AL mvp....

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

And the award is called the Most Valuable Player, not the Most Valuable Projection. I don't really care if Trout theoretically hit better, Cabrera had the better objective results.

There are plenty of reasons to argue for Trout's merit without making them up.

You can't just straightline compare their "numbers". One guy plays in a pitchers park in a division with some real big parks. The other guy plays in a hitters park. Whatever though. This is all stupid. The best player who provided the most value to his team this year wasn't named most valuable by the 28 guys who were chosen to vote for the MVP award in the American League this year. Done with it.

[RANDY IN INDY]

Cabrera had a wonderful season, one that not many can lay claim to. Lot of vitriol over a guy that did something that nobody has done in a long time. Great swing. Great hitter. Great season. American League MVP and nobody can change it.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

Okay, I get it that saber fans LOVE the WAR stat. I get it. I also think it's a useful stat. But I'm just not seeing this "clear choice" at all.

PLAYER     GP	 AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	SB	CS	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS	WAR
Trout      139   559 	129 	182 	27 	8 	30 	83 	67 	139 	49 	5 	.326 	.399 	.564 	.963 	10.7
Cabrera    161 	 622 	109 	205 	40 	0 	44 	139 	66 	98 	4 	1 	.330 	.393 	.606 	.999 	6.9

Now if you don't put nearly ALL of the emphasis on WAR...the numbers lean quite heavily in Cabrera's direction. Trout has him beat in the speed categories...that's it. Runs, triples, stolen bases and WAR because it factors in his speedy CF defense. Please, can someone show me exactly where Trout has a clear edge? I'm dead serious.

I don't see double plays listed here. If we're going to show RBI, which are obviously driven by opportunity with runers on base, we should also be showing the negative side of that. Cabrera led all of baseball in GIDP.

[M2]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

I don't see double plays listed here. If we're going to show RBI, which are obviously driven by opportunity with runers on base, we should also be showing the negative side of that. Cabrera led all of baseball in GIDP.

And you should also be adjusting for DP/DP opportunities. It still favors Trout, but not by nearly as much. The gross totals are misleading. Cabrera's spot in the lineup and extra PAs make the DP gap look larger than it is.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by M2

And you should also be adjusting for DP/DP opportunities. It still favors Trout, but not by nearly as much. The gross totals are misleading. Cabrera's spot in the lineup and extra PAs make the DP gap look larger than it is.

Right, more runners on means more RBI, more LOB, more GIDP, etc.

[M2]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

Defensive metrics are a big part of it. You know, the ones that you can only start taking seriously in 3 year plus sample sizes.

Exactly. Trout's defense deserved serious consideration, but religious certitude about the quantification of that advantage is way over the top.

I still say Trout's biggest value advantage was his speed, but the SABR community has self-trained itself to overlook speed (or even actively disdain it), so that argument never got much in the way of traction. I actually think that's the untold story here. The sneering contempt the numbers guys have had for the running game seems to have percolated into sportswriter circles, so they completely ignored it, costing WAR phenom Mike Trout an MVP award.

[RedsBaron]

I honestly do not understand why the critics of the AL MVP vote even care, since the posts here indicate that those critics do not believe there should even be an actual vote.
Judging by this thread some posters seem to believe that, using whatever method is in vogue at the moment to calulate WAR, whoever leads the league in WAR should automatically be enshrined as that league's MVP and that anyone who disagrees is simply stupid. Why even bother to vote then?

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by RedsBaron

I honestly do not understand why the critics of the AL MVP vote even care, since the posts here indicate that those critics do not believe there should even be an actual vote.
Judging by this thread some posters seem to believe that, using whatever method is in vogue at the moment to calulate WAR, whoever leads the league in WAR should automatically be enshrined as that league's MVP and that anyone who disagrees is simply stupid. Why even bother to vote then?

Well, take the NL for example.... there were 5 or 6 guys all within 0.5 WAR of each other. WAR doesn't capture everything and some things it does capture, it isn't exactly accurate with. In the NL, you could easily argue that the leader in what WAR should all handle didn't win (Molina not getting credit for his framing advantages and the likes). When there are a whole bunch of guys rather close, you need to look deeper. But with Trout and Cabrera, they weren't even close in WAR. Mike Trout had an advantage over Cabrera that was as big as the advantage that Cabrera had over David Freese. Mike Trout was not just a tad bit better. He was a whole lot better. And you shouldn't need WAR to tell you that.

[Wonderful Monds]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Well, take the NL for example.... there were 5 or 6 guys all within 0.5 WAR of each other. WAR doesn't capture everything and some things it does capture, it isn't exactly accurate with. In the NL, you could easily argue that the leader in what WAR should all handle didn't win (Molina not getting credit for his framing advantages and the likes). When there are a whole bunch of guys rather close, you need to look deeper. But with Trout and Cabrera, they weren't even close in WAR. Mike Trout had an advantage over Cabrera that was as big as the advantage that Cabrera had over David Freese. Mike Trout was not just a tad bit better. He was a whole lot better. And you shouldn't need WAR to tell you that.

According to an extremely flawed stat which makes use in large part of an extremely flawed defensive metric, the same one that tried to tell us Brett Gardner was a top 5 player in baseball a couple years ago.

[AmarilloRed]

I think if anything the voting indicates to me-there's probably a limit to how much the sportswriters used sabrometric analysis in the vote-26 to 6. Some of that also indicates making the playoffs has a pretty big impact. That's the only way I can see the first place vote wouldn't have been closer.I think if they used any, it was limited to OBP and OPS.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

According to an extremely flawed stat which makes use in large part of an extremely flawed defensive metric, the same one that tried to tell us Brett Gardner was a top 5 player in baseball a couple years ago.

I don't think WAR is extremely flawed. Mildly at times, sure. I think for most players it is pretty accurate. It does miss on some players here and there though.

Still, I don't need to use WAR in the slightest to understand that Trout was quite a bit more valuable than Cabrera was this year. As hitters, they were about even. In every other aspect of the game, Trout was vastly superior.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

I don't see double plays listed here. If we're going to show RBI, which are obviously driven by opportunity with runers on base, we should also be showing the negative side of that. Cabrera led all of baseball in GIDP.

Fair point. I only listed what was on the stat page of each player on espn. I wasn't attempting to cherry pick stats to prove a point. I'm actually trying to understand a point. The point saying that Trout was CLEARLY the better player with no evidence to support the opposite. I was disputing that "point" and showing evidence to in fact support the opposite. I personally couldn't care less who won the award as I don't really follow the AL much (loathe the DH). But the repetitive posts here stating how clear cut it was drove me kinda nuts.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

Fair point. I only listed what was on the stat page of each player on espn. I wasn't attempting to cherry pick stats to prove a point. I'm actually trying to understand a point. The point saying that Trout was CLEARLY the better player with no evidence to support the opposite. I was disputing that "point" and showing evidence to in fact support the opposite. I personally couldn't care less who won the award as I don't really follow the AL much (loathe the DH). But the repetitive posts here stating how clear cut it was drove me kinda nuts.

And my point was the stats that ESPN chooses to put on that line is why people thinks it's really close. They don't show defense. They don't show the value of baserunning beyond SB. They don't show negative batted ball outcomes (like DPs). A focus on traditional, core offensive stats leads one to think that it was a dead heat. But when you take a comprehensive look at the players contribution, there's basically no way to make a case for Cabrera using their production.

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

According to an extremely flawed stat which makes use in large part of an extremely flawed defensive metric, the same one that tried to tell us Brett Gardner was a top 5 player in baseball a couple years ago.

Top 5?

He was 23rd in 2010, is that the year you are referring to?

[757690]

I easily would have voted for Trout, he clearly was the most valuable player in every respect, especially when you consider his team won more games than Miggy's.

However, Cabrera had an MVP year, so I can't get too upset with him winning it. How can anyone complain that a triple crown winner won the MVP?