Weird- when the Yankees won the division everybody seemed to say ‘great, but who gives a shit? The real mission starts now.’ People need to get on the same page: is the mission making the playoffs, winning the division, or winning the Series? Or are we just deciding what the goal was afterward based on what everybody did?
I think it’s very hard to argue that Trout failed to take care of business. The Angels obviously did not make the playoffs. They came close but couldn’t quite overcome a slow start to the year. The Tigers were good enough - good enough in a weaker division where the only other halfway decent team fell apart, but still, that wound up being good enough. I think my biggest problem with this discussion is the fact that that the stuff Cabrera can’t do is being handwaved away as “not his job.” Both of these guys had outstanding offensive seasons. Cabrera lead the league in BA and homers and RBI, Trout lead in OPS+ and runs and steals. Cabrera’s team won their division and made the playoffs, Trout’s did not in a tougher division (and he played in a tougher park for hitters). Trout also played outstanding defense. I realize nobody expects Miguel Cabrera to play great defense or steal bases, but that doesn’t mean it’s magically “not his job” and that his inability to do those things can’t count against his MVP candidacy or more significantly, the fact that Mike Trout does do them can’t count for Trout.
That’s what every single analysis I’ve read about the issue has said, yes. This ESPN calculation says Comerica is a good hitters’ park and Angel Stadium is the fourth-toughest park to score runs in. For hits and homers, Comerica is also in the middle of the pack and Angels Stadium is near the bottom. All of these say Comerica is a hitter’s park (although not to a crazy degree) and Angels Stadium is absolutely a pitcher’s park.
The goal of the regular season is winning the division. Absent that, the wild card’s better than going home, but it’s not a team’s goal during the regular season. No one’s changing the goal.
I didn’t say anyone changed the goal. I said nobody agrees on what it is in the first place. It’s making the playoffs, it’s winning the division, it’s winning the Series. You have to do the same thing to do any of them: win games in the regular season. Both of these guys contributed a lot to the regular season success of their teams. Cabrera’s individual season was not more successful and his value was not greater because of a poorly-defined goal. And by poorly defined I don’t mean making the playoffs/winning the division, I mean the suggestion that Trout’s season had no value because his team would have missed the playoffs “anyway” and Cabrera’s team would not have made the playoffs without him. That’s post hoc reasoning and it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
I don’t think anyone’s saying Trout’s season had no value. I hear more from the other side saying *Cabrera’s *had no value because he only won the stupid Triple Crown and everyone who’s anyone knows RBI and BA don’t mean a damn thing, and he’s slow, etc. etc. etc.
I’ll quote an earlier post by Jimmy Chitwood:
Seriously, there are some dickish arguments in this thread coming from the Trout crowd. Trout had a phenomenal season. So did Cabrera.
Yanks are a little different. When you have the highest payroll and it is always thrown in your face and when you have the winning tradition and always throw it in everyone else’s face, you have a higher goal every year then any other team. But I believe for every other team, the goal is to win the division and hope, “This could be our year.” The Yanks, just listen to Jeter or any Steinbrenner have the goal every year to win it all. I say this as a Yankee fanatic but our team, us fans, the NY and even national media and our Captain all set our goal up as all or nothing. It is a little silly. I can’t imagine being disappointed in the NY Giants winning the division and not winning the Superbowl, but if the Yanks don’t at least make the World Series, it is not really considered a success. And any thing short of winning it means the Yanks failed in their annual goal.
Trout’s D is far better then Cabrera’s but again, how can you not give a super star a few points for moving out of position. It was a very team first move on his part.
As to hitters park, I know it is harder to hit Homers in Detroit at least. It might be Anaheim is tougher on average. I think it does have more foul territory and that always hurts average.
But like Happy said, they both had great year. I just **Value **Cabrera’s as worth more as it was in a winning effort.
It’s been discussed in three different threads now, but yes, I’ve seen the argument that the Tigers would’ve missed the playoffs without Cabrera and the Angels missed them with Trout as an indication Cabrera’s play was more value.
Where do you see anyone saying Cabrera’s season had no value?
How does someone arguing that Cabrera’s had MORE value equate to Trout’s having NO value? So please show me where any of Cabrera’s supporters have said Trout’s season had no value.
I’ve seen plenty of people stating that the stats Cabrera lead the AL in are pert’near meaningless.
Well, I think RBIs are basically meaningless. BA means something but not a lot since it treats all hits the same and ignores walks altogether. Home runs mean a lot, they’re the most context-neutral of the triple crown stats, but they still don’t factor in stuff like ballpark and opposition faced. They all pale in comparison to more rigorous stats like wOBA. (In which Trout narrowly leads Cabrera, and they were top 2 in the league this year.)
I’ll say it. Leading in average and RBIs is meaningless. Here’s what I won’t say: “Cabrera’s season is meaningless”. Know why? Because Cabrera is probably the best hitter in the American League. Happy - please tell us where anyone has suggested it was meaningless.
Trout’s season was still far better, and far more valuable. If I were a GM and could go back to the beginning of the season and add any player to my roster, it’d be Trout.
I admit neither of these posters said Trout’s season was worthless, but they’re using the logic I talked about: we can subtract Trout’s value because the Angels didn’t win anyway (neglecting the obvious truth that without him they probably would have been nowhere in contention) while Cabrera’s contribution counts more because the team would not have made the playoffs without him (which is probably true but is largely out of Cabrera’s control).
No, you haven’t. They’re arguing the stats are bad measurements of performance, not that Cabrera’s play had no value.
If I were a manager and could choose between them, I would choose Trout every day and twice on Sunday.
But Cabrera will win the MVP. Both put up great offensive numbers, but Cabrera’s TC has a ‘wow’ factor in the minds of a lot of the people who will be voting, if only because it has been sooo long since someone did it last. IMO, a lot of baseball writers (and old-time baseball guys) don’t appreciate stolen bases and baserunning skills. And though it should not matter, they all know that Trout will get Rookie of the Year
I agree it shouldn’t matter, but I also agree that you are probably right and that at least a handful of voters who were on the fence will vote against Trout because of the ROY that he is guaranteed to win. They probably won’t be voting for Cano though, or Verlander (both of whom would be on my ballot ahead of Cabrera…maybe Verlander would be just behind Cabrera, I would have to give it some thought)
Trout scored more runs than Cabrera. Surely that’s just as important a point as Cabrera driving in more runs?
Trout also prevented more runs than Cabrera, since Trout plays center field well and Cabrera plays all positions badly.
Look, it’s not one stat. If you’re pointing at one stat to make your argument, you’re already pretty much admitting you don’t really have an argument. It’s ALL of them; offense, defense, baserunning, and yes, team performance. On the whole, Trout had a better year. Cabrera had more pure sock in his bat; Trout had more of everything else, by a mile.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Trout’s D is far better then Cabrera’s but again, how can you not give a super star a few points for moving out of position. It was a very team first move on his part.
[/QUOTE]
Good for Cabrera, but that doesn’t make him a good defensive player, he’s a terrible defensive player. It is what it is; if it’s a team move then he won’t mind the fact that it reduces his value as an individual player.
(Is it all that surprising for a superstar to move? Just asking.)
If it’s close, sure, willingness to make the move and even actually getting to the playoffs deserve some extra credit. WAR is a great starting spot and other considerations (like the aforementioned) deserve to be taken into account. But it isn’t close. Cabrera wasn’t even better than Trout offensively, let alone accounting for defense and baserunning.
Let me repeat that, since even the Trout supporters seem to be conceding that their statistical value is close. It isn’t. Trout’s season, measured by WAR is a top twenty season historically (for position players*). Cabrera’s barely cracks the top 500. There’s no way the “intangibles” make up this difference.**
Of course. What manager would throw away almost 4 wins? Any manager who chose Cabrera’s 2012 over Trout’s 2012 deserves to be fired.
The only reason Cabrera entered the conversation is the Triple Crown. A great accomplishment. But he might not even be the most valuable player on his own team, let alone the most valuable player in the league.
*I would’ve included the pitchers, bit Cabrera’s season isn’t even on that list at Baseball Reference.
**This may be a problem with WAR. 10.7 vs. 6.9 may not seem as huge as it really is. It’s massive.
