Thread: Miguel Cabrera named AL MVP
11-18-2012, 05:36 PM #11
11-18-2012, 09:24 PM #12
11-19-2012, 07:23 PM #13
11-19-2012, 08:31 PM #14
11-19-2012, 08:34 PM #15
11-19-2012, 08:40 PM #16
Trade Bucket: Hidden Content
11-24-2012, 06:22 AM #17
Trout played 139 games. He scored 129 runs. That's 20 more runs scored than Cabrera in 22 fewer games. How many extra bases did his legs create from passed balls, balls thrown to another base, etc? Things that won't be reflected in statistics.
It's pretty myopic to say "Cabrera hit more home runs, drove in more runs, and had a higher average, therefore he's the MVP". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that hitting is only one part of the game.
Cabrera is a below average defender at third base...by pretty much any metric you choose to look at. UZR he rates a -10, his dWAR is -0.2. And last I checked, defense is half the game. Trout absolutely smokes him defensively. dWar 2.1, UZR of 10.6. Not even close. I give credit to Cabrera for moving to third to make room for Fielder. But let's be honest. Cabrera doesn't help his team in the field. Trout does. Mike Trout robbed at least 4 home runs in 2012. Those are runs coming off the board because of his speed, and athleticism. Cabrera's not doing that.
Trout led the majors with 49 stolen bases. Another area where he has a huge impact, and Cabrera has none. How many mistakes did Trout force pitchers into because he was a threat to steal? The Angels were 8-15 when he was called up, going nowhere. Their offense was awful. Once Trout came out, this team that had a .348 winning percentage without him went 81-58 with him, a .583 winning percentage.
Cabrera, having the "best offensive season of his career", only had an OPS 33 points higher than Trout, a 20 year old rookie. Cabrera had a higher batting average? By 4 points. Whoopie! Cabrera was in his tenth major league season, and had won a batting title the season before. He'd been looking at major league pitching for a decade. Trout was in his second year, and first full season. Trout had a higher on base percentage, .399 to .393.
Cabrera truly has one advantage over Trout, and only one. His power numbers. He hit more home runs, 44 to 30. Cabrera homered once every 14.14 at bats. Trout homered every 18.63 at bats. Looking at sabermetrics, isolated power supports Cabrera, too. Cabrera was 3rd in the AL with an isolated power of .277. Trout was 8th in the AL with an isolated power average of .238. But that is Cabrera's lone advantage. Runs created per 27 outs? Trout smokes him, 8.85 to 7.98. Secondary average? Trout is third in the AL at .436. Cabrera is 7th with a .387 secondary average.
Win probability added? Trout led the AL in WPA at 5.3. Cabrera? 5th in WPA at 4.8.
Wins above replacement? Trout led the majors with a 10.7 WAR. Cabrera was 4th at 6.9.
OPS +, which should have been Cabrera's greatest strength? Trout 171, Cabrera 165.
So to summarize:
Better fielder: Trout, by far.
Better base runner and base stealer: Trout, by far
Better on base percentage: Trout
Higher runs created per 27 outs played: Trout
Higher win probability added: Trout
Higher WAR: Trout
Higher OPS+: Trout
If Trout had played the entire season, there wouldn't even be a discussion.
If Trout had played those other 23 numbers, his stats would have been:
.324 AVG, 150 runs, 35 HR, 97 RBI, 57 stolen bases....as a 20 year old.
And the whole "well, Cabrera led his team to the playoffs, and Trout didn't" is a bunch of hooey.
The Tigers finished 88-74.
The Angels finished 89-73. They played in a much tougher division, where Texas won 94 games, and Oakland won 93 games. Even Seattle won 75 games.
The Tigers only won their division because the White Sox completely collapsed, losing 11 of their last 15 games. And the level of competition within their division wasn't nearly as tough as the AL West. Besides the White Sox, who won 85 games, the Royals were 72-90, the Indians were 68-94, and the Twins were 66-96.
Mike Trout played on a better team, and was a far, far better overall player. And OPS + showed that he was at the very least as good an offensive player as Miguel Cabrera, if not better.
Your argument that Cabrera was the clear MVP does not hold water. No offense, but it just doesn't. Miguel Cabrera had a phenomenal year at the plate. But to say he was far more valuable than a player that was nearly his equal at the plate, and far superior in the field, and on the basepaths, is just wrong.
11-24-2012, 06:26 AM #18
Hitting .324 with 129 runs scored, 30 home runs, and 49 stolen bases is incredible.
11-24-2012, 09:08 AM #19
I pay zero homage to WAR or any of those other bogus stats. WAR tries to substitute some invisible player whose stats are skewed because they are not hitting under the same situations (ballpark/lineup/ect). I've read that there are 100's of ways to make the calculation. That means you can get 100's of different results. I could give a rats butt about that so called stat. Give me the meat and potatoes, the raw facts. Trout barely beat Cabrera in OBP by .006 points. Cabrera trounced Trout .606 to .465 in SLG%. It's amusing that you want to say Trout beat Cabrera in OPS+ yet you did not mention that Cabrera beat Trout in OPS. Trout is faster, I agree. Trout finished 8th in Fld% among center fielders compared to Cabrera's 6th among third baseman. I think finishing 6th compared to 8th is better. In my line of work as far as I'm concerned if Trout robbed anyone of anything he should be arrested. Higher win probability. I don't deal with probabilities, I deal with facts. Here's the facts, Cabrera had a higher average, more home runs and more RBI's. Cabrera is much better clutch hitter as shown by his .420 average with runners in scoring position with two outs compared to Trout's dismal .286 average. I could care less about WAR's, dWAR's, UZR's, MOFO's. Baseball has been around for over a hundred years without these so called stats that are pure speculation and conjecture and has done just fine without them thank you.
To say "Cabrera truly has one advantage over Trout, and only one" is laughable. Who cares if Cabrera has been in the league ten years and that he had his "best offensive season". The MVP Award is based off of one season, this past season. To try to give credence that Trout deserves the award because he has been in the league 8 or 9 years less is ludicrous.
The only cherry picking was done by you trying to substitute fictitious stats (WAR) to raw facts (avg/hr/rbi's/ect). I also don't go by IF's. Your IF's hold no water saying that if he played the entire season, 23 more games his stats would be higher. I totally disagree. Trout hit .392 in July, .284 in August and .257 in September. That tells me one of three things or a combination of the three. Either Trout was tired from all the games played which means playing an additional 23 more games would have lowered his stats. Possibly pitchers figured a better way to pitch to him or Trout is really not a .326 hitter. Additionally it may have showed he cannot perform in the clutch when games matter which is indicative of his poor .286 average with runners in scoring position with two out compared to Cabrera's excellent .420 average. You don't go by IF's with stats in baseball. There are a bunch of players that IF they stayed healthy they would have made it into the HOF. IF I was smart I would not be on here explaining why Cabrera should have won the MVP Award when the stats speak for themselves. It was a no-brainer that Cabrera should have won the MVP Award and the voters felt the same way with the landslide victory, receiving 22 of 28 first place votes.
EDIT: I'll add one last thing. Trout had an excellent year and he was awarded with what he deserved, Rookie of the Year. I believe the Angels knew what they were doing because Trout is lucky he received the ROY because if he had 8 more AB's last year he would not have been eligible this year for the award. I believe he should have received the MVP Award for the best player on a third place team, if there was one. LOL
11-24-2012, 09:25 AM #20