127 replies to this topic

[HomeBrew1901]

There has been a lot of hand wringing both on SoSH and in the national and local media about whether or not Trout should have won and how big a travesty or victory this is.

This has turned into a conversation about whether or not "stat heads" are ruining the game and on the flip side that anyone that didn't vote for Trout is a knuckle dragging idiot because they can't understand the "new game".

I was just curious as to how most people on SoSH really felt and whether, like V&N, it's most a very vocal minority on both sides that is dominating the conversation.

Edited by HomeBrew1901, 16 November 2012 - 10:40 AM.

[NickEsasky]

I appreciate the irony of media types saying this is a win for the old school like baserunning and defense are new fangled parts of baseball that never existed prior to sabremetrics.

[Saby]

While I think Trout was the all around better player, I don't think Cabrera winning the award is a travesty on par with those of years past. It's also important to note that Trout wasn't with the team the whole year, and that may have factored into some of the voting.

Also, I don't think anyone could argue that Trout is not a far superior defender. However, there are many writers and journalists who do not consider defense to be an aspect of the game that can be quanitifably measured in numbers, and that may have played into their hesitancy to use statistics that incorporate (or try to) defense into the equation.

[johnmd20]

I agree with Saby, it was by no means a travesty. I would have voted for Cabrera despite thinking that Trout had some very good claims to the MVP. New school, old school, whatever school, the triple crown winner on a team that went to the World Series was going to win.

[Fishercat]

I could not come up with an argument that would allow me to support Miguel Cabrera for MVP that was rational, and I haven't seen one yet from anyone. As such, I had to go with the last option in each poll. I'm not really upset, but I just don't think the Cabrera argument is rooted in anything solid.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

If the '99 vote where Pedro got screwed was a 10 on the Travesty Scale, this was like a 1.8 or so. I think Trout was the better play and the better candidate for the award, but I'm lacking the outrage because Cabrera was very, very good as well.

[Hendu for Kutch]

There's another option for Question 2 along the line of "he deserved consideration, but Trout was clearly the better candidate". Option 2 doesn't make sense...if Trout was the better candidate then by definition Cabrera didn't "deserve" to win.

[HomeBrew1901]

There's another option for Question 2 along the line of "he deserved consideration, but Trout was clearly the better candidate". Option 2 doesn't make sense...if Trout was the better candidate then by definition Cabrera didn't "deserve" to win.

Holy Fuck this is obnoxious.

[Idabomb333]

I completely agree with Hendu. I would have picked a 5th option that read something like, "Definitely not, but I'm not really upset about it." I feel somewhere between option 2 and option 4. This isn't one of the BBWAA's worst mistakes, and Cabrera had a very good year, but I can't bring myself to think that's the same as saying he deserved to win.

I agree with Saby, it was by no means a travesty. I would have voted for Cabrera despite thinking that Trout had some very good claims to the MVP. New school, old school, whatever school, the triple crown winner on a team that went to the World Series was going to win.

I'm pretty sure the votes are submitted before the playoffs begin, so the World Series part can't have been a factor. Making the playoffs could have been, but that's ridiculous as others have pointed out. The Angels won more games, and that's just rewarding Cabrera for being in a terrible division.

[pedro1918]

Holy Fuck this is obnoxious.

Holy Fuck I agree with Hendu about option 2.

And with SJH in answering the initial question.

Edited by pedro1918, 16 November 2012 - 11:13 AM.

[TheGoldenGreek33]

Would've went Trout, but Miggy had a historical season and history kind of plays a big part in this game.

edit: I also rationalize Miggy winning it because he's been so good for so long and had never won it before. Again, it's whatever helps people not lose their minds.

Edited by TheGoldenGreek33, 16 November 2012 - 11:16 AM.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Would've went Trout, but Miggy had a historical season and history kind of plays a big part in this game.

Thing is, Trout's season was rather historic as well. It wasn't traditionalist historic, which is probably why it gets overlooked, but it was still historic. He had the highest rWAR for an AL player in 20 years (ARod in 2000 is the only other over 10). There have been 28 seasons in which an AL player put up a rWAR over 10. Trout's season ranks 13th of those, tied with Ted Williams' 1946 MVP season. And he did it starting his season a month late.

[MakMan44]

Thing is, Trout's season was rather historic as well. It wasn't traditionalist historic, which is probably why it gets overlooked, but it was still historic. He had the highest rWAR for an AL player in 20 years (ARod in 2000 is the only other over 10). There have been 28 seasons in which an AL player put up a rWAR over 10. Trout's season ranks 13th of those, tied with Ted Williams' 1946 MVP season. And he did it starting his season a month late.

Also, wasn't his season like the one of the best rookie season in all of baseball history. I'm fairly he had the best rookie season by WAR but I'm not sure about other metrics and such

[gammoseditor]

I think some people take it as a huge criticism of Cabrera if you say Trout should have won. Cabrera was great. Trout was just better. Like someone said above, I don't see any argument that makes sense that Cabrera was better. Defense and baserunning count.

[Hendu's Gait]

I agree with johnmd

"triple crown winner on a team that went to the World Series was going to win"


I think people are looking at 89 wins v. 88 wins and thinking that didn't make any distinction, but winning the division v. finishing third still means something in voters' minds and is being undervalued in this thread.

(I was just quoting johmd, yes, my emphasis is on the division. You can't go to the World Series without making the playoffs)

Edited by Hendu's Gait, 16 November 2012 - 05:39 PM.

[TheGoldenGreek33]

I think, in general, people understand that, all things considered, Trout had the better all-around season.

The biggest, and dare I say the only thing, thing that held Trout back was the fact that he was a rookie. Throw out the playoff argument - players have won the MVP without making the playoffs. It would be unprecedented for Trout to win the MVP. For example, look at the 1996 AL MVP Voting. It was A-Rod's first full-season of work. In this game, it's about paying dues. Miggy has had a HOF career and just now won his first MVP. This wasn't even Miggy's best season to date. A lot of voters (and managers) think Trout will get his in due time. But it'd send a bad message if Miggy didn't win.

Again, not saying I agree or disagree with it, but it's very real.

[Hendu for Kutch]

Holy Fuck this is obnoxious.

Huh? Which part? I legitimately have no idea what part you think is obnoxious? Because I think there's another option that could be added (since none of the current options fits my viewpoint and the viewpoints of others I've spoken to) or that Option 2 legitimately seems to contradict itself (wasn't best but deserved to win award for best)?

[Fishercat]

I agree with johnmd

"triple crown winner on a team that went to the World Series was going to win"


I think people are looking at 89 wins v. 88 wins and thinking that didn't make any distinction, but winning the division v. finishing third still means something in voters' minds and is being undervalued in this thread.

But the question wasn't "Did you think Miguel Cabrera was going to win?" or "Should the BBWAA voters be allowed to procreate?" (Yes, No respectively). The fact that voters can't figure out division strength and that 89 > 88 isn't really related to our opinions on who should win.

For rookies, it isn't as if Trout would have been the first (or second) rookie to win, I think it was part of it (including the incredibly ridiculous argument that Trout will have a chance later so let's give it to the skinniest of the CIF/DH's of Detroit), but I think the playoff team and triple crown held more sway there.

FWIW, Hendu's Option 5 would have been my vote too if it was available.

[Rudy Pemberton]

The biggest, and dare I say the only thing, thing that held Trout back was the fact that he was a rookie.

Related to that- but if Trout breaks camp with the big club, does he win the award? His season basically started in May, while Cabrera missed only one game.

Granted,Trout, by nature of batting leadoff, only had 58 fewer PA's than Cabrera, but I think that playing a month in the minors certainly hurt his candidacy.

[uncannymanny]

Also, I don't think anyone could argue that Trout is not a far superior defender. However, there are many writers and journalists who do not consider defense to be an aspect of the game that can be quanitifably measured in numbers, and that may have played into their hesitancy to use statistics that incorporate (or try to) defense into the equation.

I agree with your over all feel on this, but I take exception to giving writers the out of 'hesitancy to use [defensive] statistics' when talking about a fat, lead-footed 3B and an excellent CF whose defense was by no means hidden away from the national spotlight.

[Spacemans Bong]

It's not George Bell over Alan Trammell but I believe history is not going to look at this pick fondly.

It's going to be one of those picks that in five or ten years people are going to say "Miguel Cabrera won the MVP in 2011, but Mike Trout really deserved it." In the same way people mention Pedro every time someone brings up Ivan Rodriguez in 1999, or Trammell over Bell, or Bonds over Pendleton or Griffey/A-Rod over Juan Gone.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I think, in general, people understand that, all things considered, Trout had the better all-around season.

The biggest, and dare I say the only thing, thing that held Trout back was the fact that he was a rookie. Throw out the playoff argument - players have won the MVP without making the playoffs. It would be unprecedented for Trout to win the MVP. For example, look at the 1996 AL MVP Voting. It was A-Rod's first full-season of work. In this game, it's about paying dues. Miggy has had a HOF career and just now won his first MVP. This wasn't even Miggy's best season to date. A lot of voters (and managers) think Trout will get his in due time. But it'd send a bad message if Miggy didn't win.

Again, not saying I agree or disagree with it, but it's very real.

Fred Lynn in 1975 won Rookie of the Year and MVP. Ichiro in 2001 won Rookie of the Year and MVP. This idea that Trout being a rookie and needing to pay his dues was a factor in his not getting votes would be hypocritical of the BBWAA (not that they're not very familiar with that).

Joe Posnanski brought up a great point on his blog this morning pointing out that in 1985, Dwight Gooden had a season for the ages, posting a 13.0 WAR that included throwing 276 innings with a 1.53 ERA, but was not voted MVP (setting aside the pitchers winning MVP argument). An argument then could have been that as a 20 year old, he had many years ahead of him to rack up Cy Youngs and MVPs. He never had another season close to that '85 season. Assuming that Trout surely has more MVP caliber seasons in him might be presumptuous.

[SumnerH]

I could not come up with an argument that would allow me to support Miguel Cabrera for MVP that was rational, and I haven't seen one yet from anyone.

Playing devil's advocate...how about "Most Valuable" being interpreted literally (value = dollars), and a combination of:
a) Fans tuning in to see a potential triple crown winner--even though it's a silly statistical construct, it's a historically significant one and thus likely brings in more viewership dollars than a higher-WAR season without as popular a storyline; and
b) Cabrera pushing the Tigers into the playoffs

made Miguel more valuable to the Tigers than Trout, in terms of incremental dollars that his performance brought in.
(This argument would probably have to ignore their relative salaries to work)

[glennhoffmania]

Trout was the better candidate but Cabrera winning isn't a travesty or anything. This isn't like Jeter winning 10 Gold Gloves. They picked a guy who had an awesome year, but another guy was a little awesomer.

[Buck Showalter]

Trout was the better candidate but Cabrera winning isn't a travesty or anything. This isn't like Jeter winning 10 Gold Gloves. They picked a guy who had an awesome year, but another guy was a little awesomer.

Whoa!

You're back!

[santadevil]

Playing devil's advocate...how about "Most Valuable" being interpreted literally (value = dollars), and a combination of:
a) Fans tuning in to see a potential triple crown winner--even though it's a silly statistical construct, it's a historically significant one and thus likely brings in more viewership dollars than a higher-WAR season without as popular a storyline; and
b) Cabrera pushing the Tigers into the playoffs

made Miguel more valuable to the Tigers than Trout, in terms of incremental dollars that his performance brought in.
(This argument would probably have to ignore their relative salaries to work)

I just had to check...

2012 Salaries:
Trout - Pro-rated portion of MLB Minimum of $480,000 (5/6?) = $400,000
Miggy - $21,000,000

Was Miggy 52.5 times better than Trout, based on salaries alone?

[johnmd20]

Oh my Mitch Albom. You suck. Columns like this make me wish Trout won, despite not being unhappy Miggy won. What a douche.

Hello, My Name Is Mitch and I'm A Dick

But Trout excelled in the kind of numbers that weren't even considered a few years ago, mostly because A) They were impossible to measure, and B) Nobody gave a hoot.

Today, every stat matters. There is no end to the appetite for categories -- from OBP to OPS to WAR. I mean, OMG! The number of triples hit while wearing a certain-colored underwear is probably being measured as we speak.

What a tool.

[Fishercat]

Playing devil's advocate...how about "Most Valuable" being interpreted literally (value = dollars), and a combination of:
a) Fans tuning in to see a potential triple crown winner--even though it's a silly statistical construct, it's a historically significant one and thus likely brings in more viewership dollars than a higher-WAR season without as popular a storyline; and
b) Cabrera pushing the Tigers into the playoffs

made Miguel more valuable to the Tigers than Trout, in terms of incremental dollars that his performance brought in.
(This argument would probably have to ignore their relative salaries to work)

It's an interesting viewpoint, but I'm guessing you do have to bring salaries into the equation if you go down that road, and in addition to that, opportunity costs. For instance, not only did Trout make a relative pittance, but his acquisition cost was a draft pick and player development. Detroit had to pay Miguel Cabrera 22 million dollars per year and also had to give up Cameron Maybin in order to acquire him in the first place. Realistically, this year, I doubt Maybin would be substantially more valuable than Quentin Berry so it's not a major thing to consider, but with the Tigers lack off offensive depth, it's worth considering.

I think you would also have to split the relative playoff cost between every player on the team relative to contribution. If the Tigers made X dollars as a result of their playoff birth (not sure if you can assume beyond the LDS considering voting times), Cabrera was a certain amount responsible for that. Prince was part of it, Verlander was part of it, Fister was part of it, etc.

To be honest, I kind of like the viewpoint. With that said, Trout is also in a larger potential viewing market, he and Harper were probably the big story of the middle of the season, and without Trout the Angels aren't even close the relevant in the ALW, all financial considerations too.

Edited by Fishercat, 16 November 2012 - 12:42 PM.

[RingoOSU]

I'm glad Morrie's dead.

[glennhoffmania]

Whoa!

You're back!

I never left honey. Were you missing me?

[Cellar-Door]

I thought Trout had the better year, but I think Cabrera winning is far from a travesty. He was excellent at the plate, had a historic achievement and he played 161 games for a team that needed every one of them to make the playoffs. Considering how vague the MVP guidlines are there is an argument to be made. In fact I think this is less of a travesty than Verlander.

[ngruz25]

For someone who is sabermetrically not-illiterate-but-not-totally-fluent, exactly how much of Trout's insane WAR is a product of his insane fielding numbers? I'm assuming his fielding is a not insignificant factor in his total WAR. In that case, given that fielding metrics seem to be lagging behind hitting and pitching metrics as iron-clad, case-closed measurements of ability, does that factor into your perception of Trout's season?

It is unlikely that that question made any sense. Obviously Trout had an unbelievable season. What I'm asking is just how confident are you in your evaluation of the level of unbelievableness?

[Average Reds]

I think Trout got hurt by two factors that are being underestimated by the average denizen of SoSH.

First, the fact that he came up at the end of April is, I think, being held against him quite a bit. I don't agree with it or find it to be a consistent argument, but I can at least understand someone who says they feel like Trout came up a little late, had three great months and then tailed off slightly at the end, whereas Cabrera was more consistent over the course of a season and finished stronger.

The second factor is defense. Now, this is an area that should be a huge plus for Trout, but I think voters downplayed it for two reasons:

• Because writers undervalue defense generally.
• The fact that the Angels would often sub in Peter Bourjos for defense at the end of games and move Trout to left gave them a (very poor) excuse to ignore Trout's defense - "How valuable can he be if his own team subs for him at the end of games?"

The point is that it's easy for voters to rationalize making this award about offense, and if that's all someone considers, it's a very close call either way.

Having said all of the above:

• Giving Cabrera the edge because the Tigers went to the playoffs is not justifiable.
• Giving Cabrera the edge because of the Triple Crown is not justifiable.
• Anyone crowing about this as some sort of victory over sabermetrics needs to die in a fire.

[Fishercat]

For someone who is sabermetrically not-illiterate-but-not-totally-fluent, exactly how much of Trout's insane WAR is a product of his insane fielding numbers? I'm assuming his fielding is a not insignificant factor in his total WAR. In that case, given that fielding metrics seem to be lagging behind hitting and pitching metrics as iron-clad, case-closed measurements of ability, does that factor into your perception of Trout's season?

It is unlikely that that question made any sense. Obviously Trout had an unbelievable season. What I'm asking is just how confident are you in your evaluation of the level of unbelievableness?

Using baseball-reference's measure of WAR, Trout's oWAR was 8.6, his dWAR was 2.1. Cabera's oWAR was 7.4, and his dWAR was -0.2, but that doesn't quite add up to his WAR overall so something is a little wonky there. With that said, Fangraphs numbers seems to indicate a similar idea (Trout was noticeably, but not other-worldly, helped by his defense and Cabrera was harmed a little bit by it), so I'm guessing Fangraphs WAR numbers would play out if they separated it that way.

I have big questions about defensive metrics in general and how effective they are, but I still find Trout's argument solid if you just include hitting and baserunning even if you only make fielding a tiebreaker.

[Idabomb333]

For someone who is sabermetrically not-illiterate-but-not-totally-fluent, exactly how much of Trout's insane WAR is a product of his insane fielding numbers? I'm assuming his fielding is a not insignificant factor in his total WAR. In that case, given that fielding metrics seem to be lagging behind hitting and pitching metrics as iron-clad, case-closed measurements of ability, does that factor into your perception of Trout's season?

It is unlikely that that question made any sense. Obviously Trout had an unbelievable season. What I'm asking is just how confident are you in your evaluation of the level of unbelievableness?

That's a very reasonable question, and I don't think it's hard to understand. I would say I'm very confident that Trout was better than Cabrera, but a lot less confident about how much better he was. The fielding numbers (and baserunning) for both match up pretty well with their reputations and the impression one would get by watching and estimating. They were actually fairly close at bat, and everyone would agree that Trout played better defense at a tougher position and ran the bases better. The precision of measuring the difference at 3 wins isn't great, but it helps a lot that it matches other estimates and that the advantage for Trout in those areas isn't even close to debatable.

[maufman]

For someone who is sabermetrically not-illiterate-but-not-totally-fluent, exactly how much of Trout's insane WAR is a product of his insane fielding numbers? I'm assuming his fielding is a not insignificant factor in his total WAR. In that case, given that fielding metrics seem to be lagging behind hitting and pitching metrics as iron-clad, case-closed measurements of ability, does that factor into your perception of Trout's season?

It is unlikely that that question made any sense. Obviously Trout had an unbelievable season. What I'm asking is just how confident are you in your evaluation of the level of unbelievableness?

You're talking about the difference between 10 fWAR (Trout) and 7fWAR (Cabrera). Even if you ignore the gap between Cabrera's -10 glove and Trout's +11 glove, Trout is the better player of the two -- and even the most ardent old-schooler would concede that Trout is a significantly better fielder than Cabrera.

(Btw, I'm in the "Trout should've won, but it isn't an outrage" camp.)

[TheGazelle]

I agree with johnmd

"triple crown winner on a team that went to the World Series was going to win"


I think people are looking at 89 wins v. 88 wins and thinking that didn't make any distinction, but winning the division v. finishing third still means something in voters' minds and is being undervalued in this thread.

Aren't these votes conducted before the playoffs start, and then just held for an asburd amount of time? If so, the WS point doesn't really hold water, because the vote was conducted in September. I do agree with the division winner argument, though - that clearly resonates with some voters. On the defense discussion, I think Cabrera's move to third also helped lessen whatever Trout's defensive edge. For the Mitch Alboms of the world, it paints Miggy as a team player who is willing to move off his position to help the Tigers win. (Never mind that he's a butcher in either spot.)

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I agree with johnmd

"triple crown winner on a team that went to the World Series was going to win"


I think people are looking at 89 wins v. 88 wins and thinking that didn't make any distinction, but winning the division v. finishing third still means something in voters' minds and is being undervalued in this thread.

Voting was done after the regular season and before the playoffs, so Detroit making the WS had no bearing on the outcome.

No, it's clear that the voters valued the Triple Crown and division title above all else.

[Andrew]

Cabrera wont he Triple Crown. Of course he deserved to win an MVP award. Trout just probably deserved it more.

[trekfan55]

Cabrera wont he Triple Crown. Of course he deserved to win an MVP award. Trout just probably deserved it more.

This. Giving the MVP to Miguel Cabrera will not be remembered as a disaster. Besides, there is IMO a difference of opinion on the MVP award. Many people still think that the MVP is the player that was most valuable to his team, so Miggy winning the triple crown and leading his team to the playoffs gives him the nod according to many writers (many of whom do not see that the Angels actually won more games but geography screwed them). The name of the award should be changed to Best Player, or just pick out a legendary batter and name the award after him (and remove the MVP part, like they do the Cy Young) so that people actually look at the stats in a "vaccum" and vote for the best one.

[RingoOSU]

That same logic though says Dimaggio deserved the MVP in 1941, and I just can't get behind it. the 56 streak and the triple crown are just flashy and look good in the headlines, but don't mean anything about actual value. Ted should have won easily in 41, and Trout should have been unanimous this year. If Hamilton hit a couple more homers, this conversation wouldn't be even happening. So who else "deserved" it this year? Beltre? Cano? Verlander?

[Rudy Pemberton]

If you go by WAR- the past ten AL MVP's should be:

Mike Trout
Ben Zobrist
Josh Hamilton
Zack Greinke
Dustin Pedroia
Alex Rodriguez
Johan Santana
Alex Rodriguez
Ichiro
Alex Rodriguez

Voters have gotten it "right" half the time. Worst picks in recent memory have to be '02 (Tejada- who was 9th in WAR), '99 & '00 (Pedro clearly the best both years); and '98 when Gonzalez had the 15th best WAR in the league (and was only 2nd best on his own team).

By and large, voters seem to be getting much better at picking MVP's.

[SMU_Sox]

That same logic though says Dimaggio deserved the MVP in 1941, and I just can't get behind it. the 56 streak and the triple crown are just flashy and look good in the headlines, but don't mean anything about actual value. Ted should have won easily in 41, and Trout should have been unanimous this year. If Hamilton hit a couple more homers, this conversation wouldn't be even happening. So who else "deserved" it this year? Beltre? Cano? Verlander?

Angels were 8-16 before Trout got there and 81-57 with him. Just sayin'. If we're going to use less than ideal numbers to call this thing might as well list that too.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

If you go by WAR- the past ten AL MVP's should be:

Mike Trout
Ben Zobrist
Josh Hamilton
Zack Greinke
Dustin Pedroia
Alex Rodriguez
Johan Santana
Alex Rodriguez
Ichiro
Alex Rodriguez

Voters have gotten it "right" half the time. Worst picks in recent memory have to be '02 (Tejada- who was 9th in WAR), '99 & '00 (Pedro clearly the best both years); and '98 when Gonzalez had the 15th best WAR in the league (and was only 2nd best on his own team).

By and large, voters seem to be getting much better at picking MVP's.

You missed '06 in worst picks. Morneau was 34th in WAR (bWAR and fWAR) that year.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Good call; Morneau was a terrible pick. Santana with highest WAR; best positional player was Grady Sizemore who really had a phenomenal year (and he played every game), but the Indians only won 78 games.

Hell, Morneau had the 3rd best WAR on his own team. Mauer had better #s at catcher; but only played 140 games (similar to Trout).

[Statman]

I agree with the others that it is not a travesty that Cabrera won. Trout had an amazing season, but so did Cabrera and the BWAA definition of the word "valuable" gives the voters lots of leeway in casting their votes.

I also agree with Average Reds that Trout's candidacy was hurt by those two factors that he listed, but I would also add a third factor to the list.

I haven't seen this discussed too much on here, but voters also likely held it against Trout that he didn't have that great of a September (.257/.380/.836 vs. Cabrera's .308/.378/1.032) when the Angels were really struggling to make the playoffs. Yes, I am aware that the Angels won one more game than the Tigers, but unless MLB eliminates divisions (which is another discussion all together), then having a good stretch run and helping your team make the playoffs still matters to voters when deciding who is more "valuable." Whether you agree or disagree with that does not mean that Cabrera was completely undeserving of winning the MVP award.

[MakMan44]

My only major problem with the result is how lop sided it ended up being. Trout had an insanely good season and deserved way more 1st place votes than he got.

[Orel Miraculous]

If you go by WAR- the past ten AL MVP's should be:

Mike Trout
Ben Zobrist
Josh Hamilton
Zack Greinke
Dustin Pedroia
Alex Rodriguez
Johan Santana
Alex Rodriguez
Ichiro
Alex Rodriguez

Actually, that's only if we go by bWAR.

If we go by fWAR the past 10 AL MVPs should be:
Trout
Ellsbury
Hamilton
Greinke
Halladay
ARod
Sizemore
ARod
Santana
ARod

If we go by WPA the past 10 AL MVPs should be:
Trout
Bautista
Cabrera
Greinke
Lee
ARod
Ortiz
Ortiz
Santana
Delgado

If we go by Win Shares the past 10 AL MVPs should be:
Trout
Cabrera
Bautista/Cano
Mauer
Lee
ARod
Ortiz/Mauer/Jeter
ARod
Santana/Sheffield
ARod

You see what I'm getting at, right? All four of these stats attempt to quantify how much a given player helps his team win games. All four come up with different answers, and all four have their own strengths and weaknesses. It's very rare that there is one "right MVP"** and sabermatricians who just look at WAR are as wrongheaded as old school baseball writers who just look at RBI. WARs not perfect (especially given what we know about 1 year defense samples), and no other stat is either.

**Of course, these numbers indicate that Trout in 2012 and ARod in 2007 both come pretty damn close. I"m not arguing that Trout shouldn't have been the MVP this year--I think he should have. I just really hate the zealotry that is becoming entrenched within the sabermetric community. If anything, the sabermetric movement should teach us that we rarely know the right answer, and that there are more and more questions to consider all the time.

[jose melendez]

The whole issue is so weird for me. Obviously Mike Trout is a better player, and the statistical case that he had a better season is strong.

But the triple crown? It just has this mystical meaning to me. Growing up in was something that the greats did and no one was great enough to do it any more. I know this is completely irrational, but I can't help it. I imagine I'd feel the same way if someone hit .400.

Though weirdly when McGwire hit 70, I thought Sosa should get it.

[Hendu for Kutch]

The Triple Crown is neat, but that's all it should be. For all the talk of Cabrera's great season and the magical numbers, weren't his overall numbers actually better last season when he finished 5th (and a fair amount behind Ellsbury, whose own numbers aren't as good as Trout's)?