AL mvp....

[Bumstead]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Well, it is very clear that by the stats, that Mike Trout has been significantly better than Cabrera and Hamilton. So what is that thing that is important that they are so much better at than Trout that puts them above him?

I just stated it in the post that you cut it out of...read it...c'mon Doug. This is a circular argument. The people that rely on metrics say Trout is the MVP and people that don't rely totally on metrics think Cabrera is the clear MVP. Clearly they are both great players this year. Sometimes you have to get past the stats.

Bum

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Bumstead

I just stated it in the post that you cut it out of...read it...c'mon Doug. This is a circular argument. The people that rely on metrics say Trout is the MVP and people that don't rely totally on metrics think Cabrera is the clear MVP. Clearly they are both great players this year. Sometimes you have to get past the stats.

Bum

So you believe that the leadership provided, that you have never once seen, is enough to overcome dramatically worse on field performance? You also think that Josh Hamilton of all people, is also worth that much more in leadership for the Rangers?

[M2]

Originally Posted by Homer Bailey

Trout blows Cabrera away on the bases, and on the field.

On the bases, absolutely. In the field? Trout's excellent, but defensive stats have a way of overstating things at the top and bottom of the scale. And seasonal defensive sample sizes are too small to work out the weirdness. Cabrera may be closer on defense than he appears to be using certain mirrors.

[757690]

Originally Posted by Bumstead

I just stated it in the post that you cut it out of...read it...c'mon Doug. This is a circular argument. The people that rely on metrics say Trout is the MVP and people that don't rely totally on metrics think Cabrera is the clear MVP. Clearly they are both great players this year. Sometimes you have to get past the stats.

Bum

I think Trout is the clear favorite, and I am not relying on WAR or any one stat to come to that conclusion. The eyeball test alone tells me that Trout has been more valuable. And if you are looking at qualities beyond stats, Trout wins those hands down over Cabrera. Just ask any Angel fan about what Trout has brought to the Angel clubhouse.

[oneupper]

Originally Posted by jojo

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showp...&postcount=369

Nice! Thanks!

[*BaseClogger*]

Originally Posted by M2

On the bases, absolutely. In the field? Trout's excellent, but defensive stats have a way of overstating things at the top and bottom of the scale. And seasonal defensive sample sizes are too small to work out the weirdness. Cabrera may be closer on defense than he appears to be using certain mirrors.

Have you ever left your mom's basement and watched these two play defense?

Seriously though, no, even if you want rate Cabrera as a fair defender, Trout excels at his position...

[Bumstead]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

So you believe that the leadership provided, that you have never once seen, is enough to overcome dramatically worse on field performance? You also think that Josh Hamilton of all people, is also worth that much more in leadership for the Rangers?

What makes you think I have never seen it? I also don't see Cabrera performing dramatically worse on the field. So, let's say we ignore intangibles, since you already are: Who has stepped it up in the 2nd half when the playoffs are on the line and which player has retreated to being "human" in the 2nd half? There are more factors than just the one's you are using. I have a different perspective and I think it is fair.

Bum

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.

[757690]

Originally Posted by M2

On the bases, absolutely. In the field? Trout's excellent, but defensive stats have a way of overstating things at the top and bottom of the scale. And seasonal defensive sample sizes are too small to work out the weirdness. Cabrera may be closer on defense than he appears to be using certain mirrors.

And I may be good enough to pitch for the Reds this year

Forget defensive stats. Pretend they don't even exist. Watch them play and there is no other conclusion that can be drawn other than that Trout is a far superior fielder to Cabrera.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by M2

Defense is getting a lot of attention in the general debate, but Trout's biggest advantage is his baserunning. Personally I love that. I'm a huge fan of the running game and Trout is spectacular on the bases. It doesn't matter what method you use to factor in Trout's speed advantage, it's huge. While I'd vote for Cabrera, I'm not going to be upset if Trout gets over the top because he's a demon on the bases.

On Cabrera's side of the ledger, his GIDP totals are kneecapping him. He needs to shoulder some blame for that. DPs are a bad, bad thing. Yet some of it is a function of where he hits in the lineup. As a #3 hitter, he sees more DP chances than Trout does as a leadoff hitter. Currently Cabrera has hit into 28 DPs while Trout has hit into only 7. Yet if you flip around their PAs with a man on first and less than two outs, Cabrera would have 16 and Trout would have 12. Those would also be misleading numbers in the other direction. In reality Cabrera has roughly double Trout's DP rate. Point is that some methods of assessing overall offensive value exaggerate the difference.

One potential demerit for Trout is his .381 BABIP. My inclination is that, while he's not likely to post anywhere near that number in future seasons, it shouldn't be held against him for the purposes of this season. Yet if we're taking an exhaustive look at the numbers, Trout has been lucky. Some might be inclined to discount for that.

Given Trout's speed, I wouldn't discount that a BABIP of .380 might be something that he duplicates.

[Bumstead]

Originally Posted by 757690

I think Trout is the clear favorite, and I am not relying on WAR or any one stat to come to that conclusion. The eyeball test alone tells me that Trout has been more valuable. And if you are looking at qualities beyond stats, Trout wins those hands down over Cabrera. Just ask any Angel fan about what Trout has brought to the Angel clubhouse.

I completely disagree with the bolded portion. That is your opinion and I understand that; I haven't seen a lick of proof in that area. Ask any Tiger's player who the leader is in that clubhouse and which player has practically willed them to the division title. The eyeball test will tell you that Trout is more exciting, and a completely different player than Cabrera. It doesn't tell me that Trout was better this year.

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.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Bumstead

What makes you think I have never seen it? I also don't see Cabrera performing dramatically worse on the field. So, let's say we ignore intangibles, since you already are: Who has stepped it up in the 2nd half when the playoffs are on the line and which player has retreated to being "human" in the 2nd half? There are more factors than just the one's you are using. I have a different perspective and I think it is fair.

Bum

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.

While I do think games in the second half are a tad more important because there is less time to make up for it, games in the first half still count and on the entire season, the offensive (non base running) contributions for Cabrera are still only a very small amount better and that is only because he has had a few more trips to the plate. On a per PA appearance, Trout is a slightly better hitter (OPS+ says he is better).

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.

[757690]

Originally Posted by Bumstead

I completely disagree with the bolded portion. That is your opinion and I understand that; I haven't seen a lick of proof in that area. Ask any Tiger's player who the leader is in that clubhouse and which player has practically willed them to the division title. The eyeball test will tell you that Trout is more exciting, and a completely different player than Cabrera. It doesn't tell me that Trout was better this year.

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.

Cabrera must be playing for all that champagne popped during the clinching celebrations

[Bumstead]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

While I do think games in the second half are a tad more important because there is less time to make up for it, games in the first half still count and on the entire season, the offensive (non base running) contributions for Cabrera are still only a very small amount better and that is only because he has had a few more trips to the plate. On a per PA appearance, Trout is a slightly better hitter (OPS+ says he is better).

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.

I haven't ignored anything Doug. Clearly we just disagree. I love to watch Mike Trout play, I just think Miguel Cabrera earned the MVP award this season. They are clearly different types of players, and Trout is clearly new and exciting, but I don't think that changes who the MVP is this season.

Always use the odds to the best of your ability. Over time they will play out as they should.

Bum

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by Bumstead

I haven't ignored anything Doug. Clearly we just disagree. I love to watch Mike Trout play, I just think Miguel Cabrera earned the MVP award this season. They are clearly different types of players, and Trout is clearly new and exciting, but I don't think that changes who the MVP is this season.

Always use the odds to the best of your ability. Over time they will play out as they should.

Bum

I don't think anybody is giving Trout extra credit for being "new" nor for the aesthetics of his game being "exciting". It's not about the feel good or of being " a complete player", as if a player should get extra credit for the composition of his skill set. That's not it at all. It's simply about production. What makes Trout exciting is that he's producing runs, and thus value, every on the baseball field, not just in the batters box. That he's more exciting is a great by-product of his skill set; but that's not why he's the MVP. What makes him the MVP is that when you add up all of his production and compare it Miguel Cabrera's (or anyone else's), he comes out significantly ahead.

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.

[dougdirt]

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.