Boston Red Sox: Closer look at Mookie Betts v. Mike Trout for AL MVP

The Final Verdict:

If one has been paying attention up to this point, (while also recognizing that one is visiting a site devoted to the Boston Red Sox), it should be obvious whom I believe deserved the AL MVP award. Yes, Mike Trout had a great year; however, was he more “valuable” to the Angels than Betts was to the Red Sox?

I echo the same sentiments expressed by Nick Carfado of the Boston Globe in his November 18, 2016 article, “I didn’t vote for the award this year, but if I had, the one thing that’s foremost on my mind when voting for this award is what did this “most valuable” performance mean for his team? For the Angels it meant zippo…Betts helped lead the Red Sox to a division title.”

Carfado went on to say, “In this case, yes, the MVP likely should be the best player, but his performance both offensively and defensively had to have meant something for the team…Like I said, use all the numbers, the advanced metrics you’d like. They’re awesome for determining the best player. They’re useful for just about everything except for determining an MVP.”

One can think of this question in the simplest of terms: If the Angels were without Mike Trout, they would still be a bad team. If the Red Sox were without Betts, they do not make the playoffs. From a team standpoint in a team sport, have I not made it abundantly that Betts was the more valuable player in 2016?

Next: Rusney Castillo will play winter ball

Of course, the MVP can go to a player on a losing team. In 1987, Andre Dawson put up numbers that were so superior to those produced by any other player in the league. I have no issues with that. However, if the numbers are virtually identical, it is incumbent upon the BBWAA to reward the player that contributed to a team accomplishment.