Miguel Cabrera named AL MVP

[the 'stache]

Cabrera trounced Trout .606 to .465 in SLG%.

Trout had a .564 SLG. Not sure what you're looking at. So Cabrera beat him, but he hardly trounced him.

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.

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

They're hardly based on pure speculation or conjecture.

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.

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.

Fielding percentage is a way of measuring the number of mistakes a fielder makes when he gets to the ball. Cabrera's .966 fielding percentage is slightly above average for his position compared to his peers. Things like range factor and UZR go beyond simple fielding percentage, and measure how much coverage a player gets defensively at their position. The knock on Cabrera is not that he can't catch the ball. It's that he doesn't get to a lot of balls that a great third baseman could get to. Trout gets to more balls than the average center fielder by far. His speed and fielding instincts means he is able to turn more hit balls to the outfield into outs than the other center fielders in his league. He increases his total chances, and thanks to these new metrics that you overtly dismiss, it's possible to quantify just how much of an impact Trout had.

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.

[NY Sports Teams]

Trout had a .564 SLG. Not sure what you're looking at. So Cabrera beat him, but he hardly trounced him.

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.



They're hardly based on pure speculation or conjecture.

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.



Fielding percentage is a way of measuring the number of mistakes a fielder makes when he gets to the ball. Cabrera's .966 fielding percentage is slightly above average for his position compared to his peers. Things like range factor and UZR go beyond simple fielding percentage, and measure how much coverage a player gets defensively at their position. The knock on Cabrera is not that he can't catch the ball. It's that he doesn't get to a lot of balls that a great third baseman could get to. Trout gets to more balls than the average center fielder by far. His speed and fielding instincts means he is able to turn more hit balls to the outfield into outs than the other center fielders in his league. He increases his total chances, and thanks to these new metrics that you overtly dismiss, it's possible to quantify just how much of an impact Trout had.

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.

I quoted the SLG% wrong, my fault.

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.

...Rick

[gladdyontherise]

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).

[the 'stache]

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 not plugging in numbers that were not derived under the same exact parameters with no variables. It's a joke that there are a multitude to figure one so-called stat. You believe what you want and I will do the same. 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'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.

...Rick

He scored 129 runs in 139 games. He scored in 93% of the games he played in. I'm not asking you to extrapolate that over 162 games. I'm asking you to look at his performance in the games he played. It's humorous that you're apparently not able to wrap your head around that.

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.

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.

He is a below average third baseman. Part of a third baseman's job is to get to the ball, catch it, and throw somebody out. Brooks Robinson, arguably the best third baseman in baseball history, is considered great because he could get to the ball. Cabrera can't. If it's not hit within two feet of him in either direction, the hitter is getting on. That you're incapable of seeing the importance of a defender's range is simply mind-boggling.

"Oh he catches the balls hit to him, therefore he's not an average, or below-average fielder".

LOL.

[the 'stache]

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).

That's a fair assessment. His offense is spectacular. The rest of his game is not.

[gladdyontherise]

That's a fair assessment. His offense is spectacular. The rest of his game is not.

I wouldn't say that. I happen to think his base running instincts are pretty good. Obviously he's not a base stealer, but he's not a liability, in my opinion. (and I know what the metrics say in base running, but quire frankly, I think it's rather subjective and not sure how you can compare him to an 'average base runner')

[helmsbr]

go miggy

[AllenGinterSigned]

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.