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.