Originally Posted by Bumstead
This is your opinion. Mine is different. Your argument started about Cabrera moving for Young; when you realized you were wrong, you just made excuses and said it didn't matter. It does matter in the clubhouse. He's clearly a leader that puts his team winning before his ego. I could name many star players that wouldn't do that. Did Barry Larkin have the highest WAR in the NL when he won the MVP? I imagine you thought he deserved it. WAR is all Trout has in his favor and I have about zero interest in using that to determine an MVP.
A guy that wins the Triple Crown and is a leader in the clubhouse on a team contending down the stretch to win their division deserves the MVP over someone that the only stat one can point to that is higher is WAR. I'm not the one with the strawman (to use your words) argument here.
No, I don't think Larkin deserved his MVP; Bonds did.
Again, Trout leads Cabrera in a number of stats, runs, stolen bases and triples to name three common ones. Miguel Cabrera leads Trout in other categories you haven't mentioned: Grounded Into Double Plays, 28 to 7 (you're counting those 21 outs against Cabrera, right?) and errors, 13 to 4. (I think errors are a bad way to measure defense, but you don't seem to want to consider advanced metrics)
You still are completely ignoring defense. You are still completely ignoring baserunning. You are implicitly suggesting that being good in the clubhouse is worth more than being a good baserunner and defender. And if we're going to count clubhouse impact, I assume you've accounted for the impact Trout has had on the Angels clubhouse?
You have and continue to make a case that Cabrera has had an awesome season; you haven't made the case that his season is better than Trout's because you refuse to compare them on all of the ways players add value.
Clearly we'll have to agree to disagree.