Baseball 2012: The Most Valuable Player

I am a sopping wet fan of Mike Trout.  To me he's the picture of everything good in a baseball player.

Dirty and hungry for more
In baseball, the dirty uniform can say more about a player's character than any of the old or new performance statistics.  That uniform speaks to hard play, determination, and competitive desire; and not every player is willing to get dirty.  These palpable factors go beyond reflecting on individual performance as they influence and even lift the play of the team.  And there is no doubt that Trout lifted his team from a strikingly moribund start, liberating several superstar veterans from self-imposed, self-pressurized slow starts.  As a result, his team was a viable contender for much of the season.


There is no doubt that my feelings about Trout are prejudiced by my love for my son and the way he too plays baseball.  Although I am loathe to actually compare Jacob to Mike, the general tell-tales are present.  The dirty uniform.  The ever-present smile, even when he's pitching; despite telling him it might benefit him to be a bit more intimidating on the mound, his smile never undermines his performance.  The happy-go-lucky bounce on the practice field, even in the face of the tough-love coaching he gets in his travel program.  The hustle on the field and the discipline to put in the work to improve one's game when off the field. 

Jacob getting dirty at Shortstop at 11U

In Jacob, these are natural behaviors that come unforced.  He's played this way since he insisted I let him join a YMCA t-ball team before his 4th birthday.  His passion and dedication took him from being an unknown 9U player in a new league, to making his first of several all-star teams, to getting selected by his present program and improving each year therein.  He's not a kid that has ever made anyone say "wow" walking onto the field.  But he's always made informed observers and kind parents alike say "wow" when coming off the field.

And so you have my utterly personal, daddy-ball rationale for loving Mike Trout.  The young man is no surprising high achiever as he was drafted in the first round of MLB's annual amateur player draft.  But it's notable that this 21 year old kid was drafted behind 26 other players, none of whom provided anywhere near the same value to their team this year.

There are all manner of more technical arguments that are and will be levied in the next few days and weeks both for and against Trout as MVP.  Unfortunately, those arguments will break down along simplistic lines depending whether the arguer is adherent to so-called "old" or "new" baseball statistics.  The conversation will miss the point but the media will perpetuate it because the adherents are passionate and the discussion drives page-views and cable TV watchers.

But those that really "observe" baseball when they watch it will know.  I count myself in that group.  The folks arguing against Trout will resort to what I believe is an utterly intellectually lazy assertion that attaining the Triple Crown of baseball is so rare that it makes the Triple Crown winner the MVP by default.  In trying to start a discussion on the topic after hearing a local talk radio host predictably take that stance, I wrote the following on Facebook:

The Triple Crown of baseball is based on high achievement in three statistical categories, one of which is as reliant on the performance of other teammates as it is the hitter himself. It does not measure defensive ability and in fact ignores how many runs the hitter gave back to the other team while playing in the field. Both of these facts, while not diminishing the accomplishment of winning the Triple Crown, completely undermine it as an element to be considered (let alone a determinative factor) when deciding on MLB's most valuable player. The fact that this year a Triple Crown winner will also be voted the MVP demonstrates yet again the utter laziness of those in the 4th Estate that cover the sport (and thus vote on the matter). Mike Trout is so clearly the MVP this year that I think we're going to have to redefine the criteria for the award if he doesn't win it. There, I said it.

The Triple Crown is rare but is a simple matter of assembling three old counting statistics to indicate supremacy: batting average, total home runs, and total runs batted-in.  Rarity here does not automatically connote value the way it might in a market.  But romantic linkage to a baseball era in which Carl Yastzremski last won the honor 45 years ago appears to have overwhelmed the logical reasoning abilities of most of the commentators who sputter they just cannot believe anyone could see it any other way.

Not content to leave well enough alone, I added the following on Facebook:

Not sure why this Triple Crown stuff matters to me so much. Probably because my son's game is (dare I say it) far more like Mike Trout's than Miguel Cabrera's. Hustle, dirty uniforms, good defense, and lifting your teammates will always be more valuable traits than individual counting statistics to me. That and the folks arguing the opposite are so freaking intellectually lazy. Then again, sports talking heads have never been a bastion of critical thinking.

There's not much more to say at this point.  My point of view is a minority one.  Not many will even read this and fewer still will be interested enough to engage the conversation.  But it's nice to have the opportunity in this day and age to put this out there.  And if you happen to be a college baseball recruiter, my son just might be ready for you in a couple of years.  That is, if you value a smiling, hard working kid in a dirty uniform.