Skip to main content

dad43- Glad to hear it Smile. The advanced analytics are certainly not easy to understand, as I am still trying to get a grasp of them myself. But, in time, I've seen that they do a very good job outlining every variable that can be quantified.

AntzDad- You're right. I really do believe Miggy is going to win MVP when its announced tomorrow, for that very reason.
It's funny to compare Yaz, Robinson and Mantle to Cabrera because those three were Gold Glove level fielders who saved runs on defense and Robinson and Mantle were known as great baserunners also. Cabrera would be better compared to a two time Triple Crown winner, Ted Williams who also didn't win the MVP at that time because he was known as an indifferent baserunner who was just competent at his defensive position and was a much better hitter than Cabrera.
quote:
Originally posted by J H:

Not looking to revamp an argument by any means, just looking to continue discussion.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.n...t-cabrera-for-m-v-p/


Thanks for posting that, Josh, I was a little "electioned" out and hadn't paid much attention to Nate Silver's blog for a while. Once again, he nailed it.

I weighed in on this debate heavily about a month ago, and for a variety of reasons did not get involved in the re-engagement of that debate over the past week or so. For one, I said most if not all of what I could say and don't want to repeat myself. After the vote is announced later today, I'll probably say something.

Until then, let me just say that I do not expect Mike Trout to win the MVP either. I was arguing for who *should* win, not predicting who *will* win. And it is important (to me, at least) to emphasize again that by arguing for Trout I do not wish to diminish the GREAT and HISTORIC season that Miguel Cabrera had. When he wins, he will be a deserving winner, and even the most ardent Trout-for-MVP supporter has to admit the BBWAA has made *far* worse choices for MVP - many times, in fact.

What is important about this debate, to me, is how modern statistics are perceived, and the extent to which traditional stats that by any measure do a poorer job of explaining value (or production, or performance, or some combination of all of the above - whatever you want to call it) are so entrenched in most people's thinking that they refuse to consider new ways of thinking about these things and even get defensive about the challenge to "the way things have always been." I think this is one of the things that I think frustrates Josh ( who loves baseball as much as anybody ever has and has a true thirst for understanding better all parts of the game) - why would anybody close their eyes to anything that might offer a window to better understanding of the game?

That's what newer, "sabermetric" stats do. They are not a replacement for "traditional" statistics, or for scouting opinion, or even individual opinion about the "intangibles" (the few things in this game we haven't figured out a way to accurately and reliably measure and quantify) - they are just additional tools in the toolbox, and fuller ones at that.

To me, that's what gets me about MVP debates, and one big reason why I am attracted to learning as much as I can about new and improved ways of measuring things in baseball. When measuring "value," I want those handing out the awards to be consistent, comprehensive, and sytematic in a way where tail doesn't way the dog such that the desired result determines the analysis. Histically, MVP voters don't measure up.

And, by definition, a person arguing that a player deserves the MVP just because he won the Triple Crown, and/or because he played on a playoff team, doesn't measure up to that standard either. Context matters: What did other players do? How does that player measure up as judged by the vast array of other (and better/more comprehensive) stats besides BA, RBI, and HR? And, and things that have nothing to do with a player's performance really don't matter. If Miguel Cabrera's performance is judged to be an MVP performance, that shouldn't change because Josh Hamilton couldn't hit more than 1 home run over his last 13 games and 54 PA. The opposite is true, too: if you wouldn't vote for Cabrera for MVP in the absence of his winning the Triple Crown, then you shouldn't vote for him just because he DID, because that really didn't have as much to do with his performance as it did with how others in a close race performed. The performance is the same, regardless of whether it resulted in a Triple Crown, and should be judged apart from that, IMO.

Likewise, whether a contending player's General Manager put together a team good enough to make the playoffs, or some other player in his team's line-up underperformed, or his team played in a tougher division and couldn't get into the playoffs (even when it won more teams than other teams that did) has nothing to do with judging individual players' value. I understand and respect that others feel these things are important, but I just can't see how they make a difference in what THAT INDIVIDUAL PLAYER did that season, or how it affects how valuable that performance was. Each player can only be judged by what he did to help his team, and how valuable that was; team performance is a different thing.

So, until after the vote is announced, signing off with one retort (pretort?):

quote:
TPM wrote:

"OK, I will bite, Cabrera leads Trout in all stats except for WAR. That alone should give him the award."


No, no, no. Here is a breakdown of the 2012 AL Top 10 in a whole series of categories.

Trout leads in FAR more than just WAR, and I would argue the split of who won what favors Trout, who lead the league in WAR, oWAR OPS+ (a better metric than OPS because it is park-adjusted), Runs, Stolen Bases, Power-Speed, and Win Probability Added. While not leading the league, he also led Cabrera in RE24 and OBP, and essentially tied him in Runs Created (a counting stat that Cabrera "won" 139-138, though Trout easily outdistanced him on a per-game basis and only trails because he wasn't called up until a month into the season). Oh, and obviously, dWAR (Trout was Top 10 with 2.1 dWAR, while Cabrera was a negative defensive performer as judged by just about any defensive metric).

Bottom line: there is a good case to be made that Mike Trout had a better year than Miguel Cabrera based on offensive performance alone. At the very least, it is even or Cabrera has no more than a very slight edge offensively. When you look at defense and baserunning - in other words, THE WHOLE PICTURE, it is easily Trout.
Last edited by EdgarFan
Sabermetrics, I believe, look at each AB and each game as being equal. In other words a game in April is exactly the same value as a game in a pennant race during the last week of the season.

I disagree with that some what, but understand the logic. However, that is like saying what Reggie Jackson did in October was no more important or valuable than what he did in April.

I would love to see Mike Trout named the MVP and I think it is deserving. However, stats can be torn apart and twisted around no matter how exact they might appear.

To me the MVP should simply be the guy who is most valuable. That does not mean the guy with the best stats was automatically the most valuable. The triple crown was a great accomplishment, but doesn't mean Cabrera was Most Valuable. The stats compiled by Mike Trout were great, but it doesn't mean he was most valuable. Best stats = Best stats but not necessarily Most Valuable Player.

Getting back to whether one thinks games near the end are more important than games played earlier. For those that feel the last 2 months are more important than the first two... They have a legitimate case for Cabrera being the MVP. Also, here is a stat that really boggled my mind. In the Tigers 86 wins, Cabrera hit .368 with 34 HRs and 95 RBI.

And how about this stat. Cabrera hit .420 with 2 outs and runners in scoring position with a 1.211 OPS. Trout hit .286 with 2 outs and runners in scoring position with a .782 OPS. No matter how one looks at stats, that shows some real "clutch" hitting by Cabrera.

Granted Mike is the better all around player. But the truth is, when the Angels needed him the most he tailed off a lot at the end and Cabrera turned it up a notch for the Tigers. That has to be considered "valuable".

Anyway, no matter how you look at it, there's always another way to look at it. Both deserve the MVP. Mike was the better player this year, Cabrera was the better hitter this year. I can see reasons why people would vote either way. I'm a Mike Trout fan!
quote:
Picture of Doc_K

Posted November 15, 2012 03:55 PM Hide Post
Interesting article thought some would enjoy reading it



Who should be the AL MVP

quote:
Anyway, no matter how you look at it, there's always another way to look at it. Both deserve the MVP. Mike was the better player this year, Cabrera was the better hitter this year. I can see reasons why people would vote either way. I'm a Mike Trout fan!


Very true, many ways to skin a cat.
quote:
Originally posted by PGStaff:
Sabermetrics, I believe, look at each AB and each game as being equal. In other words a game in April is exactly the same value as a game in a pennant race during the last week of the season.

I disagree with that some what, but understand the logic. However, that is like saying what Reggie Jackson did in October was no more important or valuable than what he did in April.

I would love to see Mike Trout named the MVP and I think it is deserving. However, stats can be torn apart and twisted around no matter how exact they might appear.

To me the MVP should simply be the guy who is most valuable. That does not mean the guy with the best stats was automatically the most valuable. The triple crown was a great accomplishment, but doesn't mean Cabrera was Most Valuable. The stats compiled by Mike Trout were great, but it doesn't mean he was most valuable. Best stats = Best stats but not necessarily Most Valuable Player.

Getting back to whether one thinks games near the end are more important than games played earlier. For those that feel the last 2 months are more important than the first two... They have a legitimate case for Cabrera being the MVP. Also, here is a stat that really boggled my mind. In the Tigers 86 wins, Cabrera hit .368 with 34 HRs and 95 RBI.

And how about this stat. Cabrera hit .420 with 2 outs and runners in scoring position with a 1.211 OPS. Trout hit .286 with 2 outs and runners in scoring position with a .782 OPS. No matter how one looks at stats, that shows some real "clutch" hitting by Cabrera.

Granted Mike is the better all around player. But the truth is, when the Angels needed him the most he tailed off a lot at the end and Cabrera turned it up a notch for the Tigers. That has to be considered "valuable".

Anyway, no matter how you look at it, there's always another way to look at it. Both deserve the MVP. Mike was the better player this year, Cabrera was the better hitter this year. I can see reasons why people would vote either way. I'm a Mike Trout fan!


I'm with you PG, I'm a big Mike Trout fan as well...I am fortunate to have the opportunity to see him play here in So Cal. However, I felt all along that Cabrera should receive the MVP based on your take above. They both had incredible season's, and it's too bad they couldn't give out a Co-MVP. But, as you stated, Cabrera finished the 2012 season strong, and Trout did not.

BTW, I'm far from a Giants fan...but I thought the writers were correct in naming Posey as NL MVP.
Great and happy to see both Posey and Cabrera win it. Both shown great raw stats, and without them, their teams would not be in the WS. Both had shown great leadership and were willing to play multiple positions to make their team a much better team. On the other hand, Mike trout will have his day, if he keep himself up at the highest performance for next couple of years, shows more restraints AB, don't get strike out as often and do whatever it takes to get his team to the WS.
Here are some observation from the sport writer talking about this subject. This is by no means to bash or support weighted stats. I just want to bring these out to educate ourselves what is behind some of the numbers:


Take Trout’s base running, for example. The “Moneyball” paradigm is sometimes associated with de-emphasizing the value of the stolen base. In large part, this is because being caught stealing hurts a team about twice as much as a successful stolen base attempt helps it. Thus, a player who steals 20 bases, but who was caught stealing 10 times, provides little added benefit to his club.

comment ==> weighted stat - one fails stolen base is equal to 1 successful stolen base


One of these systems, Ultimate Zone Rating, estimates that Trout saved the Angels 11 runs with his defense in the outfield. Cabrera, a clumsy defender at third base who is more naturally suited to play first base, cost the Tigers 10 runs with his.

comment --> Weighted stat - translating another raw stat into "effective" runs

Between his defense and his base running, therefore, Trout was about 35 runs more valuable to the Angels than Cabrera was to the Tigers. By contrast, the 14 additional home runs that Cabrera hit (44 against Trout’s 30) were worth about 22 extra runs for the Tigers, based on measures that convert players’ contributions to a common scale.

comment ==> another weighted stat - translating 14 HR into 22 extra runs via some "common scale"


Didn’t Cabrera also hit for a higher batting average? Yes, but barely: he hit .330 against Trout’s .326. And Trout had the slight edge in on-base percentage, .399 to .393.

comment ---> Good raw stat


Although there are statistical formulas to adjust for these “park effects,” it is now also possible to measure the impact of ballpark dimensions through a visual inspection of the data.

comment ===> visual inspection of data translating into weighted stat?

Of the 159 home runs hit at Comerica Park this season, for example, about 20 or 25 were not hit deep enough to leave the field at Angel Stadium, according to ESPN’s Home Run Tracker. Another 15 or 20 would have been borderline cases.

comment ===> Did they take into trajectory of the HR ball, the spin of the ball, the wind speed, the direction of the wind, the temperature of the air, the humidity of the air, and the gravitation force at the stadium. This would definitely influence to flight path and how long it will stay in the air.


If all these interpretation and translating of weighted stat into a common scale for comparison are 100% correct, for example translating passed balls into how many dropped fly-balls, HR into effective runs, defensive catches into negative run-score, I would argue that one can create a computerized model that can predict all the past mlb baseball games by playing the effective runs of one team versus another team, the defensive converted to runs stat of one versus the other team and come out with a predicted winner of s game. Time is just another variable in the model. If we can predict the past outcome of baseball games, then we can extend forward to prediction for future games. Wouldn't it be nice we can say that for 80% confidence level, the Giants with this starting line playing at home will beat the Tigers by 8-6 on May 14th at the night game by the bay with temperature at 55 degree and wind speed of 20 knots?

If a model could not predict, it is an absolutely useless model. It's just a way to look at the model and see how pretty the model is. And how pretty is in the eye of the be-holder. So beware if someone say this is a 100% proven model but the only weakness is that it could not predict.
quote:
Wouldn't it be nice we can say that for 80% confidence level, the Giants with this starting line playing at home will beat the Tigers by 8-6 on May 14th at the night game by the bay with temperature at 55 degree and wind speed of 20 knots?


Typo error:
Wouldn't it be nice we can say that for 80% confidence level, the Giants with this starting line playing at home will beat the Tigers by 8-6 on May 14th, 2013, at the night game by the bay with temperature at 55 degree and wind speed of 20 knots blowing South-South-West?
quote:
Originally posted by trojan-skipper:
the writers will probably take the easy path and give Trout the rookie of the year and Cabrera the MVP...


I had to skim back all the way to page 2, from early October, to find the thought that matched mine. 11 pages and several links worth of statistical analysis, philosophical definitions of "most valuable", historical data, etc., etc...

Looking at the final voting margin, I think it really came down to this.
I thought the votes will be close but......

"DETROIT -- After all the debate, all the rhetoric, all the statistical and historical analysis, it wasn't close. Miguel Cabrera was as surprised by that as anybody, even if his manager was not.

The American League Most Valuable Player Award is staying in Detroit. Along the way, however, it's probably taking a side trip through Venezuela.

In the long-anticipated battle of historic seasons, Cabrera put an exclamation point on his 2012 Triple Crown campaign on Thursday with the AL MVP, beating out Angels rookie sensation Mike Trout in voting cast by the Baseball Writers' Association of America.

Cabrera received 22 of 28 first-place votes, with Trout receiving the other six. Cabrera finished with 362 points. Trout had 281, with the total points distributed on a 14-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 basis." mlb.com
quote:
Originally posted by Three Bagger:
It's funny to compare Yaz, Robinson and Mantle to Cabrera because those three were Gold Glove level fielders who saved runs on defense and Robinson and Mantle were known as great baserunners also. Cabrera would be better compared to a two time Triple Crown winner, Ted Williams who also didn't win the MVP at that time because he was known as an indifferent baserunner who was just competent at his defensive position and was a much better hitter than Cabrera.


WRONG and on so many levels
bball123- Interesting thoughts. Can't say I disagree. Although I would venture to assume that you agree with the fact that retrospective modeling can lead to future predictions, at least to the best of our capabilities at this time. If Nate Silver can predict the election, then baseball should be able to predict future results fairly accurately. The question then becomes...is it easier to model a prediction based on Silver's political calculations? Does baseball present a tougher task due to more/different variables? Or, is baseball being looked at incorrectly altogether?

I'm not as bothered by Cabrera's victory as I am by Trout's one third place vote, or the inclusion of Raul Ibanez receiving a 10th place vote (What????). Those that vote need to view this award seriously. 28 people is too small a sample size as it is, baseball doesn't need individuals making decisions with no validity behind them.

quote:
Originally posted by Bear:

quote:
Originally posted by Three Bagger:
It's funny to compare Yaz, Robinson and Mantle to Cabrera because those three were Gold Glove level fielders who saved runs on defense and Robinson and Mantle were known as great baserunners also. Cabrera would be better compared to a two time Triple Crown winner, Ted Williams who also didn't win the MVP at that time because he was known as an indifferent baserunner who was just competent at his defensive position and was a much better hitter than Cabrera.



WRONG and on so many levels


Bear- How so?
Last edited by J H
quote:
bball123 posted....Cabrera received 22 of 28 first-place votes, with Trout receiving the other six. Cabrera finished with 362 points. Trout had 281, with the total points distributed on a 14-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 basis." mlb.com


THis was very surprising to me. I did not expect this outcome. I expected it to be much, much closer.
Our poll results (at this time) represent 35% Trout, 64% Cabrera and 1% other. The Baseball Writers of America are clearly looking at different data points even though our informal poll has a different format. I'd really like to know what data point the BWA put their emphasis on when they vote rather than take the easy way with Trout as rookie of the year and Cabrera MVP as trojan-skipper and cabbagedad suggest.

And I agree with PGStaff.....I thought Trout would get the Gold Glove. For the 15+ games I watched him play he was outstanding. Again, what are these BWA thinking. I'd really like to know.
I heard this quote from a listener this morning on the radio, which sums up my thoughts on the matter, "If you take Mike Trout off of the Angels, they go from being third in the AL West to being third in the AL West. If you take Miguel Cabrera off of the Tigers, they do not make the playoffs." He then went on to say "put that in your pocket protector and smoke it", bit I do not endorse that comment.
quote:
Originally posted by HVbaseballDAD:
I heard this quote from a listener this morning on the radio, which sums up my thoughts on the matter, "If you take Mike Trout off of the Angels, they go from being third in the AL West to being third in the AL West. If you take Miguel Cabrera off of the Tigers, they do not make the playoffs." He then went on to say "put that in your pocket protector and smoke it", bit I do not endorse that comment.


quote:
Originally posted by HVbaseballDAD:
I heard this quote from a listener this morning on the radio, which sums up my thoughts on the matter, "If you take Mike Trout off of the Angels, they go from being third in the AL West to being third in the AL West. If you take Miguel Cabrera off of the Tigers, they do not make the playoffs." ...


HVdad, I don't think that one is quite so black-and-white...

The Tigers played in a weaker division. They won that division (the only way they make playoffs), largely, because the only other team competing collapsed coming down the stretch. The Angels had a better record than the Tigers despite playing in a tougher division. Put the Tigers' 88-74 record in the West and they finish fourth.

I'd say both players were equally valuable in putting their respective teams in a position to compete for a playoff spot.
quote:
bball123- Interesting thoughts. Can't say I disagree. Although I would venture to assume that you agree with the fact that retrospective modeling can lead to future predictions, at least to the best of our capabilities at this time. If Nate Silver can predict the election, then baseball should be able to predict future results fairly accurately. The question then becomes...is it easier to model a prediction based on Silver's political calculations? Does baseball present a tougher task due to more/different variables? Or, is baseball being looked at incorrectly altogether?

I'm not as bothered by Cabrera's victory as I am by Trout's one third place vote, or the inclusion of Raul Ibanez receiving a 10th place vote (What????). Those that vote need to view this award seriously. 28 people is too small a sample size as it is, baseball doesn't need individuals making decisions with no validity behind them.


In my opinion, baseball is the hardest to predict (the outcome of a game) among the three major sports of football, basketball and baseball. For example, if I have the Colts playing the Raiders now, we have high confidence knowing what the outcome is going to be. If you go to Las Vegas, they will have the odds where you can bet your real money. When friends ask me who is going to win in a baseball game, I would say, it's baseball - anything can happen, it depends who will show up in a game. For example, Posey, it batted poorly overall in the playoff, 1 for over 20 at bats (need to verify), until he hit the most critical home-run in the most critical game. His batting average is not 1 for 20, for sure but... The variation and deviation is so great from the average, how could we predict? And this is only for 1 player. You have 9 guys on the field, and 16 guys on the bench. What is the permutation and combination of all the factors. Then you have the same for the opponent, permutation and combination, and you have to match them up 1 on 1 (batter vs pitcher and fielders) for all different different situations. We need an enormous sample size in order to fit a model into this model with huge among of degree of freedom. I believe it is still possible to model but to a lesser degree of accuracy. After all, we could model hurricane, we could model earthquakes to some degree of accuracy. For the political election, you have only two, Obama and Romney. You have millions of people you can take sample from to improve the model's accuracy. Even then, the statisticians on the Romney's camp messed up big time; their computer software, ORCA, did not work at election day. They spent some much money on it and it did not work on election day, go figure.
quote:
Posted November 16, 2012 07:36 AM Hide Post

quote:
bball123 posted....Cabrera received 22 of 28 first-place votes, with Trout receiving the other six. Cabrera finished with 362 points. Trout had 281, with the total points distributed on a 14-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 basis." mlb.com



THis was very surprising to me. I did not expect this outcome. I expected it to be much, much closer.
Our poll results (at this time) represent 35% Trout, 64% Cabrera and 1% other. The Baseball Writers of America are clearly looking at different data points even though our informal poll has a different format. I'd really like to know what data point the BWA put their emphasis on when they vote rather than take the easy way with Trout as rookie of the year and Cabrera MVP as trojan-skipper and cabbagedad suggest.


I was totally surprised too. I had to read the outcome multiple times to make sure I was not reading it incorrectly. My prediction was something like 51-49% split for 1st place vote.
quote:
JH Said....This is the exact reason why I get frustrated when having these kinds of discussions: http://www.freep.com/article/2...d?odyssey=nav%7Chead
JH - Give it time. Mitch Albom is a good writer, but he is not a baseball expert. As more older BWAs are replaced with new BWAs I think you'll see the kind of stats you are advocating get their day in court. You of all people should know that nothing changes quickly in this game.
Last edited by fenwaysouth
quote:
quote:
JH Said....This is the exact reason why I get frustrated when having these kinds of discussions: http://www.freep.com/article/2...d?odyssey=nav%7Chead

JH - Give it time. Mitch Albom is a good writer, but he is not a baseball expert. As more older BWAs are replaced with new BWAs I think you'll see the kind of stats you are advocating get their day in court. You of all people should know that nothing changes quickly in this game.


Here is a suggestion, not to be critical of anything or discredit anything, build and improve the model accuracy and state all the assumption and limitation and use KISS whenever possible. Many years ago, someone predicted a huge hurricane, the town evacuated, then nothing came, just huge downpour. Next time, same prediction, huge hurricane, no one move, and the huge hurricane did come.
Cabrera is being criticized for being average in the field. Okay, but remember he went from first to third without complaining so that Fielder could play his only position. Some ego maniacs would not have done that.
Secondly, while defense is important, great hitters have a bigger impact on the game.Hitters like Cabrera cause teams to strategize more.The only defender that might cause an offense to change its strategy is a catcher that can throw like Molina.While Trout is a great fielder, teams do not change their plans because of him.
P.S I am not including pitchers in above comments.
quote:
Originally posted by jaggerz:
"Cabrera is being criticized for being average in the field. Okay, but remember he went from first to third without complaining so that Fielder could play his only position. Some ego maniacs would not have done that."


I already addressed this argument in this thread, here. Cabrera's move to 3B was not unselfish. It was an attempt to avoid the position where he most belongs (DH), and the historical stigma that move would have on his legacy. One could make a more cogent argument that that was selfish rather than unselfish, since they already had a better 3B (Inge, a legitimately good defensive 3B). You can argue that absorbing Cabrera's awful defense at 3B instead of Inge's [viewed prospectively, probably a difference of 20-30 runs defensively; remember, we're talking about BEFORE this season - you can't use Cabrera's -4 defensive runs performance this year to justify that decision retrospectively, because he had been a negative defender at the much easier position of 1B (-3, -5) the previous two years, and was positively awful when he last played 3B (-10, -19, -10 from 2006-2008)] would be worth it in order to have Delmon Young's offense over Brandon Inge's, but that's a pretty tricky and dicey trade-off, especially since Inge had been a league-average-ish .247/.321/.397 hitter (to go with +10 defender at 3B) as recently as 2010, and Delmon Young was coming off a .268/.302/.393 season in 2011. Not a decision I would have called good or even justifiable at the time - and the fact that, to some degree, "it worked" does not change that. Decisions based on bad process that nevertheless lead to good results are still bad decisions.

And I think it goes without saying that you are wrong to call Cabrera "average in the field." He is terrible. He had been one of the worst full-time defenders in baseball at any position over the preceding six years (especially when he played 3B), and I will bet $50 with anyone who thinks his relatively better -4 performance in 2012 is repeatable. He will regress, and regress HARD and FAST. His desire to move to 3B was far more selfish than unselfish, and will hurt his team in the long run.

And while I'm at it, this whole "Miguel Cabrera is a LEADER" stuff that's also being trotted out as an intangible (those always get trotted out when the stats don't support your guy)? Am I the only one who remembers Cabrera being arrested for slapping his wife around after coming home at 6 AM and being dragged down to the police station where he his blood alcohol was tested at over three times the legal limit HOURS AFTER *THAT*? All at a time when the Tigers were trying to close out a division crown, with a one-game lead over Minnesota with two games left to play? THAT'S your leader? I think I'd take the rookie over him in my clubhouse any day.

quote:
"Secondly, while defense is important, great hitters have a bigger impact on the game.Hitters like Cabrera cause teams to strategize more.The only defender that might cause an offense to change its strategy is a catcher that can throw like Molina.While Trout is a great fielder, teams do not change their plans because of him.


First, though you are right in saying that offensive has a bigger impact on the game than defense does, that is already built into modern comprehensive statistical models, ALL of which still show that Trout was more valuable by a wide margin. Second, it is wrong to use a standard of requiring a defender to "change offensive strategy" before giving any credit for defensive value (or demerit for lack of defensive value). Individual defense may have less of an impact on a game than individual offense, but runs saved are just as important as runs produced, and we have pretty accurate ways of measuring both these days. Pretending otherwise and ignoring defense entirely in any discussion of "value" will inevitably lead to making seriously flawed judgments.
There's no question for those who understand the stats that Trout was clearly the more valuable player. However, historically that isn't how the MVP has been decided. So there is a case for selecting Cabrera.

Let's face it, a lot of these awards are popularity contests and rewards for years of accomplishment rather than just the past season.

Look at gold gloves. Derek Jeter? Give me a break. Great hitter, mediocre shortstop wins the gold glove because he's a great player and playing in New York.

In the end, no big deal. If Trout continues in this vein he'll win a handful of MVPs.

As far as the "don't change their plans" bit you might want to check with AL managers about that. My guess is that he affected every one of their "plans" much like Rickey Henderson used to. You can't pitch around speed.
Last edited by CADad
jaggerz,

I must point out some things that are totally wrong with your statements.

First, Cabrera is not even close to being average in the field, not at first base and certainly not at third base where he is one of the worst defensive ML players. This is supported by both new and old defensive metrics as well as by anyone's eyes who watched him on TV.

Using the fact that the Tigers moved him to third as an argument in his favor concerning value is a joke, because if he was concerned about his value to the Tigers, he would have volunteered to DH. Now that is a position he can REALLY play! Big Grin

While I of course agree that great hitters have a big impact on the game, your argument that great hitters like Cabrera (I guess Trout is NOT a great hitter?) cause teams to stratagize more are bunk. First, defensive positioning is used for ALL opposing hitters, not just the great ones. Much of the strategy of pitching to Cabrera probably involves statements like " get him to hit it on the ground, that's a sure double play" and "pitch around him, he will extend his hitting zone as he doesn't walk as much as many power hitters". Now, I acknowledge that Cabrera is a good bad ball hitter and that is why he doesn't walk 100 times a season despite being a great power hitter. He is flat out a great hitter. But truthfully, hitters like Trout who there is not a vast hitting data bank on, who can bunt, who can cause chaos on the basepaths and who every infielder must cheat slightly in on due to his incredible speed as well as every outfielder must race to cut off any ball even slightly in the gap and come up throwing all the time due to respect for Trout's aggressiveness once he gets past first base are the ones teams change their plans for.

Once again a Cabrera defender says let's just ignore fielding, baserunning, overall speed, like they play little or no part in the game. Then we can point to maybe, just maybe a slight offensive edge of Cabrera's and he will seem more valuable.

I feel as the old school writers are replaced by people who "get" that times, they are achangin, are replaced, the Sabermetric argument will find it's proper place in valuating players. As for people still locked on the Holy Grail of the RBI, they will fall farther behind every year.

Cabrera is far from the worst MVP--that is another discussion--and I have no problem with him winning it. But I am going to argue my point when I disagree and that is why this has been a good passionate debate. This debate is likely to get more heated as more and more people start realizing you have to go deeper than that one guy has 125 RBI's and one guy has 85, so the guy with 125 is always more valuable.
Last edited by Three Bagger
quote:
And while I'm at it, this whole "Miguel Cabrera is a LEADER" stuff that's also being trotted out as an intangible (those always get trotted out when the stats don't support your guy)? Am I the only one who remembers Cabrera being arrested for slapping his wife around after coming home at 6 AM and being dragged down to the police station where he his blood alcohol was tested at over three times the legal limit HOURS AFTER *THAT*? All at a time when the Tigers were trying to close out a division crown, with a one-game lead over Minnesota with two games left to play? THAT'S your leader? I think I'd take the rookie over him
in my clubhouse any day.


Cheap shot against a guy that has made huge strides in turning his life around.His popularity with his teammates speaks volumes and they are around him quite a bit more than you.

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×