AL mvp....

[muddie]

Originally Posted by Phhhl

Since when has the MVP award ever been based on anything but the collective "feeling" of the voters? By most measures, Cargo's numbers were better than Votto's in 2010, for instance, but we didn't get a national moratorium on it. There was no way the first triple crown winner since Yaz WASN'T going to win the MVP. As good as Trout is and however his numbers can be interpreted to be better, he stood no chance of beating Cabrera this year. I have no doubt Trout is going to win several of these moving forward, but I cannot believe the controversy about it this year. It is a forced argument.

Thank you.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by lollipopcurve

If you boil it down to nothing but the individual stats of the 2 players, Trout is the clear choice. But that's not all that goes into a player's contribution to his team's success, and the award is based on that.

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.

[edabbs44]

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.

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.

[dougdirt]

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.

Well, if you are solely looking at unadjusted for park numbers, yes, Cabrera has a large offensive advantage. But Cabrera plays in a hitter friendly park (and against crappy competition for that matter), while Trout plays in a pitcher friendly park in a division with three really big pitching friendly parks. Take a look at OPS+, which is adjusted for the parks you play in;

Cabrera - 165
Trout - 171 (led the AL)

So offensively, Mike Trout was actually better on a rate status. If you want to argue that Cabrera still gets a very small edge because he he 60 extra trips to the plate, I will accept that. But the margin is incredibly small.

Then let's look at base running. Mike Trout is arguably the best base runner in baseball. Miguel Cabrera isn't close. Big advantage for Trout.

Now look at defense. We don't need defensive numbers. Everyone on the planet knows that Mike Trout is a much, much better defender at a much tougher position than Miguel Cabrera is. Big advantage for Trout.

It was a landslide. Except somehow, the voters are crazy.

[RANDY IN INDY]

I'm seeing a lot of crazy.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by RANDY IN INDY

I'm seeing a lot of crazy.

Me too and it hurts my head. There isn't an argument when you look at all of the evidence that suggests Cabrera was better, more valuable or any other word phrase you want to use that suggests whatever you want that award to mean unless you solely vote based on playoff status (and even then it is crazy because Trout and the Angels had a better record in a MUCH better division).

[westofyou]

Awards are not science, it's more of a human choice when the numbers get too loud and close.

Like the Oscars I suppose the MVP is fraught with bad choices

The MVP??

You mean the award Zoilo Versalles once won?

Yeah it's been a mess since it started, hardly science, and that won't change.

Personally I believe that there needs to be a MVP and a Player of the Year (1 award for the whole game)

In that scenario Trout likely wins player of the year and the old popularity contest targeted at teams that win a title can still be used.

[AmarilloRed]

I just think right now the offensive stats are disproportionately more important to the writers when they vote on the major awards. 60% offense, maybe 20% defense and speed. I really think that's really the reason the 1st place vote was so lopsided. I think it will change, but it will take time.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by AmarilloRed

I just think right now the offensive stats are disproportionately more important to the writers when they vote on the major awards. 60% offense, maybe 20% defense and speed. I really think that's really the reason the 1st place vote was so lopsided. I think it will change, but it will take time.

Except that Mike Trout was better offensively too.... even when not really counting base running.

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Except that Mike Trout was better offensively too.... even when not really counting base running.

From an only hitting standpoint I'd take Cabreras 161 games to Trouts 139 if I was choosing.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

From an only hitting standpoint I'd take Cabreras 161 games to Trouts 139 if I was choosing.

Sure, but the difference between 60 PA's more for a slightly lesser hitting performance is pretty negligible.

[Wonderful Monds]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Sure, but the difference between 60 PA's more for a slightly lesser hitting performance is pretty negligible.

Oh yeah, a player with a 30 point OPS advantage really put up a "slightly lesser" performance.

[Topcat]

I can not recall who said it on Twitter but they nailed it best. The MVP of the AL was about Old school versus new school and old school won out.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

Oh yeah, a player with a 30 point OPS advantage really put up a "slightly lesser" performance.

You must have missed the whole post about park adjusted OPS that I made that showed that Trout was better in that and led the AL.

[Wonderful Monds]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

You must have missed the whole post about park adjusted OPS that I made that showed that Trout was better in that and led the AL.

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.