The NFL MVP debate

One reason why the debate over who should win the baseball MVP awards is so interesting is the vagueness over the definition of “valuable.”  If the award was for the “numerically superior player” it would still be capable of being debated, but the arguments would be limited to how many significant digits to use when calculating a player’s WAR.  But value is in the eye of the beholder.

I am a fairly hard core believer that if your team didn’t make the playoffs, then you weren’t valuable.  Maybe back when only one team from each league made the post-season you could occasionally make an argument for a player on a team that fell a little short, but now that five out of fifteen teams get a post-season berth it’s a harder argument to make.  OK, I will begrudgingly concede that Bryce Harper deserved the award last year, because a) he had an historically phenomenal season and b) no one player on an NL playoff team stood out.  One of the ironies of my position is that really good teams rarely have an MVP candidate because they don’t rely on a single player.  Mike Trout may be the greatest player in the AL, but as long as the Angeles are below .500 he isn’t getting my MVP vote.

There is usually less of a debate over the NFL MVP decision than for baseball or basketball.  For some reason, the fact that the NFL only gives out one MVP award, instead of one for each conference, winnows the field significantly.  Last season was typical: the team with the best record was the Panthers at 15-1 (thanks to an extremely easy schedule) and that team’s best player, Cam Newton, had a great year.  Debate over.

This year may be different, because of what may be the most fascinating factor in an MVP debate I’ve ever seen.  The question is this: can Tom Brady win the MVP award after missing one-fourth of the season due to his Deflategate suspension?  ESPN’s Bill Barnwell has already made that call at mid-season.

ESPN’s Max Kellerman disagrees, arguing that missing four games means he’s missed too much of the season to make an MVP contribution.  He also argues that since the Pats were 3-1 without Brady, the marginal value Brady provides isn’t that great.  Former player Reggie Wayne adds the additional perspective that Brady’s missing games are not due to an injury but to a penalty for Deflategate, which should further cause him to forfeit a shot at the MVP award.

The marginal value argument is interesting.  In 2015 Yoenis Cespedes joined the New York Mets at the end of July; before that, the Mets were last in NL offense, but by the end of the year they were #1 in offense.  So Cespedes had a huge marginal impact on the Mets, one that most likely got them into the playoffs.  There was an argument to be made that he should be MVP despite playing for most of the season in the American League.

MVP voters didn’t buy it, with Cespedes coming in 13th in the MVP voting.  Obviously not contributing to the Mets from April through July hurt his consideration, even if he was largely responsible for the team’s playoff push in August and September.  So does this mean that Brady shouldn’t be considered for the NFL MVP because he missed 25% of the season?

Baseball players play on a team, but they rack up individual stats on their own.  Football players are cogs in a complicated machine.  I think slipping Tom Brady into the Patriot’s machine contributes more value than a baseball player compiling excellent stats for two months.  So I’d give a football player who misses a large chunk of the season more MVP consideration than a baseball player in similar circumstances.

I also reject the argument that since he missed the games due to suspension, not injury, Brady should be disqualified.  I have been a huge Brady critic on Deflategate (note: he’s guilty, guilty, guilty!) but his punishment was a four game suspension that was imposed (thanks to Brady’s trying to weasel out of his punishment) nearly two years after his infraction.  The penalty was the suspension; the Commissioner made no reference to ineligibility for post-season awards, and the rules also make no mention.  So I see no reason to treat the suspension differently than a four-game injury.

So, it comes down to this: is 75% of Tom Brady better than 100% of Matt Ryan, or Matt Stafford, or Derek Carr?  The answer is “Oh hell yes!”  Brady and Bill Belichick are on a scorched earth campaign, and they are rolling over the league like a cleansing plague.  Brady is like Doctor David Banner after he gets angry, and you wouldn’t like him when he’s angry.

The best argument against Brady’s MVP credentials is that the Patriots went 3-1 without him.  Obviously, with Belichick as coach, New England could put a leftover Halloween pumpkin at QB and still compete for the AFC East title.  But that does not diminish what Brady has done, and what he presumably will do over the next eight games.  If he goes 11-1, or even 10-2, over his 12 games and continues to put up excellent passing numbers, he will have earned the MVP award.

Hey, does Roger Goodell have to hand the award to him personally?  I might just tune in for that.