AL mvp....

[AmarilloRed]

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

I think it's pretty simple.

If Cabrera wins the Triple Crown, he's the MVP. If not, it's Trout.

I think this as well. I won't bet a house or take it to Vegas, but I can't see a way a Triple Crown winner wouldn't win it.

[UKFlounder]

But if he falls a HR short of it, that makes a difference in who's MVP?

Originally Posted by AmarilloRed

I think this as well. I won't bet a house or take it to Vegas, but I can't see a way a Triple Crown winner wouldn't win it.

[AmarilloRed]

Originally Posted by UKFlounder

But if he falls a HR short of it, that makes a difference in who's MVP?

It will to the writers-and they do the voting.

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

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.

There's obviously the nuts and bolts, WAR definition of value, but I think the writier's definition is equally valid in the MVP context. There's something poetically right about the linchpin of a winning team getting the award over a guy racking up stats in meaningless games on a floundering ballclub IMO.

[cincinnati chili]

Originally Posted by 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.

Very well said. I'm going to start referring to the MVP as the GPWHGT.

[nate]

I'd actually call the MVP award the MVBoaGT (Most Valuable Batter on a Good Team.) It's really for the guy who's amongst the best players during the offensive half of the inning.

[_Sir_Charles_]

To those who were arguing that the triple crown doesn't mean he wins the award because in the past there have been TC winners who lost the MVP vote, I would add isn't that because when those instances occurred the Triple Crown was much more common? Not "common" really, but nowhere close to as rare as it is in today's game.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by AmarilloRed

It will to the writers-and they do the voting.

This is where I am too. Is it right? No. But it's what will happen. And to be honest, you can't really fault them very much when it does happen. It's not like Cabrera would be undeserving of the award. Both of them have had hellacious seasons.

[blumj]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

To those who were arguing that the triple crown doesn't mean he wins the award because in the past there have been TC winners who lost the MVP vote, I would add isn't that because when those instances occurred the Triple Crown was much more common? Not "common" really, but nowhere close to as rare as it is in today's game.

True, but now there are a good number of voters who recognize that the triple crown categories aren't necessarily the best way to judge player performance. This is largely the same pool of voters who gave the CYA to a SP with 13 wins.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

This is where I am too. Is it right? No. But it's what will happen. And to be honest, you can't really fault them very much when it does happen. It's not like Cabrera would be undeserving of the award. Both of them have had hellacious seasons.

Yes, even if Cabrera wins the triple crown, he would be undeserving of the award. He simply isn't going to finish the 2012 season more valuable than Mike Trout.

[Wonderful Monds]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Yes, even if Cabrera wins the triple crown, he would be undeserving of the award. He simply isn't going to finish the 2012 season more valuable than Mike Trout.

In your opinion.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

In your opinion.

Yes, in my opinion, because I can't find a reasonable explanation that is going to show that he has been better. Because he hasn't. He is slightly better at the plate. He is vastly inferior in the field and on the base paths. All of that says that Trout is better. Being better is being more valuable.

[Wonderful Monds]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Yes, in my opinion, because I can't find a reasonable explanation that is going to show that he has been better. Because he hasn't. He is slightly better at the plate. He is vastly inferior in the field and on the base paths. All of that says that Trout is better. Being better is being more valuable.

I agree with all of that, except for the last sentence. I think we should keep in mind the MVP has rarely been about the player with the highest numbers.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

I agree with all of that, except for the last sentence. I think we should keep in mind the MVP has rarely been about the player with the highest numbers.

I am not arguing who will do what, because I could care less what a bunch of beat writers think. I am arguing who should be. And it should be Mike Trout, because he is the better player this year, which makes him the most valuable player this year, even if the writers don't give him enough votes to get the trophy that says so.

[AtomicDumpling]

I think Miguel Cabrera had the slightly better season at the plate because he beat Mike Trout in almost every hitting statistic including AVG, OBP, SLG, OPS, HR and a massive lead in RBIs. Trout led in Runs and Stolen bases. They basically tied in OPS+ and wOBA (wOBA factors in stolen bases yet it is still a tie). Trout's stellar defense is the only thing that separates the two and gives Trout a decisive edge. I would vote for Mike Trout even if Cabrera gets the Triple Crown, but I would bet Cabrera will win the sportswriters' vote if he claims the Triple Crown, otherwise it will be Trout.