1/4 Mark NL and AL MVPs

[757690]

But it isn't called the best player award. It's called Most Valuable Player and that wasn't a mistake. It is by design an award whose basis of merit is always changing.

I see Mike Trout as an exceptional baseball player. He has pending MVP awards... But in 2012 he basically did what Miguel Cabrera did but not as well, however stole a lot more bases. I'd agree he's a more well-rounded player, but without Miggy the Tigers don't make the post season. The 2012 Angels without Trout is pretty moot in my eyes. And to me, that holds much less value. I apologize for using that word so much but I have to. What is your reasoning for choosing Trout?

"Most Valuable" - to whom/what? To some it seems to be the stat book, or his team. But by winning the Triple Crown, in Miggy's case, was valuable to all of baseball, not just himself or his team.

I get your points, and not contradicting them.

However, the whole Trout/Cabrera MVP debate has little to do with the Sabermetrics/traditional stat debate. Trout was more valuable because he was a more complete player. You don't need to go to advanced stats to figure that out.

[nate]

If Craig was a gold glove 2B, he absolutely belongs in the MVP discussion. But he's a lousy fielding 1B, so he doesn't.

The discussion was about the RBI portion.

Let's go to the tape!

If the criteria is "who is driving in the highest percentage of base runners," I'd go with Allen Craig (26.4%) and Billy Butler (26.1%.)

My MVPs so far would be Carlos Gomez and either Evan Longoria, Mike Trout or Anibal Sanchez.

[New York Red]

The discussion was about the RBI portion.

Actually, it was never just about RBIs. It was about Brandon's 2013 value, both offensively and defensively.

[New York Red]

Nor does BP "have" 130+ RBI. Let alone in 1/4th of a season.

Does that really need to be explained?

[nate]

Actually, it was never just about RBIs. It was about Brandon's 2013 value, both offensively and defensively.

I asked a simple question that was basically "is it the CONVERSION or ACCUMULATION or RBI." The former would, to me, be more indicative skill whereas the latter would be more indicative of opportunity.

The entirety of the faux award we're talking about, no.

[nate]

Does that really need to be explained?

It was your statement, so...yes?

[dougdirt]

But it isn't called the best player award. It's called Most Valuable Player and that wasn't a mistake. It is by design an award whose basis of merit is always changing.

I see Mike Trout as an exceptional baseball player. He has pending MVP awards... But in 2012 he basically did what Miguel Cabrera did but not as well, however stole a lot more bases. I'd agree he's a more well-rounded player, but without Miggy the Tigers don't make the post season. The 2012 Angels without Trout is pretty moot in my eyes. And to me, that holds much less value. I apologize for using that word so much but I have to. What is your reasoning for choosing Trout?

"Most Valuable" - to whom/what? To some it seems to be the stat book, or his team. But by winning the Triple Crown, in Miggy's case, was valuable to all of baseball, not just himself or his team.

Trout was "most valuable" because he was a better hitter (he led the league in OPS+, which is adjusted for the parks that you play in, which is awfully important here since Trout plays in a pitcher friendly park in a pitcher friendly division with other pitcher friendly parks within the division), and even if you want to argue he wasn't the better hitter, you must admit that it was awfully close between he and Cabrera. But then we get into defense, where Trout was an outstanding center fielder, while Cabrera was a poor corner player. Then we can get into base running and well, Trout blows Cabrera out of the water there too. So at worst, there was a slight advantage with the bat for for Cabrera and huge advantages for Trout in the field and on the base paths. Makes it rather simple to see who was the better player.

[westofyou]

Actually, it was never just about RBIs. It was about Brandon's 2013 value, both offensively and defensively.

Jean Segura probably needs to be mentioned

[New York Red]

It was your statement, so...yes?

Seriously?

[bigredmechanism]

Trout was "most valuable" because he was a better hitter (he led the league in OPS+, which is adjusted for the parks that you play in, which is awfully important here since Trout plays in a pitcher friendly park in a pitcher friendly division with other pitcher friendly parks within the division), and even if you want to argue he wasn't the better hitter, you must admit that it was awfully close between he and Cabrera. But then we get into defense, where Trout was an outstanding center fielder, while Cabrera was a poor corner player. Then we can get into base running and well, Trout blows Cabrera out of the water there too. So at worst, there was a slight advantage with the bat for for Cabrera and huge advantages for Trout in the field and on the base paths. Makes it rather simple to see who was the better player.

Thing is Doug, I've never seen anything where the writers who vote on the award say they are going to base their vote on OPS+. They base their vote on the traditional counting stats. I know you are the type of guy who looks at the more analytical stats, but the sports writers look at average, HRs, and RBIs for the most part.

[nate]

Seriously?

As fun as the "Seriously? Yes. For real? Yes. Really? Yes." game might seem, I think I'm "volleyed out."

[Raisor]

I just want to make sure I understand. If Phillips drives in 130 runs with a sub 800 ops the RBI should be enough to make him MVP

Question: who was the last non pitcher to win an MVP award with a sub 800 ops?

[Wonderful Monds]

I just want to make sure I understand. If Phillips drives in 130 runs with a sub 800 ops the RBI should be enough to make him MVP

Question: who was the last non pitcher to win an MVP award with a sub 800 ops?

I would say it would have to put him in the conversation at least, honestly.

[membengal]

I just want to make sure I understand. If Phillips drives in 130 runs with a sub 800 ops the RBI should be enough to make him MVP

Question: who was the last non pitcher to win an MVP award with a sub 800 ops?

Angus McClutch... 1871.

[bigredmechanism]

I just want to make sure I understand. If Phillips drives in 130 runs with a sub 800 ops the RBI should be enough to make him MVP

Question: who was the last non pitcher to win an MVP award with a sub 800 ops?

Zoilo Versalles 1965
.273/.319/.462