AL mvp....

[Bumstead]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

None of that changes the reality that Mike Trout's on the field performance has provided more value to his team this year than Cabrera.

This is your opinion. Mine is different. Your argument started about Cabrera moving for Young; when you realized you were wrong, you just made excuses and said it didn't matter. It does matter in the clubhouse. He's clearly a leader that puts his team winning before his ego. I could name many star players that wouldn't do that. Did Barry Larkin have the highest WAR in the NL when he won the MVP? I imagine you thought he deserved it. WAR is all Trout has in his favor and I have about zero interest in using that to determine an MVP.

A guy that wins the Triple Crown and is a leader in the clubhouse on a team contending down the stretch to win their division deserves the MVP over someone that the only stat one can point to that is higher is WAR. I'm not the one with the strawman (to use your words) argument here.

[Bumstead]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Miguel Cabrera has a 170 OPS+ in 646 PA's.
Mike Trout has a 166 OPS+ in 584 PA's.

Slight Advantage Cabrera.

Mike Trout plays premium defense at a premium position.
Miguel Cabrera plays bad defense at a middle range defensive position.

Huge advantage Trout.

Mike Trout is an outstanding base runner.
Miguel Cabrera is a below average base runner.

Huge Advantage Trout.

Trout looks better in jeans. We are also selling jeans.

Advantage Trout.

If he hasn't, Trout may want to get a restraining order on you!

I think Mike Trout is a great player and I love to watch him play the game, but he is not going to win the MVP over Cabrera if Cabrera wins the Triple Crown. Even if he doesn't, I imagine it's 50/50 cause the Angels are pretty much out of it.

Bum

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Bumstead

If he hasn't, Trout may want to get a restraining order on you!

I think Mike Trout is a great player and I love to watch him play the game, but he is not going to win the MVP over Cabrera if Cabrera wins the Triple Crown. Even if he doesn't, I imagine it's 50/50 cause the Angels are pretty much out of it.

Bum

But should he?

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by Bumstead

This is your opinion. Mine is different. Your argument started about Cabrera moving for Young; when you realized you were wrong, you just made excuses and said it didn't matter. It does matter in the clubhouse. He's clearly a leader that puts his team winning before his ego. I could name many star players that wouldn't do that. Did Barry Larkin have the highest WAR in the NL when he won the MVP? I imagine you thought he deserved it. WAR is all Trout has in his favor and I have about zero interest in using that to determine an MVP.

A guy that wins the Triple Crown and is a leader in the clubhouse on a team contending down the stretch to win their division deserves the MVP over someone that the only stat one can point to that is higher is WAR. I'm not the one with the strawman (to use your words) argument here.

No, I don't think Larkin deserved his MVP; Bonds did.

Again, Trout leads Cabrera in a number of stats, runs, stolen bases and triples to name three common ones. Miguel Cabrera leads Trout in other categories you haven't mentioned: Grounded Into Double Plays, 28 to 7 (you're counting those 21 outs against Cabrera, right?) and errors, 13 to 4. (I think errors are a bad way to measure defense, but you don't seem to want to consider advanced metrics)

You still are completely ignoring defense. You are still completely ignoring baserunning. You are implicitly suggesting that being good in the clubhouse is worth more than being a good baserunner and defender. And if we're going to count clubhouse impact, I assume you've accounted for the impact Trout has had on the Angels clubhouse?

You have and continue to make a case that Cabrera has had an awesome season; you haven't made the case that his season is better than Trout's because you refuse to compare them on all of the ways players add value.

Clearly we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Bumstead]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

But should he?

Eh...I like stats and I'm not a metrics guys...so, yeah, I think I would vote for him or Hamilton this season. Trout may be a better player, but that doesn't necessarily make him more valuable does it? I still put him 2nd or 3rd on my ballot. That's JMO obviously.

Bum

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Bumstead

Eh...I like stats and I'm not a metrics guys...so, yeah, I think I would vote for him or Hamilton this season. Trout may be a better player, but that doesn't necessarily make him more valuable does it? I still put him 2nd or 3rd on my ballot. That's JMO obviously.

Bum

Yes, being better absolutely makes you more valuable.

[Bumstead]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

No, I don't think Larkin deserved his MVP; Bonds did.

Again, Trout leads Cabrera in a number of stats, runs, stolen bases and triples to name three common ones. Miguel Cabrera leads Trout in other categories you haven't mentioned: Grounded Into Double Plays, 28 to 7 (you're counting those 21 outs against Cabrera, right?) and errors, 13 to 4. (I think errors are a bad way to measure defense, but you don't seem to want to consider advanced metrics)

You still are completely ignoring defense. You are still completely ignoring baserunning. You are implicitly suggesting that being good in the clubhouse is worth more than being a good baserunner and defender. And if we're going to count clubhouse impact, I assume you've accounted for the impact Trout has had on the Angels clubhouse?

You have and continue to make a case that Cabrera has had an awesome season; you haven't made the case that his season is better than Trout's because you refuse to compare them on all of the ways players add value.

Clearly we'll have to agree to disagree.

First: Bonds finished 12th in the voting...

Second: Errors? Really? Are we going to compare Total Chances, Assists, Double Plays, etc.? Seriously. Pick and choose is what you are doing while accusing me of doing the same. You are completely ignoring LEADERSHIP which won Larkin his MVP. Trout is not the leader in that clubhouse. I never once said Cabrera's season is better than Trout's cause it's not. I said he is more valuable to his team that is in a playoff race than Trout is on a team that really isn't in a playoff race. To pigeon-hole value as only being determined by WAR is short-sighted and that is all you are arguing.

I am happy to agree to disagree or we can continue to argue about it. The reality is, though, I am leaving work and probably won't read this again until I come back on Monday... Have a good weekend.

Bum

[Bumstead]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Yes, being better absolutely makes you more valuable.

Not really. On a non-playoff contending team?

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Bumstead

Not really. On a non-playoff contending team?

I don't believe that to be valuable the other 35 players who have played on your team also have to be pretty good.

Mike Trout is the best player in baseball right now. That makes him the most valuable.

[oneupper]

Willie Stargell won an MVP based on leadership brownie points.

[AtomicDumpling]

The player who had the best individual performance over the full course of the season is the best player. The best player is the most valuable player regardless of how his team fared.

The best player produced the most value during the season. That is true even if his teammates didn't add enough additional value to get the team to the playoffs.

But in the twisted reality inhabited by MVP voters there is a perverted definition of the word "valuable" that is used as an excuse for dumb votes. They usually end up giving the award to someone other than the best player in the league. Then they justify their poor decision by using false definitions of "valuable". The MVP voters' definition is something like "the best player on a good team; a good player who has good teammates". Of course that is not what the word really means, but that is what many sportswriters think it means.

What value does the MVP Award really have if it does not indicate who the best player was that year? It would be nice if a player could point to his MVP trophy and state as fact that he was the best player in the league, but he can't because that is not what the MVP Award signifies. There have been many years where the undisputed best player did not win the MVP Award. There have been dozens of years where the MVP winner was beyond all doubt not the best player in the league that season. If you want to look back at history and identify who the best player was each year the MVP Award would be more misleading than helpful. That is why in my opinion the MVP Award doesn't mean much.

[nate]

To me, Mike Trout should be the AL MVP and it's not even close.

Miggy could win the "MVP for half the game" in a photo finish though.

[757690]

Who Cares? Does anyone care who is the MVP of the Midwest League or the Pacific Coast League, or any league other than the only true Major League, the National League?

[Crumbley]

Originally Posted by 757690

Who Cares? Does anyone care who is the MVP of the Midwest League or the Pacific Coast League, or any league other than the only true Major League, the National League?

I hear the AL lets the fielders ride around on Segways now.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by 757690

Who Cares? Does anyone care who is the MVP of the Midwest League or the Pacific Coast League, or any league other than the only true Major League, the National League?

I do care about the AL MVP, because the people who vote for it also vote for the NL MVP. Meaning if they can screw up in the AL, they can do so in the NL.