would be your MVP, right? Okay. So if Hamilton finishes with 44 home runs, Cabrera would not win the Triple Crown, so he wouldn't be your MVP, right? All right. Do you not realize that Cabrera's value was exactly the same in both scenarios? Do you not realize that you changed your mind about Cabrera's worthiness for MVP based on a couple extra home runs hit by another player not even in the conversation for MVP? Do you not realize the complete absurdity of using Josh Hamilton's home run total or Joe Mauer's batting average to determine an MVP race between Miguel Cabrera and Mike Trout?" At this point, my head would implode and the conversation would end abruptly.

I'm concerned for the future of this country when I see that all but a few states are colored green, meaning they don't understand this logic. Anyway, the 41% aren't the only ones who are wrong. The 30% are wrong too, for picking Cabrera over Trout. The 41% are just wrong AND stupid. The 29%, though? Those guys are groovy. Alaskans, Californians, Utahns, and Mississippians have always been my kind of people.

How To Make Yourself Look Like An Idiot

Baseball is being seized by an increasingly contentious debate over who should win the American League's Most Valuable Player award. The dividing lines aren't this clear, but for the most part, the "new-school" baseball blogging community prefers Mike Trout of the Angels, while "old-school" sportswriters and analysts for majors sports organizations and newspapers favor Miguel Cabrera of the Tigers. The argument should, by all rights, be settled with this succinct line of logic:

Miguel Cabrera has been a slightly better hitter than Mike Trout in 2012. However, hitting is only one of baseball's three dimensions, and Trout has a sizable advantage in the other two (baserunning and defense). Cabrera's small edge in hitting is not enough to overcome Trout's massive edge when it comes to baserunning and defense. The award is not titled 'Most Valuable Hitter,' But 'Most Valuable Player.' Trout is the MVP.

There are a whole bunch of advanced statistics and metrics that can actually prove the above statement numerically, but truthfully those shouldn't be necessary. These are very simple concepts about the nature of baseball that we're dealing with.

Yet apparently some people can't grasp them. This includes this man:

His name is Rob Parker. He was a sports journalist for The Detroit News, and now works for ESPN, where he appears on a number of different debate shows. On Wednesday afternoon, ESPN aired a segment where Rob Parker argued for several minutes over who should win the AL MVP. He sided with Cabrera. His opponent was another ESPN analyst, Keith Law. Keith Law is one of the most respected baseball writers on the Internet. He provides advanced statistical analysis, evaluates minor league prospects, and unlike Parker, actually worked in baseball, for the Toronto Blue Jays as the Special Assistant to the General Manager. Law sided with Trout in the MVP debate. Some evidence that this actually took place:

FYI: I'll be on SportsCenter at 4:15pm today. Imma destroy stat man Keith Law over who should b AL MVP -- Trout or Cabrera. Not even close.
— Rob Parker (@RobParkerESPN) September 26, 2012

 After the segment, Rob Parker took to Twitter and made an absolute fool out of himself:

To all the stat-geeks that follow @keithlaw: please put ur calculators down and watch the damn game. That's why the A's haven't won jack.
— Rob Parker (@RobParkerESPN) September 26, 2012

"Stat-geeks"? Who are they? People in baseball who value statistics? That's EVERYONE WHO WATCHES BASEBALL. It would be impossible to for baseball--or any sport--to exist without statistics. I'm sure Rob Parker cited Miguel Cabrera's home run total and batting average to support his argument. Those are stats. Heck, the final score of every game is a statistic. The best part about this is the fact that Parker appears most frequently on an ESPN show titled "Numbers Never Lie." Ha. Irony.

"Watch the damn game"? Keith Law watches 'the damn game' for a living. I'm positive he watches 'the damn game' more than Rob Parker. He watches 'the damn game' so well that ESPN pays him to write columns, hold chats, and host podcasts on a daily basis. Of course, ESPN also pays Rob Parker, so maybe that does rob him of some credibility.

"That's why the A's haven't won jack"? I'm assuming he means that the A's emphasis on statistical analysis is the reason why they haven't 'won jack.' Well...I'm positive that every single team in baseball focuses on statistical analysis. That's how, you know, players are evaluated and teams are run. How else would you do it? Also, Parker chose a terrible time to accuse the A's of not winning jack. Because even though ESPN ranked them as the second-worst team in baseball entering the season, and even though their Opening Day payroll was the second-lowest in baseball, the Oakland Athletics are currently on track to make the postseason. Hey, just for the heck of it:

2012 Wins by the "Can't Win Jack" Oakland Athletics: 87
2012 Wins by the "We've Got the Obvious MVP, Miguel Cabrera" Detroit Tigers: 82.

I'm assuming Rob Parker is also referring to the Moneyball-Era Athletics when he said the team hasn't 'won jack.' Right. Except for the fact that between 1999 and 2006, despite microscopic payrolls, the Athletics finished either first or second in their division every single year. Their lowest win total in those seasons was 87. But don't forget--the A's haven't won jack. All they did was set the AL record for consecutive wins in 2002.

It gets worse.

I've watched that Billy Beane movie 20 times and the A's never won the World Series. Stats so lame, they couldn't add a Hollywood-ending.
— Rob Parker (@RobParkerESPN) September 26, 2012

 Maybe Rob Parker doesn't understand how movies work?

Where's my pocket protector, glasses, laptop and another date-less night? I wanna fit in. Lol
— Rob Parker (@RobParkerESPN) September 26, 2012

Haha! Get it? Because only nerds who use newfangled "statistics" have vision problems and use computers! Classic. Classic Rob.

On a serious note, the one thing I don't understand most of all is this: why are you automatically a nerdy, statistics-worshiping, pocket-protecting, loveless-guy-with-glasses-and-a-laptop-in-your-mom's-basement if you support Mike Trout for MVP? You don't need obtuse computer-generated stats to argue his case. He's just so obviously the best all-around player in baseball that anything said to the contrary sounds foolish.

In fact, going off that point, I'm utterly confused why old-school guys like Rob Parker aren't falling over themselves to kiss Mike Trout's feet and champion him as the MVP. Because Trout is the exact kind of player that classic sportswriters and journalists love to write hyperbolic pieces about in every major newspaper and on every major website. He's the perfect baseball player. His frame is big enough and strong enough that he can effortlessly hit the ball out of the park the other way, yet he's still fast enough to play a great center field and never get caught stealing. He's always causing havoc on the basepaths, setting things up for teammates, energizing his team. He does "all the little things" that the old school adores: stealing a bag, laying down a bunt, making a diving catch, robbing a home run, outrunning a double play, scoring from second on a single, stretching doubles into triples, playing at 110% intensity at all times. The baseball writers love preaching about how valuable and selfless and throwback-y all that stuff is and how it's massively under-appreciated and how it can never be accurately captured by dumb statistics churned out of computers by basement-dwelling 'stat-nerds' who don't watch the game.

Yet now that the numbers and computers and 'stat-nerds' all support this point of view? That yes, Mike Trout's all-around play is worthy of the Most Valuable Player award? All the Rob Parkers of the world have jumped ship. They've done a complete about-face to champion Miguel Cabrera, who in the past they would have scorned because he can't play defense or run fast or do "all the little things." It's as if the old school is terrified of holding the same point of view as the new school, for fear of turning into glasses-wearing, laptop-using stat-nerds. To heck with the actual right answer.

Why does it matter what Rob Parker says on Twitter? He's probably just being provocative on purpose to generate buzz or something. Why care? I can't really say it better than Brandon McCarthy, who might actually know something about the subject considering he's a real-life pitcher for the can't-win-jack Oakland Athletics and his career was turned around when he embraced advanced statistics:

Those are the words of an 'expert debater'. One who's employed by the biggest sports media company in the country. Embarrassing
— Brandon McCarthy (@BMcCarthy32) September 26, 2012

Want another reason? Rob Parker has a vote for the Baseball Hall of Fame. Keith Law doesn't. If that doesn't tell you something's messed up, nothing will.

A Note About the AL MVP Race

On Tuesday night, Miguel Cabrera announced his assault on the Triple Crown. His two home runs gave him 40 on the season, which trails Josh Hamilton by two. His six RBIs give him a commanding lead in that category, 129 to 123 over Hamilton. Cabrera also leads the AL batting race with a .333 average, six points better than Mike Trout's .327.

So if Cabrera out-homers Josh Hamilton over the next two weeks, while maintaining his lead in the RBI and batting average departments, he will win the first Triple Crown since Carl Yastrzemski did it in 1967. If this happens, it seems as though Cabrera will be a mortal lock to win the MVP over Mike Trout. That's how historic this achievement would be.

However, there's another statistical achievement in play that should be considered. BaseballReference.com tracks the history of single-season Wins Above Replacement figures. WAR, unlike the Triple Crown, is an all-encompassing statistic that does its best to quantify a player's all-around value--offense, defense, baserunning--in one simple number. This stands in direct contrast to the Triple Crown, which, despite its aura, only measures home runs, runs batted in, and batting average.

In the history of baseball, only 19 players have ever accumulated 10 WAR in a season. It's the holy grail of the statistic. If you're interested, those players are:

Babe Ruth
Rogers Hornsby
Carl Yastrzemski
Barry Bonds
Lou Gehrig
Cal Ripken Jr.
Honus Wagner
Ty Cobb
Mickey Mantle
Willie Mays
Joe Morgan
Stan Musial
Ted Williams
Robin Yount
Lou Boudreau
Jimmie Foxx
Eddie Collins
Alex Rodriguez
Sammy Sosa

That's 16 Hall of Famers, plus three more (Bonds, Rodriguez, Sosa) who may one day get there.

This year, a 20th player joined this exclusive group. He currently sits at 10.3 WAR and the season isn't even over yet. The player isn't Cabrera. It's Mike Trout.

Cabrera could win the Triple Crown by a landslide and it still wouldn't matter. Not only has Trout has been the most valuable player in baseball this year; he's achieved a season of dominance that only 19 Hall of Fame-caliber players have ever achieved before. And he's done it in only 125 games so far, thanks to missing the first month of the season through no fault of his own.

Trout is the MVP. Any other result would be a joke.

This Man Is Paid To Write About Baseball

Jon Heyman of CBS Sports unleashed this bizarre message unto the Twitter universe on Monday night, unaltered so that its capitalization-fail remains intact:

"matt wieters should be on mvp ballots somewhere. best player in game w/ .765 OPS."

Here's some physical evidence that this actually happened, in case you were skeptical:

matt wieters should be on mvp ballots somewhere. best player in game w/ .765 OPS.
— Jon Heyman (@JonHeymanCBS) September 18, 2012

I have no quarrel with Wieters appearing on an MVP ballot, especially since those things can run 20 players deep depending on the year. What's truly baffling is the second statement, or the justification for the first statement:

Matt Wieters is the best player in the game with a .765 OPS.

Here's the thing: technically, this is true. Because entering play Monday, Matt Wieters was the only player in baseball with an OPS at exactly .765. So by default, yes, this is technically a fact.

But it doesn't matter. It's a ludicrous thing to say. Utterly nonsensical. I suppose Alexei Ramirez is the best player in baseball with a .671 OPS, but only because his only competition at that statistical benchmark is the esteemed Michael Young. Did you know that Justin Smoak is the best player in baseball with a .601 OPS? He's the only one, too! He should be on MVP ballots somewhere!

I guess what Heyman was trying to say is that, for a player with a .765 OPS (which is okay, nothing to write home about, with the league average for catchers at just above .700), Wieters is very good. Especially compared to players who have an OPS in the same neighborhood as Wieters, like Justin Upton (.764) or Neil Walker (.766). Of course, this stems from the fact that Wieters is a catcher, and that he plays great defense. If one was to make a real-life, non-Heymanian argument supporting some MVP votes for Wieters, one would have to cite defensive value as the best supporting evidence. Not some bizarre justification based on a random OPS number that isn't even terribly impressive in the first place.

Hopefully, Jon Heyman is just messing with us. Please.

Some Light Jeter Worship

Some satirical headlines are funny. Others are hilarious...until you realize that they're not satirical at all, and are actually meant to be taken seriously, at which point they immediately stop being funny and cause the reader to question the author's sanity. One such headline, courtesy of Barry Bloom, can be found right now on MLB.com:

Jeter deserving of serious MVP consideration

Hahahahaha oh wait--he's serious. Um. Go on...

NEW YORK -- It may be a little early to even begin the conversation, but if the regular season ends for the Yankees the way it's transpiring right now, Derek Jeter should be given heavy consideration by voting members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America as Most Valuable Player of the American League.

Jeter, the Yankees' All-Star shortstop and captain, is having a great season on the field. Coupled with his off-field leadership, he embodies the spirit of that award. Jeter's work ethic and day-to-day play not only make him the MVP of a team that is currently running away with the AL East, but the MVP of the entire league.

Somewhere, Robinson Cano is reading this and thinking to himself, "What the hell, man?"

OPS Leaders, 2012 New York Yankees
Robinson Cano: .957
Curtis Granderson: .864
Andruw Jones: .843
Mark Teixeira: .822
Nick Swisher: .819
Eric Chavez: .816
Alex Rodriguez: .789
Derek Jeter: .767
Raul Ibanez: .756
Russell Martin: .651

I'm pretty sure that you have to be the MVP of your own team before you can be considered for MVP of the league. And based on the above chart (verrrry complex stuff, mind you), Derek Jeter might be the fourth- or fifth-most dangerous hitter on any given day in the Yankees lineup. And it's not like he's saving runs on defense either.

"All the things he's done for the Yankees over the years he's doing this year, for sure," said Angels manager Mike Scioscia, voicing an objective opinion from the opposing dugout before his club lost a 5-3 decision on Saturday. "There's obviously an incredible leadership he brings in the things he does day in and day out. His numbers speak for themselves. He's a Hall of Fame player."

Well then, I guess that renders any further argument moot, considering Mike Scioscia chooses the American League MVP every year.

Wait, that doesn't sound right.

To be sure, Scioscia has his own pair of highly regarded candidates in outfielder Mark Trumbo and Mike Trout. The Rangers' Josh Hamilton and Detroit's Miguel Cabrera also have to be near the top of any list.

In other words: "To be sure, there are tons of players out there having more MVP-like seasons than Derek Jeter, but I don't really care about them because they're not Derek Jeter."

But Jeter sets the tone in the Yankees' clubhouse, and he's the table-setter at the top of the lineup, starting rallies the sluggers below him often finish. To that point, Jeter is hitting .390 with a .405 on-base percentage and a 1.015 OPS when he leads off innings this season. On two occasions in the first two games of this high-pressure series against the Angels at Yankee Stadium, Jeter opened an inning with the Yankees trailing.

On Friday night he sparked a key eighth-inning, four-run rally with a double, later scoring on Mark Teixeira's tying three-run homer. The Yanks won that game, 6-5. On Saturday, with the Angels already leading, 2-0, heading into the bottom of the first, Jeter led off by beating out an infield single. Robinson Cano knocked him in with a two-run homer.

Those two paragraphs boiled down into a simple chart:

The Main Reasons Why Derek Jeter Should Be The MVP, According to Barry Bloom:
1. He's good at setting things (tone, tables, etc.)
2. This must be doubly-true because it just happened on BOTH Thursday AND Friday
3. He scores when Mark Teixeira and Robinson Cano hit home runs (underrated skill)

...The MVP award would not only be acknowledgement for a job well done this season, but the culmination of a career in which the Yankees have won five World Series, seven AL pennants and been to the playoffs every year except one since 1995. Along the way, Jeter is a .313 lifetime hitter with a .382 on-base percentage and .830 OPS. But in his first 17 seasons, he's only been as high as second in the MVP voting once, and third twice.

This season ought to be his time to finish No. 1.

One last time, just for emphasis:

Derek Jeter:
310/.354/.413, .767 OPS, 7 HRs, 25 RBIs, Poor Defense

That One Dude Named Robinson Lucky Enough To Play Adjacent To Derek Jeter's Aura:
.315/.374/.582, .957 OPS, 21 HRs, 54 RBIs, Good Defense

Why is this even a discussion?

Matt Kemp Is Not The MVP

With two months and a third of the season in the books, it's just about time to begin the annual debate over what the word "valuable" means in the MVP discussion. CBS Sports columnist and frequent agitator of reasonable men Jon Heyman has handed out his early-season awards, and while his choices for AL MVP (Josh Hamilton), AL Cy Young (Chris Sale), and NL Cy Young (Gio Gonzalez) are all perfectly defensible, his selection for NL MVP is not:

"1. Matt Kemp, Dodgers OF: He's played only 36 games, but what a 36 games it was. He had 12 home runs, 28 RBI, .355 batting average, .719 slugging percentage amd 1.163 OPS before going down a second time because of hamstring trouble. The Dodgers are hanging in nicely without him, but he got them off on the right foot."

First off: "getting one's team off on the right foot" is not one of the official MVP criteria. Not by any stretch of anyone's imagination.

Now: why isn't Kemp the MVP? Because while he might be the best player in the National League in 2012, he definitely hasn't been the most valuable.

The Dodgers have played in 60 games this season. Kemp has played in 36 of them. A position player cannot be a candidate for Most Valuable Player if he has only appeared in 60% of his team's games. Sure, Kemp has provided MVP value when he's been in the lineup...but he's also provided exactly ZERO value the other 40% of the time. In those games, his at-bats are being taken by Elian Herrera. That takes him out of the running for the award right now.

And it's not like Heyman is counting on Kemp to return to the lineup tomorrow or next week. He may not be back until the Dodgers have played 80 games. At that point, the season will be half-over and Kemp will have played in less than half of the maximum number of games. This player can't be the most valuable guy in the league. Lots of players have been "worse" than Kemp this year, but still have been more valuable than the Dodgers star because they actually played in baseball games this past month.

Remember: although the statistics Heyman cites for Kemp (.355/.444/.719) are amazing, they should be taken with a grain of salt because they were accumulated in 100 fewer trips to the plate than other National League stars. Joey Votto, for instance, has a similar .360/.480/.640 triple-slash line and plays an inferior defensive position, but still has accumulated far more Wins Above Replacement than Kemp (3.8 to 2.3) because, um, he's played a lot more (246 plate appearances to 144). So who else has been more valuable, according to WAR, than Kemp? Eleven players: Votto, David Wright, Michael Bourn, Martin Prado, Ryan Braun, Yadier Molina, Carlos Ruiz, Jed Lowrie, A.J. Ellis, Chase Headley, and Melky Cabrera. That group will only grow as Kemp remains stuck at 2.3 WAR for the next three weeks and he's passed by the likes of Andrew McCutchen, Giancarlo Stanton, and a bunch of others.

There is, of course, still time for Kemp to make up the lost time and mash his way to the MVP award. But at this point? Picking Matt Kemp as the MVP of the early-season? Over guys like Votto and Wright who have been just as good, far more often? Sorry, but nope. Position players have to contribute to more than 60% of their team's games to be considered the most valuable player in their league.