On Yoenis Cespedes and the MVP

So. .312/.357/.675. 36 runs driven, and 33 scored, in over 36 games. 14 homers, three triples, and nine doubles over that time. Four stolen bases, never caught stealing (for what that's worth). Mostly while playing center field, and providing dynamic defense in center or in left. That's what Yoenis Cespedes has done since coming to the New York Mets. Oh, and since they acquired him (including one game after the trade but before Cespedes got to the team) the Mets are 26 and 11. They've surged from two game behind the Washington Nationals to seven games up on them, including going 6-0 against the Nationals themselves. Before they got Cespedes, Baseball Prospectus gave the Mets just a 26.8% chance of seeing the Division series; now (not even including tonight's win) that's up to 94.6%. And Cespedes has been everywhere. He had a home run and also a run-scoring double in Monday's game, hit a big two-out, bases-clearing double in last night's game to get the Mets all the way back from a 7-1 deficit to trailing by just a single run (and would later score the tying run), and tonight he absolutely crushed a hanging slider off Drew Storen for a two-run shot to give the Mets a lead they would not relinquish in the 8th.

It's got people, at least Mets people, talking about Yoenis Cespedes for National League Most Valuable Player. Which, y'know. He wasn't in the National League on July 30th. Gary Cohen was saying after tonight's game that he had been thinking over the Cespedes-for-MVP chatter prior to the game and was skeptical, but then Cespedes was the hero yet again, and at some point you just have to wonder. Especially since the guy who's having the absolutely bonkers season, hitting .336/.467/.657 including a heroic if futile 10-total-bases effort tonight against the Mets, is Bryce Harper, who plays for the Washington Nationals, who have just suffered a miserable collapse. Harper is unambigously the best player in baseball this year (his full-season line is better than Cespedes's line with just with the Mets), but sometimes best players in baseball don't win the MVP if their team disappoints. So that makes you start to wonder whether there's a window for a non-traditional candidacy from Yoenis. And for what it's worth, his whole-season stats are MVP-worthy, if divided between two leagues. Including his numbers with the Tigers Cespedes is hitting .298/.333/.554 with 32 homers, 37 doubles, 5 triples (for 74 total extra-base hits), 95 runs scored, and 97 runs driven in. FanGraphs credits Cespedes with 2.6 Wins Above Replacement with the Mets so far, and 6.6 WAR on the season. That's a very MVP pace; indeed, his Mets pace is at peak Ruth/Bonds levels.

Now, this is not necessarily the only kind of argument one could make, and there's certainly plenty of reason to think that past years' MVP voting practices were quite flawed, but it's interesting, I think, to look at other players who've done something like what Cespedes is up to. Here are three examples from the last decade-plus:

Did Somebody Say "Forgotten MVP Season"?

MLB.com currently features a link to this piece, dedicated to the proposition that Derek Jeter is underrated (or at least that he once was). How, you might wonder, do they defend this remarkable assertion? Because in 1999, when Jeter narrowly led all American League position players in bWAR and trailed Manny Ramirez by a tenth of a point in fWAR, he didn't win the Most Valuable Player award, or even finish in the top-5 in voting. Instead, Texas Rangers catcher Ivan Rodriguez won the award, while Red Sox pitcher Pedro Martinez, who had one of the best pitching seasons of all time (and then followed it up with a similarly-dominant one the next year), finished second. Proof positive!, says this piece, that Jeter gets no respect.

Now, I could try to construct some arguments for why Jeter's low finish that year was deserved. He tailed off significantly in the second half, his OPS dropping from a ridiculous 1.065 to .903 (which is admittedly still great, but less absurdly great, particularly for 1999). His team had the best record in the American League, and would've needed to finish twelve games worse than it did to miss the post-season, so while it's true, as the article says, that Jeter was the best player on a winning team, it's also true that he didn't make much of a marginal difference in that team's regular-season outcome. (Obviously that form of that argument is a bit ludicrous, and I don't know if the same great-team penalty that Dave Cameron found in Manager of the Year voting has historically applied to MVP voting, but it's a logical extension of the things people said about why Mike Trout shouldn't win his awards.) Then there's the fact that, if we're talking about value as value, there's no plausible argument that anyone not named Pedro should've won that award.

And then there's the fact that WAR likely understates, perhaps significantly, the impact of a great defensive catcher like Ivan Rodriguez. I don't have any pitch-framing numbers from 1999, but I bet he was pretty good at it, and there's reason to think that the best pitch framers add a ton of value that way. The idea that catchers should get extra credit is a remarkably venerable one; Roy Campanella won three MVP awards while having only one league lead in any one major stat in those three years, while Yogi Berra won his three MVP awards without leading the league in anything the whole time. Neither was anywhere near the league lead in WAR. Pudge Rodriguez was way closer to the league WAR lead in 1999 than either Campanella or Berra were in any of their MVP seasons. So if Rodriguez was an undeserving winner that year, the Yankees should give back some hardware of their own.

But that's not what I'm here to talk about, not in the main. No, I'd like to talk about a different league and a different New York team, and a few different players who got a lot less MVP respect than they deserved. In 1998, John Olerud hit .354/.447/.551 and put up 8.1 fWAR/7.6 bWAR. That put him third in the National League per Fangraphs, behind Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire by half a win, and second per Baseball-Reference, half a win behind Bonds. But he only hit 22 home runs, not being part of the insane record chase of McGwire and Sosa, and his blend of pure hitting and great first base defense got so little respect that he finished a whopping 12th in the voting. Oh, and did I mention that, while the Mets didn't make the post-season that year, they did win 88 games, climbing out of a slump that had consumed the first two-thirds of that decade, finishing a game out of the Wild Card tie, and launching one of the best eras the team had ever seen? Sosa won the award, and it's tough to complain about that, but Olerud at least should've been near the top of the ballot.

Or how about eight years later, when Carlos Beltran hit 41 home runs and hit .275/.388/.594 while playing Gold Glove defense in center field? His 8.2 bWAR were second in the league, barely behind Albert Pujols, and his 7.6 fWAR was likely second behind Albert, though by a bigger margin. Oh, and the Mets made the post-season. In fact they dominated, winning 97 games and leading the entire league by nine victories. Beltran finished fourth in the voting. The next season, which the Mets spent in the thick of contention, Beltran's teammate David Wright hit .325/.416/.546, had a 30/30 season (30 home runs, 34 stolen bases), and also won a Gold Glove, deservingly. His 8.3 bWAR was second behind Pujols, while Fangraphs thought his 8.4 WAR led the league by half a win. And while it's true that the Mets suffered an ignominious collapse to miss the playoffs, Wright was no part of that: he hit .352/.432/.602 in September, and .397/.451/.575 during the 17-game collapse itself. He did an almost inhuman job of trying to carry his team, and it's hardly his fault that it wasn't quite enough. He likewise finished fourth in the voting. Who won these MVPs? Ryan Howard and Jimmy Rollins of the Phillies. Wright led Rollins by about 2 WAR by either metric, and Beltran led Howard by something like two or three wins. But Howard put up goofy home run and RBI numbers, and Rollins hit 20 triples and 30 homers while playing a good shortstop--and for the team that snuck past the Mets. So despite having the best position player (modulo Pujols) in the league two consecutive years, the Mets didn't even get a top-3 MVP finish out of things.

And then there's the curiosity that is Bernard Gilkey, 1996. In his first season with the Mets, the left fielder hit 30 home runs and 44 doubles en route to a .317/.393/.562 slash line, and also (so say the metrics) fantastic defense. He was right around the league lead in WAR by a position player not named Barry Bonds, with Baseball-Reference putting him a tenth of a point ahead of Ellis Burks and Fangraphs putting him the same distance behind Jeff Bagwell. Now I'm not saying he should've won the MVP. I mean, Bonds should've, and other than that, Mike Piazza should've. It's absurd that Ken Caminiti in fact did. But perhaps the guy who had one of the most productive seasons in the league should've finished a bit higher up than 14th?

That's four times that a Met has been either arguably the best position player in the National League or arguably the best position player in the National League who wasn't Bonds or Pujols (and we all know guys like that get held to a higher standard for winning MVPs). The best any of them did was fourth place in the voting. One of them finished outside the top-10 despite his team's having been in the thick of playoff contention, out of nowhere, all season long. So if we want to talk about "forgotten MVP seasons," let's not talk about Derek Jeter. The other side of that "most saturated media market in the country" can boast not one, not two, not three, but four MVP-caliber years that were already forgotten while they were happening over the span of barely more than a decade.

And none of those four players possess a single absurdist Gold Glove either, let alone five.

The Carlos Beltran Solution

Carlos Beltran is a beast. Specifically he's a beast if you put him on a team that's playing in the post-season. He's been a great player over his whole career, mind you, putting up a .283/.359/.496 batting line while playing a great center field (until recently) and adding excellent base running. But in the playoffs... well, today he was 2 for 3 with a walk, a home run, and (all) three runs driven in, and before that game he had a career .353/.456/.774 batting line in October baseball. That includes his insane 2004 with the Astros, when he hit .400, got on base over half the time, and slugged greater than 1. It includes his 2006 with the Mets, when he had a .500 on-base percentage in their NLCS win over the Dodgers and when he hit .296 with a .387 OBP and cranked three home runs. He also struck out five times, one of which... yeah, anyway. It includes last year with the Cardinals, when he had another .400/.500/.900 NLDS (and that's AVG/OBP/SLG, not OBP/SLG/OPS, heh) and then hit another home run and slugged .600 in the NLCS. It includes a mammoth home run he hit in Game 1 of the series against the Pirates this year, which tied him with Babe freakin' Ruth for career post-season home runs (though they don't hold the record, not by a long shot), and tomorrow it will include his great game from earlier today. Carlos Beltran is insane in the post-season.

He's also a free agent. A free agent outfielder, that is, who would provide a lot of what the Mets could use in 2014, namely a seriously threatening hitter. Sure his range has diminished beyond recognition as his knees have deteriorated with age, but he's still fearsome and, well, you see what he does if you can sneak into the post-season. Besides, he's a former Met, he's a beloved former Met, and bringing him back, perhaps to finish his career, would make it a shoe-in that he'll go into the Hall of Fame as a Met. (And I think this month is cementing his place in the Hall.) Interestingly both he and the team seem to be open to it. It's tough to know what Beltran is thinking, whether he's specifically interested in returning to the team that used two months of his services to snag a top prospect in an absurdly justified trade or whether he's just going to listen to all offers. But analyzing the Mets' thinking is perhaps easier. His offense is clearly in great shape, and would fill one of the holes in the Mets' lineup. His defense may not be that much of a concern with this guy patrolling center field. But there's reason to think that he just may not be able to play the outfield every day any more. Are you signing him to be a part-time player? Might he be better served going to an American League team where he could split time between the outfield and being the DH?

Well, it seems to me that a star outfielder who can't quite play every day would be a peculiarly good for for the Mets in 2014 and the immediate future. I can't speak to whether it would be best for Beltran, but the Mets are currently blessed with an uncommonly large number of outfielders under their control who seem like they could be valuable pieces but who are almost certainly not everyday players, at least not on a good team. I'm thinking of Eric Young, Jr., who just lead the National League in stolen bases but has a career .325 on-base percentage and .338 slugging percentage having spent most of his career playing his home games at Coors Field, and of Matt den Dekker, a defensive whiz perhaps on par with Lagares but whose difficulties not striking out may prevent him from hitting at the Major League level. Setting aside the question of left field for the moment, suppose the Mets signed Beltran to be their starting right fielder, but discovered that two or three games out of seven he needed not to be that. Perhaps he would need to sit on the bench, or to play first base, but not to play the outfield for a full nine innings. Well, stick den Dekker in center field and Lagares in right field. Or maybe the other way around. Maybe Matt would also be used to replace Carlos's defense with something resembling what he was once capable of. It could be a neat synergy between an aging star's need to be a part-time player and a young player's need not to be anything more than a part-time player. If the Mets wanted to be genuinely aggressive in acquiring players they could also sign Shin-Soo Choo to play left field, giving them a top of the order featuring Choo, Beltran, and Wright. Or maybe EYJ is actually good enough to be a leadoff hitter, if given the chance. Whatever they do with the other spot in their outfield, though, I think Carlos Beltran would be a uniquely good fit for the Opening Day right field spot in 2014.

No, the Big Contracts Aren't the Problem

I was just listening to an interview by Jeff Wilpon in which he discussed the Mets' likely strategy for this off-season. His message was that the team is unlikely to look to build primarily through free agency, that they will probably shy away from massive contracts, that when they've gotten in trouble in the past it's been because of too many big contracts, and that they might try to emulate the model of the Red Sox from this past off-season, when Boston signed a large number of mid-level free agents to short but multi-year deals. This gave them depth, an awful lot of actually solid/good baseball players who could form a decent mix even if some of them got injured, which some of them have, and the Red Sox are leading their division. Of course, another AL division leader is the Detroit Tigers, who recently signed both Prince Fielder and Justin Verlander to $200 million deals, and the other leader is the Oakland Athletics, who never sign any free agents 'cause they don't have the money. So, you know. Perhaps the empirical verdict isn't so clear.

But I was struck by Wilpon's description of the Mets' own past. Is it true that they've gotten in trouble from their super-sized contracts in the past? I don't think so. Here's the thing: the Mets have given out three enormous free agent contracts in their history. All three were among the better signings in team history. It has been, in fact, those more mid-level contracts that haven't worked out, and that have created baggage for the team.

Don't Trade Beltran

The current rumor going around the internet is that the Mets are not likely to get a top prospect in return for Carlos Beltran. There are various reasons why this is so; I'm not interested in them. What I am interested in is what it means: that, if no one will give them anything particularly enticing in return for Carlos, they should keep him for the rest of the year. The standard argument you hear against this is that the Mets will get nothing from Beltran if they don't trade him: he will depart at the end of the year, and since he cannot be offered arbitration the Mets won't even get compensatory draft picks for him. There is one slight hole in this argument, which any advocate of trading Beltran would gladly acknowledge: what you get from Carlos Beltran for the rest of the season is wins. According to Fangraphs, Beltran has been worth 3.9 wins above replacement through the first 102 games of the season; extrapolating for the remaining 60 games, we project Beltran as being worth a further 2.3 wins for the rest of the season. Drop Beltran and the Mets might as well be 10 games behind the Braves, rather than 7.5. Trade him to the Braves and it might as well be a 12.5-game deficit. So trading Beltran will make the Mets a worse team for the rest of the year; this will reduce their odds of making the playoffs, etc. etc.