Sabermetrics, I believe, look at each AB and each game as being equal. In other words a game in April is exactly the same value as a game in a pennant race during the last week of the season.
I disagree with that some what, but understand the logic. However, that is like saying what Reggie Jackson did in October was no more important or valuable than what he did in April.
I would love to see Mike Trout named the MVP and I think it is deserving. However, stats can be torn apart and twisted around no matter how exact they might appear.
To me the MVP should simply be the guy who is most valuable. That does not mean the guy with the best stats was automatically the most valuable. The triple crown was a great accomplishment, but doesn't mean Cabrera was Most Valuable. The stats compiled by Mike Trout were great, but it doesn't mean he was most valuable. Best stats = Best stats but not necessarily Most Valuable Player.
Getting back to whether one thinks games near the end are more important than games played earlier. For those that feel the last 2 months are more important than the first two... They have a legitimate case for Cabrera being the MVP. Also, here is a stat that really boggled my mind. In the Tigers 86 wins, Cabrera hit .368 with 34 HRs and 95 RBI.
And how about this stat. Cabrera hit .420 with 2 outs and runners in scoring position with a 1.211 OPS. Trout hit .286 with 2 outs and runners in scoring position with a .782 OPS. No matter how one looks at stats, that shows some real "clutch" hitting by Cabrera.
Granted Mike is the better all around player. But the truth is, when the Angels needed him the most he tailed off a lot at the end and Cabrera turned it up a notch for the Tigers. That has to be considered "valuable".
Anyway, no matter how you look at it, there's always another way to look at it. Both deserve the MVP. Mike was the better player this year, Cabrera was the better hitter this year. I can see reasons why people would vote either way. I'm a Mike Trout fan!