A few years back, Jay Jaffe introduced an MVP Predictor formula called JUMP on Baseball Prospectus. It was, if his descriptions of his spreadsheets are any indication, a spectacularly messy equation, befitting the complex and irregular methods voters use to choose their MVPs. As Jay wrote at the time,
A few years back, Rob Neyer and Bill James introduced a Cy Young Predictor formula in the Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers, a formula made possible by the relatively smaller number of statistical inputs which go into consideration for that award, and one that produced a much higher level of accuracy (around 80 percent) than JUMP does. … JUMP underscores both the wider variety of inputs that can come into play in a single MVP vote and the fact that nearly any given year produces at least a few candidates with strong enough statistical resumes and team backgrounds for a voter to attach to a narrative which rationalizes their vote.
Which is to say: stories, not just statistical inputs, tend to guide MVP voters, and no two stories are ever the same. Even when stories resemble each other, they’re not quite the same.
Which is a way of saying that what I’m about to talk about is limited by all the known unknowns and unknown unknowns.