Does The Player Who Wins The MVP Have To Be On A Playoff Team?

If there’s one thing that baseball fans love to do, it’s debate literally every single topic imaginable, regardless of whether or not that topic is even debatable in the first place, and cite a bunch of different statistics that nobody’s ever heard of in an attempt to sound smarter, and confuse their counterpart into agreeing with them. That’s baseball Twitter in a nutshell.

But for something that actually has an official set of rules, there sure seems to be a lot of debate over whether or not a player has to be on a playoff team in order to win the Most Valuable Player award in the MLB. This discussion is more geared towards the American League, because Kris Bryant IS the most valuable player in the NL, and he’s also on the best team in baseball, so there’s really not even a debate to be had there.

It gets really interesting in the American League, though. But before we get into that, let’s just take a look at the official voting rules for MVP, as worded by the Baseball Writers Association of America. Here’s exactly what the ballot says when it arrives at the doorstep of the voter:

Dear Voter:

There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.

2. Number of games played.

3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.

4. Former winners are eligible.

5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from 1 to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot. Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration.

Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, including pitchers and designated hitters.

The ballot might as well say, “Fuck you. Figure it out yourself.” What kind of voting process essentially says that the meaning of the award is open to interpretation? What’s important, though, is that it specifically states that the MVP doesn’t have to come from a playoff team, but I think we all kind of knew that the rules wouldn’t outright disqualify players from non-playoff teams, considering several players to fit that description have won the award in the past. Since 1995, 42 players have been named Most Valuable Player in their respective league, and seven of them have come from non-playoff teams.

But there is something to be said about the fact that players on non-playoff teams rarely win. Of those seven non-playoff team MVP award winners since 1995, two of them were Barry Bonds (2001, 2004), who was putting up unprecedented numbers. It says even MORE that only two players in baseball history have won the MVP award for a last place team — Andre Dawson for the last place 1987 Cubs, and Alex Rodriguez for the last place 2003 Texas Rangers.

The best player in baseball is Mike Trout. No debate. He’s the best player in baseball based on ability, and he’s the best player in baseball statistically, accumulating an MLB-leading 8.9 wins above replacement coming into the month of September. I saw a blog today that said Trout, at the age of 24 and in his sixth major league season, has already accumulated a higher career WAR than 48 Hall of Famers. He also leads the majors this season in weighted runs created plus (wRC+), which is ballpark adjusted, and he’s second to only David Ortiz (.432) in weighted on-base average (.430).

Now, we can circle back to the original question that the BBWAA gives us absolutely zero help on whatsoever: What does “most valuable” even mean? I’ve seen some guys try to frame it as a salary versus production equation, which is complete bullshit. Just because you’re a big contract guy doesn’t mean you can’t be the most valuable player in the league, compared to a guy who’s making less money, but is statistically less productive.

Mark DeRosa on MLB Network phrased it kinda like this — which player, if you remove them from a team, hurts that team the most? If you phrase it that way, then it would only include playoff teams and, I suppose, fringe playoff teams, no? The Angels suck. If you take Trout off the Angels, they still suck. So, if you’re not going to disqualify Trout for being on a shit team, then you can’t really use that line of thinking as an accurate gauge for MVP.

Put it this way — basically, what Trout is doing this season is what Bryce Harper did last year for a non-playoff team, and he won the National League MVP. The difference here is that Harper’s Nationals ALMOST made the playoffs, and Trout’s Angels aren’t even going to come close. But I think how close you come shouldn’t matter. If you’re out, you’re out. If you miss the playoffs by a game, you might as well miss it by 20 games in the eyes of the MVP voters. I’ve always thought of the MVP award as the “best player in the league” award, and that would totally remove what that player’s team does from the equation entirely, which, again, is more or less what the rules are telling you to do. Direct quote: “The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.”

Once you kind of lay out all the verbiage next to all the numbers, it’s actually a lot less confusing than it seems. We’ve got all these analysts trying to choose between Jose Altuve, Josh Donaldson and Mookie Betts for the American League MVP award, saying we need to wait it out until the end of the season to see which of those three teams makes the postseason, who wins a division, who wins a Wild Card, etc., when really, the answer is pretty simple. Trout’s the most valuable player in the American League.

Popular in the Community