I need to vent about this whole Cabrera-Trout argument

[Can_of_corn]

And boy, Prince Fielder has sure made a case for lineup protection again, hasn't he.

Yea, Braun really suffered without him.

[luismatos4prez]

Also, MVP also is about winning and the Tigers went to the World Series while the Angels, despite their huge payroll, missed the playoffs. The award is not "best hitter" it's Most Valuable and that leads people to value players on playoff teams over the others.

I hate that argument, but if it was a valid argument, then the Angels still won more games than the Tigers. They just happened to play in a division with Texas and Oakland. Texas, Oakland, Anaheim, New York, Tampa, and Baltimore all would have won the AL Central. The Tigers just happened to be in the worst division in the AL. Cabrera gets rewarded for that?

The other awful argument I've seen is that he "carried his team". That argument is extremely disrespectful to two of the best players in baseball: Justin Verlander and Prince Fielder. Scherzer, Jackson, Avila, etc. were all great for them as well. It's a team game.

[russ snyder]

If Cabrera had hit .325 while leading the league in HRs and RBIs then Trout would've won it.

Are RBIs more valuable than runs scored? They're two sides of the same stat. It's arbitrary that everyone cares about Cabrera's record and no one cares about Trout's runs record (in a month less). It's especially strange seeing as Trout could never lead the league in RBIs batting leadoff. When you choose to value RBIs over runs scored, you're arbitrarily stacking the deck in favor of the guy that hits lower in the lineup, even though a #3 isn't inherently worth more than a #1.

And to me, it's much more impressive that a defensive whiz and Henderson-esque baserunner had more home runs and a higher average than Henderson ever did in a season.

I guess we'll never know, but I agree that Trout would have had a better shot if Cabrera did not win the batting title.

I don't think that everyone values Cabrera's RBI's over Trouts runs scored. However, I believe that the writers probably did. I agree that that they are definitely the two sides of the same stat. It's part of what makes baseball a team game IMO. I do not think that the deck is always going to be stacked against a leadoff hitter. ( Rickey Henderson won in 1990.) Despite Trout's tremendous production, he was not going to beat out a guy who won the Triple Crown.

That is very impressive. Trout is a great player who barring injury will most likely win at least one MVP in the next five years. ( IMHO)

[Frobby]

I don't think that everyone values Cabrera's RBI's over Trouts runs scored. However, I believe that the writers probably did.

The RBI differential between Cabrera and Trout was much bigger than the run differential between Trout and Cabrera. So, if traditional stats are what you want to look at, Cabrera has a good case even if you value RBI and runs equally.

[russ snyder]

The RBI differential between Cabrera and Trout was much bigger than the run differential between Trout and Cabrera. So, if traditional stats are what you want to look at, Cabrera has a good case even if you value RBI and runs equally.

Good logic. In the end, I believe that the majority of sportswriters are looking at the stats in a traditional manner. Most of these guys are probably in their 40' and 50's. As time goes on, (10 + years) I believe that these advanced metrics will be more valued by a younger crop of writers.

[luismatos4prez]

Good logic. In the end, I believe that the majority of sportswriters are looking at the stats in a traditional manner. Most of these guys are probably in their 40' and 50's. As time goes on, (10 + years) I believe that these advanced metrics will be more valued by a younger crop of writers.

But it isn't the fact that they love BA that is so frustrating. I understand that. They're old and change is scary.

It's the fact that they completely ignored that there are other things involved in being a baseball player than hitting. They make it out so that hitting is the only thing that really matters.

[russ snyder]

But it isn't the fact that they love BA that is so frustrating. I understand that. They're old and change is scary.

It's the fact that they completely ignored that there are other things involved in being a baseball player than hitting. They make it out so that hitting is the only thing that really matters.

I think the fact that Cabrera led the league in these offensive catagories trumps the fact that Trout is the better overall

Player in the writers views. The triple crown obviously carries a lot of weight.

[luismatos4prez]

I think the fact that Cabrera led the league in these offensive catagories trumps the fact that Trout is the better overall

Player in the writers views. The triple crown obviously carries a lot of weight.

Yeah, that's definitely what happened. They failed to select the player that was the most valuable though.

[CA-ORIOLE]

The bottom line is that MVP isn't viewed as who is more statistically valuable. I believe almost evey one of the writers probably understood the fact that Trout was the statistically more valuable player. Fair or not, that's just not how how they decide the award.

[luismatos4prez]

The bottom line is that MVP isn't viewed as who is more statistically valuable. I believe almost evey one of the writers probably understood the fact that Trout was the statistically more valuable player. Fair or not, that's just not how how they decide the award.

Dear Voter:

There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.

2. Number of games played.

3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.

4. Former winners are eligible.

5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from 1 to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot. Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration.

Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, including pitchers and designated hitters.

That's what the BBWAA writes on its MVP ballots. So actual value goes to Trout. Games played goes to Cabrera. Criterium 1 provides for offense and defense. That includes everything from hitting to baserunning to fielding. Not just BA, RBI, and HRs.

[CA-ORIOLE]

That's what the BBWAA writes on its MVP ballots. So actual value goes to Trout. Games played goes to Cabrera. Criterium 1 provides for offense and defense. That includes everything from hitting to baserunning to fielding. Not just BA, RBI, and HRs.

I'm not sure what to tell you. It is what it is. I personally believe that most of the voters are probably aware of the issue with Trout's statistical value being greater than Cabrera's. The voters have broad lattitude to make their decisions (see the very first sentence). Not to mention the second sentence "most valuable player to his team". The arbitrary value that a player presents to that specific team in addition to postseason have always been a strong element of the selection process. I'm not saying that's fair, I'm saying that's the way it is. The Gold glove isn't fair. One of the reasons I tend not to pay much attention to these awards, much less get worked up about them

[Frobby]

The point of the OP was that even if you don't accept WAR, Trout's a way better baserunner and defender and it was close on offense. I think either the writers don't value defense or base running nearly as much as hitting, or they don't think the hitting was that close. I suspect it's a little of both, plus the fact that the Tigers won their division. I would have voted for Trout, but I have to admit the Triple Crown has a strong pull.

[Frobby]

And yet Ted Williams won the triple crown and didn't win the MVP, because someone else was the better all around player that season.

.

By WAR, Williams was easily the best player in his league both times he won the Triple Crown but lost the MVP. The Red Sox were 9 games out of first in 1942 and 14 games out in 1947, and that's probably why he lost, in addition to the fact that the media didn't like him.

[Can_of_corn]

By WAR, Williams was easily the best player in his league both times he won the Triple Crown but lost the MVP. The Red Sox were 9 games out of first in 1942 and 14 games out in 1947, and that's probably why he lost, in addition to the fact that the media didn't like him.

You are of course correct, I should have said someone else was perceived to be the better all around player. There was no way to quantify defense back then.

[CA-ORIOLE]

The point of the OP was that even if you don't accept WAR, Trout's a way better baserunner and defender and it was close on offense. I think either the writers don't value defense or base running nearly as much as hitting, or they don't think the hitting was that close. I suspect it's a little of both, plus the fact that the Tigers won their division. I would have voted for Trout, but I have to admit the Triple Crown has a strong pull.

I'm sure the Triple Crown was a huge consideration. That said, I think many (probably most) of the writers look at the two players and made their decision based on a beleif that Cabrera was more valuable to his team than Trout was to his team. From that, add in the post season. I just see that type of logic over and over from baseball analyists.