I know the crowd I'm writing for, and I know where 90 percent of my readers (if not more) are going to fall on the issue of whether or not Miguel Cabrera or Mike Trout deserves to be named the Most Valuable Player in the American League. And I know this has been discussed to death, but I do want to raise one little point—just raise it, nothing more or less.
According to the Baseball Writers Association of America:
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.
So. The question I have for all of you is, given the third listed rule, what are we (or really, voters) to make of the fact that Cabrera has been known to get drunk and then drive a car?
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.
Subscribe now
There are a ton of arguments to support Trout's case, so use them. There is no need for this kind of garbage at Baseball Prospectus
The BBWAA should probably clarify the meaning of this, but I think leaving it to the interpretation of each voter will do OK.
Just saying.
By your rationale, Cabrera has played more games than Trout and is a better choice under Item 2. It does not matter that the Angels kept Trout in the minors, Cabrera has played in about 18% of the season more than Trout.
As for item 3, does that mean you have to give consideration to the other enumerated identifiers? Does willingness to move to 3B for the team and work at not sucking at it, suiting up (nearly) every day, also address disposition, effort, and loyalty?
You're right, number two is in Cabrera's favor.
As for three, yes, I think you do have to consider the totality of what character means, not just one isolated example. And as Craig noted above, it's possible to privilege on-field (and really, in-clubhouse) character above character in one's off hours.
I was just thinking that Items 4 and 5 are eligibility criteria, whereas Items 1-3 are about quality (weighted equally or not). Assuming arguendo that they were weighted equally, "character" - which may or may not include off field issues - is a fraction of the list as opposed to games played.
Should baseball do something about DUI's? I agree. Should Trout be the MVP? Also agreed. But that doesn't warrant bringing up these type of things that adds absolutely nothing positive to the discussion.
The clause clearly doesn't apply to anything off the field, since it's a consideration to be used in determining a player's "Value' relative to other players; and the only thing that makes one "Valuable" as a player is what one does on the field.
If off the field issues count, Mother Theresa could've been an MVP candidate.
By the way, to answer your question about whether the character clause also applies to Hall of Fame voting: it does, or at least it's supposed to:
"5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."
If you vote, you have to ask the questions:
Will I consider the character clause?
Should Cabrera's transgressions affect my consideration of the character clause?
Those are valid questions to raise.
People bashing the question and accusing it of being tabloid journalism are the ones currently dragging down the level of discourse.
Ironic.
However, if he had a DUI this season, would it be okay to drop him to the #7 slot on your ballot to make it more difficult for him to win the award based on other's voting?
If you are trying to imply that rule 3 above could possibly allow consideration of the past, then that would also mean that voters could look at past year stats, games played, etc.
I think everyone would be in agreement that the MVP is meant to be decided on events that happen during the season. And by virtue of rule 3 above, voters CAN consider events (negative and positive) that are not necessarily strictly statistical/performance based. If Braun's PED tests came to light before the voting was done, then yes, any voter could consider it as part of his decision-making process. But also conversely, if a voter decided to leave Braun off his ballot this year because of last year's PED investigation, then they would not be following the above guidelines for MVP.
We all know that some voters WILL do this and there is nothing any of us can do about it.
Even if you stretch the character clause prior to 2012, the Cabrera DUI happened in Spring Training, not the regular season. Thus, you have another gray area argument on your hands.
Of course, if you're going back that far already, the regular season clause has already been busted.
This said, for me, rule #3 would be a tie-breaker rather than something that absolutely vetoes voting for a guy, unless the breaches of character, disposition, loyalty and effort are blatant and huge.
The whole thing is so vague, and purposely so. However, it seems like too many BBWAA writers take parts of the voting rules for the awards and HOF too literally when it's convenient to them.
By the way, what a mess gramatically. Points 1-3 are phrases and points 4-5 are sentences.
"General character, disposition, loyalty, and effort."
My take: If a player were involved in an off-field incident (whether it was a crime or simply another distraction), I would think to be relevant to the MVP Award, it would have to have a discernable effect on the team this season. Past mistakes having an impact today would be relevant, but past mistakes with no impact on this season's team / results would not.
More germane to item #3 for Miggy, as mentioned by others above, would be his willingness to switch to a tougher defensive position in the off-season, work at it without complaint (as far as I can know), and be a congenial fellow on the team (I have nothing but anecdotal evidence here).
Come to think of it, he fails on the first point as well.
I don't come to this site for this kind of trash and this didn't reek of desperate trolling for page views I'd honestly consider canceling my subscription.
Y'all are better than this.
I don't think it's right to discuss this with the assumption that DUIs equal low character. Addiction is a very real and serious thing and leads people to do terrible things. I don't know Cabrera personally or know what his issues are all about, but I do know that I'm not going to jump to the assumption that him getting in a car under the influence is a direct reflection of his character. I get that people will disagree with this point, but I'd ask those people to seek to understand what goes on in a person's brain that causes them to do certain things. Miguel Cabrera is a victim of a disease, just the way society was a victim of Miguel Cabrera. So we might turn this around in a completely different direction. Maybe Cabrera is a hero for battling his disease. Maybe his character is better now more than ever. The idea that we know anything about his character because of his history of alcohol abuse is silly.
I think we're left with personal interviews, tweets, teammates' perceptions, and displays of on-field character. Otherwise, it's irresponsible for us to make judgments based on snapshots of people's lives.
Unrelated to that though, I do wonder whether the people claiming that looking at possible character issues previous to this year's regular season is unfair would feel the same if the actions were even more egregious. If in 2010 it came out that he had molested children (but was not convicted due to a legal technicality) while also claiming an affinity for Hitler's actions, would people not consider these issues in their 2012 MVP consideration? Character is character regardless of when you display the actions that show your true character.
Meanwhile, I can't see previous transgressions weighing into the 2012 MVP race. That'd be unfortunate.
I don't really put any extra stock in "he showed up drunk for a game during the pennant race" since it's already reflected in his performance, but character issues from years before are often mentioned, which is why I'm surprised so little has been mentioned of Cabrera's alcohol problems.