Mike Trout for MVP - From a Tigers fan

[Pacoheadley]

This is a thread for why I think (know) Trout deserves the MVP over Miguel Cabrera, even though he did win the "Triple Crown".

First of all, regardless of the perceptions on Cabrera's "historic" year, his offense has really not been that historic. Sure, he lead the league in batting average, home runs, and RBIs, but his .330 average would not league the league most years, same for his home runs. Also, he actually had a better season last year. His on-base percentage has dropped 55 points, and his slugging has only risen 20.

Now, people may think that even though it isn't historic, Cabrera has still hit a lot better than Trout. When we look at the numbers, that is not the case.
Cabrera's line - .330/.393/.606 for an OPS of .999
Trout's line - .326/.399/.564 for an OPS of .963
That is a difference of only 36 points. You can then use OPS+ to adjust for the fact that Trout plays in more of a pitcher's park, and he actually leads 171 to 166, meaning Trout hit 71% better than the average hitter, and Cabrera 66%.
All of that doesn't even include Trout's incredible baserunning skills, stealing 49 bases to only 5 caught stealing. When you look at the actual numbers without being blinded by the Triple Crown, you realize that Trout was actually the best offensive player, this is also confirmed by wOBA, with a lead of .422 to .416.

Another argument I see is the "clutch" factor, because Cabrera hit better in "clutch" situations. For numerous reasons, this is either false, or moot. First of all, clutch hitting is NOT a skill or a trait of any kind in Major League Baseball. There have been numerous studies proving this, and I'll even link to one - http://www.tangotiger.net/Alan/ajordan.pdf. Second of all, just because Cabrera hit better with runners in scoring position, it does not mean he was more "clutch", and I'll use two metrics to show this.
First is a stat called WPA, which is "Win Probablity Added". Basically, every time somebody gets a hit, or gets out, they raise or lower their teams chance of winning by X%. Getting a hit that raises your chance of winning by 31% will raise your WPA by .31, getting out in a situation that lowers your chance of winning 7% will lower it by .07. Trout actually leads the American League with a WPA of 5.65. Cabrera is 5th in the AL, at 4.51.
The second of these stats in RE24, and conveniently, Fangraphs has an article out today explaining this. I'll quote for a sentence "RE24 is essentially the difference between the run expectancy when a hitter comes to the plate and when his at-bat ends." If in a certain situation, there are an average of .43 runs scored, and you hit a single that knocks in a run, your RE24 goes up by .57. Trout also leads this stat, at 56.52, and Cabrera is again 5th, at 45.18. If you want to, you can go on Fangraphs and see what every at bat during the year did to a player's RE24.

The third case, is the playoff case. I will keep this one pretty short. The best players in baseball are worth 7-10 wins to a team. A superstar player can't do much more than raise a 60 win team to a 70 win team, for example. In such a team sport, rewarding on the playoffs is not fair, as you are punishing players for their teammates doing. Second of all, the Angels have a better record than the Tigers. Giving Cabrera the award for making the playoffs is essentially rewarding him for playing in a worse division against worse teams.

The fourth and final one, is defense. By all accounts, Cabrera is anywhere from a slightly below average defender, to a terrible one, and all the numbers (UZR, DRS) confirm this, and so does the eye test. He has cost the Tiger's, most likely, anywhere from 1 - 10 runs with his defense. Trout, on the other hand, is considered a good to great fielder, and the numbers say he has been worth anywhere from 10 to 25 runs for the Angels, with his defense alone.

Add this all up, and Trout is the better offensive player (at worse even), and the better defensive player, playing for the team with the better record, and has done more to help his team win. This is why Trout should be the MVP.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Pacoheadley

Add this all up, and Trout is the better offensive player (at worse even), and the better defensive player, playing for the team with the better record, and has done more to help his team win. This is why Trout should be the MVP.

This jumped out to me. Some people say that the MVP should be chosen from teams that make the playoffs. So to be consistent a weaker division and complete choke job by the Harrelson Hawks oops White Sox allowing the Tigers to back into the playoffs should weaken Cabrera's case for MVP.

[jaxmagicman]

I think Trout should be MVP, but I don't think you could go wrong picking Cabreara either. They are pretty close in numbers.

[The Game]

While Trout is the most impressive rookie since Ichiro he is still a rookie. He has that award wrapped up. Cabrera has done something that has not been done since 1967. Will we see another Triple Crown next year or in another 45 years? Also I believe that the MVP should come from a playoff team (no matter how they got there) when that player has historic numbers. Trout appears to be good enough that he will get his far shot at MVP awards in the near future. Miggy probably won't. I had predicted Hamilton to win the TC this year. If anything have co MVP's.

[Pacoheadley]

Originally Posted by The Game

While Trout is the most impressive rookie since Ichiro he is still a rookie. He has that award wrapped up. Cabrera has done something that has not been done since 1967. Will we see another Triple Crown next year or in another 45 years? Also I believe that the MVP should come from a playoff team (no matter how they got there) when that player has historic numbers. Trout appears to be good enough that he will get his far shot at MVP awards in the near future. Miggy probably won't. I had predicted Hamilton to win the TC this year. If anything have co MVP's.

I just don't think the MVP should be automatic for a Triple Crown winner. He is already honored by getting the Triple Crown, so if a player has played better, that guy deserves MVP. The fact that he led in 3 arbitrary statistics doesn't magically inflate his value, so he should not get the MVP.

Not changing on my playoff argument, because Trout did everything possible, his team had the best record in the AL since he was called up.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Pacoheadley

I just don't think the MVP should be automatic for a Triple Crown winner. He is already honored by getting the Triple Crown, so if a player has played better, that guy deserves MVP. The fact that he led in 3 arbitrary statistics doesn't magically inflate his value, so he should not get the MVP.

Not changing on my playoff argument, because Trout did everything possible, his team had the best record in the AL since he was called up.

He isn't honored for getting the Triple Crown. He achieved the Triple Crown.

[Pacoheadley]

Originally Posted by David Watts

He isn't honored for getting the Triple Crown. He achieved the Triple Crown.

I know he isn't "honored", but history will remember it that way. He shouldn't automatically get MVP for an arbitrary achievement when there is a better player out there.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Pacoheadley

I know he isn't "honored", but history will remember it that way. He shouldn't automatically get MVP for an arbitrary achievement when there is a better player out there.

In your opinion. I'm not saying you're wrong, simply saying it's not written in stone that Trout is the winner.

[SandMan]

Originally Posted by Pacoheadley

I know he isn't "honored", but history will remember it that way. He shouldn't automatically get MVP for an arbitrary achievement when there is a better player out there.

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.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by The Game

While Trout is the most impressive rookie since Ichiro he is still a rookie. He has that award wrapped up. Cabrera has done something that has not been done since 1967. Will we see another Triple Crown next year or in another 45 years? Also I believe that the MVP should come from a playoff team (no matter how they got there) when that player has historic numbers. Trout appears to be good enough that he will get his far shot at MVP awards in the near future. Miggy probably won't. I had predicted Hamilton to win the TC this year. If anything have co MVP's.

Being a rookie is irrelevant. Do you propose to eliminate rookies from consideration? If not, then the discussion is moot. Trout performed better in a tougher division against better competition and started late. Cabrera's numbers are nowhere near historic. He simply was the best in three categories where two of them are not useful in establishing his value. To me the Triple Crown appears to have fogged the minds of otherwise intelligent Baseball observers.

To suggest that Trout should be overlooked because he has "other" years is... well.... I won't say it.

[Pacoheadley]

Originally Posted by RchW

Being a rookie is irrelevant. Do you propose to eliminate rookies from consideration? If not, then the discussion is moot. Trout performed better in a tougher division against better competition and started late. Cabrera's numbers are nowhere near historic. He simply was the best in three categories where two of them are not useful in establishing his value. To me the Triple Crown appears to have fogged the minds of otherwise intelligent Baseball observers.

To suggest that Trout should be overlooked because he has "other" years is... well.... I won't say it.

Correct. People assume that because of the Triple Crown he is having a historic season, when that just is not the case, and all you have to do is look at his stats to see that.

[mpejkrm]

I totally agree here. Being a stats nerd I decided to do some more in-depth research. (Warning: complicated stats)

What I did was go on baseball-reference and made a list of all batting-qualified players in 2012's rBaserunning, rField and rBAT. To get an idea of what sort of order of magnitude separated good from great, I decided to simply use standard deviation. This is valid because assuming a normal distribution, the difference of one SD (whatever its raw magnitude) is going to be the same in terms of percentile rank.
rBAT: M=8.82, SD=14.91
rField: M=1.15, SD=9.74
rBaserun: M=0.49, SD=2.56
If you add the SD's together (14.91+9.74+2.56), you get 27.2. Just divide each SD by 27.2 to get the weight of each. It comes to 0.548, 0.358, and 0.094, respectively.
So basically the weighting of batting, fielding and baserunning is about 55/36/9. Seems about right, doesn't it? that's about 2/3 for offense and 1/3 for defense, with most of the offensive weight going to hitting rather than baserunning?
Here are Trout and Cabrera, side-by-side in terms of runs for hitting, fielding, and baserunning:
Miguel Cabrera - 52/-5/0
Mike Trout - 46/24/10
Their z-scores for each, where z=(x-mean)/SD, are:
Miguel Cabrera: 2.89/-0.63/-0.19
Mike Trout: 2.49/2.35/3.71
So basically this means that Trout is 3.71 SD's above average for baserunning, Cabrera is .63 SD's below for fielding. Cabrera is a better hitter than Trout by a ratio of 2.89 to 2.49, or about 16%. Still with me? These ratios seem about right, don't they? Trout is a very good hitter, but Cabrera is a little better, Trout is a great fielder, Cabrera is a bit below average, Trout is a fantastic baserunner, Cabrera is slightly worse than mediocre?
OK, now let's convert these z-scores using the weights we established (55/36/9):
Cabrera: (55%)(2.89) + (36%)(-.63) + (9%)(-0.19) = 1.35
Trout: (55%)(2.49) + (36%)(2.35) + (9%)(3.71) = 2.55
Trout is waaaaaaaay higher than Cabrera - almost twice as high - even weighting hitting way higher than baserunning or fielding.

TL;DR: Mike Trout is the MVP and it isn't even close.

[The Game]

Tim Kurkjian and Buster Olney say it will be the closest winner possibly in history. This fight is as brutal as the fight between Obama & Romney. I just believe that the TC winner should get it. If not as I said above co MVP's. Trout isn't even the best player on his own team (this yr yes, but not overall)

[RchW]

Originally Posted by The Game

Trout isn't even the best player on his own team.

Why does this have any bearing on whether he is MVP? Your anti-Trout excuses would leave a pretzel sore.

[Jason Moyer]

Some interesting things (to me anyway):

- Cabrera won the quadruple crown - AVG/HR/RBI and GIDP
- Trout won a rarer triple crown - Runs/SB/OPS+
- Only 6 of the 10 seasons to have won a triple crown during the MVP era have actually won the MVP award.
- Trout's defensive value, with or without any advanced fielding analysis, is clearly massive compared to Miggy. A gold glove quality center fielder vs a bad third baseman isn't much of a contest.
- Trout's offensive value is also higher than Miggy's because a.) he created nearly the exact same amount of runs while using far fewer outs b.) he plays in an extreme pitcher's park while Miggy plays in a hitter's park.
- Using team performance to favor Miggy is kind of silly when Trout's team had a better record in a stronger division.
- Miggy isn't the most valuable player on his own team.
- Trout is the best Angels' player named after a fish since Tim Salmon.

[jaxmagicman]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

- Trout is the best Angels' player named after a fish since Tim Salmon.

Nice.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Some interesting things (to me anyway):

- Cabrera won the quadruple crown - AVG/HR/RBI and GIDP
- Trout won a rarer triple crown - Runs/SB/OPS+
- Only 6 of the 10 seasons to have won a triple crown during the MVP era have actually won the MVP award.
- Trout's defensive value, with or without any advanced fielding analysis, is clearly massive compared to Miggy. A gold glove quality center fielder vs a bad third baseman isn't much of a contest.
- Trout's offensive value is also higher than Miggy's because a.) he created nearly the exact same amount of runs while using far fewer outs b.) he plays in an extreme pitcher's park while Miggy plays in a hitter's park.
- Using team performance to favor Miggy is kind of silly when Trout's team had a better record in a stronger division.
- Miggy isn't the most valuable player on his own team.
- Trout is the best Angels' player named after a fish since Tim Salmon.

I'm assuming Verlander?

[Rasmuth]

if history is any trend, we'll see another triple crown next season....Frank Robinson won the triple crown in 1966, the season before Yaz....

either way...Trout or Cabrera...both deserving...but I truly think people over analyze this stuff...

My vote...Cabrera....the tie-breaker for me....Tigers in the playoffs....and without him...they're not. Add in the fact that it's a historic season...because of the triple crown...just bonus points.

[Doc_Brown]

Originally Posted by Rasmuth

if history is any trend, we'll see another triple crown next season....Frank Robinson won the triple crown in 1966, the season before Yaz....

either way...Trout or Cabrera...both deserving...but I truly think people over analyze this stuff...

My vote...Cabrera....the tie-breaker for me....Tigers in the playoffs....and without the White Sox...they're not. Add in the fact that it's a historic season...because of the triple crown...just bonus points.

Changed it for you.

[Mecza]

The Triple Crown only takes into account batting metrics. Hitting isn't the only skill in baseball.

My vote would go to Trout. I get that the Triple Crown is rare, but Trout had such an outstanding year that in it of itself is really historic. Not a lot of 21 year old rookies have ever lead the league in WAR, let alone get 10+. How many highlight reels did you see over the course of the season that showcased Trout's great fielding? What about Miggy? Yeah. What about the ground balls that have been consistently been beat out for singles? Yeah.

Miggy had a great year of hitting and we all commend him for it, but Trout had a great year of baseball and I would vote for him in an official capacity, if I could.