The AL MVP Race

Who is the 2016 AL MVP?


  • Total voters
    144

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,740
Rotten Apple
Unlike some other elections, the AL has five great candidates in this race. Altuve is the odds on favorite right now but we have a month to go. Even after these top five a case could be made for Ortiz, Trumbo and maybe Cano.

Vote in the poll now or later and discuss here. I checked allow voters to change their vote if you want to do that.

Stats below are from Baseball Ref. as of tonight.



I'm a big Trout fan so I will go with him.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
If the season ended today, it's Altuve. He's the most deserving and the most likely, IMO. After that I can go two ways. Who do I think is most likely? Altuve, Donaldson, Machado, Betts and then Trout in that order. Trout gets hurt by the Angels being out of it, even if that's not fair. Donaldson has the pre-existing MVP pedigree and is on a first place team. I think the Jays win the division and that gives him a boost over everyone but Altuve. And Machado has a bit more name recognition than Mookie.

Who deserves it? Still Altuve. After that I probably go Trout, Betts, Donaldson and then Machado. I don't buy into the idea that you have to be on a competitive team to win the MVP, so Trout is an easy second choice for me. Betts is having a better season than either of the last two, and of Donaldson and Machado, I would rather have Donaldson's season. I'm guessing there will be a lot of disagreement about the order, and that's not only expected, it's fully legitimate. These five guys are having fantastic seasons and any one of them would be worthy.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
Some more batting-only context:

AL bOWAR leaders:
1 7.7 Trout
2 7.2 Altuve
3 6.3 Donaldson
4 5.7 Correa
5 5.3 Betts
6 5.0 Cano
7 4.8 Dozier
8 4.8 Machado

AL RC leaders:
1 123 Altuve
2 117 Trout
3 115 Donaldson
4 112 Betts
5 106 Ortiz
6 100 Machado

In case situational batting matters to you:

AL WPA leaders:

1 4.9 Trout
2 4.7 Donaldson
3 3.1 Ortiz
4 3.0 Correa
5 3.0 Beltre
6 2.8 Desmond
7 2.6 Altuve
8 2.4 Machado

edit: I voted Trout, but to me it's a toss-up between he and Altuve.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,740
Rotten Apple
It's an incredibly stacked race. Ortiz leads the Majors in OPS by a decent margin at 1.040 (at his age) and he's barely even in the discussion. I think Altuve will win it with the classic 'Where would they be without him?!' argument. Even though the answer will likely still be, 'Out of the playoffs.'
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
4,948
NH
Altuve needs Houston to make the playoffs. Hard to justify a vote for him over Trout on a non playoff bound Astros team. My vote is split between Donaldson and Betts and the playoff positioning and final month matters. Right now for me it's

1. Donaldson
2. Betts
3. Trout
4. Altuve

But if the Sox go ahead of the Jays, or the Astros take the #2 wild card, they could change.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,887
Alexandria, VA
If the season ended today, it's Altuve. He's the most deserving and the most likely, IMO. After that I can go two ways. Who do I think is most likely? Altuve, Donaldson, Machado, Betts and then Trout in that order. Trout gets hurt by the Angels being out of it, even if that's not fair.
Trout also gets helped by being the biggest name there (unless you think Ortiz is in the mix). I'm not sure which is a bigger effect.

Currently Altuve gets my vote, but reasonable minds can disagree.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,838
I agree with Seels. As long as it's MVP and not "Best Player" you have to take points away from a guy like Trout whose team is going nowhere.
This is where I am, unless that player is having just a ridiculous season and there's no other attractive candidates.

My heart is torn between Betts and Ortiz--what a send-off that would be for Papi.

Lots of good candidates though this season, which is awesome.
 

Curt S Loew

SoSH Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
6,509
Shantytown
I would have went with Altuve up until this past week. Donaldson's year, plus team standing is currently in the lead for me. Betts will be at the end of the year.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
If Trout didn't beat Donaldson last year - he won't this year as WAR is close enough between them. The voting was not close either.

I think Betts edges out Altuve for being the better all around player. Mookie has fielding, arm, and baserunning efficiency as big edges. The HR, RBI and runs won't hurt among traditional voters either. If Mookie could do 35/20 HR SB that's tough to ignore. I don't know if Donaldson's case is hurt a little bit more for winning last year or not. It shouldn't be, but voters are human.

It's too bad Betts doesn't play CF anymore or he'd have even more of an edge.
 
Last edited:

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,587
NY
I agree with Seels. As long as it's MVP and not "Best Player" you have to take points away from a guy like Trout whose team is going nowhere.
I know that a lot of people feel this way, but why? Why does Trout become less valuable simply because he's on a team with fewer good players than Donaldson or Betts? This has been one of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to voting. A player can still be incredibly valuable to his team even if they miss the playoffs. The idea that Trout putting up an identical season but on a different team means that his value increases makes zero sense to me.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
I know that a lot of people feel this way, but why? Why does Trout become less valuable simply because he's on a team with fewer good players than Donaldson or Betts? This has been one of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to voting. A player can still be incredibly valuable to his team even if they miss the playoffs. The idea that Trout putting up an identical season but on a different team means that his value increases makes zero sense to me.
He's single-handedly winning too many games for them, preventing a better draft pick.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
We were wondering what guys like JBJ, Bogaerts, and Betts would become. They're all way beyond "solid major leaguers". All are already all-stars. Betts is a legit MVP candidate.

Good times.
 

santadevil

wears depends
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
6,472
Saskatchestan
I'm leaning towards Altuve right now, just over Donaldson.
I really hope Betts wins it with an amazing month of September, but Altuve has a couple things going for him.

Leading the league in hits, batting average by 30 points.
Has a higher OPS+ than everyone not named Trout (only down by 5 there), second in the league in OBP.

Also, one that I like is their K rate per AB.
Altuve - K/rate 60/517 = 11.605%
Donaldson - 94/479 = 19.624%
Betts - 73/553 = 13.201%
 

semsox

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 14, 2004
1,742
Charlottesville
It's insane that Trout is going to put up nearly 50 WAR over a 5 year period and come out of that with just a single MVP award.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,867
San Andreas Fault
It's insane that Trout is going to put up nearly 50 WAR over a 5 year period and come out of that with just a single MVP award.
Ted Williams says hi. He came in second four times, losing to a Yankee every time, getting screwed in 1942 and totally screwed in 1947. Should have gotten the Sox to first place more often, and gotten along with the press better, I guess.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
Ted Williams says hi. He came in second four times, losing to a Yankee every time, getting screwed in 1942 and totally screwed in 1947. Should have gotten the Sox to first place more often, and gotten along with the press better, I guess.
So this intrigued me and I had to look it up. Splinter lost to DiMaggio in 1947. Look at these respective lines:

DiMaggio: 97 r, 20 hr, 97 rbi, .315/.391/.522/.913, 154 ops+, 4.8 bWAR
Williams: 125 r, 32 hr, 114 rbi, .343/.499/.634/1.133, 205 ops+, 9.9 bWAR

I mean, that's not even CLOSE. DiMaggio had a great year, for sure. Williams was unbelievable. 0.220 difference in OPS is just crazy huge. 0.220 below DiMaggio's number is 0.693, to give you some idea of the gap.

DiMaggio had 202 points in the voting; Williams had 201.
 

Dahabenzapple2

Mr. McGuire / Axl's Counter
SoSH Member
Jun 20, 2011
8,926
Wayne, NJ
Ted Williams says hi. He came in second four times, losing to a Yankee every time, getting screwed in 1942 and totally screwed in 1947. Should have gotten the Sox to first place more often, and gotten along with the press better, I guess.
I have also thought he got screwed in 1941 - maybe not as bad but his .406 season was better than DiMaggio's also famous season with the hit streak
 

Dahabenzapple2

Mr. McGuire / Axl's Counter
SoSH Member
Jun 20, 2011
8,926
Wayne, NJ
Willie Mays got screwed (but not as badly) as Ted did in 1947 in 1960 - coming in third behind Dick Groat & Don Hoak but pretty close to as badly - look it up!! Almost double the WAR as either of those two guys!!!

Coming in second behind Maury Wills in 1962 is almost as bad. I know the 104 stolen bases but Mays was all-world (as were Frank Robinson and Hank Aaron). Those were the days when *everyone* thought that those stolen bases must have meant way more than they did!!!

Plus he had a strong case in 1958 when he came in second to Ernie Banks but it's not as if the Cubs won anything - LOL

So as great as we/they knew Mays was, he was not accorded the respect he deserved in the MVP voting
 
Last edited:

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
4,712
I know that a lot of people feel this way, but why? Why does Trout become less valuable simply because he's on a team with fewer good players than Donaldson or Betts? This has been one of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to voting. A player can still be incredibly valuable to his team even if they miss the playoffs. The idea that Trout putting up an identical season but on a different team means that his value increases makes zero sense to me.
For one thing, you can pitch around him. He's got 10 IBB (Mookie has none), plus who knows how many other walks where there was simply no reason to give him pitches to hit. If you stick him in a good lineup that OBP comes down.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
So this intrigued me and I had to look it up. Splinter lost to DiMaggio in 1947. Look at these respective lines:

DiMaggio: 97 r, 20 hr, 97 rbi, .315/.391/.522/.913, 154 ops+, 4.8 bWAR
Williams: 125 r, 32 hr, 114 rbi, .343/.499/.634/1.133, 205 ops+, 9.9 bWAR

I mean, that's not even CLOSE. DiMaggio had a great year, for sure. Williams was unbelievable. 0.220 difference in OPS is just crazy huge. 0.220 below DiMaggio's number is 0.693, to give you some idea of the gap.

DiMaggio had 202 points in the voting; Williams had 201.
I blame George Young.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,587
NY
For one thing, you can pitch around him. He's got 10 IBB (Mookie has none), plus who knows how many other walks where there was simply no reason to give him pitches to hit. If you stick him in a good lineup that OBP comes down.
Trout hits in front of Pujols, who has put up a line this year of .263/.323/.451.

Mookie has hit in front of Pedroia, who has a line of .320/.383/.457, and Hanley, who has a line of .277/.350/.456.

Obviously Pedroia and Hanley have much better OBPs but SLG is pretty even. I don't think we can really say that Trout's numbers are artificially inflated because of who hits behind him. But even if we assume that all 10 IBBs would've resulted in outs if Trout had Hanley and Pedroia behind him instead, his line would be .309/.416/.544 (give or take). I think he'd still be pretty valuable.

As far as other unintentional walks, the guy is arguably the best hitter in baseball. He's going to get pitched to carefully. That's not a reason to reduce his value. Plus his numbers are what they are, and the results have produced a ton of value for whatever reason. Basically you're saying if he wasn't so good, he wouldn't have such great numbers. I still don't see the argument.
 

Boggs26

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
1,152
Ashburnham, MA
Trout hits in front of Pujols, who has put up a line this year of .263/.323/.451.

Mookie has hit in front of Pedroia, who has a line of .320/.383/.457, and Hanley, who has a line of .277/.350/.456.

Obviously Pedroia and Hanley have much better OBPs but SLG is pretty even. I don't think we can really say that Trout's numbers are artificially inflated because of who hits behind him. But even if we assume that all 10 IBBs would've resulted in outs if Trout had Hanley and Pedroia behind him instead, his line would be .309/.416/.544 (give or take). I think he'd still be pretty valuable.

As far as other unintentional walks, the guy is arguably the best hitter in baseball. He's going to get pitched to carefully. That's not a reason to reduce his value. Plus his numbers are what they are, and the results have produced a ton of value for whatever reason. Basically you're saying if he wasn't so good, he wouldn't have such great numbers. I still don't see the argument.
As far as I can tell, the argument goes something like this:

Two people need to buy new cars for $30,000 {the playoffs}.

Person 1 {a bad team} has $1000 already in the bank while person 2 {a good team} already has $28,000.

Person 1's parent gives them $5000, but they still can't afford the car

Person 2's parent gives them $2000 and they are able to buy the car.

Since person 2 was able to reach the goal of buying the car $2000 is more valuable than $5000 or more accurately P2's patent is more valuable than P1's.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
I mean, why not say that a guy like Trout is "more valuable" to a loser team because he accounts for more seats being filled than a lesser player on an already contending team?

How about a guy who's a real swell clubhouse guy that brings a club together through daily games of cards?

Is a player valuable because he has a great neighborhood charity in his home city that creates a lot of goodwill for the team?

What if a player lobbies really hard for a new stadium?

Once you detach "valuable" from "best", you open yourself up to any number of ridiculous definitions.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
Jonah Keri and I have been going back and forth on this on Twitter. He insists on Trout despite the avalanche of statistics I have passed to him involving Mookie.
What statistics are you passing to this guy that make Mookie look better than Trout? I'm amazed this guy(who I've never heard of) is still humoring you. I say this as someone who thinks Mookie is awesome, he just isn't Trout awesome.
 
Last edited:

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,399
Yoknapatawpha County
I mean, why not say that a guy like Trout is "more valuable" to a loser team because he accounts for more seats being filled than a lesser player on an already contending team?

How about a guy who's a real swell clubhouse guy that brings a club together through daily games of cards?

Is a player valuable because he has a great neighborhood charity in his home city that creates a lot of goodwill for the team?

What if a player lobbies really hard for a new stadium?

Once you detach "valuable" from "best", you open yourself up to any number of ridiculous definitions.
Exactly. And I've still never heard anyone logically lay out how the player that provides the most on-field value isn't the "best," and vice versa. That could happen for the Twins or the Rangers.
 

Lowrielicious

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2011
4,328
Exactly. And I've still never heard anyone logically lay out how the player that provides the most on-field value isn't the "best," and vice versa. That could happen for the Twins or the Rangers.
The only argument that makes any kind of sense (if you squint your eyes just right) in this theme is that trout on a team (team A) that had Mookies making up the rest of the lineup but had a pitching rotation of 5 Wade Mileys is not as big a difference maker as trout on a team (team B) with the rest of the linup full of Jacoby Ellsburys that has a rotation of 5 CC Sabathias.
Where the trout in team B carries the rest of the offense enough to scrape into the playoffs, but team A misses the playoffs despite breaking offensive records by allowing almost as many runs so they miss the playoffs.
Identical Trouts in both cases but extra offense doesn't help team A significantly whereas it's the only offense team B has.

(and yes Trout is a bad example due to his defensive contributions, Miggy would be a much better example in another year).
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,399
Yoknapatawpha County
Right but again, you're still then determining value based on the roster around the player. It's an individual award, if Trout is Trout, playing with a roster of Mookies or Dreamboats doesn't change the value he provided on the field. I mean, I hear you, but it seems (to me) a silly way to approach it.

The idea that the MVP is largely only for playoff-bound players has just never made sense to me.
 

santadevil

wears depends
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
6,472
Saskatchestan
What statistics are you passing to this guy that make Mookie look better than Trout? I'm amazed this guy(who I've never heard of) is still humoring you. I say this as someone who thinks Mookie is awesome, he just isn't Trout awesome.
Are you saying you've never heard of Jonah Keri?

He writes some pretty amazing books on baseball (Expos and Rays so far) and is interviewed quite often about baseball too. I'm sure I'm missing a whole lot more too, but thought he was a fairly known name around the game.

Unless I've read your post completely wrong.

Back on topic, Trout with 3 hits tonight. Two of them were doubles.
 
Last edited:

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
Yeah I've never heard of him, I thought I was pretty up on all the typical guys and I follow most of them on twitter. I just looked him up and he has a good resume, which makes it even odder that he was entertaining a discussion where Mookie's stats were better than Trout's.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
I love Altuve as a player, but I think Betts and Donaldson are 1 and 1A right now with Altuve a close third. One thing I do wish is that voters wait until the last possible moment to cast their votes and give all of these guys every last opportunity to make their case on the field. Each of these players teams are in playoff contention and quite often that will bring out some amazing performances.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,587
NY
Right but again, you're still then determining value based on the roster around the player. It's an individual award, if Trout is Trout, playing with a roster of Mookies or Dreamboats doesn't change the value he provided on the field. I mean, I hear you, but it seems (to me) a silly way to approach it.

The idea that the MVP is largely only for playoff-bound players has just never made sense to me.
Exactly. The only way the argument makes any sense is if someone says that for any teams that didn't make the playoffs, their players had little to no value, which is just absurd. The idea that Mookie is more valuable than Trout simply because Mookie is playing with Ortiz, Pedroia, Bogaerts, Bradley, Hanley, Price, Porcello and Wright and Trout isn't is completely nonsensical.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,587
NY
As far as I can tell, the argument goes something like this:

Two people need to buy new cars for $30,000 {the playoffs}.

Person 1 {a bad team} has $1000 already in the bank while person 2 {a good team} already has $28,000.

Person 1's parent gives them $5000, but they still can't afford the car

Person 2's parent gives them $2000 and they are able to buy the car.

Since person 2 was able to reach the goal of buying the car $2000 is more valuable than $5000 or more accurately P2's patent is more valuable than P1's.
I understand what you're trying to say, but this conclusion requires that someone believes that $2000 is worth more than $5000. That's bad math.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Yeah I've never heard of him, I thought I was pretty up on all the typical guys and I follow most of them on twitter. I just looked him up and he has a good resume, which makes it even odder that he was entertaining a discussion where Mookie's stats were better than Trout's.
I think it would be tough to make a case that Mookie's stats (or anyone's) are better than Trout's this year, but Trout is better than his closest competitors by a small enough margin to be subject to the "but his team went nowhere" penalty. (Anyone want to guess when was the last time a player on a losing team won an MVP? Spoiler below.)

So I think it's a wide-open race between Trout, Altuve, Mookie and Donaldson with a month to go. Machado's still in it, but trailing the field, I think. I think Donaldson has a slight disadvantage because of winning last year, and Trout a somewhat larger one because of the losing-team issue. I think Mookie and Donaldson have an edge over Altuve because their teams have a better shot of winning their division. OTOH, Altuve has an edge because BATTING CHAMPION!, which still probably means a lot to a lot of voters. If you put a gun to my head and said "who will win"? I'd say Altuve, but it's really going to depend on what happens in September, both in terms of individual performances and team outcomes.

A-Rod, 2003
 

Boggs26

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
1,152
Ashburnham, MA

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
The problem with MVP voting is that it's....subjective. That doesn't mean that every opinion is of equal value, but it does mean that people view "valuable" differently. WAR is flawed enough (and also relies on some subjectivity) that you can't just point to that singular number as the end-all. So we're not necessarily talking about the "best" player, but most "valuable", which to some people means something different.

That said...

WAR
1. Trout - 9.3
2. Betts - 7.9
3. Altuve - 7.3
4. Donaldson - 7.0

OPS
2. Trout - 1.015
3. Donaldson - .974
4. Altuve - .960
8. Betts - .912
(1. Ortiz - 1.030)

RC
1. Trout - 122.8
2. Altuve - 118.8
3. Betts - 113.6
4. Donaldson - 113.5

Total Bases
1. Betts - 321
4. Altuve - 301
6. Donaldson - 286
13. Trout - 272

The statistical weight goes to Trout, clearly. Though all four guys are pretty amazing.

Trout: .323/.442/.574/1.015, 109 r, 27 hr, 88 rbi, 24 sb, 9.3 war
Betts: .317/.358/.553/.913, 105 r, 30 hr, 100 rbi, 21 sb, 7.9 war
Altuve: .344/.406/.553/.960, 96 r, 22 hr, 91 rbi, 27 sb, 7.3 war
Donaldson: .292/.406/.567/.974, 109 r, 34 hr, 92 rbi, 6 sb, 7.0 war
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
Seems like Trout is getting a bit of rest down the stretch, which might affect his counting stats.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
A lot of Betts value comes from his defense too, but he also has the prettiest triple crown numbers among the candidates. Machado trails by 10 rbi and Donaldson is hitting .290. Things that shouldn't matter but probably do. Betts is only 8th in the AL (10th in MLB) in OWAR though, according to BREF.