I expected it to be closer, but with Cabrera winning the Triple Crown, playing the full season and being on a playoff team, I'm not surprised in the least he won.
Having said that, Trout was amazing and in a pure numbers "most outstanding" context probably was the most outstanding. And I've never been a big fan of penalizing players for the quality of their teammates when it comes to these awards, which is what the "Tigers made the playoffs, Angels didn't" factor involves.
But. Just to be contrarian for contrarian's sake...
Even if we assume the offensive values are a wash, or close enough to it, the argument is that Trout's defense was far superior (both in positional value and quality). Evident enough. But it's a team sport. Cabrera was a pretty lousy third baseman, but he'd spent the previous four years playing first base. He agreed to move to third base -- a move that hurt his defensive value -- so the Tigers could bring in Prince Fielder. And the Tigers made the playoffs. Maybe they don't make the playoffs if Cabrera declares he doesn't want to move and the Tigers lose out on Fielder and suffer another season of Brandon Inge or whoever they'd been running out there at third base before that. That willingness to move off his position to make room for someone else, to suffer some slings and arrows for his defense for the sake of making his team better... seems rather, dare I say it, valuable.
Most of us Reds fans know about 1975 and Pete Rose. Not that he was a brilliant left fielder or anything, but any modern-day individual accounting of his 1975 season would have seen his value take a hit from the move to third base. Yet, considering the weak third-base play of the incumbents and the presence of George Foster, the move made the Reds a better team. Isn't that the objective?
No, I'm not suggesting Rose deserved the MVP over Morgan in 1975 -- or even that Cabrera clearly deserved it over Trout. Just pointing out that this stuff doesn't take place in a vacuum.
Reply With Quote