Thread: Miguel Cabrera named AL MVP
11-25-2012, 05:41 PM #21
A .564 SLG with 30 HR for a leadoff hitter is spectacular. You're using this metric and making it seem that they were in a competition. It's not Trout's job to hit for power, though he does. His job is to get on base and score, and at least in 2012 he did it as well as anybody that's ever played the game. Cabrera might have won his second batting title (and he's an incredible hitter, I am not denying that). But Trout still got on base more than Cabrera did. And he nearly hit for the same batting average. The argument for Cabrera's winning the MVP was his power.
Cabrera hit more home runs, yes. He hit 14 more than Trout. He drove in 139 runs to Trout's 83. Both are outstanding for their positions in the lineup. Could Trout have hit better in the clutch? Sure he could have. .286 is not as bad as you make it out to be. But what you are ignoring, it seems, is that Cabrera's main contribution to the game was his offensive prowess, and his offensive numbers were not that much better than Trout's. Look at OPS then, and ignore any adjustments. .999 vs .963. Cabrera wins, but it's not that wide a margin. Is the .036 difference in offensive production Cabrera realized in 2012 enough to outweigh Trout's defensive contribution, as well as Trout's impact once he's on base? No, it is not. Once Cabrera is on base, he has no impact. He advances as an average major leaguer should on extra base hits. He's no threat to steal a base. Mike Trout is. He takes extra bases on balls hit to the outfield. He steals bases. He disrupts pitchers.
There are better ways to measure player performance now then there were back when Babe Ruth was playing. Things change. We can take a phone out of our pocket and instantly call somebody halfway around the world, and we can bounce signals off of satellites. The way baseball performance is measured has improved, too. The old stats, HR, RBI, AVG etc still matter. But to go on those alone is an oversimplification of the sport. I'm sorry, but it is.
Cabrera does a slightly above average job when he gets to the ball. But the metrics that are available say that Cabrera does not get to enough balls hit to the left side of the infield. He is not a liability at third per se, but he does not play his position at a high level. Trout does. Mike Trout by pretty much any possible method of comparison available is an elite center fielder. His impact defensively far outweighs that of Cabrera's. And since the game of baseball is more than just hitting the ball, comparisons of Trout and Cabrera don't merely stop at what they did at the plate.
When all things are considered, Mike Trout simply had the superior season to Miguel Cabrera. Both are incredible at what they do. Trout just does more.
Last edited by the 'stache; 11-25-2012 at 05:48 PM.
11-25-2012, 07:40 PM #22
Trout scored 129 runs. That ranks 261st all-time. Hardly "as well as anybody that's ever played the game", not even close, but very humorous.
Hitting .286 with runners in scoring position is not even close to being worthy of an MVP Award. If you are not clutch your not an MVP in my mind.
The only way you can judge what another player would do is if that player plays under the exact circumstances. You cannot just plug in numbers that were not derived from the same exact parameters with and different variables. It's a joke that there are a multitude of ways to figure one so-called stat as WAR. You believe what you want and I will do the same. You can believe that these calculations are close to an exact science but I won't. In my eyes those so-called stats are a guess, pure speculation and conjecture.
Cabrera is not a below average fielder as you first stated. He does not have the range of other third baseman but his fielding itself was not believe average.
I wonder why no explanation as to Trout's decline. Hitting .392 in July, .284 in August and .257 in September.
I'll no longer debate this topic since myself along with 22 of 28 voters agree that Cabrera not Trout was the MVP by a landslide.
11-25-2012, 07:46 PM #23
I'm just saying, but I watched about every Tigers game this season and can say with confidence Miguel Cabrera is a below average fielder, with bad range, good hands, a strong arm, but what he gets to, he generally gets the out. However with that said, I'm completely ok with his defense because his offense more than makes up for it (as you can see with a stat such as WAR).
11-25-2012, 08:24 PM #24
And again....his job is not to drive in runs as a leadoff hitter. If that were his job, he'd be moved down in the lineup. Mike Trout is a Rickey Henderson-type player, only a better hitter with more power.
"Oh he catches the balls hit to him, therefore he's not an average, or below-average fielder".
11-25-2012, 08:25 PM #25
11-25-2012, 08:30 PM #26
01-13-2013, 11:45 PM #27
01-15-2013, 12:36 PM #28
If this was player of the year award, I could see an argument. You could make a strong case for both. But this is MVP. Valuable being the key word. The Angels were picked by many, including myself, to win the World Series, and that was without Trout. The Angels with Trout finished 3rd behind Oakland and Texas, and in front of the Mariners. Guess where they would have finished without Trout? Below Oakland and Texas, and still above the Mariners. SO where is this great value?! Cabrera on the other hand lead his team to the World Series. Without him, the Tigers probably finish last in their division. They were already missig Victor, and Avila and Boesch had terrible seasons. Cabrera truly carried this team, and won a triple crown, something that has not been done in most of our lifetimes. Easy decision on who the MVP was.