AL MVP

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

And Cabrera was with his team the whole season, made the Playoffs, and in the Playoffs beat the team who won the division LA was in.

A 5 game series does not overrule a 162 game season, a 162 game season where the Angels had a better record than the Tigers. It's not like this is very subjective. Everything in baseball can be summed up in statistics and every stat that represents value would say Trout was more valuable to his team than Miguel Cabrera.

 

[Irish Insanity]

A 5 game series does not overrule a 162 game season, a 162 game season where the Angels had a better record than the Tigers. It's not like this is very subjective. Everything in baseball can be summed up in statistics and every stat that represents value would say Trout was more valuable to his team than Miguel Cabrera.

Trout wasn't even on the team for the full 162 game season. And yes a better record, by one game? The only stat that counts is the vote. 22 of 28 first place votes. That is 78.5% of the first place votes. Cabrera had a better average, more rbi's, more home runs..........but I guess even the few states I listed don't represent value. lol

Like I stated in my first post, I have a dog in the fight, so my opinion is that of a 'homer.' While watching one of the morning sports shows earlier, they hit it on the head for me. The majority of the Cabrera supporters did so without downplaying the season Trout had, while on the other hand, the majority of the Trout supporters had to downplay the season Cabrera had to do so.

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

Trout wasn't even on the team for the full 162 game season. And yes a better record, by one game? The only stat that counts is the vote. 22 of 28 first place votes. That is 78.5% of the first place votes. Cabrera had a better average, more rbi's, more home runs..........but I guess even the few states I listed don't represent value. lol

Like I stated in my first post, I have a dog in the fight, so my opinion is that of a 'homer.' While watching one of the morning sports shows earlier, they hit it on the head for me. The majority of the Cabrera supporters did so without downplaying the season Trout had, while on the other hand, the majority of the Trout supporters had to downplay the season Cabrera had to do so.

Nobody is arguing that Cabrera, in fact, won the award. The discussion has been about whether the writers evaluation in casting their votes was correct.

And I don't think anyone is downplaying the year either guy had. Cabrera had a great year, ironically not the best of his career. The only arguments that can be viewed as downplaying Cabrera's year are that BA is a tiny snapshot of a guys year and other stats better evaluate the year and that it is laughable to compare players based on RBIs. Cabrera had a fantastic year, maybe the best year for a HITTER. What "Trout people" are pushing is that the award is for the Most Valuable Player and that in the discussion of who was a better player this year it's not even close.

 

[notredomer23]

I am not a big baseball guy and admittedly a causal Yankee fan, but just glancing at it from a distance, how can't you give the first triple crown winner in 45 years the award?

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

I am not a big baseball guy and admittedly a causal Yankee fan, but just glancing at it from a distance, how can't you give the first triple crown winner in 45 years the award?

Two answers to this:

1. The Triple Crown isn't that meaningful if you break it down.

2. So a Triple Crown hasn't happened in 45 years but a season like Trout's has never happened. I go with Trout

 

[ACamp1900]

because there is more to being the MVP than just offense and specific offensive numbers.

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

because there should be more to being the MVP than just offense and specific offensive numbers.

FIFY because apparently the baseball writers don't think there is. Unless you include making the playoffs

 

[Irish Insanity]

Nobody is arguing that Cabrera, in fact, won the award. The discussion has been about whether the writers evaluation in casting their votes was correct.

And I don't think anyone is downplaying the year either guy had. Cabrera had a great year, ironically not the best of his career. The only arguments that can be viewed as downplaying Cabrera's year are that BA is a tiny snapshot of a guys year and other stats better evaluate the year and that it is laughable to compare players based on RBIs. Cabrera had a fantastic year, maybe the best year for a HITTER. What "Trout people" are pushing is that the award is for the Most Valuable Player and that in the discussion of who was a better player this year it's not even close.

Neither was I. I was speaking to the quote above my response where stats were referrenced. And their votes are their opinions, not sure you can exactly disprove their opinions. As far as your second paragraph, I was referring specifically to a morning sports show I was watching where that was an actual discussion. As stated previous, and now again, I have a dog in the fight so my responses were definitely biased. Everyone is entiteled to their opinion, none of which will change who won.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

If Josh Hamilton hits 2 more home runs, then apparently that makes Mike Trout's season better than Miguel Cabrera. Makes sense. That's why meaningless milestones in baseball ruined this MVP season.

 

[scUM Hater]

Two answers to this:

1. The Triple Crown isn't that meaningful if you break it down.

2. So a Triple Crown hasn't happened in 45 years but a season like Trout's has never happened. I go with Trout

The triple crown isn't meaningful? Wow, you have no argument.. Move on, you are done on this topic.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

The triple crown isn't meaningful? Wow, you have no argument.. Move on, you are done on this topic.

It's not. RBI is a worthless stat that just depends on who is in front of a player, and it doesn't show any value. Here's a question: If Josh Hamilton hits 2 more home runs: Is Miguel Cabrera less valuable or is Mike Trout more valuable? Cabrera only won because he hit an insignificant milestone that only mattered before real stats like WAR, OBP, slugging, and BABIP were popularized.

 

[scUM Hater]

I believe being a B.A. hitter and a more than servicable fielder that leads his team to wins and gets big hits with batters on base deserves to get MVP. I will be the first to admit that I didn't get to see Trout play a lot. I saw highlights on sportscenter that showed nice plays. If that is what some are looking for in a MVP than yeah, Trout may have gotten more first place votes. Here's the deal, I am a Tigers fan, I whole heartedly believe Cabrera deserved the award over Trout. You can throw new numbers that people come up with every year. I am sure Cabrera could have some numbers that would be of historic proportions if you wanted to dig deep enough. Such as hwrispwtoiilttsi:

Hits
With
Runners
In
Scoring
Position
With
Two
Out
In
Innings
Later
Than
The
Seventh
Inning

Lets just agree to disagree.

Go Irish.

 

[NDinMich]

It's not. RBI is a worthless stat that just depends on who is in front of a player, and it doesn't show any value. Here's a question: If Josh Hamilton hits 2 more home runs: Is Miguel Cabrera less valuable or is Mike Trout more valuable? Cabrera only won because he hit an insignificant milestone that only mattered before real stats like WAR, OBP, slugging, and BABIP were popularized.

RBI = worthless...um hmm, don't think you're going to be selling many people on that.

Anywho, this is interesting:
Miguel Cabrera is a great baseball player. Mike Trout is a great baseball player. Shockingly, those statements are not mutually exclusive. - MLB News | FOX Sports on MSN

this one too (from a Detroit paper but he makes a valid point):
Major-leaguers know Tigers' Miguel Cabrera is the deserved MVP | The Detroit News | detroitnews.com

But what made this vote, and this sadly polarized discussion, less of an argument and more of a validation, was last week's release of the Players Choice Awards. Cabrera's big-league peers named him the best player in either league in 2012. They decided, also, he was the American League's Outstanding Player for 2012.

And if those prizes didn't make clear what his counterparts thought of his skills, he also won the Sporting News 2012 Player of the Year in a vote of big-leaguers. They gave him 108 points to 71 for Trout, who was runner-up.



From The Detroit News: Major-leaguers know Tigers' Miguel Cabrera is the deserved MVP | The Detroit News | detroitnews.com

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

RBI = worthless...um hmm, don't think you're going to be selling many people on that.

Anywho, this is interesting:
Miguel Cabrera is a great baseball player. Mike Trout is a great baseball player. Shockingly, those statements are not mutually exclusive. - MLB News | FOX Sports on MSN

this one too (from a Detroit paper but he makes a valid point):
Major-leaguers know Tigers' Miguel Cabrera is the deserved MVP | The Detroit News | detroitnews.com

RBI is a stat that is based on where you bat in a lineup and who is in front of you. It's luck. Most baseball minds realize that it shouldn't hold much weight in baseball and the only reason why it's popular is because it was easy to fit into box scores in 1908. RBI is a stat based on luck and no one should take it serious. The Triple Crown only has 1 stat that is really important and that's home runs. Batting average is minor compared to OBP, which Trout led over Cabrera I believe. The Triple Crown is an arbitrary collection of stats and if there was a Triple Crown it should be OBP, slugging or BABIP, and home runs.

 

[Crimson streak]

RBI is a stat that is based on where you bat in a lineup and who is in front of you. It's luck. Most baseball minds realize that it shouldn't hold much weight in baseball and the only reason why it's popular is because it was easy to fit into box scores in 1908. RBI is a stat based on luck and no one should take it serious. The Triple Crown only has 1 stat that is really important and that's home runs. Batting average is minor compared to OBP, which Trout led over Cabrera I believe. The Triple Crown is an arbitrary collection of stats and if there was a Triple Crown it should be OBP, slugging or BABIP, and home runs.

Isn't the objective of the game to drive in the runners on base? Cabrera deserved the award triple crown or not. Best hitter in the game and this is coming from an Indians fan who hates the tigers

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Isn't the objective of the game to drive in the runners on base? Cabrera deserved the award triple crown or not. Best hitter in the game and this is coming from an Indians fan who hates the tigers

The objective of the game is to get on base. Baseball is different from other sports because, besides home runs, two people need to be involved to score. The credit goes to the person who got themselves into position more than the person who hit them in. A base hit is a base hit no matter what. If a runner is on base, great. If not, it's literally the ball going to the same place it would if someone was on base.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Title2014 is killing this thread. This is thinking's-man-baseball vs. neanderthals right now.

Oh yeah, I forgot. Nate Silver is an idiot and doesn't know anything about baseball or elections.

I don't get how so many people can be so proudly anti-information.

 

[Irish Insanity]

Mike Trout had the best partial season ever. Most Valuable Partial season

 

[Irish Insanity]

The objective of the game is to get on base. Baseball is different from other sports because, besides home runs, two people need to be involved to score. The credit goes to the person who got themselves into position more than the person who hit them in. A base hit is a base hit no matter what. If a runner is on base, great. If not, it's literally the ball going to the same place it would if someone was on base.

Seems to me equality of credit would make more sense. If the person ahead of them wasn't on base, they wouldn't have an opportunity to hit them in. Also if they didn't get a hit, the person who was on base (not always from a hit as it could have been a walk, balk, hbp, or a hit) wouldn't be able to score either. That would be the team aspect of the sport.

 

[Irish Insanity]

Trout isn't my guy, he just had the better year. He had a better WAR like was mentioned, but he also was a way better fielder, a better base runner, better OBP, significantly better BABIP, and was even more clutch. Trout was just better in 2012. He was on the team with the better record and if he played all year they would have easily been a playoff team.

Even more clutch? In the 7th ining and on Cabrera's numbers actually increased and helped his team where as Trout's actually dropped. Seems that to me would make Cabrera more clutch. For the entire season from the 7th inning and later Mike Trout batted .260 and Miguel Cabrera batted. 337. There are area's where Trout may have been better, but clutch isn't one of them..

It's not. RBI is a worthless stat that just depends on who is in front of a player, and it doesn't show any value. Here's a question: If Josh Hamilton hits 2 more home runs: Is Miguel Cabrera less valuable or is Mike Trout more valuable? Cabrera only won because he hit an insignificant milestone that only mattered before real stats like WAR, OBP, slugging, and BABIP were popularized.

RBI obviously isn't a worthless stat as it takes scoring runs to win a game.

Cabrera led in OPS, Slugging, Avg, RBI, HR, Hits, 2B, he struck out 15.75% compared to Trouts 24.86%

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

Even more clutch? In the 7th ining and on Cabrera's numbers actually increased and helped his team where as Trout's actually dropped. Seems that to me would make Cabrera more clutch. For the entire season from the 7th inning and later Mike Trout batted .260 and Miguel Cabrera batted. 337. There are area's where Trout may have been better, but clutch isn't one of them..




RBI obviously isn't a worthless stat as it takes scoring runs to win a game.

Cabrera led in OPS, Slugging, Avg, RBI, HR, Hits, 2B, he struck out 15.75% compared to Trouts 24.86%

Runs count the same no matter when they are scored. It is a fallacy to think that it is more meaningful to get hits and runs late in the game than in the beginning of the game, to say nothing of the fallacy of a "clutch" player.

RBIs are a worthless measure, and you admit as much. Scoring runs is important which is why the stat Runs is more important. Baseball is about being on base and scoring. All RBIs indicate is that Cabrera had a ton of at-bats with runners on. Those runners deserve as much or more credit for the run that is scored.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Even more clutch? In the 7th ining and on Cabrera's numbers actually increased and helped his team where as Trout's actually dropped. Seems that to me would make Cabrera more clutch. For the entire season from the 7th inning and later Mike Trout batted .260 and Miguel Cabrera batted. 337. There are area's where Trout may have been better, but clutch isn't one of them..




RBI obviously isn't a worthless stat as it takes scoring runs to win a game.

Cabrera led in OPS, Slugging, Avg, RBI, HR, Hits, 2B, he struck out 15.75% compared to Trouts 24.86%

Clutch meaning that his wins probability averaged divided by player's average leverage index minus wins probability average divided by leverage index is higher. Trout had a -0.19 clutch index while Cabrera had a -1.45 clutch index. Cabrera played worse than usual in the clutch.

RBI is worthless because it doesn't tell anybody anything about a player and it doesn't help make a prediction on how a player or team will perform in the future. Obviously Cabrera had a great year, but Trout was pretty clearly better. While Cabrera had a better slugging%, K/BB, HRs, wOBA, and wRAA, Trout had the better OBP, WAR, Speed, BABIP, WPA, and a way better UZR. Cabrera had a good enough year to win the MVP usually, but Trout had one of the best years baseball has seen in a long time and Trout got shafted.