Ben Zobrist led MLB in WAR in 2011, and came in 16th place in AL MVP voting, probably about where he deserved to be?
Trout's May-July performance was off the charts, but he tailed-off significantly from an offensive standpoint down the stretch, he admits he's a bit physically gassed, which is understandable for a 21 year old who played every game, especially the way he attacks the game.
Torii Hunter was probably the offensive MVP for the Angels down the stretch in August/Sep.
quote:Originally posted by like2rake:
Ben Zobrist led MLB in WAR in 2011, and came in 16th place in AL MVP voting, probably about where he deserved to be?
The difference between this and Trout is that Trout is 1st in offensive WAR, while Zobrist wasn't even in the top 20.
quote:Originally posted by J H:
Batting average is absolutely irrelevant because, simply put, OPS is a better overall offensive production indicator.
Just because the Triple Crown categories have been deemed important in the past doesn't mean they're right. Just because Miguel Cabrera has a higher batting average, more RBIs and more home runs than Mike Trout doesn't make him a better hitter. The evidence is blatantly obvious.
I don't know how else to make this argument.
Mike Trout is the most valuable player in the American League in 2012, BY FAR.
Cabrera has a higher OPS. Not to mention Trout has a K per game. While Cabrera K total is quite low. As intellegint as you are (or at least as I think you to be) to use "by far" is simply ridiculous. In an earlier post you are so bold to say it is right and wrong and not a matter of opinion. Well, we will see soon enough, but I guess the majority will be "wrong" when Cabrera wins.
The only thing Trout has on Cabrera is SB. His is not IMO a better hitter. Cabrera has done it for years. PM me in 2020 and then let's see where Trout is.
It is the Most Valuable Player. If it were most valuable hitter, Cabrera wins it easily. So if voters consider defense and baserunning Trout should get some support.
Remember last year the MVP went to a pitcher.
I'm pulling for Trout, but think Cabrera gets the award this year. I do think it will be because of the triple crown. It's been a long time since anyone has done that. It is a rare accomplishment and I think it will sway the voters.
Still, .326, 30 HRs, 49 SB, 129 runs, 83 RBI in the lead off spot. Nearly a .400 OB% as a rookie. Not to mention being a human highlight film in Centerfield. Amazing!
Remember last year the MVP went to a pitcher.
I'm pulling for Trout, but think Cabrera gets the award this year. I do think it will be because of the triple crown. It's been a long time since anyone has done that. It is a rare accomplishment and I think it will sway the voters.
Still, .326, 30 HRs, 49 SB, 129 runs, 83 RBI in the lead off spot. Nearly a .400 OB% as a rookie. Not to mention being a human highlight film in Centerfield. Amazing!
quote:but I guess the majority will be "wrong" when Cabrera wins.
Yes, that is correct. Trout is BY FAR the most valuable player in the American League.
quote:Originally posted by 2013 Dad:quote:Originally posted by J H:
Batting average is absolutely irrelevant because, simply put, OPS is a better overall offensive production indicator.
Just because the Triple Crown categories have been deemed important in the past doesn't mean they're right. Just because Miguel Cabrera has a higher batting average, more RBIs and more home runs than Mike Trout doesn't make him a better hitter. The evidence is blatantly obvious.
I don't know how else to make this argument.
Mike Trout is the most valuable player in the American League in 2012, BY FAR.
Cabrera has a higher OPS. Not to mention Trout has a K per game. While Cabrera K total is quite low. As intellegint as you are (or at least as I think you to be) to use "by far" is simply ridiculous. In an earlier post you are so bold to say it is right and wrong and not a matter of opinion. Well, we will see soon enough, but I guess the majority will be "wrong" when Cabrera wins.
The only thing Trout has on Cabrera is SB. His is not IMO a better hitter. Cabrera has done it for years. PM me in 2020 and then let's see where Trout is.
My only comment here is that the MVP award is annual. Past history has no relevance in this discussion. Just sayin
quote:Originally posted by standballdad:quote:Originally posted by 2013 Dad:quote:Originally posted by J H:
Batting average is absolutely irrelevant because, simply put, OPS is a better overall offensive production indicator.
Just because the Triple Crown categories have been deemed important in the past doesn't mean they're right. Just because Miguel Cabrera has a higher batting average, more RBIs and more home runs than Mike Trout doesn't make him a better hitter. The evidence is blatantly obvious.
I don't know how else to make this argument.
Mike Trout is the most valuable player in the American League in 2012, BY FAR.
Cabrera has a higher OPS. Not to mention Trout has a K per game. While Cabrera K total is quite low. As intellegint as you are (or at least as I think you to be) to use "by far" is simply ridiculous. In an earlier post you are so bold to say it is right and wrong and not a matter of opinion. Well, we will see soon enough, but I guess the majority will be "wrong" when Cabrera wins.
The only thing Trout has on Cabrera is SB. His is not IMO a better hitter. Cabrera has done it for years. PM me in 2020 and then let's see where Trout is.
My only comment here is that the MVP award is annual. Past history has no relevance in this discussion. Just sayin
I agree. It seemed as though JH was implying that Trout is a better hitter. That is what my comment regarding "PM me in 2020" was about.
Not at all 2013 Dad. I think that Miguel Cabrera is the best hitter on the planet right now. I think Votto, Pujols et al could probably give him a run for his money on a year-in-year-out basis, but this year there is not a single person I would least like to face at the plate more than Miguel Cabrera.
But the award isn't "Best Hitter". It's "Most Valuable Player." I've looked at every stat I can find in every way imaginable, and there is not a single shred of evidence that even comes close to remotely indicating anyone is on the same planet as Trout in terms of value.
But the award isn't "Best Hitter". It's "Most Valuable Player." I've looked at every stat I can find in every way imaginable, and there is not a single shred of evidence that even comes close to remotely indicating anyone is on the same planet as Trout in terms of value.
Certainly based on Sabermetrics Trout leads (with cabrera 2nd in many). The problem with many sabermetric stats, imo, is they are speculative such as WAR, and are made up. BA, RBI, and HR, OBP, R and even OPS are not. There is no possible way to accurately calculate how many wins a player can bring a team. No possible way to calculate how many runs a player brings to a team. It is a complete guess. What we do know as fact is that the only relevant category in which Trout led was R, OBP (by .006 i think) and SB. That is all that is known. People spew these stats like they are law. But they are simply the result of a formula concocted by some statistician as a best guess to determine something.
2013 Dad- Sabermetrics being a guess couldn't be further from the truth. If you think a statistical formula is a guess, then you think batting average and RBIs are a guess too...because they are statistical formulas that were "concocted" as well. Sabermetrics are a calculated formula based on a variety of factors that all come into play when determining each statistical category. If it were a "guess", then I would assume every single MLB team wouldn't use sabermetrics. But they do, in much more detail than most people could ever imagine, and its been proven to work.
In my opinion there is no such thing as "traditional" stats and "non-traditional" stats. There is also no such thing as "old school" and "new aged". There are different ways to analyze things, and none of them are incorrect. But there are many analytical factors that are a much more accurate representation of a player's overall worth than some other statistical categories.
What frustrates me the most is when I hear people saying that sabermetrics is "hog-wash" and isn't truth. Just because a person doesn't understand it doesn't make it wrong. Its utilized by every team to immense proportions. It works. It's necessary. It's not a guess, its a successful formula.
Miguel Cabrera has had an unbelievable, historical year. No doubt about it.
Trout has been exponentially more valuable. I am 100% confident with that, and no one will change my view. If Cabrera wins the MVP I would congratulate him (if I ever met him), but would NEVER believe he deserved it over Trout. He doesn't.
In my opinion there is no such thing as "traditional" stats and "non-traditional" stats. There is also no such thing as "old school" and "new aged". There are different ways to analyze things, and none of them are incorrect. But there are many analytical factors that are a much more accurate representation of a player's overall worth than some other statistical categories.
What frustrates me the most is when I hear people saying that sabermetrics is "hog-wash" and isn't truth. Just because a person doesn't understand it doesn't make it wrong. Its utilized by every team to immense proportions. It works. It's necessary. It's not a guess, its a successful formula.
Miguel Cabrera has had an unbelievable, historical year. No doubt about it.
Trout has been exponentially more valuable. I am 100% confident with that, and no one will change my view. If Cabrera wins the MVP I would congratulate him (if I ever met him), but would NEVER believe he deserved it over Trout. He doesn't.
Miguel Cabrera did have an unbelievable, historical year.....winning the triple crown on a playoff team. I have a hard time accepting how exponentially more valuable a player can be on a team sitting at home October. If you value doesn't get your team in the playoffs, it's not as significant.
quote:Miguel Cabrera did have an unbelievable, historical year.....winning the triple crown on a playoff team. I have a hard time accepting how exponentially more valuable a player can be on a team sitting at home October. If you value doesn't get your team in the playoffs, it's not as significant.
Once again, an argument that holds no water. Why is it Trout's fault that the Angels didn't make the playoffs? Its a team game. They aren't the Los Angeles Trouts of Anaheim.
A quote from a post I made 2 days ago addressing the same topic:
quote:If your reasoning were to be held true throughout history in the game, then players like Ernie Banks, Brooks Robinson, Willie McCovey, Joe Torre, D-i-c-k Allen, Jeff Burroughs, Dave Parker, Keith Hernandez, Don Mattingly, Andre Dawson, George Bell, Jeff Bagwell and Ryan Howard would have never won a single MVP award.
The thought that a team's performance dictates a player's worth to the team is something I actually find humorously ridiculous. Why is it that player's fault that the other 24 guys on his team didn't perform well enough for the postseason?
It's an MVP for the league, not the team. Trout's clearly the MVP for the Angels. It's hard for me to accept the most valuable player of the whole league couldn't get his team into the playoffs. Especially when the alternative is a triple crown guy on a team in the playoffs, but that's just my opinion.
The sitting at home argument is a bunch of hogwash especially when the teams had virtually the same record. Quite truthfully the teams in the Tigers division are not nearly as strong as the teams in the Angels division. I love how Cabrera's advocates stress hitting, hitting, and hitting since quite truthfully there is nothing else about his game to discuss. The minute his hitting falls off which will be a while I agree, he will be finished as a player. Take a team of eight Trouts against a team of eight Cabrera's and we'll see who the real total most valuable baseball player is. Cabrera will probably win this time but you better start boning up on the sabermatic numbers because they are here to stay and some of the traditional stats will be shown more and more for what they are, some next to useless in determining value.
Tx-Husker, without Verlander, Cabrera sits at home too. A pretty sorry White Sox team almost beat them out.
Count me with JH and Three Bagger on this one.
Winning the Triple Crown is a historic and even infamous accomplishment for Cabrera, but there is no way that he was more valuable than Mike Trout, who does EVERYTHING well. Moreover, as JH has said (several times), batting average and RBI are simply no longer seriously used to measure player productivity.
There is not a single advanced offensive metric (including the park-adjusted version of OPS - OPS+ - by the way) in which Mike Trout did not have a significantly better year than Miguel Cabrera did. OPS+ - Trout 172, Cabrera 166; wRC+ - Trout 175, Cabrera 166; wOBA - Trout .422, Cabrera .416. Even if you decide to discount half or more of the game (defense and baserunning) in which Trout FAR exceeds Cabrera, Trout had the better offensive year.
Winning the Triple Crown is a historic and even infamous accomplishment for Cabrera, but there is no way that he was more valuable than Mike Trout, who does EVERYTHING well. Moreover, as JH has said (several times), batting average and RBI are simply no longer seriously used to measure player productivity.
There is not a single advanced offensive metric (including the park-adjusted version of OPS - OPS+ - by the way) in which Mike Trout did not have a significantly better year than Miguel Cabrera did. OPS+ - Trout 172, Cabrera 166; wRC+ - Trout 175, Cabrera 166; wOBA - Trout .422, Cabrera .416. Even if you decide to discount half or more of the game (defense and baserunning) in which Trout FAR exceeds Cabrera, Trout had the better offensive year.
Without Verlander, Cabrera is at home. Sure. Without Weaver, the Angels are fighting with the Mariners for last. Cabrera is one of 15 guys ever to win the triple crown. Had the rest of the Angels not underperformed for much of the year, this would be a different discussion. But then Trout's stats wouldn't be the same either. Trout had a great year, but Cabrera > Trout.
If Pujols had the type year he had up to two years ago, Trout would have scored 150 runs or more. One of the biggest reasons the Angels failed to reach the playoffs is the poor year Pujols had in relation to the amount of payroll he takes up.
EdgarFan, even though every thing you and your advanced metrics say is true, the fact is the average fan just don't understand them and therefore choose to ignore them.
TxHusker, well your the one that insinuated that the Tigers are in the playoffs because Cabrera alone led them there. We'll see how they do in the playoffs when you have to have fielding. Oh yeah, that's why the Tigers blew it the last time they made it!
TxHusker, well your the one that insinuated that the Tigers are in the playoffs because Cabrera alone led them there. We'll see how they do in the playoffs when you have to have fielding. Oh yeah, that's why the Tigers blew it the last time they made it!
quote:TxHusker, well your the one that insinuated that the Tigers are in the playoffs because Cabrera alone led them there.
Absolutely not. I simply said he was on a playoff team and Trout wasn't.
I like Trout's rise and his story a lot but I have to go with Cabrera mainly because of Triple Crown. The last person who won it was in 1967, 45 years ago. And all those that won it went on to HOF. What an accomplishment.
The guy won the Triple Crown, first time in nearly half a century. I love Trout, but how can you win the Triple Crown and not be MVP?
No doubt that Cabrera's accomplishment is historic, and I don't mean to slight him or the accomplishment in any way. BUT, why is that particular combination of league-leading statistics particularly indicative of his "value"? The best analysts in the game - and in front offices of MLB teams - don't look at those statistics as the best indicators of production and value.
I cited some advanced offensive metrics before, and while I agree with Three Bagger that most people will simply dismiss those statistics because they don't understand them, it is important to note that Trout's performance has been historic, too. If you look at the last fifty years, only 12 players have ever had better years in terms of purely offensive WAR (to placate those who dismiss WAR because of defensive stats - even though their own eyes should tell them that Trout is the FAR superior defensive player) than the 8.6 Trout produced this year (Cabrera had 7.5 offensive WAR). Those 12 are basically a Who's Who of players who are either in the Hall of Fame, or will or should be (at least if you ignore PED arguments about why they shouldn't): Aaron, Mays, Frank Robinson, Yastrzemski, Morgan, Ripken, Walker, Piazza, McGwire, Jeter, Bonds, A-Rod.
Praise Cabrera for leading the league in batting average, RBIs, and home runs - it is a great accomplishment. But don't dismiss an equally great - in my eyes, even better - season by Trout because you don't like or don't understand the statistics that he lead the league in, particularly when every serious analyst will tell you that THOSE statistics are a better indicator of production and value.
I cited some advanced offensive metrics before, and while I agree with Three Bagger that most people will simply dismiss those statistics because they don't understand them, it is important to note that Trout's performance has been historic, too. If you look at the last fifty years, only 12 players have ever had better years in terms of purely offensive WAR (to placate those who dismiss WAR because of defensive stats - even though their own eyes should tell them that Trout is the FAR superior defensive player) than the 8.6 Trout produced this year (Cabrera had 7.5 offensive WAR). Those 12 are basically a Who's Who of players who are either in the Hall of Fame, or will or should be (at least if you ignore PED arguments about why they shouldn't): Aaron, Mays, Frank Robinson, Yastrzemski, Morgan, Ripken, Walker, Piazza, McGwire, Jeter, Bonds, A-Rod.
Praise Cabrera for leading the league in batting average, RBIs, and home runs - it is a great accomplishment. But don't dismiss an equally great - in my eyes, even better - season by Trout because you don't like or don't understand the statistics that he lead the league in, particularly when every serious analyst will tell you that THOSE statistics are a better indicator of production and value.
Rob, ask Ted Williams twice, Lou Gehrig in 1934, and Chuck Klein in 1933.
EdgarFan- Great post. Very eloquently said everything I've been trying to say.
Mike Trout, 2012 AL MVP.
Mike Trout, 2012 AL MVP.
Good stuff JH; It has also been forgotten that Trout forced Wells to the bench and that's pretty valuable also! 
Adding to Josh's link, here's another great article on the subject by the incomparable Joe Posnanski.
quote:Rob, ask Ted Williams twice, Lou Gehrig in 1934, and Chuck Klein in 1933.
Yes, but during those years the Triple Crown was not rare. It was won every few years.
That was the whole point: It's been almost half a century since it has been accomplished.
I wonder how people would vote if it was Mike Trout that won the Triple Crown and Miggy had the WAR.
Guys, the Triple Crown is composed of stats that are outdated and have been replaced by more relevant stats.
Batting Average - I think we all know that this is not a very telling stat. Trout gets on base more, and is much more of a threat once he is on base. Also, consider this: if Trout's steals counted towards his slugging % as doubles, it would be over .650! (Miggy's is .606). This is obviously hypothetical, but a thing to think about.
RBIs - Cabrera got 70 more plate appearances with RISP than Trout. He also got over 100 more PAs with men on.
HRs - People look at HRs because they can't be argued with. It is the "easy way out" for people who don't want to research how runs are actually created (RC+, wOBA, etc.)
I can understand why 50 years ago, the Triple Crown winner was a big deal. But these stats are now known to be irrelevant to actual value.
Trout is MVP.
Batting Average - I think we all know that this is not a very telling stat. Trout gets on base more, and is much more of a threat once he is on base. Also, consider this: if Trout's steals counted towards his slugging % as doubles, it would be over .650! (Miggy's is .606). This is obviously hypothetical, but a thing to think about.
RBIs - Cabrera got 70 more plate appearances with RISP than Trout. He also got over 100 more PAs with men on.
HRs - People look at HRs because they can't be argued with. It is the "easy way out" for people who don't want to research how runs are actually created (RC+, wOBA, etc.)
I can understand why 50 years ago, the Triple Crown winner was a big deal. But these stats are now known to be irrelevant to actual value.
Trout is MVP.
quote:I wonder how people would vote if it was Mike Trout that won the Triple Crown and Miggy had the WAR.
Its not just WAR that Trout has a substantial lead in over Cabrera. It is the majority of offensive statistical categories and literally every single defensive and baserunning metric. WAR just combines all of them, which is why he is THAT much more productive.
But if the numbers were completely switched, I would most certainly be pulling for Cabrera to win MVP. I don't really see your point in your post...
Guess I'm an old timer and depend on eye sight more than numbers or statistics. However, I do understand that the new metrics are here to stay. They really do give us more valuable information. At the same time I think there is room for even more.
It seems impossible to include every factor that goes into the results. Weather conditions, umpiring decisions, luck, travel, managorial decisions, range factor of opponents, injuries, injuries to teammates, pitchers faced, etc.
The MVP award goes to the person the voters decide on. Last year they voted for a pitcher. For sure Verlander was the best PITCHER last year. The best HITTER last year didn't get the award. Offensively a pitcher could never win this award.
So will the voters consider the defensive value of these two (Cabrera and Trout)? How many hits did Trout take away from hitters this year. How many homeruns did he take away?
Also I don't think Pujols hurt Trout as much as Trout might have helped Pujols. If you take away the first month of the season (without Trout) Pujols had a very good year. At one point a few weeks into the season Pujols was hitting under .200 with a couple RBI. With Trout in the lineup he had over 100 RBI.
Also don't think it's just a coincident that last year's MVP in the National League and Cabrera had the same guy hitting behind them. It's hard to pitch around someone when Prince Fielder is on deck. What if you flipped Prince and Cabrera in the order? Prince hit .313 with 30 HRS and 108 RBI, hitting behind the guy who led the league in RBI. Prince's OB% was .412 which was actually higher than Cabrera.
Keep in mind that Prince Fielder had a year where he hit 46 HRs with 141 RBI and he had another year where he hit 50 HRs. At the same time his OB% has been over .400 each of the past four years. Obviously it's a big advantage for whoever hits in front of him in the lineup.
Personally I thought Trout had the MVP wrapped up until the last couple weeks of the season. Both clubs were in must win games during that period. I think what players do in must wins games should go into the equation for MVP. I know all the games count whether it is June or September, but in September it's do or die.
I'm guessing there are more Mike Trout fans than Miguel Cabrera fans. Include me in the Trout band wagon, though I like the way Cabrera has handled all of this. IMO they are both very deserving and it's not going to be a pitcher this year. How about Trout for the Cy Young? Just kidding!
It seems impossible to include every factor that goes into the results. Weather conditions, umpiring decisions, luck, travel, managorial decisions, range factor of opponents, injuries, injuries to teammates, pitchers faced, etc.
The MVP award goes to the person the voters decide on. Last year they voted for a pitcher. For sure Verlander was the best PITCHER last year. The best HITTER last year didn't get the award. Offensively a pitcher could never win this award.
So will the voters consider the defensive value of these two (Cabrera and Trout)? How many hits did Trout take away from hitters this year. How many homeruns did he take away?
Also I don't think Pujols hurt Trout as much as Trout might have helped Pujols. If you take away the first month of the season (without Trout) Pujols had a very good year. At one point a few weeks into the season Pujols was hitting under .200 with a couple RBI. With Trout in the lineup he had over 100 RBI.
Also don't think it's just a coincident that last year's MVP in the National League and Cabrera had the same guy hitting behind them. It's hard to pitch around someone when Prince Fielder is on deck. What if you flipped Prince and Cabrera in the order? Prince hit .313 with 30 HRS and 108 RBI, hitting behind the guy who led the league in RBI. Prince's OB% was .412 which was actually higher than Cabrera.
Keep in mind that Prince Fielder had a year where he hit 46 HRs with 141 RBI and he had another year where he hit 50 HRs. At the same time his OB% has been over .400 each of the past four years. Obviously it's a big advantage for whoever hits in front of him in the lineup.
Personally I thought Trout had the MVP wrapped up until the last couple weeks of the season. Both clubs were in must win games during that period. I think what players do in must wins games should go into the equation for MVP. I know all the games count whether it is June or September, but in September it's do or die.
I'm guessing there are more Mike Trout fans than Miguel Cabrera fans. Include me in the Trout band wagon, though I like the way Cabrera has handled all of this. IMO they are both very deserving and it's not going to be a pitcher this year. How about Trout for the Cy Young? Just kidding!
Co-MVP's...
quote:I'm guessing there are more Mike Trout fans than Miguel Cabrera fans. Include me in the Trout band wagon, though I like the way Cabrera has handled all of this. IMO they are both very deserving and it's not going to be a pitcher this year. How about Trout for the Cy Young? Just kidding!
PG; you've summed it up nicely. It's interesting that there is so much discussion about new metrics vs. old style statistics. Each partisan group expend so much energy vigorously defending the validity of their numbers. Gee whiz, If more of our population base had spent more time researching measurable performance before heading to the polls for our last Presidential election, perhaps ...........
The if's, had Trout come up sooner, hit in the middle of the order ...... , had Miggy not had Fielder protecting him, if they had been flipped, and so forth; are just big IF's... As Jim Leyland said; "this game is won by getting big hits and driving in runs." Cabrera does that better than any right-handed hitter I ever saw play this game. Jim Leyland has "seen" (to your point about eyes on) a player or two in his near half century in the game.
These aren't your statements, but appear earlier;
"Batting average isn't relevant" seems to be uttered mostly when the average is low, relatively speaking. So, if we ever have another .400 hitter, that stat won't matter? "Home Runs are only relevant to those that don't understand." Perhaps, certainly they are relevant to those playing the game, and PAYING those that play the game.
Moreover, if we get a pitcher next year that wins more than 30 games (hasn't been done in over 45 yrs., akin to the current TRIPLE CROWN accomplishment) he may NOT be worthy of the Cy Young Award? I guess so, right. I mean really, we all know that wins aren't really an accurate measure of a pitchers performance. Wins, like batting average, see to become meaningless to those that want to support the performance of a player that doesn't have either many wins, or a high batting average, or not many home runs, or few RBI's??
I'm ready to go to WAR on this one.
Until then; Trout had the best Rookie season anyone has ever seen and should be the ROY. I'm guessing he will pan out long term but still want to see it first!
Cabrera, has been among the top five players in the League for a good while. Did he win the batting title last year? Probably a fluke, only happened because Fielder was hitting behind him. Yea right. Any of you guys hit a baseball before?
Without a doubt, Cabrera, you can't not give the MVP to the first Triple Crown winner in 40+ years.
Trout, great player, but sorry junior, you're going to have to wait.
Trout, great player, but sorry junior, you're going to have to wait.
I wanted to provide a correction and a bit more historical context to the following, which I posted earlier:
First, I was incomplete in my list of players who've lead MLB with more offensive WAR than the 8.6 that Mike Trout posted this year. In addition to those listed above, Rod Carew, Robin Yount, and Rickey Henderson also had seasons with more than 8.6 oWAR. Frank Robinson equalled (rather than exceeded) that total, as did Willie McCovey. But the point is still valid.
Furthermore, I want to point out that nearly every time the MLB oWAR leader has had 8.6 oWAR or more in the past 50 years, he has won the MVP. The only exceptions were in 1999 when Derek Jeter's 8.8 oWAR finished 6th in the voting (behind Ivan Rodriguez 4.3, Pedro Martinez, Robbie Alomar 6.4, Manny Ramirez 6.8 and Rafael Palmeiro 4.8), in 1998 when Mark McGwire's 9.0 oWAR finished 2nd to Sammy Sosa's 6.1; in 1964 when Willie Mays' 8.7 oWAR finished 6th (behind Ken Boyer 5.2, Johnny Callison 3.9, Bill White 3.7, Frank Robinson 6.6, and Joe Torre 5.2); and in 1963 when Hank Aaron's 9.2 oWAR finished 3rd (behind Sandy Koufax, and Dick Groat's 5.7). Simply put, when you put up the kind of offensive production Trout did this year, it almost always results in an MVP award, and when it doesn't, it generally looks kind of funny in hindsight.
In contrast, the 7.5 oWAR that Miguel Cabrera put up this year - which would have lead MLB if Trout hadn't been around - has only been good enough to lead MLB in 11 of the last 50 years (and some of those really shouldn't count, as they were "won" with a lesser number in strike-shortened years). Other than the historical significance of Cabrera winning the Triple Crown, it just wasn't *that* special an offensive year.
And remember, Cabrera played 161 games (to Trout's 139) and had 58 more plate appearances than Trout had, but Trout still put up superior numbers in *overall* offensive performance - counting everything, not just BA, RBI, and HR.
Since Trout got less than a full season to put up his numbers (through no fault of his own), it is instructive to look at the RATE of his production and compare it historically. If you look at oWAR on a per game, it is clear how special (and how much better than Cabrera's season) Trout's season was.
In the fifty years before the 2012 season only 10 of 55 season leaders (there have been several ties), by six different men, have ever exceeded the per game offensive production Mike Trout posted (Barry Bonds 2001-2004, Jeff Bagwell in 1994, Robin Yount in 1982, Mike Schmidt in 1981, George Brett in 1980, and Joe Morgan in 1975-76). All ten won the MVP. The two most recent Triple Crown winners before Cabrera (Yaz, Frank Robinson) also won the MVP, both with per game rates of offensive production slightly *less* than Mike Trout's.
In contrast, of those same 55 MLB oWAR seasonal leaders over the previous 50 years, Miguel Cabrera's per game oWAR production would be better than only 4 of 55 (Carl Yastrzemski in 1968, Dave Parker in 1978, Cal Ripken in 1984, and Derek Jeter in 2006). Only one of those four won the MVP (Parker - who is one of only seven players out of those 55 who are not in the Hall, active, or on or soon to be on the ballot).
But wait, you might object, if ten guys in the last 50 years exceeded Mike Trout's production, that's a heckuva lot more frequent and less historic than winning a Triple Crown, which has only been done three times in that time frame.
Not so, and here's why: there are only three variables that go into winning a Triple Crown. There are many, many more ways of achieving 8.6 oWAR in 139 games. It might be doubles & triples, runs scored, stolen bases. It could be home runs and walks. It could be, literally, any combination of any and every valuable offensive thing that can be done on a baseball field, and it counts things that are valuable even if you don't lead the league in doing that thing. Everything counts. The Triple Crown looks at three things, and three things ONLY - everything else is ignored - and even then only if you happened to lead the league in all three things. Of course that will be more rare - even though Trout's level of production is still *quite* rare.
I don't remember if Three Bagger or JH pointed this out, but the three things we look at for the Triple Crown is pretty arbitrary, and we have better stats (such as OPS+, which is OBP plus SLG that is adjusted for league and park) than the ones they chose. Runs Scored could just as easily have been chosen instead of RBI, and OPS+ is without a doubt a better proxy of performance than looking at just batting average and home runs.
What if the Triple Crown called for leading your league in runs scored, OPS+, and stolen bases (as Trout did this year). Do you know how many times in baseball history a player has ever scored at least as many runs as Trout did, had at least as many stolen bases as he did, and had a 171 OPS+ or better? Trout, plus Ty Cobb twice (1911 and 1915), King Kelly (1886), Tris Speaker (1912), and Pete Browning (1887).
Do you know how many players have ever had a season with 125 or more runs scored, 45 or more stolen bases, 170 or better OPS+, and 30 or more home runs? One - Mike Trout.
And of course, I'm only focusing on offense. It is beyond dispute that Mike Trout offers fare more value as a defensive player than Miguel Cabrera does.
It is wrong to elevate a historical but not necessarily historically great season over another that *IS* historically great simply because one person managed to lead three fairly abitrary categories than have gained traditional significance, when the other was objectively better in almost every measurable way. Miguel Cabrera's season was NOT more rare, or better, than Mike Trout's, and IMHO Trout should win the MVP hands down.
quote:Originally posted by EdgarFan:
... it is important to note that Trout's performance has been historic, too. If you look at the last fifty years, only 12 players have ever had better years in terms of purely offensive WAR (to placate those who dismiss WAR because of defensive stats - even though their own eyes should tell them that Trout is the FAR superior defensive player) than the 8.6 Trout produced this year (Cabrera had 7.5 offensive WAR). Those 12 are basically a Who's Who of players who are either in the Hall of Fame, or will or should be (at least if you ignore PED arguments about why they shouldn't): Aaron, Mays, Frank Robinson, Yastrzemski, Morgan, Ripken, Walker, Piazza, McGwire, Jeter, Bonds, A-Rod.
First, I was incomplete in my list of players who've lead MLB with more offensive WAR than the 8.6 that Mike Trout posted this year. In addition to those listed above, Rod Carew, Robin Yount, and Rickey Henderson also had seasons with more than 8.6 oWAR. Frank Robinson equalled (rather than exceeded) that total, as did Willie McCovey. But the point is still valid.
Furthermore, I want to point out that nearly every time the MLB oWAR leader has had 8.6 oWAR or more in the past 50 years, he has won the MVP. The only exceptions were in 1999 when Derek Jeter's 8.8 oWAR finished 6th in the voting (behind Ivan Rodriguez 4.3, Pedro Martinez, Robbie Alomar 6.4, Manny Ramirez 6.8 and Rafael Palmeiro 4.8), in 1998 when Mark McGwire's 9.0 oWAR finished 2nd to Sammy Sosa's 6.1; in 1964 when Willie Mays' 8.7 oWAR finished 6th (behind Ken Boyer 5.2, Johnny Callison 3.9, Bill White 3.7, Frank Robinson 6.6, and Joe Torre 5.2); and in 1963 when Hank Aaron's 9.2 oWAR finished 3rd (behind Sandy Koufax, and Dick Groat's 5.7). Simply put, when you put up the kind of offensive production Trout did this year, it almost always results in an MVP award, and when it doesn't, it generally looks kind of funny in hindsight.
In contrast, the 7.5 oWAR that Miguel Cabrera put up this year - which would have lead MLB if Trout hadn't been around - has only been good enough to lead MLB in 11 of the last 50 years (and some of those really shouldn't count, as they were "won" with a lesser number in strike-shortened years). Other than the historical significance of Cabrera winning the Triple Crown, it just wasn't *that* special an offensive year.
And remember, Cabrera played 161 games (to Trout's 139) and had 58 more plate appearances than Trout had, but Trout still put up superior numbers in *overall* offensive performance - counting everything, not just BA, RBI, and HR.
Since Trout got less than a full season to put up his numbers (through no fault of his own), it is instructive to look at the RATE of his production and compare it historically. If you look at oWAR on a per game, it is clear how special (and how much better than Cabrera's season) Trout's season was.
In the fifty years before the 2012 season only 10 of 55 season leaders (there have been several ties), by six different men, have ever exceeded the per game offensive production Mike Trout posted (Barry Bonds 2001-2004, Jeff Bagwell in 1994, Robin Yount in 1982, Mike Schmidt in 1981, George Brett in 1980, and Joe Morgan in 1975-76). All ten won the MVP. The two most recent Triple Crown winners before Cabrera (Yaz, Frank Robinson) also won the MVP, both with per game rates of offensive production slightly *less* than Mike Trout's.
In contrast, of those same 55 MLB oWAR seasonal leaders over the previous 50 years, Miguel Cabrera's per game oWAR production would be better than only 4 of 55 (Carl Yastrzemski in 1968, Dave Parker in 1978, Cal Ripken in 1984, and Derek Jeter in 2006). Only one of those four won the MVP (Parker - who is one of only seven players out of those 55 who are not in the Hall, active, or on or soon to be on the ballot).
But wait, you might object, if ten guys in the last 50 years exceeded Mike Trout's production, that's a heckuva lot more frequent and less historic than winning a Triple Crown, which has only been done three times in that time frame.
Not so, and here's why: there are only three variables that go into winning a Triple Crown. There are many, many more ways of achieving 8.6 oWAR in 139 games. It might be doubles & triples, runs scored, stolen bases. It could be home runs and walks. It could be, literally, any combination of any and every valuable offensive thing that can be done on a baseball field, and it counts things that are valuable even if you don't lead the league in doing that thing. Everything counts. The Triple Crown looks at three things, and three things ONLY - everything else is ignored - and even then only if you happened to lead the league in all three things. Of course that will be more rare - even though Trout's level of production is still *quite* rare.
I don't remember if Three Bagger or JH pointed this out, but the three things we look at for the Triple Crown is pretty arbitrary, and we have better stats (such as OPS+, which is OBP plus SLG that is adjusted for league and park) than the ones they chose. Runs Scored could just as easily have been chosen instead of RBI, and OPS+ is without a doubt a better proxy of performance than looking at just batting average and home runs.
What if the Triple Crown called for leading your league in runs scored, OPS+, and stolen bases (as Trout did this year). Do you know how many times in baseball history a player has ever scored at least as many runs as Trout did, had at least as many stolen bases as he did, and had a 171 OPS+ or better? Trout, plus Ty Cobb twice (1911 and 1915), King Kelly (1886), Tris Speaker (1912), and Pete Browning (1887).
Do you know how many players have ever had a season with 125 or more runs scored, 45 or more stolen bases, 170 or better OPS+, and 30 or more home runs? One - Mike Trout.
And of course, I'm only focusing on offense. It is beyond dispute that Mike Trout offers fare more value as a defensive player than Miguel Cabrera does.
It is wrong to elevate a historical but not necessarily historically great season over another that *IS* historically great simply because one person managed to lead three fairly abitrary categories than have gained traditional significance, when the other was objectively better in almost every measurable way. Miguel Cabrera's season was NOT more rare, or better, than Mike Trout's, and IMHO Trout should win the MVP hands down.
quote:It seems impossible to include every factor that goes into the results. Weather conditions, umpiring decisions, luck, travel, managorial decisions, range factor of opponents, injuries, injuries to teammates, pitchers faced, etc.
The MVP award goes to the person the voters decide on. Last year they voted for a pitcher. For sure Verlander was the best PITCHER last year. The best HITTER last year didn't get the award. Offensively a pitcher could never win this award.
I got a laugh reading this. I guess WAR does not include weather conditions, umpiring decisions, pitchers faced, bunting etc.
I can't argue that WAR does include more things but I am more on the side of KISS (Keep it simply .....). I think it was Albert Eistein that said to the effects that make things as simple as possible, but not more simplier.
If it is that simply to win a triple crown, why haven't Bond, McGuire, Alex R., Josh H., Prince F., etc and etc won it previously? Why it takes 45 years for the moon, sun, earth and the stars to line up for another triple crown winner?
I still don't understand why BA, HRs and RBIs do no matter any more or is not important. After all, simply put, isn't baseball about hitter hitting the ball and the pitcher trying to make the hitter miss the ball. If I have a team filled up the top most BA, HR and RBI hitters and lowest ERA pitchers, don't I have a much better chance of winning gams? I have witnessed few local games of no-hitter shutouts, where the offensive scored 10 or more runs. It would be insane if a manager does not want a team like that.
quote:Originally posted by bball123:
"I can't argue that WAR does include more things but I am more on the side of KISS (Keep it simply .....). I think it was Albert Eistein that said to the effects that make things as simple as possible, but not more simplier."
Actually, I believe the principle you are describing suggests that when two theories describe a phenomenon equally well, then it is always preferable to choose the simpler theory. The three Triple Crown stats do not do an equal job - or even close - to any of the newer metrics, be it WAR, offensive WAR, OPS, OPS+, wOBA, wRC+ - any of them. They may be more complex, but that does not make them meaningless (or "speculative") and the trade-off for complexity is much better accuracy in describing the value of the thing they measure. And ALL of those tell us that Mike Trout had a better year than Miguel Cabrera.
quote:"If it is that simply to win a triple crown, why haven't Bond, McGuire, Alex R., Josh H., Prince F., etc and etc won it previously? Why it takes 45 years for the moon, sun, earth and the stars to line up for another triple crown winner?"
Nobody said it was simple to win a Triple Crown, but if you are suggesting that the fact that all these great players have not won a Triple Crown somehow diminishes their greatness, I don't see how you can make that argument - I think you are clearly mistaken. And if you are suggesting that, because Miguel Cabrera has won a Triple Crown and these great players have not, then Cabrera must be the equal of or better than them, that too is very faulty logic.
I am suggesting to you that the Triple Crown has historical significance, but it does not automatically mean a Triple Crown winner the best season, or even a histirically great season (though that will usually be so), any more than a player's failure to win a Triple Crown means he did not or could not have had a great season. There's a lot more to consider, when looking at a player's value, than just BA, RBI, and HR.
Furthermore, there are a lot of other meaningful, traditional statistics. I can (and did) come up with a combination that shows Mike Trout's year is even more rare than Cabrera's Triple Crown. So what? The question is, what makes the particular statistics chosen a better measure of "value" than others that were not chosen, or which are omitted entirely?
quote:"I still don't understand why BA, HRs and RBIs do no matter any more or is not important."
I don't think anybody said this. At least I did not. Batting average, RBIs, and home runs are still very important, and relevant. They are just *less* important and relevant to describing a player's overall value than some other statistics. They just do an incomplete job, and/or rely too much on the contributions of others outside of the player's control.
For instance, batting average pretends that plate appearances in which a batter gets on base and doesn't make an out - which is truly the only way to advance winning in a game that is limited ONLY by a finite number of outs -don't matter. That's ludicrous, and a very simple reason why on-base percentage is a far superior way of judging a hitter.
Similarly, I suspect when the Triple Crown first became popular, home runs were included because we want to know something more about the hitter than whether he just gets on base. Power is important...but looking just at home runs is a poor way of measuring a player's power. Doubles and triples matter, too. Rather than just looking at home runs, slugging percentage is a clearly superior way of looking at this.
Runs batted in are important, too, but highly dependent on the contributions of teammates, and of line-up position. And runs scored are arguably just as important. Who is to say that the guy who gets the hit (or even the out) that allows a guy like Mike Trout - who gets on base at a terrific clip, often by way of extra base hits, and advances himself more often and more successfully than any player in the league - to score deserves more credit for that run than Trout does? Not all RBI are created equal....
So, for instance (and without getting into any "advanced" stats), looking at something like on base + slugging percentage, which does a reasonable job of replcating what a full-on "linear weights" analysis of the value of every thing that can possibly happen in every base-out state in describing winning baseball, is far preferable to looking at batting average and home runs. And if you can adjust for differing park effects (as OPS+ does) - because we all know that hitting at a place like Coors is not the same as hitting in a place like Safeco - you're even better off. Guess what? OPS+ shows Mike Trout had a significantly better season than Miguel Cabrea did.
There are other, better statistics that also account for things like baserunning, GIDP, and better "weight" the significance of OBP versus SLG. Those are the statistics that go into the components of WAR. If you are so sure that the defensive parts of WAR are crude and meaningless (I am not), then look just at offensive WAR (which also favors Trout) - but that doesn't mean you can ignore defense and not trust your own eyes, which should tell you that Mike Trout is light years better defensively than Miguel Cabrera.
"KISS" makes sense only when you aren't leaving out things that we KNOW are important to winning, valuable baseball performance - like *all* XBH, runs scored as well as RBI, baserunning, and defense. If you have to ignore those things in the name of "simplicity" you aren't doing yourself any favors and you aren't going to be very accurate in measuring "value."
quote:They may be more complex, but that does not make them meaningless (or "speculative") and the trade-off for complexity is much better accuracy in describing the value of the thing they measure. And ALL of those tell us that Mike Trout had a better year than Miguel Cabrera.
quote:
"If it is that simply to win a triple crown, why haven't Bond, McGuire, Alex R., Josh H., Prince F., etc and etc won it previously? Why it takes 45 years for the moon, sun, earth and the stars to line up for another triple crown winner?"
Nobody said it was simple to win a Triple Crown, but if you are suggesting that the fact that all these great players have not won a Triple Crown somehow diminishes their greatness, I don't see how you can make that argument - I think you are clearly mistaken. And if you are suggesting that, because Miguel Cabrera has won a Triple Crown and these great players have not, then Cabrera must be the equal of or better than them, that too is very faulty logic.
I am suggesting to you that the Triple Crown has historical significance, but it does not automatically mean a Triple Crown winner the best season, or even a histirically great season (though that will usually be so), any more than a player's failure to win a Triple Crown means he did not or could not have had a great season. There's a lot more to consider, when looking at a player's value, than just BA, RBI, and HR.
If you said WAR is meaningless, then you well you said it. Sure I didn't say that, as far as I can recall. It is hard to argue if people put words in your mouth, much less logic. If you said Cabrera is the greatest hitter, so be it. Surely I didn't said that. What I did say is that winning a triple crown after 45 years is not trivial, in fact it is a great accomplishment in the face of some many other great baseball players. What I did say is if I have a team filled up the top most BA, HR and RBI hitters and lowest ERA pitchers, don't I have a much better chance of winning gams? I have witnessed few local games of no-hitter shutouts, where the offensive scored 10 or more runs. It would be insane if a manager does not want a team like that.
Agreed, not all RBI are equal, so do weathers, managers, pitchers faced etc...
quote:
It seems impossible to include every factor that goes into the results. Weather conditions, umpiring decisions, luck, travel, managorial decisions, range factor of opponents, injuries, injuries to teammates, pitchers faced, etc.
The MVP award goes to the person the voters decide on. Last year they voted for a pitcher. For sure Verlander was the best PITCHER last year. The best HITTER last year didn't get the award. Offensively a pitcher could never win this award.
----------
Until WAR is perfected and include all the variables and be able to predict the future performances of a baseball player, it is after all, a statistic. Just be careful, "there is lies, **** lies, and statistic". It is so easy to look at the rear mirrors are compute all kind of statistics. The economists will have a field day.