I need to vent about this whole Cabrera-Trout argument

[Barnaby Graves]

I just have no idea how people can think a Triple Crown makes a guy an MVP. It's intellectually dishonest. You're knowingly discarding things like baserunning and defense which absolutely matter. And why would you try to compare a 3B's offensive output to a CF's? And why would you take winning into account when they don't play in the same division and by the way I don't know if anyone's noticed but rosters have at a minimum 24 other guys who will play alongside the MVP during the course of the season. Stick Cabrera on a team of 24 4-year-olds, or even worse, on the Astros. He could put in the exact same effort, or even better, and suddenly he is considered less valuable? Hell, the implications of the team aspect are right in the Triple Crown slash line: RBIs! Mike Trout was a leadoff hitter! kdiopj 123i8dj39vfdfdv AAAAAAAAAAAAAH WHY ARE PEOPLE SO STUPID

Cabrera was better down the stretch, when they were fighting for a playoff spot? They were fighting for a playoff spot in April. You're always fighting for a playoff spot, until you're out of it. Over the course of days in which they were fighting for a playoff spot, Mike Trout was better at baseball, and more valuable to his team, than Miguel Cabrera.

I really miss Fire Joe Morgan.

[Frobby]

I just have no idea how people can think a Triple Crown makes a guy an MVP. It's intellectually dishonest. You're knowingly discarding things like baserunning and defense which absolutely matter. And why would you try to compare a 3B's offensive output to a CF's? And why would you take winning into account when they don't play in the same division and by the way I don't know if anyone's noticed but rosters have at a minimum 24 other guys who will play alongside the MVP during the course of the season. Stick Cabrera on a team of 24 4-year-olds, or even worse, on the Astros. He could put in the exact same effort, or even better, and suddenly he is considered less valuable? Hell, the implications of the team aspect are right in the Triple Crown slash line: RBIs! Mike Trout was a leadoff hitter! kdiopj 123i8dj39vfdfdv AAAAAAAAAAAAAH WHY ARE PEOPLE SO STUPID

Cabrera was better down the stretch, when they were fighting for a playoff spot? They were fighting for a playoff spot in April. You're always fighting for a playoff spot, until you're out of it. Over the course of days in which they were fighting for a playoff spot, Mike Trout was better at baseball, and more valuable to his team, than Miguel Cabrera.

I really miss Fire Joe Morgan.

Meh, I'm not as militant as you on some of these points. First of all, speed and defense absolutely should count; whether WAR measures and weights them correctly in comparison with offense, and what the margin of error is, is open to debate. And, performance down the stretch has always been a factor in MVP voting, and I don't really have a problem with it. All games count the same in the end, but there's no doubt that there is more pressure associated with games in late August and September than there is in April and May, so I don't mind giving late-season performance added weight.

I think this year was kind of the perfect storm for having the guy with the much better WAR lose out. You've got a guy who has been a great hitter for many years accomplishing something no great hitter has been able to do in 45 years, and hitting great down the stretch while his team wins its division in a tight race. It's tough not to give that guy the MVP. I probably would have voted for Trout, but it would have been a close call, for me.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think this year was kind of the perfect storm for having the guy with the much better WAR lose out. You've got a guy who has been a great hitter for many years accomplishing something no great hitter has been able to do in 45 years, and hitting great down the stretch while his team wins its division in a tight race. It's tough not to give that guy the MVP. I probably would have voted for Trout, but it would have been a close call, for me.

Yes, it was a perfect year to have a lesser player be named best player in the league.

[Barnaby Graves]

Meh, I'm not as militant as you on some of these points. First of all, speed and defense absolutely should count; whether WAR measures and weights them correctly in comparison with offense, and what the margin of error is, is open to debate.

For me this has less to do with WAR (and I don't even use dWAR anymore) than it has to do with the ridiculous mental gymnastics of sportswriters and people who try to draw worthwhile conclusions comparing the RBI counts of a guy batting leadoff vs. a guy batting in the "this is where guys accumulate RBIs" slot. Or when people try to insert TEAM aspects into a PLAYER award. Or anyone who uses batting average or RBIs anymore like they tell you anything useful about how good a guy actually is. Who batted after Rickey Henderson? Did he have more RBIs than the guy batting after David Eckstein or Juan Pierre?

And, performance down the stretch has always been a factor in MVP voting, and I don't really have a problem with it. All games count the same in the end, but there's no doubt that there is more pressure associated with games in late August and September than there is in April and May, so I don't mind giving late-season performance added weight.

If we're going to talk about pressure than we should talk about a rookie rising to the occasion and becoming a leader on his team, from day 1. I'd give those intangibles weight, too.

I think this year was kind of the perfect storm for having the guy with the much better WAR lose out. You've got a guy who has been a great hitter for many years accomplishing something no great hitter has been able to do in 45 years, and hitting great down the stretch while his team wins its division in a tight race. It's tough not to give that guy the MVP. I probably would have voted for Trout, but it would have been a close call, for me.

I'm not trying to put baseball in a total vacuum, but I just think Most Valuable Player is a misnomer in this game, given the way people try to assign the award.

[NJOriolesFan]

Cabrera did lead the league in game winning and go ahead runs driven in (by a wide margin). While RBI aren't necessarily meaningful, the ability to carry a team to the division title is.

This stat is one of the reasons Adam Jones got a lot of support in his 6th place finish.

[Riggodrill44]

I have two reasonings for Cabrera over Trout.

1. The Angels were finishing in 3rd with or without Trout, and The Tigers don't make the playoffs without Cabrera.

2. The Angels weren't going to finish the season with a .350 winning percentage if they didn't call up Trout.

I've always said that the MVP should go to a player on a playoff team unless another player does somthing absolutely extraoridinary

[Can_of_corn]

I have two reasonings for Cabrera over Trout.

1. The Angels were finishing in 3rd with or without Trout, and The Tigers don't make the playoffs without Cabrera.

2. The Angels weren't going to finish the season with a .350 winning percentage if they didn't call up Trout.

I've always said that the MVP should go to a player on a playoff team unless another player does somthing absolutely extraoridinary

You don't think what Trout did was extraordinary?

You have a high bar for extraordinary.

[Riggodrill44]

You don't think what Trout did was extraordinary?

You have a high bar for extraordinary.

I think it was great but if someone told me that someone would put up Mike Trout's numbers at the beginning of the year I would've believed them, I wouldn't have thought it was going to be Trout but thats beyond the point. However, I consider somthing extraordinary to be somthing like Steve Carlton in 1972, he won 27 games on a team that won 59. That is extraoridinary to me.

[Loophole]

I have two reasonings for Cabrera over Trout.

1. The Angels were finishing in 3rd with or without Trout, and The Tigers don't make the playoffs without Cabrera.

2. The Angels weren't going to finish the season with a .350 winning percentage if they didn't call up Trout.

I've always said that the MVP should go to a player on a playoff team unless another player does somthing absolutely extraoridinary

Ok. I'm sure you've already been exposed to this question, but why don't you care that the Angels won more games than the Tigers? Why are you holding Trout's division against him when he led his team to more wins facing much more difficult competition? Why do you cut Cabrera extra slack for playing dozens of games against Cleveland, Minnesota and Kansas City when the only easy win Trout got to face was Seattle? And, not to mention, the White Sox might not have broken .500 playing in the NL West.

[Barnaby Graves]

However, I consider somthing extraordinary to be somthing like Steve Carlton in 1972, he won 27 games on a team that won 59. That is extraoridinary to me.

Seems appropriate you would bring him up since he came in 5th in MVP voting, behind Johnny Bench (CIN), Billy Williams (CHC), Willie Stargell (PIT), and Joe Morgan (CIN). The Reds and Pirates won their divisions, the Cubs were in 2nd. Carlton had a higher WAR than all of them.

Now, let's not get too deep into discussions of WAR, I think the point is that ANYONE can take a look at what Steve Carlton did and say he was incredibly valuable. And if you asked people "Who was the most valuable player to their team?" a lot of people would've said Steve Carlton. And then if you asked them who the NL MVP was they'd give you a completely different answer.

[Riggodrill44]

Ok. I'm sure you've already been exposed to this question, but why don't you care that the Angels won more games than the Tigers? Why are you holding Trout's division against him when he led his team to more wins facing much more difficult competition? Why do you cut Cabrera extra slack for playing dozens of games against Cleveland, Minnesota and Kansas City when the only easy win Trout got to face was Seattle? And, not to mention, the White Sox might not have broken .500 playing in the NL West.[/quote

I'll go in order I guess.

1. The Angels won one more game than The Tigers, I'm not going to penalize or reward anybody because of a one game difference.

2. The Angels were a better offensive team than The Tigers, and I believe would have won more games than the Tigers anyway making their record less impressive anyway.

3. No win is an easy win in baseball, the Angels still only went 11-8 against the Mariners, its not like they swept them like the Yankees have us in years past.

4. They might have, they might have not, I'm not gonna make that prediction cause I don't think they were that flawed a team.

So I feel fine saying that Cabrera should win over Trout. But its less a Trout lost, and more a Cabrera won to me.

[Riggodrill44]

Seems appropriate you would bring him up since he came in 5th in MVP voting, behind Johnny Bench (CIN), Billy Williams (CHC), Willie Stargell (PIT), and Joe Morgan (CIN). The Reds and Pirates won their divisions, the Cubs were in 2nd. Carlton had a higher WAR than all of them.

Now, let's not get too deep into discussions of WAR, I think the point is that ANYONE can take a look at what Steve Carlton did and say he was incredibly valuable. And if you asked people "Who was the most valuable player to their team?" a lot of people would've said Steve Carlton. And then if you asked them who the NL MVP was they'd give you a completely different answer.

Well yes, but I would've voted for him in 72 because I view that performance as the most valuable that year.

And I would like to say I'm not an anti-WAR guy. I do find it a bit problematic in comparing position to postion because I don't know how reliable their defensive metrics.

[Loophole]

1. The Angels won one more game than The Tigers, I'm not going to penalize or reward anybody because of a one game difference.

But you're doing exactly that when you put stock in the Tigers making the playoffs. You're penalizing Trout for being on a team just as successful, in a harder division. It's not about the one-game difference, it's that both teams had almost identical records. What if their records were exactly the same but the White Sox didn't have a huge collapse and the A's didn't have a miraculous finish? Same exact stats for Cabrera and Trout, but the Angels make the playoffs and the Tigers don't. You'd switch your vote, presumably, for reasons entirely out of their control?

[DrungoHazewood]

I think I've finally made some peace with this vote. I now understand that most people simply don't view the MVP award as the best player in the league. They see it as the best story in the league. Who contributed to the most wins for their team has little or nothing to do with it, at least beyond some minimum qualifying threshold. The voters and most fans see the MVP as who has the most compelling story in the league this year.

[Aglets]

But you're doing exactly that when you put stock in the Tigers making the playoffs. You're penalizing Trout for being on a team just as successful, in a harder division. It's not about the one-game difference, it's that both teams had almost identical records. What if their records were exactly the same but the White Sox didn't have a huge collapse and the A's didn't have a miraculous finish? Same exact stats for Cabrera and Trout, but the Angels make the playoffs and the Tigers don't. You'd switch your vote, presumably, for reasons entirely out of their control?

I know guys like Drungo don't like to hear this perspective, but I'm actually ok with it also. The key is to recognize what the award is actually recognizing.

It is recognizing the league's most VALUABLE player. A player's value to his team is not determined entirely by factors within his control.

a 5 WAR player on a bad team is worth a lot more to that team than a 5 WAR player on a great team with multiple great players.

Similarly, one could argue that a 5 WAR player on a team that just barely makes the playoffs is more valuable to that team than if he was on a team that finished nowhere close to the playoffs.

You can say it's not fair to that particular player, and maybe it is. But until we start issuing awards for "best overrall player" (Hank Aaron award I think is the closest thing out there right now for position players), we shouldn't be dumfounded when the MVP isn't automatically given to the WAR - winner.