Mike Trout talks about what it's going to take for the Angels to get back to the playoffs after a disappointing season. (0:47)

For the fifth time in Mike Trout's five full seasons in the majors, the American League MVP debate came down to that weathered dilemma: Is the best player in the league the most valuable, even if his team wasn't a factor in the pennant race?

In a bit of an upset -- at least by Trout's own previous results in MVP voting -- Trout won his second MVP award even though his Los Angeles Angels finished just 74-88. He became the first player on a losing team to win MVP honors since Alex Rodriguez in 2003. Trout's previous MVP award had come in 2014, the one season the Angels made the playoffs in his career. In 2012 and 2013 he lost out to Miguel Cabrera, even though Trout had a big advantage in WAR. In 2015, he lost out to Josh Donaldson, with Trout holding a smaller edge in WAR.

This time, Trout beat out Mookie Betts of the Boston Red Sox and Jose Altuve of the Houston Astros to join Barry Bonds as the only players to finish in the top two in MVP voting in five consecutive seasons.

Still, recent precedent suggested Betts would win the award after his Red Sox finished 93-69 and won the AL East. Of the 20 MVP winners from 2006 to 2015, 17 played on playoff teams. Was Trout the right choice? There is no right choice. This debate is as much about philosophy as it is numbers. All three finalists are great players, and we wouldn't care much about who wins if it just went to the player with the highest WAR. Which, of course, was Trout:

Trout: 10.6 (Baseball-Reference), 9.4 (FanGraphs)

Betts: 9.6 (Baseball-Reference), 7.8 (FanGraphs)

Altuve: 7.7 (Baseball-Reference), 6.7 (FanGraphs)

There are Betts supporters who will argue that WAR doesn't tell the whole story, that, for example, because the Red Sox won more games, Betts must have contributed more in those wins.

There is a statistic called win probability added that we can bring in here. Some analysts like it, some think it's mostly a junk stat. I think it just adds another piece to the puzzle. WPA looks at each plate appearance and credits or debits the player for how much his team's win expectancy in the game changes based on the outcome of that plate appearance. A home run in the eighth inning with the score tied changes the odds of winning much more than a home run in the eighth inning of a 9-1 game.

So it brings in context to a player's stats. Compiling them in close games or high-leverage moments creates more value. It is situation dependent, which is why some don't like it. On the other hand, a player's contributions don't occur in isolation from the game itself. Anyway, Trout crushes Betts and Altuve in WPA:

Leaving Altuve aside here, since he was the clear No. 3 choice, the Betts camp might suggest that because the Red Sox were better, they didn't play as many close games as the Angels, thus "limiting" potential higher-leverage at-bats. Actually, the number of one-run games and blowout games (those decided by five-plus runs) each team played was similar:

Red Sox: 20-24 in one-run games, 30-11 in blowouts

Angels: 17-20 in one-run games, 24-24 in blowouts

I went through each player's game logs at Baseball-Reference.com and added up their WPA in the one-run games. Betts played in 43 one-run games and Trout played in 36. Their WPA in those games:

Trout: 1.436

Betts: .027

Bottom line: Betts just wasn't that great in close games, with a barely positive WPA total. The Red Sox went 20-24 in one-run games, in part, because Betts wasn't as good in those games as he was otherwise. He did have some big games in this list -- of the six highest single-game WPAs between the two, he had five:

Betts, Oct. 1 vs. Blue Jays: .372 (2-for-4, 2 runs in 4-3 loss)

Trout, April 21 vs. White Sox: .340 (2-for-2, 2 walks, 2-run HR in fifth in 3-2 win)

Betts, May 15 vs. Astros: .331 (go-ahead two-out triple in seventh in 10-9 win)

Betts, June 24 vs. Rangers: .331 (tying two-run HR in ninth with two outs in 8-7 win)

Betts, Aug. 1 vs. Mariners: .327 (go-ahead HR in ninth in 2-1 win)

Betts, Sept. 17 vs. Yankees: .239 (tying single, go-ahead run in seventh in 6-5 win)

Betts, however, also had negative WPA in 25 of his 43 one-run games (Trout had 15). Worst of these was May 6 in a 3-2 loss to the Yankees, valued at minus-.213 WPA. Betts went 0-for-4 with a walk: fly out leading off the top of the first; two-out walk in the second; groundout leading off the fifth with the score tied; popped out bunting in the seventh after a leadoff double with the score still tied; struck out in the ninth after a leadoff single with the Red Sox down 3-2. He had chances to start rallies or to move runners up and failed. That's a bad game.

One reason Trout's WPA was higher ties into why his WAR was higher: He got on base much more often. Trout had a .441 OBP and Betts had a .363 OBP. Here's another way to look at why that's so important:

Trout: 681 plate appearances, 393 outs, 64 runs created above average

Betts: 730 plate appearances, 491 outs, 30 runs created above average

Look at the difference in outs. Betts made almost 100 more outs than Trout. If Trout went 0-for-49 -- to match Betts' total number of plate appearances -- he'd still have generated 49 fewer outs than Betts. That's why Trout created so many more runs compared to an average hitter.

Both guys produced amazing numbers at the plate. But only one guy did so while using so few outs. Betts' incredible defense in right field brought his overall value closer to Trout, but Trout was still the best player in the American League. And the voters decided to not penalize him simply because he had worse teammates.