Originally Posted by dougdirt
How bad would the Astros have stunk without a player like Votto though? They would have been X wins worse, just like the Reds would have been X wins worse without him, assuming both teams replaced him with the exact same player. That player, would provide the exact same value no matter the breakdown of his team. He is worth Y amount of runs.
As I said "perception".
I'm not arguing whether it's right or wrong, I'm explaining the perception that goes along with it, and the matter of "value to their team" as the award describes. It suggests a significant team element, out of the player's control. True the same amount of runs for either team would be changed the same, and the overall amount of wins would be unchanged to the team, but the overall impact on the team would be completely different to a non contender to a contender. And I think that is where that secondary stuff will continue to come in play.
It's simply not the best player award, and is not perceived that way. I'd like to think that when a guy like Trout blows everyone else out of the water that voters would not be able to ignore that regardless of that secondary stuff, but I doubt it.