Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Cabrera AL MVP over Trout

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

Mighty Bombjack

Active member
Aug 7, 2008
6,115
12
The funny thing to me about this whole thing is that this season was Miggy's worst offensive season in the last 3 years (wOBA and wRC+ were much higher in 2011 and 2010). He is just a fantastic hitter, and it is a shame that he only get the attention and adulation he deserves because of some antiquated feat.

I dont particularly care about the award because I dont really value the opinion of most sports writers, but it is sad to see that so many people "close" to the game still have no understanding of what adds value to the game and how to calculate it. Trout and Cabrera were virtual washes from just a pure hitting perspective, and when factoring in baserunning, defense, position, and competition, its a true no-brainer.
A lot of what adds value to the game can't be calculated. Narrative and story are still important, thankfully.
 

craftysouthpaw

New member
Jan 8, 2010
668
0
A lot of what adds value to the game can't be calculated. Narrative and story are still important, thankfully.

Narrative and story are immensely important - to the game itself. They are one of the biggest factors in what I love about baseball. But they contribute nothing to a player's value from the perspective of the team at least in terms of wins. Winning the Triple Crown does not necessarily mean more valuable and making the playoffs does not necessarily mean more valuable. They might but I have yet to see a compelling argument for why either of those are true in this case. There is a lot of noise in both of those arguments that needs to be filtered out. Once you normalize for that noise, I can't see any logical argument for Cabrera over Trout beyond "well Cabrera did a bunch of stuff that can't be measured" which isn't really an agrument at all but just a fallback for any position that can't be supported.

Ask any front office to compare two players' value and they will tell you it boils down to how many more games do I win with player A versus player B. And a team wins more games with a 2012 Mike Trout than with a 2012 Miguel Cabrera. And you don't need WAR to tell you that. Their traditional numbers purely with the bat are quite close with a slight edge going to Cabrera once you adjust for ballpark. But defense and baserunning matter - and in this case they matter a lot. If the award was for the MVP for the last 30 games of the year, I could buy the argument. But it is not. A win in May means the same as a win in September.

I love how the anti-sabermetrics crowd (the same crowd that yells "nerds" until they're blue in the face but get upset when you tell them their views are antiquated - yet tell me I'm the one using personal attacks) rails against the use of statistics to determine a player's value and then uses the Triple Crown to justify voting for Cabrera. Which is just being at the top of the list for three statistics. By the way, two of which have very little correlation for valuing a player. Miguel Cabrera is not a great hitter because he has a high batting average or a lot of RBI's. Miguel Cabrera gets a lot of RBI's and hits for a high average because he is a great hitter. Those are two very different things (home runs are a different story).

And awarding Cabrera the award because the Tigers made the playoffs but the Angels did not is basing the award largely on things that are outside the control of the two players. Largely the performance of their teammates and the fact the AL Central is awful. That logic is a complete fail. You could maybe talk me into it if the Angels lost 100 games but they had the BEST record in the game after Trout got called up.

The Triple Crown and the playoffs are reasonable factors IMO if the difference between two guys is relatively small - sort of a tiebreaker or pushing a guy over the hump. And for what it's worth, I don't at all support just giving the award to the guy with the highest WAR - that would be extremely close-minded - but the difference here is just too great for me. And this is coming from a Cabrera fan.

But much like politics, I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change my mind and the sun will rise tomorrow and we'll both still love the game. I think these disagreements are great for the game as it gets people talking and engaged.
 

All The Hype

Active member
Aug 7, 2008
10,250
0
Indianapolis
Trout and Cabrera were virtual washes from just a pure hitting perspective, and when factoring in baserunning, defense, position, and competition, its a true no-brainer.

Cabrera was unquestionably the best hitter in baseball. Hitter.

Trout brought speed and a glove, but no one was Cabrera's equal with the bat this year.



As far as the award goes, you really can't go wrong either way. Cabrera carried his team to the playoffs and won the Triple Crown. Trout had perhaps one of the best all-around seasons in baseball history. Both were historic, both players brought tremendous value to their respective teams. Do you value all-around numbers and new age stats more? Or do you value traditional stats and a trip to the playoffs more? There's not necessarily a right or wrong answer to that question, which is what makes this such a great debate.
 

Members online

Top