I am going to state right up front the I think Trout should get it.
They both have a approximately equivalent Offensive WAR numbers, but Trout kills Cabrera with Defensive WAR and the overall WAR of 10+ is historic. The Angels will actually finish with a better record than the Tigers. Trout scored a ridiculous 129 runs, stole 49 bases, had 30 HRs and 83 RBIs, 8 triples…his stats are just across-the-board great to awesome…and he missed a month, playing in only 139 games. The only real negatives are A) the Angels didn’t make the playoffs and B) Trout underperformed in the month of September, especially compared to Cabrera.
However, I can see the case for Cabrera…Triple Crown after all. I know the three stats HR, BA, and RBI are considered less meaningful, but still it is something that just isn’t done these days. And they aren’t meaningless, of course, Cabrera had an historic season…and he played well down the stretch. It mattered as Tigers managed to make it into the playoffs during the last month of the season. Some have argued that lifetime achievements should also be taken into account. I don’t believe that, but there is nothing that says a voter can’t.
So I vote for Trout, but I think Cabrera will get it.
This is really tough, but I voted for Cabrera because he led his team to the playoffs and will win a Triple Crown. Trout may have had a better season, but the MVP award has traditionally taken more into account than just having the highest WAR.
“Underperformed” to a 0.391 wOBA (11th in AL), 154 wRC+ (10th), and 1.8 WAR (1st) in September.
I suspect Cabrera is going to get it, especially if he wins the triple crown, because A) voters tend to undervalue defense/baserunning and love the triple crown numbers, and B) Trout will dominate the RoY voting, and some voters will think that winning one award is enough.
Echoing the sentiments already in this thread. If Cabrera wins the triple crown he will win the MVP, but Mike Trout deserves it regardless. Every single stat points to Trout being a more valuable player this year.
In other words Cabrera is more valuable because he played in the worst division in the AL and his teammates were better overall and Trout played in maybe the best division. I might be reluctant to give an MVP award to a great player on a horrible team, but when you are comparing two players on teams that are about equally good this is really arbitrary. The Angels were in playoff contention primarily because of Trout and they missed the playoffs for reasons that didn’t have much to do with him.
He hit .279/.389/.486 in Sept/Oct. He had 23 Runs, 5 HRs, 7 SBs. He may not have been playing out of this world amazing like he did the rest of the season, but you have a bizarre concept of the word “terrible”.
No he didn’t, and it’s a season-long award. Trout had the best season. And please don’t tell me that getting hits in September count more than hits in April through August, because they count the same.
The Angels won more games than the Tigers did. You’re judging the team’s success by the success of other teams in their division. How is that a sensible way to judge the MVP race? I said earlier that Detroit played in the worst division in the AL, but I think they probably played in the worst division in the entire MLB this year. They have by far the worst record of any of the division winners and in fact right now they have the same record as the 2nd NL wildcard team. Basically judging the MVP on this basis involves rewarding Cabrera because the Tigers had three terrible teams and one decent team in their division and the Angels had one terrible team and two really good teams. Why does that make Trout’s season less valuable?
Not really. Trout did more to push his team to wins than any other player in the league. That’s real value. Penalizing him for the strength of his division or the weakness of his teammates sure makes no sense. Kind of dumb actually.
Here’s a link to his 2012 splits. Now, they lump his two October games (so far) into that, which include going 6-for-10. For just September, his line is .257/.380/.455 (which is still great - lots of getting on base, but a worse average) - but I have a hard time discounting October games when talking about hitting down the stretch. Not that “down the stretch” is at all meaningful, since early season games count just as much as late season games.
No one is suggesting using just WAR, just using it as an important tool. Take baserunning out, and Trout is still heads and shoulders above Cabrera, because defense clearly IS important - and Trout’s is amazing, and Cabrera’s is…not. Really very very not.
My understanding of WAR (which is probably wrong, as I’m not a SABR fiend) is that the contours of the stat aren’t fully agreed upon, which leads to different calculations of the stat depending on who’s doing the calculating. Does WAR take into account the fact that Cabrera basically took one for the team by playing 3rd? If he had stayed at first and Fielder DH’d, how much less effective would their lineup be if they’d had to play Delmon Young in the field, or made him split time?
