In Elite Era for RF, All-Star Mookie Betts Holds His Own

Betts was all smiles north of the border.

Does Mookie Betts belong in the same class as Bryce Harper and Aaron Judge when talk turns to baseball's top right fielders? Ask Blue Jays fans who had their Canada Day weekend ruined by the newly-named All-Star.

After performing for two months this season below the Silver Slugger offensive standard he set as the American League MVP runner-up in 2016, Boston's five-tool standout has heated up -- capped by a 4-for-6, 2-homer, 8-RBI performance Sunday as Boston completed a weekend sweep of the Jays.

Since his average fell to .261 on June 2, Betts has hit .330/.406/.583 over his past 28 games to help the Red Sox to an 18-10 record and first place in the East. He's scored 24 runs during that period, thanks in large part to 11 doubles and 6 homers, and has contributed his usual Gold Glove defense.

Betts does like Dewey.

His efforts Sunday even gave Betts a franchise record: most RBI in one game by a leadoff hitter. He leads the AL with 27 doubles, and if you factor in his 15 stolen bases, he's now on pace for a 30-homer, 30-steal, 100-RBI season.

It would be ridiculous to claim anybody other than Judge was the league's top player for the first half of 2017, and even the biggest Red Sox fan would admit Mike Trout was a deserving MVP pick over Mookie last year.

But in an era stacked with outstanding right fielders like Judge, Harper, Giancarlo Stanton, and Toronto's Jose Bautista, Betts is every bit as deserving of an All-Star nod as the rest.

Now Joe Dombrowski needs to figure out how to sign the 24-year-old superstar to a long-term contract. Betts has been working on one-year deals so far, but this could lead to an astronomical payday when he's free agent-eligible after the 2020 season.

Not since the Aaron-Clemente-Kaline days of the 1960s has the right field position been this stacked. Those Hall of Famers all played at least 15 years with their original team, and it would be great if Betts could too.

Win the Triple Crown and not the MVP? Ted Williams did it– TWICE

Ted didn't always fly high with MVP voters.

With the AL MVP Award announcement coming later today, talk has heated up about whether Miguel Cabrera or Mike Trout should take home the hardware. Tigers fans who believe the Triple Crown should cinch the honor for Cabrera shouldn't be so fast to celebrate.

Ted Williams, a Hall of Famer acknowledged by many as the greatest hitter who ever lived, twice led the American League in homers, runs batted in, and batting average during the same season -- and was runner-up in the MVP race both times. 

In 1942, Williams hit .356 with 37 homers and 137 RBI, topping the majors in all three categories and helping the second-place Red Sox to their most wins (93) in 27 years. Long before sabermeterics came on the scene, Teddy Ballgame was tops in OBP (.499), OPS (1.147), and WAR (10.2) as well, in each case distancing the field like Secretariat at the Belmont Stakes.

It wasn't good enough. In a vote that shows even mid-20th century sportswriters didn't always choose the guy with the gaudiest "traditional" numbers, Williams was runner-up to Yankees second baseman Joe Gordon for MVP. 

Ted will forever rank among baseball's best.

A future Hall of Famer in his own right, Gordon hit .318 with 18 homers and 103 RBI, and was strong if not spectacular in the field. New York did win its second straight AL pennant, but Gordon was far from a one-man gang with Joe DiMaggio and Charlie Keller preceding him in the Yankees lineup. 

Some blamed the vote on Williams' sour relationship with the press, but the unfairly lofty expectations fans and sportswriters had for Ted undoubtedly played a part. He hit .406 in 1941, after all, so .356 was considered quite a drop-off. (Ironically, Williams finished second in the MVP race to Joe DiMaggio in '41, when Joe D. put together his 56-game hitting streak.)

Five years later, in 1947, it happened again. Williams paced the AL with 32 homers, 114 RBI, and a .343 average, along with otherworldly OBP (.499) and OPS (1.133) totals. The Red Sox, however, finished a disappointing third after winning the AL pennant in 1946 -- when Williams did win the MVP. 

The Yankees finished first in '47, as in 1942, and as in '42 a New York player (Joe DiMaggio) took home the MVP with far more modest (.315, 20, 97) totals. Joe D. was certainly a superior defensive outfielder to Williams, and was clearly the leader of his team, but the vote still seems unfair then and now. 

While legend long dictated (and Ted long thought) that a Boston sportswriter left Williams completely off his 10-man MVP ballot, this was actually not the case. As historian Glenn Stout later uncovered, Williams appeared on 23 of the 24 ballots, and it was a Midwestern writer who deemed him unworthy of his Top 10. 

Joe D. beat out Ted twice for MVP.

It's hard to imagine anyone thinking that 10 players had a better season than Williams in '47 or for that matter Cabrera this year. Just how many voters believe Mike Trout's overall performance as a hitter, fielder, and base runner makes him more valuable than a Triple Crown winner will be the key. 

And if Cabrera is the runner-up? Well, then he should think about finishing just short of a Triple Crown next year. Williams did that in 1949 -- when he paced the AL in homers and RBI but finished behind George Kell in batting, .34291 to .34276 -- and it was good enough for his second MVP honor. 

Mike Trout may be MVP, but shouldn't be Rookie of the Year

Trout scoring at Fenway -- get used to it.

After last night's debacle in Oakland, I thought I'd stay away from the Red Sox for a change and focus on someone actually having an upbeat year -- although I don't agree with how it is being viewed.

Watching him help the Angels sweep the Sox at Fenway earlier this week, and based on his entire body of work this season, it's clear that Mike Trout is one of the most exciting young players in the majors. He may even be the American League MVP when all is said and done, but there is one thing I don't think the 21-year-old phenom should be:

Rookie of the Year.

Technically, Trout is a rookie. As the MLB rules state, “A player shall be considered a rookie unless, during a previous season or seasons, he has (a) exceeded 130 at-bats or 50 innings pitched in the Major Leagues; or (b) accumulated more than 45 days on the active roster of a Major League club or clubs during the period of 25-player limit (excluding time in the military service and time on the disabled list).

Trout makes the cut – barely. He played in 40 games (32 starts) during 2011, in which he had 123 at-bats. This may qualify someone for rookie status the next year, but it seems like an awful big sample set for me.

Trout is a phenom -- but should he be a rookie?

Forty games is nearly a quarter of the MLB schedule, and in Trout's case these were not just meaningless down-the-stretch contests. His first appearance came on July 8 against Seattle, and he wound up playing 14 games in July, eight in August, and 19 in September as the Angels battled for both an AL West title and a Wild Card spot. They got neither, but Trout – who hit .220 with five home runs and 16 RBI – got plenty of experience.

This year, of course, has been a different story. Trout has been with the Angels since late April and has torn up the league with an AL-best .336 average, 41 stolen bases, and 103 runs scored (along with 25 home runs) entering last night. Much hoopla was made when he became the first rookie to have both 25 homers and 40 steals during the Red Sox series, but he just doesn't feel like a first-year guy to me.

He was an everyday player for Los Angeles during a good stretch of LAST season, and while he may seem like an entirely different performer this year, Trout is in fact the same guy who had already seen plenty of big-league pitching entering 2012. To me, a true Rookie of the Year (ROY) winner is a guy who debuts the year he captures the award, or at most plays in 10 or 15 September games the previous season.

Baseball is the only one of the four major professional sports that has this type of shady rookie status. Football players, of course, go straight from college onto NFL rosters and have zero pro experience entering their first year. Ditto for hockey players, who enter the NHL from college or the minor league ranks. And while basketball players may have overseas professional experience, the first NBA games for every Rookie of the Year are played during his initial season in the league.

Blake Griffin -- a "true" rookie.

My 11-year-old son Jason had a very perceptive comment when I mentioned this discrepancy to him. “If Mike Trout is able to do this, what will keep managers from making sure young players don't break the 130 at-bat limit so they can get better and older?” I found no proof of this with Trout, who Angels manager Mike Scioscia played all game, every game down the stretch of 2011. It would have been interesting to see what might have happened had Trout gotten six more at-bats, of course.

Jason also had another funny premise: if a guy came up from the minors for 10 games a year for three years, would he still be considered a rookie going into his fourth season? According to the MLB rules above, he would. This seemed too funny to be plausible, but it happened – the 2008 NL ROY, Cubs catcher Geovany Soto, had played with Chicago for one game in 2005, 11 games in 2006, and 18 games in 2007. A fourth-year rookie!

Geovany Soto -- Jason was right.

I first started thinking about Trout's freshman/sophomore status when Will Middlebrooks was shining for the Red Sox earlier this summer. A broken wrist derailed Middlebrooks in mid-August, and even if he had played out the string the chances are slim he would have put together stats like Trout. But since Middlebrooks was a TRUE rookie whose 75 major games, 15 homers, and 54 RBI all came this season, one could argue (outside Los Angeles) that he is a more worthy Rookie of the Year winner than the guy who will get the award.

For some more perspective, I looked back at AL and NL ROY winners from the past 10 seasons to see how they compare with Trout in pre-ROY experience. Soto was the only one I found with three MLB seasons under his belt, but one other player (Angel Berroa in 2003) had played shortstop for the Royals for a combined 35 games and 128 at-bats in 2001-2002. Talk about cutting it close to the 130 at-bat limit!

Most of the others fell into the more reasonable range of 15-20 games and 50-75 at-bats for position players and 5-15 games for pitchers. Six of the 20 awardees were “true” Rookies of the Year who saw their first MLB experience in their winning year – Chris Coughlin, Andrew Bailey, Evan Longoria, Ryan Braun, Dontrelle Willis, and Eric Hinske. Honorable mentions go to 2006 winners Hanley Ramirez and Justin Verlander, who both played in just two games the previous season.

Andrew Bailey -- as true as rookies can get.

I think the system needs some revamping. Lower the pre-ROY maximum numbers to 20 games and/or 50 at-bats for position players, and 10 games and/or 30 innings for pitchers. This will ensure that September call-ups can still be considered rookies, but guys who played three months like Trout last year will be out of luck.

And what if Trout pulls off the double-win and captures both the Rookie of the Year and the MVP awards? He would be just the third man to achieve this feat, after Fred Lynn (in 1975) and Ichiro Suzuki (2001) – two men who offer another contrast in rookies. Lynn played in a reasonable 15 games in September of '74, and while Suzuki was a “true” rookie in '01 with regards to his MLB status, he did have nine seasons and more than 1,000 games in the Japanese professional leagues under his belt.

Now that's another discussion altogether.