Originally Posted by Bumstead
I haven't ignored anything Doug. Clearly we just disagree. I love to watch Mike Trout play, I just think Miguel Cabrera earned the MVP award this season. They are clearly different types of players, and Trout is clearly new and exciting, but I don't think that changes who the MVP is this season.
Always use the odds to the best of your ability. Over time they will play out as they should.
I don't think anybody is giving Trout extra credit for being "new" nor for the aesthetics of his game being "exciting". It's not about the feel good or of being " a complete player", as if a player should get extra credit for the composition of his skill set. That's not it at all. It's simply about production. What makes Trout exciting is that he's producing runs, and thus value, every on the baseball field, not just in the batters box. That he's more exciting is a great by-product of his skill set; but that's not why he's the MVP. What makes him the MVP is that when you add up all of his production and compare it Miguel Cabrera's (or anyone else's), he comes out significantly ahead.
That's what so frustrating/confusing for those of us in the Trout camp. We literally cannot grasp how it's even a debate if you objectively look at everything the player does to help his team win baseball games. And every defense of a Cabrera vote I've seen either ignores or dismisses some aspect of that. If you prefer Cabrera, you're saying at least one of these 3 things and maybe a combination thereof:
1. Cabrera's edge in production while at the plate trumps Trout's edge on the bases and in the field (and usually this argument omits the GIDP issue)
2. Defense and/or baserunning either don't matter when it comes to MVP or they simply cannot have their value measured with sufficient accuracy for them to be factored in (which is ironic given how the sabermetric movement was railed on for years for its myopic focus on hitting)
3. The factors outside of on-field production put Cabrera over the top. This include but are not limited to historical achievement (triple crown), leadership (Miggy being a good guy and moving to 3B) and the team making the playoffs.
Each of these 3 arguments can be refuted somewhat easily (e.g. Trout's performance has been historical too as he's the first player ever to hit .320 with 30 HR and 45 SB or the fact that the Angels have a better record than the Tigers, which you means you think Miguel Cabrera deserves credit for the Rangers and A's being better than the White Sox). But even then, at least they'd be logical and can be discussed on that basis.
That's what bugs us sabermetrician types. If you're cool subscribing to one of the above, fine, we can agree to disagree or we can discuss the basis of the disagreement. But if aren't willing to defend one of the three points above, a Cabrera vote comes across as being driven by some unstated and possibly unknown bias rather than by a logical assessment of value.