I need to vent about this whole Cabrera-Trout argument

[Loophole]

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.

Well, that's an interesting take I haven't really heard before, even from the likes of Billy Ripken et al.

I don't really see the point in the award -- especially as it's the most prestigious award in the sport by far -- if it isn't solely about individual contribution. Playoff teams are already awarded by getting to play in the postseason. The MVP should be about awarding individual greatness. If anyone gave a hoot about the Hank Aaron award maybe I wouldn't care, but then again if people cared about the Hank Aaron award I don't think they'd care too much about the "MVP". I have no idea who won the Hank Aaron award this year, or any other year, because it ranks below Silver Sluggers in terms of public consciousness.

And IMO value is value, a win is a win. I mean, there are a lot of ways to look at the word "valuable" to come up with convoluted, arbitrary set of criteria for the award. Why not bring salary into the discussion, isn't that sort of the crux of "value"? IMO the simplest and most sensical way to determine value, minus all the additional static, is to look at the players who added the most wins to their team. Not even talking about WAR, just talking about W-L record, which the best players have the biggest effect on. If a player is the difference between his team winning 55 and 65 games, there's a good chance he's the most valuable player in that league, and he deserves recognition for having an amazing season. The award isn't given to teams, it's given to individuals, and expecting that hypothetical 10-win player to actually be worth 35 wins before you can consider him for the award (an award which has an impact on future contracts, endorsements, Hall of Fame candidacy, basic public perception etc) is unfairly shutting him out.

But it seems like you're saying that being on a worse team should make Cabrera worth more? Even though the playoff picture was entirely incidental? What you seem to be saying by proxy is that Jhonny Peralta is more valuable than Trout because his 3 WAR on an inferior playoff team technically pushed the Tigers over the Sox, while Trout's 10 WAR was literally the difference between the Angels nearly making the playoffs and finishing sub-.500. Playoffs simply shouldn't be in the picture; if they had any place in the discussion, the award would be voted on after the playoffs are over, not before. Why put value in a player 'taking his team to the playoffs' but ignore his inability to take his team past the ALDS? Past the ALCS? Why limit the field of potential MVPs to the five best teams when you can limit it to the one best team? Isn't winning the pennant like a lot more important than winning the wild card? (Or winning a terrible division with 88 wins). Or, in the other direction: why limit the award field to 5 playoff teams instead of every team that finished over .500? This is what I mean when I say it's arbitrary.

This seems to be what Drungo is talking about when he says people are making up their minds on Cabrera and then just filling in the blanks with increasingly weird justifications. Serious backflipping here: now we're supposed to put more value in players on playoff teams that barely squeaked in than players on 110-win teams? I mean, that DOES sort of make sense when you're working with the "valuable means the player took the team to the playoffs" thing. (I guess A-Rod wasn't really that valuable in his MVP seasons where the Yankees were still good enough without him.) But it's also another step in making the award totally arbitrary and pointless.

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.

Man, Trout's story was twice as interesting though. A 20 year old who didn't even start in the majors coming up and doing everything perfectly, consistently, all season long, leading to one of the greatest rookie campaigns of all time vs. a guy who only became a 'story' in September performing virtually the same as he always has?

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

I think the definition of "value" is being stretched to the point where it is meaningless. The only consistent definition of value from the voters or the fans is "not contributions in wins or runs". Like I said in my last post, it boils down to value is being equated with most compelling narrative. Which, of course, is 100% subjective, so almost anyone can be defined as most valuable.

[DrungoHazewood]

Man, Trout's story was twice as interesting though. A 20 year old who didn't even start in the majors coming up and doing everything perfectly, consistently, all season long, leading to one of the greatest rookie campaigns of all time vs. a guy who only became a 'story' in September performing virtually the same as he always has?

But "most compelling narrative" is totally subjective. There are no right or wrong answers. That's the beauty of it. "Valuable" is essentially left up to each individual to define. The reason Miguel Cabrera is the MVP is that the accepted definition of value is "he who received the most votes from the BBWAA."

[Loophole]

But "most compelling narrative" is totally subjective. There are no right or wrong answers. That's the beauty of it. "Valuable" is essentially left up to each individual to define. The reason Miguel Cabrera is the MVP is that the accepted definition of value is "he who received the most votes from the BBWAA."

Yeah, I agree with you. I just think it's strange that anything about Trout's season is considered less than supremely interesting. It takes some severe cognitive bias to look at his performance all season and boil him down to "boring stat nerd toy," which is how he's being played off clearly against instinct.

And alternatively, Cabrera's season was fantastic and the Triple Crown is a big story, but Trout has to be right there too.

[DrungoHazewood]

This seems to be what Drungo is talking about when he says people are making up their minds on Cabrera and then just filling in the blanks with increasingly weird justifications. Serious backflipping here: now we're supposed to put more value in players on playoff teams that barely squeaked in than players on 110-win teams? I mean, that DOES sort of make sense when you're working with the "valuable means the player took the team to the playoffs" thing. (I guess A-Rod wasn't really that valuable in his MVP seasons where the Yankees were still good enough without him.) But it's also another step in making the award totally arbitrary and pointless.

What I don't get is why we have this ludicrous award given to "the player who contributed a great story to a team that barely made the playoffs and probably wouldn't have if you replaced him with Jeff Tackett", but there isn't an award for "Best Player".

[DrungoHazewood]

Yeah, I agree with you. I just think it's strange that anything about Trout's season is considered less than supremely interesting. It takes some severe cognitive bias to look at his performance all season and boil him down to "boring stat nerd toy."

Especially when, like 8 months ago, a definition of "boring stat nerd" was "one who ignores defense and baserunning and thinks slugging is all that matters".

[Aglets]

What I don't get is why we have this ludicrous award given to "the player who contributed a great story to a team that barely made the playoffs and probably wouldn't have if you replaced him with Jeff Tackett", but there isn't an award for "Best Player".

There seems to be one for best pitcher, so yea I agree, it does seem dumb that there isn't one for best position player. Instead it's just kind of broken out into best offensive performance (Hank Aaron) and best fielder by position (Gold Glove).

[Loophole]

What I don't get is why we have this ludicrous award given to "the player who contributed a great story to a team that barely made the playoffs and probably wouldn't have if you replaced him with Jeff Tackett", but there isn't an award for "Best Player".

I don't know much about the creation of the MVP award or what the goals were in the beginning, but I don't mind "most valuable" because IMO the best player is the most valuable one. And it has a better ring. The problem is everyone going all sorts of crazy directions with the word when it might as well just mean "best."

[Barnaby Graves]

Sportswriting: the mental gymnastics of a brain with no limbs.

Well I mean there are some intelligent sportswriters but mostly it's "Tony from Queens, first time caller long time listener" with a tie.

Especially when, like 8 months ago, a definition of "boring stat nerd" was "one who ignores defense and baserunning and thinks slugging is all that matters".

They will go out of their way to be as contrary and Olde Tymey as possible to make themselves look relevant. If Cabrera had 15 oWAR and Bill James thought he should get the award they would give it to Jhonny Peralta.

[Aglets]

Well, that's an interesting take I haven't really heard before, even from the likes of Billy Ripken et al.

I don't really see the point in the award -- especially as it's the most prestigious award in the sport by far -- if it isn't solely about individual contribution. Playoff teams are already awarded by getting to play in the postseason. The MVP should be about awarding individual greatness. If anyone gave a hoot about the Hank Aaron award maybe I wouldn't care, but then again if people cared about the Hank Aaron award I don't think they'd care too much about the "MVP". I have no idea who won the Hank Aaron award this year, or any other year, because it ranks below Silver Sluggers in terms of public consciousness.

The culture of baseball simply has to change. And the only way to do that is for sabr heads to keep writing articles, and for big sports media outlets to gradually accept them more. It's not impossible, but it's definitely not going to be easy.

Picture perfect example - The "Win" as a stat for starting pitchers

A Huuuuuuuuuuge part of that is outside of the pitcher's control, yet it has almost always been considered one of the most prestigious stats that a pitcher can accumulate. Even to this day I would argue. But maybe now things are starting to change, as more cooler heads are starting to prevail. It is my dream that someday we will do away with that dreadful stat altogether, but it won't happen overnight.

[luismatos4prez]

The culture of baseball simply has to change. And the only way to do that is for sabr heads to keep writing articles, and for big sports media outlets to gradually accept them more. It's not impossible, but it's definitely not going to be easy.

Picture perfect example - The "Win" as a stat for starting pitchers

I was watching ESPN when they announced the Hiroki Kuroda signing and the used WAR to explain why it was good for the Yankees. I smiled.

Progress will happen. "He led the league in AVG, RBI, and HRs. The three main offensive categories. There's nothing else he could have done." One day idiotic statements like this will seem archaic to even a young fan. I can't wait for that.

[CA-ORIOLE]

They will go out of their way to be as contrary and Olde Tymey as possible to make themselves look relevant.

I said basically the same thing in another post and I actually think this is the most relevant point. I'd say it's even much further than going out of their way. Again, one reason I really don't care for awards of this nature.

It's basically stats and scouting that matter for me. Even the player/manager awards like the gold glove have to be taken with a grain of salt.

[sangar]

I was watching ESPN when they announced the Hiroki Kuroda signing and the used WAR to explain why it was good for the Yankees. I smiled.

Progress will happen.

Exactly. Stat-heads are ahead of the curve and are upset because the change has not yet occurred. To me, the debate around Trout/Cabrera this year underscores how influential modern stats are becoming. Have a little patience folks.

[Can_of_corn]

Exactly. Stat-heads are ahead of the curve and are upset because the change has not yet occurred. To me, the debate around Trout/Cabrera this year underscores how influential modern stats are becoming. Have a little patience folks.

We all thought the tide had turned when King Felix won the Cy Young.

[Hallas]

In 1991, the BBWAA had a similar choice: Player A was the best hitter in the league, player B was about the 3rd best hitter in the league, but was by far the more valuable defender. Player C was the most powerful hitter in the league, but otherwise had no business near the top of the standings. Although the writers placed far too many votes for player C, they ultimately selected the "correct" winner, and Cal Ripken was the MVP despite being on a last-place team.

I certainly don't expect the BBWAA to get it right all the time when there are multiple defensible candidates, but this was Cal versus Cecil Fielder and Frank Thomas; the other options shouldn't have even been in the picture.

It's good to know that the Writers' Association is going backward.