My vote for Cabrera closed Trout’s lead to 25-22, and the margin’s now down to 25-24. So even though I (born in 1959) am apparently swayed by such “old-school” factors as the Triple Crown and the fact only Miguel’s going to be playing in the postseason, I’d think the real injustice would be if somehow this board awarded a landslide victory to either contender. Had Trout been with the Angels all year, he might have won the Triple Crown himself, but he also may have been overwhelmed by coming up to the majors too soon. We’ll never know what could have happened – we can only judge based on what actually did.
As I was reading, I started thinking that the question of who finishes third in the MVP race might make an interesting debate. So far, Verlander’s been mentioned a couple of times in this thread. I’d think Hamilton, Derek Jeter, Fernando Rodney, Jered Weaver, David Price, and Jim Johnson would also appear on most ballots. (In case anyone here doesn’t know, each ballot has ten spots, with ten points awarded for a first-place vote, nine for second, and so on down to one point for tenth.)
Oh, wtf, I’ll make it a tie. I’m particularly amused by the argument that just getting on base is more important than a run, as if a single and a steal is more impressive than a homer, or that actually batting a runner in is less important than getting on base. And a stat that says Ben Zobrist or Nick Markakis should ever have been MVP needs some serious reconsideration, btw.
It isn’t just a one-year award, either - established records of success do matter. Cabrera’s been a top hitter for years, and this year isn’t a fluke. Rookies have a long record of slumping once pitchers figure out how to handle them, and there’s as good a chance for Trout as for anyone else that he’s a flash in the pan. Rookie of the Year, absolutely, any vote for anyone else would be silly. But he hasn’t shown he’s in it for the long haul yet.
I absolutely agree that Cabrera made the Tigers better more than Trout made the Angels better. Isn’t that the best measure of Valuable?
Again going by how much each of them made their teams better, I think that comes down to Hamilton and Jeter (damn, won’t he *ever *get old?)
The MVP award is ABSOLUTELY a one year award. It’s based on this year’s performance and nothing else. It’s awesome when hall of fame stars are able to win, but that doesn’t mean anything. Past performance shouldn’t be a factor in any way whatsoever when deciding on who wins it. It’s the 2012 MVP, not the 2010-2012 MVP. It’s silly to say otherwise. If Mike Trout were to decide to quit playing and join a monastery the day after the season ends it has no bearing on whether or not he should win the award for 2012.
Mike Trout led the league in runs. Noone supporting Mike Trout s claiming that getting on base is more important than scoring a run. Since, you know, Mike Trout led the major leagues in runs scored.
I’m not understanding the question, I guess. I thought etv78 was asking who led in triple crown stats for both leagues. Frank Robinson batted .316 in 1966. Matty Alou hit .342 for the Pirates the same year.
In 1956 Mickey Mantle led the majors in all three stats. So, that’s the answer to the question I thought he was asking. What was he actually asking?
I think the confusion is over leading the whole league, which is what you are answering, and who lead their categories without being tied with anyone, which the Robinson question answers. Not sure which is the actual question being answered, but there you have two different factoids to answer two different questions.
Could you link to the thread where this crap is being posted? I’m not seeing it in this one. For the record, though:
Trout scored more runs and got on base at a slightly higher clip.
The argument (since I guess we’re pretending this is the first time this discussion has happened on this board) is that RBIs aren’t a good measurement of hitting ability because they depend so much on other people getting on base in front of you, which is out of the hitter’s control. And it’s also somewhat unreasonable to compare the RBI totals of a leadoff hitter a #3 cleanup hitter.
They are? Then what’s the argument? I’ve seen vague comments like “Trout had the better season,” but what’s that based on? I’ve also seen comments that amount to “Trout contributed more to his teams wins,” which seems to boil down to WAR. Or it’s about his stolen bases and runs scored and defense, which, I think all get calculated into WAR, right?
Regardless, my point is just that the MVP is, for good or bad, a very subjective award that traditionally (but not necessarily consistently) has not been based on the attributes in which Trout beats Cabrera.
WAR is a good summary of WHY Trout had a better season than Cabrera, in that it includes hitting, defense, and baserunning, but it’s not the argument Trout backers are using. The argument I usually see is “Trout was just slightly worse at the plate (but still awesome), and absolutely destroys Cabrera on the bases and in the field. Therefore, he is the MVP.”
There are many years in which the MVP award might as well be called the RBI award, yes.
I am not a Sebermatrician, but I decided to do a little math. I took MC and MTs stats and I subtracted from their singles their total number of stolen bases and then I added to their doubles the total number of successful stolen bases. Essentially I turned singles into doubles for successful stolen bases and singles into outs for unsuccessful stolen bases. MTs Slugging percentage goes up to .642 from .564 while Cabrera’s goes up to .611 from .606. This is just a quick and dirty but it maybe puts into perspective what the stolen bases mean for those who like more traditional stats.
To varying degrees, yes. For example if you’re skilled at stealing bases and taking extra bases, you’re creating more opportunities for your team to score - which means you’re in position to score more often even if the guys behind you aren’t crushing the ball.
Trout’s a leadoff hitter because he runs very well. Both guys have significant power and get on base very well, and Trout hits higher up because the Angels are trying to take full advantage of his speed. This costs him RBI but seemed to work in terms of getting more runs across. Do you think he wouldn’t do well as a #3 hitter?
The Angels scored 3.5 runs/game in April before Trout got there. After that they scored 4.94 runs/game. Yeah it is just a tidbit with a lot more than just Trout behind it, but it is more evidence in Trout’s favor.
He’s still standing out there in the field, and running the bases, both of which affect his team’s ability to win.
If you can’t run, you’re a liability, you actively make it more difficult for your team to score runs when you’re on base.
If you can’t field, you’re a liability, you actively make it more difficult for your team to stop the other team from scoring.
OTOH, Trout is a great runner. He actively helps his team score runs by stealing bases, getting extra bases, and drawing the pitcher’s attention. Trout is a great fielder, he gets outs that other players do not.
The very idea of ignoring this, is baffling. This is the MVP award, not the “who did the most to help his team win while standing in the batter’s box” award.
So then you’re voting for Trout, right? After all, the Angels had a better run differential, and a better record than the Tigers, all while playing in a much tougher division. Otherwise, your argument is basically that Cabrera deserves the MVP because the White Sox are much worse than the A’s and the Rangers.
Nope, Trout and Angels failed to take care of business and ended up in third. Detroit did enough to win their division. The goal for the year. So Cabrera made the sacrifice of moving to third and greatly helped his team achieve their goal of winning the division.
If I had a vote, it is for the Triple Crown Winner on a pennant winning team.
