Can Mike Trout field?

[M2]

Mike Trout had one of the best seasons anyone has ever had in the entire history of the game.

I don't have a dog in the 2012 MVP fight. I was fine with either guy winning. Both had outstanding seasons.

However, the assertion that Trout had one of the best seasons ever relies on WAR, and his WAR figure relies on us believing that he indeed was Superman in CF. He's actually having a better 2013 at the plate, but nobody's calling it one of the best ever because of his defensive stats.

For instance, let's say Trout's just a really good fielding CF (most CFs are). Then his 2012 was just a really good season and not some once in lifetime experience. Basically what I'm saying here is that it seems to me that the arguments for both Cabrera and Trout had their fair share of built-in hyperbole.

[westofyou]

I'm saying here is that it seems to me that the arguments for both Cabrera and Trout had their fair share of built-in hyperbole.

[RedsManRick]

I am well aware of the list of Triple Crown winners, Rick. There are SO FEW that it is fairly simplistic to remember them.

Thinking harder is neat too. As a matter of fact harder is always better IMO lol. I am bothered by statements like EASILY. Bull. I applaud Trout's season and will not dismiss what he did. Nor should the "harder thinkers" dimiss Cabrera's season and that ONCE IN YOUR LIFE event.

I wonder what the next argument will be from the "harder thinkers" to dimiss the "not so hard thinkers"? It will happen and it will not take as long as that Triple Crown thing happening again. Don't get me wrong as I enjoy the new age stats. It is the condescending arguments/attitudes used by some that bug me. And the "not so hard thinkers" do this too.

Mike Trout's season was a ONCE IN THE HISTORY OF THE SPORT event. Why won't you address this? The list of people who did what he did last year is even easier to remember than the Triple Crown winners: 1) Mike Trout, 2012. The end.

At no point did I dismiss Cabrera's accomplishment. Cabrera had an amazing season, one in which he accrued a higher average, more HR and more RBI than anybody else in the American League. Doing that is hard, impressive and rare. I fully recognize that. I simply said that recognition of that does not imply that the players was the most valuable player.

Rarity is not value. We can come up with all sorts of things that have happened just once in our lifetime. Value is a function of how closely linked those things are to winning baseball games.

Miguel Cabrera had an awesome, historic season. He helped his team win a lot of games. But he didn't do as much to help his team win baseball games as Mike Trout did (even if just focus on offense).

And even if we do want to factor in the rarity of accomplishment in to MVP, we can pick a set of stats that show Mike Trout's season was even more rare than Cabrera's. And if we then want to make the case that Cabrera's accomplishment was "better", then I would argue that Cabrera happened to excel at a selection of stats that some baseball writers thought was a good combination multiple generations ago, but which we've come to recognize provides an incomplete picture of player value.

[M2]

RMR, I'm with you 100% when you're arguing that there's goofiness in defining players based on Triple Crown categories and that in no way is a Triple Crown reason for us to shut off our brains on who deserves an MVP.

However that argument rings a bit hollow when you then say, essentially, WAR loved Mike Trout, so shut off your brains on who deserves the MVP.

[jojo]

I didn't get the angst over the mvp debate last year either as part of the lure of baseball is that some things are messy and that makes for fun hours of debate. Things don't have to be black and white and this wasn't one of those things that actually was anyway. The baseball Gods served one of those messy moments up during the run to the playoffs last season. Good stuff.

If I had a vote, it would've been for Trout. First I'm a purest in the sense that I define most valuable as the best player, i.e. the one who produced the most value. That's my definition though. Here's why I thought Trout was the best player-when comparing Cabrera and Trout, Trout was a better defender (forget UZR-he obviously is a superior defender and logs the bulk of his defensive innings at a much more premium position), Trout is a better baserunner, and their bats were actually pretty similar if normalized for park.

To me, that added up to Trout was more valuable. WAR reflected that too. That's great because it pretty much means WAR is doing what you'd hope even if one wants to argue about the magnitude of the difference.

But lets not pretend that a triple crown doesn't carry with it a good bit of sexy, especially when it's earned during a heated playoff run.

Was Trout so much better defensively that it overshadows a triple crown and a playoff spot? You know how I would've voted (that playoff spot and those rbis were team dependent so I tend to grade adjust), but c'mon now, the head turner would've been if Trout had won the award and frankly Miggy was deserving. I just cant stand crappy defense.

[RedsBaron]

I don't have a dog in the 2012 MVP fight. I was fine with either guy winning. Both had outstanding seasons.

However, the assertion that Trout had one of the best seasons ever relies on WAR, and his WAR figure relies on us believing that he indeed was Superman in CF. He's actually having a better 2013 at the plate, but nobody's calling it one of the best ever because of his defensive stats.

For instance, let's say Trout's just a really good fielding CF (most CFs are). Then his 2012 was just a really good season and not some once in lifetime experience. Basically what I'm saying here is that it seems to me that the arguments for both Cabrera and Trout had their fair share of built-in hyperbole.

Amen. Trout was terrific in 2012 and he is terrific this season, but his huge WAR score in 2012 of 10.9 was a product of both his offensive WAR of 8.8 and his defensive WAR of 2.1 ( I am using Baseball-Reference.com). An 8.8 offensive WAR score is great, but ranks in a tie for 83rd all time, so it was itself hardly historic. It was the boost from Trout's defense that gave him the historically high player rating of 10.9 WAR.
This season Trout has an offensive WAR of 7.8 but his overall WAR score is only 6.6, as he is a negative WAR 1.2 defensively, worse even than Cabrera's negative WAR 1.0 defensively. Cabrera's offensive WAR this season is 7.7. No way do I think Cabrera is a more valuable defensive player than Trout, but if WAR scores can give us that crazy a result in 2013, how do we know how great Trout really was in 2012 when he had a defensive WAR score of 2.1? Was he that great in the field in 2012 or is he that bad in the field this year?
As for Trout's unprecedented accomplismet of 30 HRs, 49 steals and 129 runs scored, yes, it was unprecedented, but other players have come close to those standards. Playing on medicore Giant teams in 1956 and 1957, Willie Mays went 36/40/101 and 35/38/112. Put Willie on a team with more support behind him and in an era where base stealing was more common, and he may have reached Trout's 30/49/129 level. For that matter, Eric Davis had a line of 37/50/120 in 1987.

[BluegrassRedleg]

Of course this has been argued ad naseum. And I am starting to think this is purposely being done by the new age MLB thinkers (imagine that). Can this whole argument be a "shove it in your face as to why I am smarter and savvier than you by the SABR crowd"? I do not have a problem with SABR-nuts (or doug) and love the info/data presented in this world. But to state a triple crown winner was EASILY not the MVP is absurd. Say it over and over again: ONE TIME IN YOUR LIFE, ONE TIME IN YOUR LIFE, ONE TIME IN YOUR LIFE.

Mike Trout, Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Lou Gehrig, Ted Williams... sounds right to me lol. Let me know when he wins a triple crown. I will bet it will not happen in my life nor yours. ONE TIME IN YOUR LIFE.

That's how doug presents it. I respect his opinion, but the delivery comes off as dogma, especially when he suggests that Trout is (again) better than Cabrera this season.

[BluegrassRedleg]

Amen. Trout was terrific in 2012 and he is terrific this season, but his huge WAR score in 2012 of 10.9 was a product of both his offensive WAR of 8.8 and his defensive WAR of 2.1 ( I am using Baseball-Reference.com). An 8.8 offensive WAR score is great, but ranks in a tie for 83rd all time, so it was itself hardly historic. It was the boost from Trout's defense that gave him the historically high player rating of 10.9 WAR.
This season Trout has an offensive WAR of 7.8 but his overall WAR score is only 6.6, as he is a negative WAR 1.2 defensively, worse even than Cabrera's negative WAR 1.0 defensively. Cabrera's offensive WAR this season is 7.7. No way do I think Cabrera is a more valuable defensive player than Trout, but if WAR scores can give us that crazy a result in 2013, how do we know how great Trout really was in 2012 when he had a defensive WAR score of 2.1? Was he that great in the field in 2012 or is he that bad in the field this year?
As for Trout's unprecedented accomplismet of 30 HRs, 49 steals and 129 runs scored, yes, it was unprecedented, but other players have come close to those standards. Playing on medicore Giant teams in 1956 and 1957, Willie Mays went 36/40/101 and 35/38/112. Put Willie on a team with more support behind him and in an era where base stealing was more common, and he may have reached Trout's 30/49/129 level. For that matter, Eric Davis had a line of 37/50/120 in 1987.

ED was the first person who came to mind when the unprecedented talk came up. He was ridiculously good in the field that year, too. Must have robbed 5-6 HRs IIRC. We talked about Jack Clark the other day in the other topic. I think I recall Davis taking two HRs away from Clark in the same game.

[RedsManRick]

RMR, I'm with you 100% when you're arguing that there's goofiness in defining players based on Triple Crown categories and that in no way is a Triple Crown reason for us to shut off our brains on who deserves an MVP.

However that argument rings a bit hollow when you then say, essentially, WAR loved Mike Trout, so shut off your brains on who deserves the MVP.

I'm not saying WAR. I'm saying wOBA. I'm saying factor in value on the basepaths. I'm saying factor in double plays hit in to. Those are things we can measure with more precision than defense.

Take defense out of the equation entirely for all I care. Trout was still at least Cabrera's equal. Add even the most rudimentary adjustment for defensive value and there you go.

[dougdirt]

I don't have a dog in the 2012 MVP fight. I was fine with either guy winning. Both had outstanding seasons.

However, the assertion that Trout had one of the best seasons ever relies on WAR, and his WAR figure relies on us believing that he indeed was Superman in CF. He's actually having a better 2013 at the plate, but nobody's calling it one of the best ever because of his defensive stats.

For instance, let's say Trout's just a really good fielding CF (most CFs are). Then his 2012 was just a really good season and not some once in lifetime experience. Basically what I'm saying here is that it seems to me that the arguments for both Cabrera and Trout had their fair share of built-in hyperbole.

Trout was also better on the bases last year.

Trout gained weight from last season. He added more bulk. He isn't quite as fast as he was last year. Still really fast, but a step slower.

[dougdirt]

That's how doug presents it. I respect his opinion, but the delivery comes off as dogma, especially when he suggests that Trout is (again) better than Cabrera this season.

Mike Trout - 181 OPS+
Miguel Cabrera - 204 OPS+

Big advantage Cabrera.

On the base paths.....

Big Advantage for Trout

In the field.....

Big advantage for Trout.

Essentially, they only way we can't have a discussion about this is if you simply believe that baseball is only about hitting. Mike Trout is the 2nd best hitter in the American League to Miguel Cabrera. Where does Cabrera rank in terms of defense and base running when compared to Trout?

This is a conversation worth having. It isn't dogma. As I said, you can argue it.

[RedFanAlways1966]

Essentially, they only way we can't have a discussion about this is if you simply believe that baseball is only about hitting.

Like some of the gold glove winners in the past lol!

[RedLegsToday]

The difference in RBI is monumental, and in an AL lineup, I'm not sure the difference in their batting positions makes a staggering difference. Maybe I'm wrong there

I think you're wrong here. going to baseball-reference (sorry if this has already been pointed out, I haven't read the whole thread yet).

Mike Trout led off an inning 244 times last year, and had 306 runners on base for him, 155 in scoring position.

Miggy led off an inning 112 times last year, and had 444 runners on base for him, 232 in scoring position.

[BluegrassRedleg]

I think you're wrong here. going to baseball-reference (sorry if this has already been pointed out, I haven't read the whole thread yet).

Mike Trout led off an inning 244 times last year, and had 306 runners on base for him, 155 in scoring position.

Miggy led off an inning 112 times last year, and had 444 runners on base for him, 232 in scoring position.

Your honor, we'd like to withdraw our motion on that count.

[RedLegsToday]

ONE TIME in your life (except old-timers LOL). Say that over-and-over (one time in my life, one time in my life). Not often something happens once in your life in MLB.

So... a question. If Trout had had 2 more hits last year, and Miggy 1 less, would you have to rethink who the Most Valuable Player was in the AL? Because, that's the difference between Miggy's Triple Crown and just being another guy who led the league in HR and RBI.

Also, this year Miggy is going to have more HR, more RBI, more hits, a much higher BA, and even much higher OB% and slg%. Is this season not as special, because he's only going to come in 2nd in HR (most likely)?