AL mvp....

[Bumstead]

Yet the Angels have a better record than the Tigers do. So if it were the Angels getting to play Kansas City, Minnesota and Cleveland as often as Detroit, they, not the Tigers, would be in the playoffs.

So basically you're saying Trout isn't as valuable as Cabrera because he is on a better team in a harder division.

There no way of knowing that ( the switching divisions).

So, the A's are so good that adding the MVP (Trout) & the 2nd best 1B in MLB wasn't enough for the Angels to even get the wildcard this year after making the playoffs last year?

[Brutus]

There no way of knowing that ( the switching divisions).

So, the A's are so good that adding the MVP (Trout) & the 2nd best 1B in MLB wasn't enough for the Angels to even get the wildcard this year after making the playoffs last year?

There's no way of knowing that, but they do have a better record regardless of that. The Angels are a better team than Detroit, so missing the playoffs is more a product of the division they play in than anything else.

[Bumstead]

There's no way of knowing that, but they do have a better record regardless of that. The Angels are a better team than Detroit, so missing the playoffs is more a product of the division they play in than anything else.

So, now won-loss record automatically determines the best team regardless of the different schedules? So, if the Reds or Washington don't win it all, then the best team won't have won?

[blumj]

There no way of knowing that ( the switching divisions).

So, the A's are so good that adding the MVP (Trout) & the 2nd best 1B in MLB wasn't enough for the Angels to even get the wildcard this year after making the playoffs last year?

Angels didn't make the playoffs last year, 86 wins, they have 89 with 2 games left now. They wouldn't have gotten the 2nd WC if there'd been one last season, either. Their pitching was better last year, but they've already scored 100+ more runs than they did in '11.

[Brutus]

So, now won-loss record automatically determines the best team regardless of the different schedules? So, if the Reds or Washington don't win it all, then the best team won't have won?

They had a better record, a stronger strength of schedule and a better run differential. What else is there that would lead someone to a conclusion they've not been a better team than Detroit?

Not sure what the playoffs have to do with being the best team in the regular season. But using the record, differential and schedule to conclude someone is a better team is certainly no worse than saying a player doesn't deserve an award because you're assuming it should manifest itself in more wins from one season to the next. That assumes everything is static and the number of wins are always right in line with talent levels from season to season.

[Patrick Bateman]

I don't recall significant subtraction, only significant additions. How does adding the MVP not lead to more wins on a significantly improved team? Maybe the A's have a better candidate?

C'mon, that argument is pathetic.

Even if you don't think Trout is the MVP, you know that he has been a fabulous player this season.

Whether they added a "very good player" or an "MVP", Trout obviously improved the team. Obviously, the team did not succeed this year because existing players from the prior year did not play to their standards.

You're using fuzzy math. Baseball isn't played in a vacuum. Things and circumstances change year to year.

If you want to argue that Cabrera is the MVP because he was better this year, then fine. We'll agree to disagree. But dredging arguments like that up are absolutely frivolous, and really dumb down everything else you say. To suggest that Trout didn't improve the Angels is quite frankly, funny. Thanks for the laugh.

[dougdirt]

I believe it is Cabrera in a landslide, although there will be the people that only rely on WAR that vote for Trout; I just find it short-sighted to rely on a stat that has so many assumptions tied into calculating it. Even I can see all the talent on the Angels roster; how can adding the best player in baseball turn a playoff team into a non-playoff team and how does that make Trout the most "valuable" player?

Bum

Since Trout stepped foot in the Majors this year, the Angels have the best record in the game. Not that I believe for a second that is a reason to vote for him. There are 20 better ones than that.

[Brutus]

You're using fuzzy math. Baseball isn't played in a vacuum. Things and circumstances change year to year.

True, and to corroborate that...

While the Angels' roster didn't significantly change, last year their Pythag was 85 wins and this year it's 89 wins. But what's important to note is that the Angels pitching lost almost a half run per game in performance from last year to this year. So the Angels needed to score a lot more runs this year to become a better team (as mentioned, over 100 additional runs), that means that Trout's production may have in fact lived up to his WAR... or at least wins above average (7ish).

[Bumstead]

C'mon, that argument is pathetic.

Even if you don't think Trout is the MVP, you know that he has been a fabulous player this season.

Whether they added a "very good player" or an "MVP", Trout obviously improved the team. Obviously, the team did not succeed this year because existing players from the prior year did not play to their standards.

You're using fuzzy math. Baseball isn't played in a vacuum. Things and circumstances change year to year.

If you want to argue that Cabrera is the MVP because he was better this year, then fine. We'll agree to disagree. But dredging arguments like that up are absolutely frivolous, and really dumb down everything else you say. To suggest that Trout didn't improve the Angels is quite frankly, funny. Thanks for the laugh.

Honestly, I think Trout is a great player. I just think Cabrera is more valuable to his team this year. I am happy to agree to disagree & yes some of my arguments were intensionally silly; but in my defense some of the arguments I received from the Trout camp were at least as silly. Oh, there was the one from HB where it was assumed I just didn't understand how good Trout was and that I just didn't get it; my favorite.

Either way, just having some fun & you are right about my arguments as am I about some I received. Cabrera will win & I, for one, think he deserves it.

Bum

[AmarilloRed]

Somebody better go back in time and tell all of the MVP award winners before 1994 that unless their team played in the ALCS or NLCS, than they weren't really the MVP that season.

I don't think anyone suggested that you had to make the playoffs to win the MVP-I know I didn't. I said it would be a factor in the voting, and it will. One thing that would really help Trout's cause-win the batting title. If Trout were to edge Cabrera out for the batting title, I think his chances of being named MVP are significantly improved.

[M2]

The point was, there are people that are making that argument for Cabrera (the rareness argument), and it isn't even exclusive for Cabrera. I agree there are much better arguments to be made for Trout, but I made this point to show that the rareness argument doesn't work in Cabrera's favor.

The difference is you're picking random targets to create rareness in Trout's case. Trout's power-speed numbers are great, but we've seen plenty of seasons like them. If he were leading the league in HR and SB, then you might be onto something. The Triple Crown has a century of history behind it. It's a thing, and it hasn't been done since LBJ was in office.

The rate that Cabrera and Trout get bases and get on base is essentially the same. The difference is negligible. But even in less PA's, Trout has put together a higher wRC+ (175 to 166) than Cabrera. Again, the difference there is not large, but it essentially shows that Trout has provided more offensive value than Cabrera on a cumulative basis than Cabrera has. So Cabrera has been on more and gotten more bases than Trout simply because he's had more opportunities to. If you (or anyone for that matter, not directing this directly at you) want to hold that against him, I'm not really sure that's fair.

It's absolutely fair. If you play more, you have an effect on a larger percentage of the season. I don't count it against Trout, but it should count for Cabrera. If Trout had played as much as Cabrera, the Angels are probably in the postseason. If Cabrera had played a bit less, like Trout, the Tigers are probably not in the postseason. That's not Trout's fault, but it's still factor that bears consideration. This isn't the Theoretical MVP.

I'll admit I hadn't considered the positional shift, and think you have a decent point here. However, I personally think you're giving it too much weight. Cabrera's shift to 3B dramatically decreased his defensive value, and I don't think he deserves "credit" for the front office going out and signing a $214M first baseman. If anything it shows that the guy they signed is a pretty comparable player to Cabrera (their stat lines aren't that dissimilar), and guys with huge bats and less than stellar gloves/speed aren't that unique in baseball.

First off, Cabrera has been an average 3B by all accounts. If anything, his defensive value has risen. Second, he deserves credit for capably filling a position of scarcity and creating the opportunity to bring in another impact bat. Fielder is not a comparable player. No way in hell could he shift across the diamond. Almost no 1B in baseball could. Most people thought Cabrera wouldn't stick at 3B this season. What he's done is remarkable and it allowed his team to make critical improvements. I don't care if we don't have a metric for it, that's crazy valuable. Cabrera's versatility remade his team.

[M2]

Cabrera came up as a shortstop who was converted to a third baseman by age 19.

moving from first to third probably wasn't viewed as a sacrifice by him.

Why would it matter what his internal feelings were on the subject? I know I couldn't care less about that.

[PuffyPig]

..... & yes some of my arguments were intensionally silly.......

Why?

[edabbs44]

According to WAR:

Alejandro de Aza, Zack Cozart and Darwin Barney, among others, have outvalued Jay Bruce this season.

Alex Gordon outvalued Joey Votto last year.

Andres Torres should have been 4th in the 2010 NL MVP voting, just a nick behind the real winner, Albert Pujols.


It is reasons like these that I really don't like using this metric.

[*BaseClogger*]

I don't think you need WAR to know Trout has been better.

Both players are great hitters. Cabrera might have a slight edge, and played in 20 more games. However, Cabrera is at best a fair defensive third baseman, while Trout is a tremendous defensive center fielder. Trout is also a vastly superior baserunner.

It is a matter of determining whether that defense and baserunning outweighs those 20 games of extra PAs (Trout actually makes some of them up because he bats leadoff). I know I think it does...