Mike Trout for MVP - From a Tigers fan

[Jason Moyer]

I view the triple crown the same way I view hitting for the cycle. It's neat, it's awesome, it's rare, and it should be celebrated. It's still not as valuable as going 3-5 with 3 bombs or 4-5 with 2 bombs and 2 doubles even though those things are significantly less rare.

[Hoiles]

I don't think the Triple Crown should automatically mean the league MVP (like I wouldn't think a 0.400 avg or breaking the HR record should). And I do think Trout is overall the better player. But it's not the Best Player award or even the Player of the Year award, it's the MVP award and open to interpretation. I still vote for Cabrera for MVP, because his team did make the playoffs and he played better down the stretch than Trout did. Besides, while he was a bit behind Trout in stats such as WAR, he was 2nd and is it really that much of a stretch for the "2nd best" player in the league to win the MVP?

Just as an analogy, if there's two players, if player A went 3-4 with 2 singles and 1 HR, and player B went 2-4 with 1 single and 1 HR and team B won, who gets the Player of the game? I'd go with B.

[Dutch Alexander]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

I view the triple crown the same way I view hitting for the cycle. It's neat, it's awesome, it's rare, and it should be celebrated. It's still not as valuable as going 3-5 with 3 bombs or 4-5 with 2 bombs and 2 doubles even though those things are significantly less rare.

Indeed. Hitting for the cycle is not an accomplishment, it's a statistical anomaly. Don't get me wrong, any player hitting for the cycle has had a great game. At least four hits and 10 total bases. That's a great performance. But off course a player going 3-5 with 3 bombs or 4-5 with 2 bombs and 2 doubles has had an even greater game. Getting one each of the 4 possible hits is an interesting quirk, but to put any emphasis on it and laud the player for it is exceedingly silly. Imagine a player stepping into the box having hit a HR, a triple and a double and then hitting a ball down the Rf line into the corner. Should he stop at first base to complete the cycle? Imagine that, how stupid would that be!

Same applies for the TC. Winning the TC is not an accomplishment an sich. Again, any player winning the TC has had a great year, or at least a very good one, but to win the TC you're obviously dependent on what other players do, which is beyond your control. In theory a player A could hit .440 with 74 HR's and 192 RBI's and not win the triple crown if in the same year and the same league another player hits .441. On the other hand, in some seasons player B hitting .312 with 34 HR's and 111 RBI's might be enough to win the TC. Off course the performance by player B is dwarfed by the performance of player. Now should player B receive extra credit for winning the TC? Off course not, players should be judged by what they themselves do, what other players do should be irrelevant.

Miguel Cabrera had a great year, Mike Trout had a better year. Cabrera winning the TC is a nice quirk but completely irrelevant. It does not add or subtract anything to his actual performance.

[DamPenguin]

No doubt both these players are deserving of the MVP and regardless of who gets the award the other shouldn't be disappointed. But in Miggy's defense... he has accomplished something that hasn't been done in 45 years. Numbers low and all it is still impressive. Imagine seeing a horse win the triple crown, will we downgrade the achievement because his times are slower than Secretariat's? Now Miguel Cabrera plays 3rd Base, not because that's his position but because his team needed him to be for Prince Fielder. Historically 3rd Base has been a weak position in baseball and yet Miguel Cabrera puts up a triple crown year at the position! Yes I believe Cabrera should win the MVP because if both were on the same team I'd want Cabrera at bat when we needed a big hit. But if Trout wins to me there's nothing wrong with it because he has had a special year much like or even more so than Cabrera's year. At the end we all should be thankful to see the triple crown accomplished especially when finally we are seeing some control over the use of PED's.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Hoiles

I still vote for Cabrera for MVP, because his team did make the playoffs and he played better down the stretch than Trout did. Besides, while he was a bit behind Trout in stats such as WAR, he was 2nd and is it really that much of a stretch for the "2nd best" player in the league to win the MVP?

Clarify something for me. If Cabrera locked up the triple crown by Aug 31 then faded in the stretch say BA of .230 and 4HR and Detroit lost to a White Sox team that actually remembered to pitch and hit would you then vote for Trout?

[Hoiles]

Originally Posted by RchW

Clarify something for me. If Cabrera locked up the triple crown by Aug 31 then faded in the stretch say BA of .230 and 4HR and Detroit lost to a White Sox team that actually remembered to pitch and hit would you then vote for Trout?

Yeah in that case I would likely vote for Trout (or maybe Cano, not sure) I probably wouldn't vote for Cabrera. But that didn't happen.

[Kobie]

Originally Posted by SandMan

The award is MOST VALUABLE not best player in the league. I don't care either way who wins the award but if I were voting I would lean a little bit more to the player that accomplished the Triple Crown and plays for a playoff team. Trout has plenty of time to get the MVP.

Because even though the Angels finished with a better record than the Tigers, the fact that Oakland and Texas are good clearly makes Mike Trout less valuable, and the fact that the rest of Detroit's division absolutely sucks makes Miguel Cabrera more valuable.

[Perceptor]

I think Cabrera will win, but barely and in my mind, he should because his team did make the play-offs. I love Mike Trout, but Cabrera in my mind deserves just a little more.

[Jason Moyer]

What makes a player "most valuable"

1. Offense - Trout and Cabrera created about the same number of runs, Trout gets an edge because he used fewer outs and did it in an extreme pitcher's park

2. Defense - CF and 3B are right next to each other on the defensive spectrum, so no real advantage there....except that Trout has been brilliant defensively and Cabrera is a butcher (he did have a good season by his own standards, however)

3. Team Performance - I wouldn't normally include this because it makes no sense to reward/penalize someone for the performance of his teammates, but people seem to think it matters, so... Trout's team finished with a better record, and in addition to that, they were 6-14 when he was called up and played .585 ball the rest of the year. You could argue that Cabrera should get the nod here because his team made the playoffs, but seeing that Trout's team won 1 more game than the Tigers, in a stronger division, and went .585 during the time that Trout was with the big league club...yeah, no. Oh, and Verlander was the MVP of the Tigers, anyway.

I see people, everywhere, trying to make this into a STATS GUYZ vs OLD SCHOOL BASEBALL debate. So what advantage does Cabrera have? A statistical anomaly. Statistical trivia. Seriously? OMG STATZ DORKZ oh hey let's give it to the guy with the stats. That makes no sense at all to me.

[Hoiles]

Originally Posted by Kobie

Because even though the Angels finished with a better record than the Tigers, the fact that Oakland and Texas are good clearly makes Mike Trout less valuable, and the fact that the rest of Detroit's division absolutely sucks makes Miguel Cabrera more valuable.

It's sports, "most valuable" or "champion" doesn't necessarily equal "best". Detroit might win the World Series and be crowned the world's champions (aka the most valuable team) despite winning less games than the Angels, which would be a greater "injustice" than whoever wins an individual award in a team sport like baseball. Maybe the pro-Trout guys here would prefer the small-sample size postseason was done away with and the team with the best pythagorean record (obviously, not actual wins) be named the champions. Cabrera had a monster season (yes, as evidenced by the Triple Crown) playing for a post-season team, so that's good enough for me to be MVP.

[Rasmuth]

how many times do people say that stats don't tell the whole truth or numbers lie....meanwhile they rely on the new stats to back up their claims.

The way I see it....Angels...at home....Tigers...advance to ALCS.....

now if Trout had done something crazy amazing...like hit 60 homers or 260 hits or hit .400....then I would say....that's enough to overcome being home in the post-season....(kinda like Steve Carleton winning 27 of the Phils 59 wins in 1972)....the performance was so ungodly amazing despite the team....

Trout had a great season...and I understand him getting support....but his butt is sitting home watching baseball on FOX.....and Cabrera had a great season too (achieving a feat that hasn't been done in 45 years....and suddenly people want to discount it to nothing)...but, he's still playing....and Tigers would not be where they are right now without him...

thus...if I had a vote...he'd get mine.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Hoiles

Yeah in that case I would likely vote for Trout (or maybe Cano, not sure) I probably wouldn't vote for Cabrera. But that didn't happen.

You must have been puzzled by Hamilton winning MVP in 2010 when he played in 5 games after Aug 31. If playing well in September counts or adds weight to MVP consideration as some have suggested, then not playing should be sufficient to eliminate a player. Doing it any other way penalizes players who play every day.

Does the body of work trump getting hot or being very good in September? I think it must.

If one believes the opposite then players with average overall stats should be considered for MVP if they finish hot and are on a playoff team. I think making the playoffs is bogus because the current divisional set up does not give each team an equal chance.

The case against Trout seems to be based on ignoring his first 3 months, penalizing him for not playing in the first month (lower counting stats) and being in a tougher division with 2 other playoff capable teams.

As to player value the Angels had a 49-32 record in Trout's first 81 games Miggy led Detroit to a 39-42 record. In each players last 81 games (I'm aware that there is overlap for Trout due to less games played) the records were 44-37 Angels and 48-33 Tigers. Not much added value considering the difference in quality of opposition faced by each team.

In the last 81 games played the Tigers divisional opponents were 57 games under .500. The Angels divisional opponents were 34 games over .500. If you look at the entire AL removing mutual opponents (records cancel out) but keeping divisional opponents the Tigers played opponents that were -34 and the Angels played opponents that were +27. I'm hard pressed to see any significant value added by Cabrera in the last 81 games. In crunch time from Sep 1 through the end of the season LA had a 19-11 record and Detroit was 18-13.

In summary; Trout has a higher value individual season playing less games and has a better team record than Cabrera in crunch time against better opposition in a tougher division and a three way playoff fight down the stretch. The closer I look the more of a slam dunk it is for Trout..

[Jason Moyer]

You people need to stop using those new stats like wins.

[Kobie]

Originally Posted by Hoiles

Detroit might win the World Series and be crowned the world's champions (aka the most valuable team) despite winning less games than the Angels, which would be a greater "injustice" than whoever wins an individual award in a team sport like baseball.

What.

[Kobie]

Originally Posted by Rasmuth

The way I see it....Angels...at home....Tigers...advance to ALCS.....

I really detest this argument.

See RchW's post for the reason why. The Tigers played in a dreadful division, the Angels did not. Cabrera is not more valuable because the Twins, Royals, White Sox and Indians are terrible teams.

[Hoiles]

Originally Posted by RchW

You must have been puzzled by Hamilton winning MVP in 2010 when he played in 5 games after Aug 31.

No I wasn't, does the fact you're wrong in the first sentence discredit the rest of your post

Does "most valuable" have to literally mean that? Do you get confused when you watch NFL football because they don't kick the ball with their feet? I'm not really discounting that Trout is a better overall player than Cabrera, and (according to some predictive model) probably did contributed hypothetically more wins to his team than Cabrera. Most fans would prefer a player from a playoff team win the MVP. What's wrong with that?

[Hoiles]

Originally Posted by Kobie

I really detest this argument.

See RchW's post for the reason why. The Tigers played in a dreadful division, the Angels did not. Cabrera is not more valuable because the Twins, Royals, White Sox and Indians are terrible teams.

Exactly. If the Tigers can have a shot at the World Series (aka the whole point of playing the season) because the Twins, Royals, White Sox and Indians are terrible teams, then Cabrera can win a relatively meaningless individual award for the exact same reason. Thanks for proving my point.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Hoiles

Exactly. If the Tigers can have a shot at the World Series (aka the whole point of playing the season) because the Twins, Royals, White Sox and Indians are terrible teams, then Cabrera can win a relatively meaningless individual award for the exact same reason. Thanks for proving my point.

He can but he shouldn't.

[Rasmuth]

Cabrera is just as valuable to his team as Trout is to the Angels, take either away from their team, and those teams suffer because of it...

I can't blame anyone for favoring either player....as it is...I favor Cabrera.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Rasmuth

Cabrera is just as valuable to his team as Trout is to the Angels, take either away from their team, and those teams suffer because of it...

I can't blame anyone for favoring either player....as it is...I favor Cabrera.

Fair enough I found it hard to agree with the concept that a Triple Crown was an automatic MVP with no regard to the value of the numbers. If you look at the past TC winners they were also leaders in WAR. Chuck Klein was the only TC winner since 1901 that wasn't also the leader in WAR. He did not win the MVP.

Ted Williams should have been MVP in both his TC seasons in which he also led in WAR.