Raisel Ghul, the Demon's Head
Make that a thing.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
PS: I'm not going to start a separate Hamilton vs Trout argument as I don't see the point over arguing who finishes 2nd. Nobody cares who finishes 2nd.
"This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
FYI: I am not a Cabrera fan. I am a Trout fan. I cheer for Trout. But this isn't about that. This is about the MVP award.
As for the rest of their games, you seem to be ignoring them. Only if one looks at pure hitting stats and disregards defense and base running, has Cabrera been something better than Mike Trout in the second half here. When I look at everything that each guy brings to the game, Trout is bringing more. By quite a bit. That is just how good he has been.
As for what makes me think you haven't seen that Cabrera is some leader is that I am guessing you aren't a Detroit Tigers beat writer or worker who is in the clubhouse every day. Maybe I am wrong, but the odds are on my side.
Always use the odds to the best of your ability. Over time they will play out as they should.
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.
Last edited by RedsManRick; 10-03-2012 at 01:53 PM.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
Buster Olney was just on SVP. He said this: The GM's have all said that it isn't a debate, it should be Trout. He said that the players he has asked have all said it is Cabrera. He says he expects the writers to lean on the crutch that Cabrera made the playoffs, so he will win.