MLB: What makes a player “most valuable?”

As the season winds down, we begin to see more and more articles, statements and debates about season ending awards. Generally, the MLB Most Valuable Player award is at the forefront of the debate, seeing as it is commonly viewed as the biggest, most important accolade.

But the catalyst behind the never-ending controversy that is the MVP goes beyond just the size and emphasis it has. In my estimation, it is more about the massive difference in opinion over what makes a player valuable, and how can that be measured and compared. You have the stat guys (like myself) on one side who prefer to go strictly on the individual production, those who prefer to take into account team success and intangibles, and everything in-between.

While the award’s weight certainly plays a role, the debates would not be nearly as extreme if not for the discrepancies in ideology. Few people see things exactly the same way, and that particularly applies to how people define value. So here, I am going to explore some of these different ideas, as well as unpack why I define and determine value the way I do.

One of the most common arguments that permeates the debates is that the MVP must, or should, come from a playoff team. How can a player be the most valuable if he can’t even lead his team to the playoffs. There are a few clear problems with that line of reasoning though, in my opinion.

While I understand the desire for the MVP to come from a winner, it simply isn’t a fair criteria to use. One player cannot carry a team to the playoffs by himself, and similarly, a player can have an amazing season despite his team not performing well as a whole.

Consider Wins Above Replacement. Not everyone is a believer, and that is fine. There are problems. But despite all of that, it holds an 88% correlation to actual wins (which for those unfamiliar, is extremely strong), so there is really no doubting that it does what it says it does. I am not arguing that WAR is the only stat that matters. However, the fact that often times, the absolute highest WAR total we see is 10 wins. That means that it is extremely rare for a player to even account for 10 of his team’s wins, let alone carry a team on his back.

Now, 10 wins is certainly enough to be a difference between missing the playoffs, and playing in October. But that is still entirely dependent on the rest of the team. If the other 24 guys don’t do enough to account for those other 80+ wins, then even the best of season’s from that 10 win guy is all for not.

The fact is, a player’s individual value — which is what matters in this award — does not change based on the team around him. If a player had the most valuable season, it was the most valuable no matter what team he was on. Thinking anything else creates an unfair and unequal playing field for the candidates.

The fact is, a player’s individual value — which is what matters in this award — does not change based on the team around him.

I have heard and read rumblings that people believe Robinson Cano deserves the AL MVP, due to the fact that the Mariners are having a great year, thanks to him. While I can’t deny that he has been great (139 wRC+ and 5.2 fWAR), and that he has played a major role in the Mariners’ turnaround. As a Seattle fan, I am more aware of that than most. But Mike Trout is simply the runaway winner at this point, with a couple others having better seasons than Cano as well. It isn’t fair to give Cano extra merit because the rest of his team isn’t great.

It also seems there are a fair amount of people who feel that offense is either all that matters, or is just far more important than defense and base running. This leads to the overlooking, or underrating, of defensive and base running value, which along with the previously discussed team success factor, was at the forefront of the Mike Trout versus Miguel Cabrera debates of the last couple seasons.

But let’s take a look back at those two players. Cabrera won the Triple Crown, which while rare, does include three arbitrary stats with a multitude of problems, though I don’t want to get into that. Let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that Cabrera did hold a lead over Trout offensively (even though Trout actually led by one point of wRC+). Was that small lead enough to outdo the fact that that Trout played good defense at a premium spot, while Cabrera was awful at a slightly less important position? I, and the metrics, say no, but it is up for debate.

Now for my own thoughts, if they weren’t already clear from what i’ve already written. I firmly believe that what determines a player’s value, when speaking about awards such as this, is their individual performance. Not relative to their team, not the success of their team. The only fair and balanced way to measure a player’s worth is to isolate their performance from that of their team.

Is it appropriate for other purposes to include context like the other members of a team? Sure. But when comparing and evaluating an individual for an award , the best way to do so is to pay attention to the numbers and production of the player. A player can only control what they themselves do, not what the rest of their team does. If they get on-base and score runs, if they pitch well, if they defend well. Outside of the control of the individual in question.

Those are my thoughts. I am sure many of you disagree. If you do, feel free to explain why. We can all learn and improve by having these discussions, and I am not immune to correction.

More From FanSided.com

What Roger Goodell should have said
NFL, NFLPA issue joint statement on new drug policy
NFL’s 25 highest-paid players for 2014 season
The Armchair Quarterback’s Guide to the NFL Week 3
NFL Week 3 picks and predictions