Poll - Trout, Cabrera or other for AL MVP

Trouts numbers are great for a 10 year vet future HOF player let alone a rookie. And he's from my area. Once in generation rookie numbers. His average has slipped about 40 points the past couple of months though.

Cabrera is in the running for the triple crown and his team is making a big run.

As much as I'd like to say Mike Trout I go with Cabrera.

Trouts BA is actually .321 However, even though I'm a huge Angel fan and Mike Trout honk, I'd vote for Cabrera. I would however vote Jered Weaver as AL Cy Young.

Half the time he is on the field(defense), there are dozens of minor leaguers who are more valuable to their team than Cabrera. When he is on the basepaths there are hundreds of Major Leaguers who are more valuable to their team than Cabrera. He is way above in two catagories-RBI's and batting average which are now proven to not have the assumed value they had in 1967. There is virtually no one above Trout in either baserunning or fielding and dang few in hitting. Wins above replacement, which includes fielding and baserunning as well as hitting--Trout 10.5, Cabrera, 6.4 in tenth place in the ML's.

Three Bagger- Couldn't agree more. I don't even think this should be a close race. There has been no player as dominating as Trout since Bonds in '04. If I had a ballot, I'd go as follows:

AL Cy Young: Verlander (#2 would be Price, #3 Sale)
NL Cy Young: Kershaw (#2 would be Cueto, #3 Dickey)

AL MVP: Trout (#2 would be Cabrera, #3 Cano)
NL MVP: Braun (#2 would be Posey, #3 Wright)

I don't want anyone to feel I don't think Cabrera is a valuable player but as JH says, it truly isn't even close as to who is the MOST valuable when you look at the overall player.

AL Cy Young: David Price for me.
Lowest era with little run support. Price doesn't get a Cabrere or Trout. Longo missed half the season as well. AL MVP: Cabrera


1 David Price
TB 185.3 31 31 211.0 60 205 0 20-5 2.56
2 Justin Verlander
DET 181.3 33 33 238.1 70 239 0 17-8 2.64
3 Jered Weaver
LAA 173.0 29 29 187.2 57 141 0 20-4 2.73
4 Fernando Rodney
TB 164.9 74 0 73.1 5 74 46 2-2 0.61
5 Jim Johnson
BAL 163.0 70 0 67.2 19 41 50 2-1 2.53
6 Matt Harrison
TEX 148.4 31 31 207.1 75 128 0 18-10 3.26

frrom ESPN.go.com
7 Rafael Soriano
NYY 147.1 68 0 65.2 16 67 42 2-1 2.19
8 Chris Sale
CHW 143.7 30 29 192.0 65 192 0 17-8 3.05
9 Felix Hernandez
SEA 138.9 32 32 226.2 72 216 0 13-8 2.86
10 Max Scherzer
DET 137.0 31 31 183.2 78 228 0 16-7 3.82

Speaking of the triple crown, I wonder if I'm the only member of this board who watched the final two games of the 1967 season on TV and saw Yaz go 7-8 against the Minnesota Twins in the last two "had to win" games of the season. Boston was one game out with two to play. Detroit also had a chance to win in the last two days. Yaz also hit his 44th Hr that tied him for the lead with Harmon Killebrew and threw out a runner at the plate. Talk about doing it all that year!

Three Bagger- Can't say I recall...my mom was 3 years old then...

Sorry

Ouch!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Three Bagger:
Half the time he is on the field(defense), there are dozens of minor leaguers who are more valuable to their team than Cabrera. When he is on the basepaths there are hundreds of Major Leaguers who are more valuable to their team than Cabrera. He is way above in two catagories-RBI's and batting average which are now proven to not have the assumed value they had in 1967. There is virtually no one above Trout in either baserunning or fielding and dang few in hitting. Wins above replacement, which includes fielding and baserunning as well as hitting--Trout 10.5, Cabrera, 6.4 in tenth place in the ML's.

Judging one sabermetric stat is just as inaccurate as judging by one normal stat such as HR/RBI.

I'd be curious to know if you know how WAR is calculated, because the fielding and baserunning aspects of it are still very primitive. Also, CF are arbitrarily given a boost to their WAR because their position is generally worse at hitting than others.

The fielding part of WAR, called UZR, is so inaccurate that it makes the stat as a whole inaccurate. Based on UZR, Jeter went from one of the worst fielders in the game to one of the best, in the span of one offseason (and he was above the age of 35).

Edit: For the record, I agree with you that Trout should be MVP. I just don't think it can be proven by one stat.

That's true that no one stat can prove anything. I didn't mean WAR alone should be used, I was just pointing out the huge difference between Trout's and Cabrera's WAR. I just like my MVP's to at least be ML average in the field and on the basepaths. When Cabrera is doing either, he actually costs his team runs.

Uh, Cabrera just hit his 44th HR.

For MVP, it should be Rafael Soriano. He had to replace the greatest closer of all time and had the pressure to produce like Moe. He should get the MVP because without him, Yanks don't make playoffs.

For Trout vs Cabrera, this one's easy. Trout by a mile. Trout does everything while Cabrera a one dimensional player. Plus, Angels would've been dead long ago had Trout stayed in the minors.

While I know writers typically don't like to vote for Yankee players since the excuse is they should win every year, if it goes between Trout and Cabrera, then Trout has to get it.

zomby- I'm a Yankee fan too, but I couldn't disagree more about Soriano. I don't believe any reliever should ever win an MVP award. They simply haven't thrown enough innings.

However if the argument is to be made, I don't even think Soriano is in the top 2 closers in the AL this year. Rodney and Nathan have, in my opinion, had a better year. Stats indicate the same, although there is very little separation between Nathan and Soriano.

Pertaining to UZR- I completely agree. However just as an FYI, if defensive metrics are taken away from both Trout and Cabrera, the breakdown is as follows:

bWAR:
Trout- 8.3
Cabrera- 7.2

fWAR:
Trout- 53.9
Cabrera- 52.7

Even when completely ignoring the entire defensive aspect of the game, Trout is still better.

Without Cabrera, the Tigers wouldn't be going to the playoffs. He has carried them down the stretch, overtaking the White Sox.

With Trout, the Angels will not make the playoffs, as great has he has been.

If both teams didn't make it, would go with Trout.

I am not a fan of Cabrera as a person but he deserves it.

I love everything about Trout and I marvel at his play, even when he kills the Rangers.

LadsDad- I immensely disagree with your reasoning about Cabrera. A team's appearance in the postseason has nothing to do with a player's value to that team. In 2001 and 2004 Barry Bonds posted offensive numbers that are statistically similar to Trout's current numbers in terms of productivity (Bonds's numbers were slightly better than Trout's, which in and of itself is absolutely incredible). In both those years, he won MVP and in both those years, the Giants failed to make the playoffs. I find it hard to imagine anyone arguing against Bonds deserving those awards based on his performance during those seasons.

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?

Cabrera has had an unbelievable season and has been extremely valuable to the Tigers. The award, however, is for MOST Valuable Player. No player in 2012 has been anywhere near as valuable to any team as Mike Trout has been. Its not even close. Its more of a landslide than Verlander's unanimous Cy Young win last year. Trout has been A LOT better than everyone else this season.

It is all about the bat, at every level. Golden glovers have to hit to get in.

Cabrera won the triple crown today. Baseballs three most favorite offensive stats since the beginning of time(as far as I know).

Gotta go with Cabrera.

Angels have one more win than the Tigers. They just happen to be in a division with better teams. Trout has to face the better pitching staffs of Texas, Oakland, and Seattle while Cabrera gets to feast more often on KC, Cleveland, and Minnesota. Even today, Trout's four hit game came in a game which King Felix started against him and he had three straight hits against him.

RBI's weren't even a stat in the box scores until the 1920's while sacrifices were. Just because someone in 1880 thought batting average was so important that the winner of the batting average title is called the batting champion, does not mean it is correct as has been shown with modern offensive numbers.

Three Bagger- Often times I find its a losing battle trying to argue these points. People say its "old school" vs. "new school". I say its "wrong" vs. "right". The front office executives that run the teams put on the field have made it pretty clear what is important in terms of analysis, and in the end that's all that really matters when putting a winning product on the field.

I'm torn on this one. Trout is having an amazing year. He's the Ultimate Five Tool Player, and arguably the Best Defensive Centerfielder in baseball...not to mention,he's in my backyard in So Cal. With that said, if Cabrera finishes the 2012 season with the Triple Crown...you have to give him the MVP. It's going to be a tough decision either way.

Of the three, rbi, the youngest stat is 90 years old? Let us see if the other stats make it to 20 years before they are declared useless and are replaced.

Plus, it must be tough to do, when was the last one? 1967? It is a very, very rare thing and worthy of my vote every time.

quote:

Plus, it must be tough to do, when was the last one? 1967? It is a very, very rare thing and worthy of my vote every time.

Trout- 30 HR, 48 SB. Only two players have eclipsed those numbers. Eric Davis in 1987 (37 HR, 50 SB), Barry Bonds in 1990 (33 HR, 52 SB). More rare than a Triple Crown, in fact. So, in comparing apples and oranges, Trout takes the cake there too.

Batting Average is not a good indicator of overall offensive performance because it pretends plate appearances that don't count as ABs don't exist. It also negates the impact a player has in terms of slugging and baserunner, two offensive factors. RBIs are not a good indicator of overall offensive performance because it is reliant on other players' performance, which, as I noted previously with my anti-playoff-MVP argument, cannot be directly correlated with a player's value to the team.

In order, I would rate the categories of the Triple Crown as follows in terms of importance:

1. Home Runs
2. RBIs
3. Batting Average

Home runs are important for obvious reasons. RBIs are important to a team because, yes, they generate runs. But there are many more offensive statistics that allow a team to better analyze run generation and appropriately coordinate a player's value than simply the runs he has batted in over the course of a season. For the most plain and simple example: Mike Trout is a lead-off hitter and therefore has less opportunities to drive in runs than Miguel Cabrera does. 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.

By sheer luck runs scored could have been substituted for RBI's in the triple crown. They too, depend somewhat on other player's contributions. If a person has ever studied baseball history, they will find out that such terms as Triple Crown or Batting Champion were coined by some sports writer of years gone by and took on a greater importance than they truly have. RBI's and batting average are fun numbers to look at but that does not mean they define the most important offensive contributions that the Triple Crown would have you believe. Cabrera's triple crown is no different than about six or seven of Pujol's seasons yet at least Albert could run the bases and field his position.

I've noticed no one that picks Cabrera for MVP ever gives any concrete or arguable reason outside of the leadership in those three catagories and statements like " he's out there everyday producing, or teams fear him, or Detroit wouldn't be the same team without him". Show me something that proves he is the MVP over Trout, not obtuse statements.

Everybody has their opinion but to say this race shouldn't even be close when one is going to win the triple crown is just silly. 45 years since the last one and he shouldn't compete for the MVP? Really?

the writers will probably take the easy path and give Trout the rookie of the year and Cabrera the MVP... 1967 is probably too steep of a hill to deny.

but Trout, holy cow his season stands among an all-time season... I spose you gotta throw Barry B's best seasons out there to rival what this guy does for his team

happy October everyone... it's time for the party to begin!!!

THe votes are close so far in our poll, as I expect they will be when the BBWAA cast their votes. By the way, it only includes the regular season.

This particular award will be interesting because of the contrast between the two.

Trout - young, table setter, west coast team, speed, outfielder

Cabrera - mature, RBI guy, east coast team, power, infielder.

The only thing they have in common is that they are both good, and I can't fault anyone for voting for either one. I would vote for Cabrera. To lead the league in HR, RBI and Batting Avg is incredible. I look at this award as an offensive award. If there were a seperate "Best All Around Player" I would give it to Trout.

Trout singlehandedly bailed out Albert Puljolts by taking all the pressure off him because he was choking big time in the beginning of the year. A 20 yr old player has to be that valuable to have the kind if season to save the season of a future hall of famer. Not too many 20 yr olds have that kind of impact on a superstar player like that. Were it not for Trout, the Angels would've been toast before the all star break

Don't underestimate Cabrera's defense and base running. While he does not have great range, he does get to the ball better than most people will give him credit for. He also has good hands with a very strong/accurate throwing arm. He is actually very athletic for his size and has a high baseball IQ which helps him make-up for his lack of speed on the bases. "Baseball people" who watch him everyday appreciate him as more than just a hitter. He will also give you a productive at bat and hit behind the runner to try help his team score runs. Trout has had a great year...but it's one year...Miggy puts up these numbers EVERY year...He is the MVP and if he was playing in NY or LA nobody would question it.

You can't deny a Triple Crown winner as MVP. Trout will have an awesome career, starting with an incredibly well-deserved ROY. Plenty of time for his MVP accolades.

rebel- I'm a "baseball person" who has watched Miggy play a whole lot of games this year. Making the fundamental play is expected of a Major League player, and yes, he has the ability to make the fundamental play. But I would be very hesitant to say that he "gets to the ball" better than most people give him credit for. According to defensive metrics, he is the 131rd best fielder in the AL for players with over 500 plate appearances. For reference, there are 146 position players in the AL with over 500 plate appearances. That's the 10th percentile.

Having a high baseball IQ doesn't win you the MVP Award. Neither does winning the Triple Crown. Being the MOST VALUABLE PLAYER wins you the Most Valuable Player Award. And in 2012, there is no one that is even on the same planet as Mike Trout in terms of value. This MVP vote should be unanimous. Mike Trout is the MVP.

I'm no longer responding on this thread until anyone can come up with a valid reason for Miggy's deserving of the MVP. Obtuse responses that say "you have to give it to him because of the Triple Crown" or "his team made the playoffs" are not valid reasons to dub him the league's most valuable player. I have yet to see a single argument anywhere, whether its the HSBBWeb or anywhere else, that provides a valid argument why Cabrera deserves it over Trout.

Was 2012 a great offensive year for Miguel? Yes. A historic year. He is almost certainly the best hitter in the game right now. But he was not the most valuable player in the AL this year. Mike Trout was. This award is not for the "best player on playoff teams" or the "player that can drive in the runners that reached base before him" or the "best hitter in the league". This award is the Most Valuable Player. Mike Trout is just that. Plain and simple.

JH-"Fundamentally Speaking"...In my opinion...it is a heck of lot harder to field a ground ball and make an accurate throw than to catch a fly ball.

I am glad that you decided that you were "no longer responding on this thread until anyone can come up with a valid reason for Miggy's deserving of the MVP" because obviously your opinion is MORE VALUABLE than anyone else's. "Plain and simple."

quote:

zombywoof said...For MVP, it should be Rafael Soriano. He had to replace the greatest closer of all time and had the pressure to produce like Moe. He should get the MVP because without him, Yanks don't make playoffs.

Zombywoof - Your Yankee "homerism" is shining through. If I was going to awared an MVP just among the Yankees, I'd have to give it to Hiroki Kuroda. He's been Mr Reliable for them this year in the games I've watched....and yes, I will catch a few innings of a Yankee game with the volume muted. Kuroda has been clutch in some big games.

Saw a funny "tweet" earlier that I'm going to borrow and relate here;

Among The "American" League MVP Candidates are Trout, Darvish & Cespedes. Interestingly, Cespedes is from Cuba, Darvish from Japan and Trout is from "another world!"

And, of course, Cabrera who wasn't mentioned but will likely win.

quote:

Originally posted by fenwaysouth:

quote:

zombywoof said...For MVP, it should be Rafael Soriano. He had to replace the greatest closer of all time and had the pressure to produce like Moe. He should get the MVP because without him, Yanks don't make playoffs.

Zombywoof - Your Yankee "homerism" is shining through. If I was going to awared an MVP just among the Yankees, I'd have to give it to Hiroki Kuroda. He's been Mr Reliable for them this year in the games I've watched....and yes, I will catch a few innings of a Yankee game with the volume muted. Kuroda has been clutch in some big games.

Kuroda has been very pedestrian the last month. He kept Yanks in games but mothing spectacular. He's been steady and keeping Yanks in ballgames but hardly spectacular. Soriano has had a bigger impact since getting promoted to closer

Since Cabrera's chances for winning the MVP is based on whether he gets the triple crown, it would stand to reason that if Hamilton out-homers him or Trout finishes with a higher BA, then the obvious choice would be Trout.

I'm pulling for Trout, but both he and Cabrera are deserving.

One thing that people don't seem to mention is the Prince Fielder affect on Cabrera. In 2011 Cabrera walked 108 times, this year 66 times. Not to mention the pitches he saw because of the bat behind him in the lineup. After all, Prince is hitting .313 this year with 30 HRs and 108 RBI. Makes you wonder what the numbers would look like if they flipped them two in the batting order.

BTW, if Cabrera wins the MVP award, this will be two years in row, two different leagues, two different teams, that the League MVP hit right before Prince in the batting order.

That said... I'm pulling for Trout!

Cabrera - Count Prince Fielders #'s for him too since he moved to 3rd so they could sign him.

I'm a Tiger homer!!! I say Cabrera!!!

Because of the outdated way many people think about this, in general and on this board is why we have MVPs like Jeff Borroughs, Andre Dawson with his .315 OBP, and Morneau when he isn't even the most valuable player on his team when he won the award. It's always some slug of a first baseman, third baseman or broken down knees outfielder who leads the league in RBI's. Of course most of these guys do this by hitting a lot of HRs too. They can't do anything else that helps a team win but "sure are clutch hitters". Of course when you bat third or fourth on a team and have a guy or two hitting .300 in front of you, you seem to be more "clutch" that year also.

Most people would vote for Cabrera whether his lines were .329/.393/602 or .329/.339/.602 with the same 44-137-.329 that he has now because they don't dig deep enough to see that those numbers describe a very different player in overall value. They ignore that half the time he is on the field, he actually hurts his team. Actually anytime he is out of the batters box, he is nothing special. I will agree that he has assumed Pujols' mantel as the best hitter in the game but it isn't his RBI total that proves this. You need to go deeper than than a freak combination of two outdated stats and HRs.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

http://www.ign.com/boards/thre...ven-close.452692734/

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.

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!

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.

I wanted to provide a correction and a bit more historical context to the following, which I posted earlier:

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.

This article, by Fangraphs' Dave Cameron, is the best explanation for why Mike Trout was more valuable, offensively, than Miguel Cabrera.

It uses a stat called RE24, but it isn't all that hard to understand. Statisiticiams look at all games played by all teams over a long period of time (at least a decade - I can't remember exactly how long), and measure how often teams score in each of the 24 different "base-out states." Man on first, two outs, how often on average does a MLB team score? And so on, for every single possible situation. Then, they measure how much the difference in the probability of a team scoring is from the time before a hitter's AB, and after it is over. The example used in the article is an AB where Cabrera came up with two outs and runners on 1st and 2nd - a situation in which, on average, a team is expected to score .33 runs.*

*[Contrary to what has been suggested earlier in this thread, this is not "speculative" either - it is based on real world averages over huge sample sizes. And these expected run values are at the very heart of all "linear weights" based sabermetric stats, which form the basis - in one form or another - of WAR, or at least the offensive part of it.]

Instead, Cabrera hit a three-run home run, so under the stat "RE24" Cabrea is credited with the difference between the runs actually socred and the runs they are expected to score (+2.67).

This stat is entirely based in the real world, and gives players credit for context (even outs) that advance the probability of scoring in an inning. Every single offensive play a player was involved in is logged - either as a positive, or a negative value. Offense only.

The article links to the leaderboard, but for the sake of simplicity, here's the Top Five:

1. Mike Trout: +56.52 runs
2. Edwin Encarnacion: +54.44 runs
3. Prince Fielder: +48.12 runs
4. Joe Mauer: +46.51 runs
5. Miguel Cabrera: +45.18 runs

The biggest single reason for the difference? Double plays. Cabrera had more "big" positive plays than Trout did, but Trout had more overall positive plays and far fewer negative ones (where the result of your AB is a reduction in the probability of your team scoring from what was expected before your AB).

Of course, this matters. Cabrera supporters can't point just to the big positives but ignore the big negatives. [For that matter, they shouldn't be allowed to ignore defense, or going first-to-third, or stealing almost 50 bases at a 90%+ clip, but that is another story.]

Just offense. Give credit for context when it is earned, but count the negatives when those are earned, too. As Cameron puts it,

quote:

"You can go through each player’s play logs and see exactly where they earned and lost credit. There’s no replacement level here. We’re not dealing with defensive metrics that require some subjective inputs and can’t be easily replicated. This is just pure offense, and the total value of all the plays that both Trout and Cabrera were involved in.

And Trout still comes out on top. Ignore defense. Ignore things like going first to third on a single, or taking the extra base on a fly ball. Ignore WAR. Trout still wins. This is how amazing his season actually was. Even if you strip away the things that make Mike Trout special, he was still the best offensive performer in the American League this year, even while starting the season in the minors. This isn’t just the best performance of 2012 – it’s one of the best individual performances in the history of baseball."

Well, I'm a HUGE Mike Trout honk, but I earlier posted that I favored Cabrera for the MVP award, but what you presented is a very compelling argument. What is also surprising to me is how high Joe Mauer ranked in this analysis. Great information, thank you!

BTW, EdgarFan, I just sent you a PM on another topic.

Thanks.

Got it, like2rake. Thanks for the kind words.

Believe it or not, despite everything I've written, I won't be THAT upset if Cabrera wins, because he did have a fantastic, historical year. We've had many worse choices for MVP.

I just think that, *even just offensively,* Trout has been a little bit better. Enough so that it is significant, and when you start looking at things like defense and baserunning, it just becomes less and less defensible to pick Cabrera - particularly if based on an argument as weak as "if he won the Triple Crown, how can you NOT give him the MVP?" If they were really close offensively (all offense, good and bad, not just BA, RBI and HR), I would probably give it to Cabrera based on the historical significance of the Triple Crown. But they're not that close - and the "other stuff" (defense, baserunning) is pretty significant, too.

I've said way too much on this subject.... LOL

EdgarFan,

If your name means what I think it means... What makes you a fan of things like great defense or stolen bases? Just kidding!!!

I've really enjoyed reading your posts in this thread. More importantly, I've learned a lot from your participation.

Who said you can't teach an old dog new tricks! Thanks!

I always thought that the MVP should go to the player that was a gamechanger, the one that made a difference in a teams winning or losing.

I say give it to them both!

Agreed. Give it to both if possible. Heck I was rooting for Posey but he did not get the BA lead. No stats is perfect as it leave out a lot of things. Pitchers faced, velocity, type of pitch, altitude, error call vs a hit, umpire strike zone call, first base umpire call, catcher skill level vs base steal, steroid vs non steroid, weather, grass condition, wind, pitching mound height, etc etc.

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:

"EdgarFan,

If your name means what I think it means... What makes you a fan of things like great defense or stolen bases? Just kidding!!!"

LOL.... Yes, the name means what you think it means. I dunno. In the years Edgar actually played third base regularly (and better than Miguel Cabrera, I might add), there was a kid to his left who could pick it a little bit, and I definitely enjoyed watching him. In fact, that kid just retired...I think. Turned out he could hit a bit better than we thought, too (if he *does* retire, he'll finish 123 hits short of 3000).

But since you brought him up, and because Edgar is one of those 55 guys in the last 50 years who lead MLB in offensive WAR (6.9 oWAR in the strike-shortened 1995 season), I'll shamelessly take the opportunity to talk about Edgar, because there are some parallels between his 1995 year (which was much better than Cabrera's 2012) and Cabrera's 2012.

Going into those two seasons - 1995 for Edgar and 2012 for Cabrera - both were thought to be sub-par defensive players, though with Edgar this was more a function of injury than ability (Martinez was actually +23 fielding from 1989-1994 when he was more or less a full-time 3B, but had struggled when injured) whereas Cabrera has never been considered a good fielder (-61 career, never has had a season where he has not been a negative contributor defensively; had been a whopping -29 fielding at 3B the last two seasons he played there, in 06-07, and hadn't fared much better after moving to 1B over the course of the next four seasons, going -19 there). Both were considered slow, though perhaps Cabrera more so (Martinez's 162-game average for baserunning through 1994 was a dead-even "0" or neutral/average, as he was for double plays (total of -2 runs in each category over 8 seasons), while Cabrera's 162 game average through 2011 for baserunning (-1) and double plays (-1) were slightly worse, though his totals in each category (-14 baserunning, -16 double plays) were quite a bit worse). Both had teammates who were thought to be better options defensively at the two positions they might reasonably play - Mike Blowers at 3B and a young Tino Martinez at 1B for Edgar, and an in-his-prime Prince Fielder at 1B and an aging Brandon Inge at 3B. Inge was slipping offensively (and had never been particularly *good* offensively), but as recently as 2010 had hit a league average-ish .247/.321//.397, good for +0.9 oWAR, and was a very good, +10 fielder at 3B.

So both teams had probably better defensive options at both 1B and 3B. Edgar was, going into that year, a better defender (by a not-insignificant margin) and a better baserunner (also by a not-insignificant margin), though nobody was going to really call either man a great defender or baserunner any time soon. Cabrera makes it known he doesn't want to DH, while Edgar grudgingly but willingly accepts the role. To this day, Edgar is routinely knocked for taking that role (both in the 1995 MVP discussion, and now in HoF discussions), while some in baseball circles want to give Cabrera *credit* for "unselfishly" moving back to 3B (where he had previously been, and would continue to be, horrible) as part of his 2012 MVP case. I don't get that, but anyway, tuck that away for a second, because I want to make a point about Cabrera's offensive case by comparing the two players' offensive campaigns.

Which of these seasons is the better offensive season?

1995 Edgar Martinez: 145 games (led the league in a strike-shortened year), 639 PA, 182 hits, 81 XBH, 116 BB, 87 K, 11 GIDP. 121 runs scored, AND 103 RBI. Was on base 306 times, compared to 347 outs made, and had 161 runs created. .356/.479/.628 BA/OBP/SLG, good for a MLB-leading 185 OPS+, as well as leading the AL in BA and OBP (3rd in SLG behind Belle & McGwire). Lead MLB in virtually every advanced offensive metric, including oWAR (6.9 over 145 games, which projects to 7.7 over 161 games). Led all of MLB in the RE24 statistic I described above, with a ridiculous +80.33 (14.3 better than the next best guy). But he didn't lead in two of the three Triple Crown categories - finishing 4th in RBI (13 off the pace), and 13th in HR (21 off the pace, 11 behind 2nd).

-OR-

2012 Miguel Cabrera: 161 games, 697 PA. 205 hits, 84 XBH, 66 BB, 98 K, 28 GIDP. 109 runs scored, 139 RBI. Was on base 274 times, compared to 452 outs made, and had 139 runs created. 330/.393/.606, good for a 166 OPS+ (3rd in MLB). Was no better than 2nd, and often as far down as 4th or 5th in the league in virtually every advanced offensive metric, including oWAR (7.5, 2nd), and the afore-mentioned RE24 (+45.18, 5th). But managed the historically fortuitous feat of finishing first in each of the three Triple Crown categories.

There's no question which season I would "choose" if I could do so. Edgar Martinez in 1995 was quite a bit better offensively than Miguel Cabrera in 2012. Yet, Edgar Martinez in 1995 was never given serious MVP consideration. He finished a distant 3rd in the voting behind those noted defensive whizzes Mo Vaughn (3.6 oWAR, -0.2 dWAR) and Albert Belle (6.8 oWAR, -0.6 dWAR). An afterthought, largely because of "defense" he was not asked to play, and his main competitors played poorly at worst (and neutral at best). Tell Edgar Martinez "defense doesn't matter" in MVP voting. Sure it does.

Yet somehow this year, a guy put in the same position Edgar found himself in in 1995 but who instead forced his team to play him in the field rather than DH and cost his team runs as a result now needs *credit* for his "unselfishness" and wants to dismiss the defensive side of the candidacy of a player (Mike Trout) who was not only BETTER offensively but also a legitimate, Gold Glove caliber defender at a premimum position, and the best base runner in the league? How does that work?

Offensively, 1995 Edgar Martinez > 2012 Miguel Cabrera (and defense shouldn't be a consideration because Cabrera cost his team runs defensively). Offensively, 2012 Mike Trout > 1995 Edgar Martinez, though that's a much closer call (see RE24). Defensively, 2012 Mike Trout blows away Edgar Martinez or Miguel Cabrera even if they could somehow replicate their best day defensively for 162 games.

I have yet to see anybody offer a reason why the historical but ultimately fortuitous (since it so depends on the performance of others, as well as yourself) achievement of leading the Triple Crown categories changes any of the analysis of their "value" to their team. To me, it is enough that Miguel Cabrera's achievement will be noted in the Hall of Fame, and he will be long-remembered as one of only 16 (so far) players to win the Triple Crown. That's a terrific achievement, but it does NOT necessarily mean he was the "best" or "most valuable" player in his league this year.

quote:

"I've really enjoyed reading your posts in this thread. More importantly, I've learned a lot from your participation."

Thank you very much, PG. I'm flattered...but I have to say, I am positive I have learned far more from your participation here than you will ever learn from mine. That you (and to be fair - the many wise and experienced "old-timers around here, as well) continue to give so generously of your time here is one of the things that makes this place special and valuable to those of us right in the thick of HS Baseball.

quote:

"Who said you can't teach an old dog new tricks! Thanks!"

You're welcome! Thanks for providing me the opening to indulge a little Edgar-pushing!

Let me be the devil advocate for a moment. Given the recent unemployment number, is the economy on the mend or on the tank? If you were a campaign manager for Obama, you will say the cup is half full. If you were a campaign manager for Mitt Romney, it will be the cup is half empty. They can manipulate the stats to their own needs. If you were an ordinary folk like me, which would be the case, half full or half empty? There are thousands of PhD thesis on all kinds of statistics and economic indicators, so there you go. Tell me which is the true economic situation at present?

I agree with others who have suggested that an award for MVP is difficult to define no matter what analytical system you apply.

Why not; Rookie of the Year, Pitcher of the Year and Player (position) of the Year?

I don't buy into the WAR arguments. WAR is subjective. There are three seperate sets of standards for WAR. None of the three are accepted across the board by baseball. I accept there is some value to using WAR if a standard can be set and eliminate as much subjectivity as possible. Right now WAR is no less subjective than any debate between two people arguing over Trout versus Cabrera and vice versa.

While I recognize Trouts fielding and baserunning advantage over Cabrera, the MVP is usually thought of as a hitting award for a player on a winner. While there are newer Sabermetric stats of some value Caberea accomplished something that had not been done in forty-five years. These three stats are the hallowed stats of baseball. Second, Cabrera's team is in the post season. If this wasn't enough to turn me to Cabrera I would add in the sentimental value of Cabrera has been putting up numbers for years while flying under the radar screen while Trout should have many more opportunities to win.

Stats I look at to help decide the productivity of hitters is total runs and rbi's, OPS and Avg w/RISP. Cabrera's OPS is thirty-six higher than Trout. His Avg w/RISP is thirty-two points higher than Trout.

If you ask me 6 months ago why coaches and managers do not believe in stats, I would said they are nuts. Now I get to understand why they would like to see baseball players live in action before drafting them. They are so many factors going into it, what stats do we take? How many base steals are equal to a base hit? How many base hits are equal to a HR? How many strikeouts(pitchers) is equivalent to a base hit(hitter), to compare a pitcher to a hitter? How many passed balls is equivalent to a dropped fly-ball? How many HR is equivalent to a walk-off HR? How many sacrificed flies are equal to a base hit? How many steal first bases are equal to stealing a third base? And etc etc. By manipulating all these weighted statistics, you could get what you want. Winning a triple crown is not easy. If you are a HR king, you might be a power hitter and always swing big; then you tend to strikeout more since you always go for the big hit. To maintain a good BA, you got to be disciplined and know when and how to hit. If you could win the HR and BA in the same year, that itself is a big accomplishment. Adding to the factor you got to drive someone home when there is a person on base; do you swing big or go for a base hit when you have a person on base? Now if there is a pitcher that has 20-wins, an ERA of say 1.90 and did a perfect game and he is still playing in October, then he might beat out Cabrera simply because it is an amazing feat for the pitcher.

quote:

"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??

If we ever have a .400 hitter, that will be an amazing accomplishment. But the fact is, a .400 average doesn't = best hitter. Bonds has a career OBP of .444 (6th highest all time), but an average under .300. On the other hand, people are in awe over Jeter's season this year because he's hitting .320. He has a .362 OBP. It's pretty obvious that batting average isn't a telling stat in terms of value.

If a pitcher wins 30 games with a 3.00 ERA, why would he deserve to win the Cy Young if another pitcher went 10-20 with a 2.20 ERA? Pitchers are supposed to give up the least amount of runs possible.

Instead of looking at the whole picture, people are referencing stats that obviously don't even come close to accurately describing a player. "Oh, he's a 20 game winner while the other guy isn't.. he should win the Cy Young." 50 years ago people judged pitchers by wins. 50 years ago people judged hitters by the simple Triple Crown stats. Is it impossible for people to recognize that these aren't the best ways to judge players anymore..?

Ok, so according to some; W.A.R. is one of the many metrics can be used today to better measure a players worth? The old stats and process of "just seeing players play" are no longer relevant. Who could really accurately evaluate how Willie and Joe moved in the OF? How was it done before the "arbitrary, somewhat nebulous, defensive parameters where set (garbage in, garbage out).

I wonder if that thinking applies elsewhere? Like Spouses perhaps? Just where does my Bride of 29 years (today) fit versus "an average replacement wife?" Can I apply defensive metrics to value her range, her wifely skills? If so, versus exactly which measure of "average replacement value would be standard?" My determination, or perhaps Tom Brady (married to Giselle B.) or Roddick (married to Brooklyn D.)?

You new age guys; there must be an improved way to measure her true worth other than what I used 30 years ago, or my Dad used, or my granddad or his dad? Isn't that obvious?

I guess I'm too simple...
When the argument is somewhat close for these guys, I think the first Triple Crown in 45 YEARS is a decent swing vote.

Once again, people think that WAR is some statistic that was just made up out of thin air, without actually researching what it is.

I'm sorry that you will not open your mind up to something more advanced than 50 years ago, and are just resorting to irrelevant sarcasm to try to make your point.

The old stats measure one thing. HRs measure how many HRs were hit. RBIs measure RBIs. As soon as these statistics are broken down, valued and/or combined (WAR), they are just written off as some nerd in a basement making stuff up.

Again, I'm truly sorry that you will not even give it a chance, considering that advanced stats are simply the old-school stats put in perspective.

It's not rocket science or a fairy tale, so I'm not sure why people treat it that way.

quote:

Originally posted by 2013LHP:

quote:

"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??

If we ever have a .400 hitter, that will be an amazing accomplishment. But the fact is, a .400 average doesn't = best hitter. Bonds has a career OBP of .444 (6th highest all time), but an average under .300. On the other hand, people are in awe over Jeter's season this year because he's hitting .320. He has a .362 OBP. It's pretty obvious that batting average isn't a telling stat in terms of value.

If a pitcher wins 30 games with a 3.00 ERA, why would he deserve to win the Cy Young if another pitcher went 10-20 with a 2.20 ERA? Pitchers are supposed to give up the least amount of runs possible.

Instead of looking at the whole picture, people are referencing stats that obviously don't even come close to accurately describing a player. "Oh, he's a 20 game winner while the other guy isn't.. he should win the Cy Young." 50 years ago people judged pitchers by wins. 50 years ago people judged hitters by the simple Triple Crown stats. Is it impossible for people to recognize that these aren't the best ways to judge players anymore..?

There are many ways to interpret stats. A good example was Jim Merritt pitching for the Big Red Machine. He won 20 games with a 4.00 ERA. At that point in time 4.00 was considered way below average. But an argument could be in the concept of the makeup of the team, the bottom line is the team won when he pitched.

Going the other way with stats I remember once reading an article Matty Alou's league leading .342 was a very ineffective .300 hitter. On a Pirates team that scored a lot of runs he only scored 86 and drove in 27. The following year he hit .332 with only 59 runs and 52 rbi's.

What this all does is allow for debate. It adds to the fun and interest of baseball.

I do believe if someone hits .400 chances are he'll be an excellent hitter. He'll probably be a fast contact hitter than a masher. It probably won't be a player who strikes out 140 times. That said, it's possible someone who hits .280 with 50 homers and 140 rbi's may be helping his team more.

Just out of curiosity... Who has led the leagues in WAR over the past several seasons? How often has it been the MVP? That might tell us what the actual voters go by.

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
Just out of curiosity... Who has led the leagues in WAR over the past several seasons? How often has it been the MVP? That might tell us what the actual voters go by.

That's a good question as Verlander was the MVP last year, and he doesn't hit.
What was his WAR over the other considerations?

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
Just out of curiosity... Who has led the leagues in WAR over the past several seasons? How often has it been the MVP? That might tell us what the actual voters go by.

Who led may depend on which WAR criteria is used. There are three seperate calculations of WAR created by three different entities.