AL mvp....

[IslandRed]

I expected it to be closer, but with Cabrera winning the Triple Crown, playing the full season and being on a playoff team, I'm not surprised in the least he won.

Having said that, Trout was amazing and in a pure numbers "most outstanding" context probably was the most outstanding. And I've never been a big fan of penalizing players for the quality of their teammates when it comes to these awards, which is what the "Tigers made the playoffs, Angels didn't" factor involves.

But. Just to be contrarian for contrarian's sake...

Even if we assume the offensive values are a wash, or close enough to it, the argument is that Trout's defense was far superior (both in positional value and quality). Evident enough. But it's a team sport. Cabrera was a pretty lousy third baseman, but he'd spent the previous four years playing first base. He agreed to move to third base -- a move that hurt his defensive value -- so the Tigers could bring in Prince Fielder. And the Tigers made the playoffs. Maybe they don't make the playoffs if Cabrera declares he doesn't want to move and the Tigers lose out on Fielder and suffer another season of Brandon Inge or whoever they'd been running out there at third base before that. That willingness to move off his position to make room for someone else, to suffer some slings and arrows for his defense for the sake of making his team better... seems rather, dare I say it, valuable.

Most of us Reds fans know about 1975 and Pete Rose. Not that he was a brilliant left fielder or anything, but any modern-day individual accounting of his 1975 season would have seen his value take a hit from the move to third base. Yet, considering the weak third-base play of the incumbents and the presence of George Foster, the move made the Reds a better team. Isn't that the objective?

No, I'm not suggesting Rose deserved the MVP over Morgan in 1975 -- or even that Cabrera clearly deserved it over Trout. Just pointing out that this stuff doesn't take place in a vacuum.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by 757690

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?

I can complain because he wasn't close to being "The Most Valuable" player. Mike Trout was, by far, the player who provided the most value.

[RANDY IN INDY]

Keep complaining if it makes you feel better. It's not going to change a thing.

[mth123]

I get the arguments for Trout and agree he's probably the best all around player (without considering WAR which I don't really buy into). What I don't get is the outrage. Willie Mays should have won the MVP award 15 times when overall game is considered. This vote isn't surprising or all that new.

[RANDY IN INDY]

Exactly

[westofyou]

The phrase "in my opinion" should be used more on RZ

It's not that hard

[muddie]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

I can complain because he wasn't close to being "The Most Valuable" player. Mike Trout was, by far, the player who provided the most value.

How do you measure value? Without Miggy the Tigers would not have made the playoffs. With him they did. How much money did he make for Detroit post season that Trout didn't make for the Angels? What is value?

[RANDY IN INDY]

Originally Posted by westofyou

The phrase "in my opinion" should be used more on RZ

It's not that hard

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by muddie

How do you measure value? Without Miggy the Tigers would not have made the playoffs. With him they did. How much money did he make for Detroit post season that Trout didn't make for the Angels? What is value?

I measure value by production on the field. Miguel Cabrera isn't the reason the Tigers made the playoffs. He was a small part of the reason they made the playoffs, even if he was the best player on that team.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by mth123

I get the arguments for Trout and agree he's probably the best all around player (without considering WAR which I don't really buy into). What I don't get is the outrage. Willie Mays should have won the MVP award 15 times when overall game is considered. This vote isn't surprising or all that new.

And if Redszone were around then (as well as me being around), I would have complained about it when he clearly deserved it then too.

[kaldaniels]

So here is a question about RBI.

I get that one player doesn't get the same RBI opportunties as another guy.

But if a team has men on base, and a guy plates them home, is that not valuable? And I'm not getting into the Trout/Cabrera thing here...just coming from the pro-RBI standpoint.

I can see how RBI don't project a player going forward. That makes sense.

Its true that all players arent given equal opportunites regarding men on base. But all players aren't given equal opportunities in terms of where and when they play positionally either. Pitchers don't get to face the same hitters. And so on...

In terms of across the board isolating a players performance, yeah, I think WAR is pretty solid. But in terms of how valuable a player X was to team Y in year Z...shouldn't that have a bit different formula? Looking at you WPA for starters...

Conclusion - RBI don't project much, if anything going forward for a hitter. But they are extremely valuable to a team. Let's give them a bit of credit via the direct route, not through correlations to OPS or the like.

[muddie]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

I measure value by production on the field. Miguel Cabrera isn't the reason the Tigers made the playoffs. He was a small part of the reason they made the playoffs, even if he was the best player on that team.

Quite frankly, that isn't a true statement.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by muddie

Quite frankly, that isn't a true statement.

It is an incredibly true statement. Miguel Cabrera provided the most value to the Tigers. But Justin Verlander, Max Scherzer, Prince Fielder, Austin Jackson, Alex Avila, Andy Dirks, Doug Fister and that entire bullpen all provided a whole bunch of value too. In terms of WAR, which I know we don't want to use, but it makes this simple, the Tigers provided 45.7 WAR as a team. Cabrera made up 15.5% of that. They had four other players make up at least 10% as well. Cabrera was the best player on his team and only made up roughly 15% of their "wins". Trout for example was responsible for 21% of the Angels wins and only Torii Hunter had over 10% on that team.

[cincrazy]

An argument can be made for both. But it's outrageous to pretend that Cabrera wasn't deserving of the award and that him winning is an embarrassment. I would've been fine with Trout winning it, although I would've voted for Miggy. Even if you think Trout should've won, I don't know why Cabrera's accomplishments should be downplayed. A "small part" of the Tigers Doug? Really?

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

It is an incredibly true statement. Miguel Cabrera provided the most value to the Tigers. But Justin Verlander, Max Scherzer, Prince Fielder, Austin Jackson, Alex Avila, Andy Dirks, Doug Fister and that entire bullpen all provided a whole bunch of value too. In terms of WAR, which I know we don't want to use, but it makes this simple, the Tigers provided 45.7 WAR as a team. Cabrera made up 15.5% of that. They had four other players make up at least 10% as well. Cabrera was the best player on his team and only made up roughly 15% of their "wins". Trout for example was responsible for 21% of the Angels wins and only Torii Hunter had over 10% on that team.

It's just not that simple though. If I'm making a team right now, no doubt Mike Trout is the guy I want. No argument there, but you can't ignore the fact that Cabrera was the linchpin of a team that earned a world series berth and achieved a feat that hasn't been seen in forty plus years to boot. That's pretty valuable. I see the argument for Trout, but the outcome isn't exactly surprising given the precedent for voting on this award.