AL Real Life MVP? Miggy vs Trout

I think Miguel Cabrera is the best hitter in the game, hands down (Sorry Pujols lovers). I saw him play early in his career in Florida, and being around baseball my whole life (including playing all 4 years in college) I have never seen someone consistently hit the ball as hard as Cabrera. He's really quite spectacular to watch in person.

That being said, I wholeheartedly agree with the Keith Law article and would definitely pick Trout as the MVP. I believe baseball is an individual sport, not a team sport, save a few situations (relays, pickoffs, etc.). At the plate, on the mound, in the field, it's just you and the ball. No one else can help. You don't need someone to pass you the ball, you don't need a lead blocker. It's the collective individual efforts that inevitably resemble a team sport.

You can't say that Cabrera was the reason his team made the playoffs and that since Trout's team didn't make the playoffs, his contributions aren't meaningful. It's not that simple. Cabrera could go 1-4 with a single to drive in the winning run in a 1-0 Verlander shutout, while Trout could go 4-4 with 3 runs scored and 2 RBIs and rob a homerun, but Ervin Santana got lit up or the bullpen blew the lead, and the Angels lose 7-5. That's just a hypothetical, but clearly Trout did a lot more to give his team a chance at winning that game than Cabrera did in his game. That's the bottom line. Trout gave his team a better chance of winning through his total offensive and defensive production than Cabrera or anyone else in the league.

Mike Trout - MVP

P.S. If you look solely at WAR, Robinson Cano is 2nd in the AL and Cabrera is 3rd.

If Miggy wins the triple crown that is the end of discussion. Some people aren't recognizing what an amazing feat that is. That hasn't been done since 1967 and it is even more difficult to do today than back then due to expansion. Detroit winning the division and the Angels going home to watch on TV also gives Miggy an advantage whether that is fair or not. Miggy gets the MVP and Trout the Rookie of the Year IMO.

My argument is a simple one. I think both players have had outstanding seasons , but as someone mentioned aboev, the Angels have a better overall team than the Tigers do. I think Trout is an outstanding player, and all the measures say that he did indeed have a better overall season than Cabrera. But i also think that "MOST VALUABLE" means just that.
Take Trout away from the Angels and they dont make the playoffs. Which is what they accomplished WITH him. Take Cabrera away from the Tigers and they dont overtake the White Sox and are NOT in the Playoffs. So i think Cabrera is More Valuable to HIS team than Trout to his, therefore giving more reason to think that Cabrera should be MVP!!

And switch the Angels into the central and take away Trout and they probably make the playoffs anyways. Difference in schedules due to a weak division.

Take Trout away from the Angels and they dont make the playoffs. Which is what they accomplished WITH him. Take Cabrera away om the Tigers and they dont overtake the White Sox and are NOT in the Playoffs. So i think Cabrera is More Valuable to HIS team than Trout to his, therefore giving more reason to think that Cabrera should be MVP!!

I don't know that I agree with your argument, but I think the end point of whichever team gets into the playoffs will produce the MVP is correct. That's usually the deciding factor in a close race.

If Miggy wins the triple crown that is the end of discussion. Some people aren't recognizing what an amazing feat that is. That hasn't been done since 1967 and it is even more difficult to do today than back then due to expansion.

Two points:

1. There should be no direct correlation to winning the Triple Crown and the MVP. While I do not disagree that the Triple Crown is an historic accomplishment, it should not automatically guarantee that you win the MVP, too. In fact, there is already precedent for winning the Triple Crown but not winning the MVP (Ted Williams, Lou Gehrig, Chuck Klein). It has been demonstrated ad nauseam that the statistics that comprise the Triple Crown are an incomplete picture of a player's value/contributions to his team, so why use his performance in only those three categories to determine if he is the MVP?

2. I don't know that it was easier to do back then or nowadays. There are so many factors that have changed on both sides of the scale (style of play, travel, talent dilution from expansion, rise of other sports, statistics/analytics & technology, etc.). I think in the end the challenge remains about the same.

I agree that triple crown may not equal automatic MVP. But you cannot ignore it either.

20 years from now Trout's season will be a footnote to what should be a great career. If he does not win nobody will be looking back and asking how could he have been overlooked. 20 years from now if Cabrera does not win everyone will look back and wonder what else could he have done. Cabrera may never win another triple crown. Maybe it will be another 50 years before anyone else does it again. What Trout has done is outstanding. But I would bet he will put up a number of such seasons. He will have his day. This day belongs to Cabrera.

I'm not ignoring or discounting Cabrera winning the Triple Crown. However, regardless of whether he wins the MVP or not, he still has the Triple Crown. It's not like it won't count if he doesn't win the MVP, too.

I also seriously doubt that Mike Trout's season will be a "footnote". If it is, he will likely be the greatest player in the history of baseball. That's possible, but statistically unlikely. According to Baseball Reference, he had a WAR of 10.7. Since 1900, only 32 other individuals have achieved that feat. The only other players since 1900 to have multiple seasons of a WAR of at least 10.7 are Walter Johnson (6), Babe Ruth (6), Pete Alexander (2), Barry Bonds (2), Bob Gibson (2), Mickey Mantle (2), Willie Mays (2), and Ed Walsh (2).

What could Cabrera have done better? Wear a glove out in the field.

UZR/150 games
Trout = +13.5 (5th among qualified AL outfielders)
Cabrera = -10.6 (last among qualified AL third basemen)



Two other factoids about WAR:
1. Mike Trout's oWAR = 8.6; Miguel Cabrera's oWAR = 7.5. That means even forgetting defense, Trout was better than Cabrera.
2. Cabrera had 60 more PAs than Trout. At a similar production rate and equal PAs, Trout's WAR would have risen his to around 11.7. Only 10 individuals have done that since 1900.

Miggy +Triple Crown = MVP

It seems every year there is a debate about who should be the MVP. Last year it was, should a starting pitcher be an MVP, when he only plays maybe 34 games. The pitcher already has the Cy Young to win. Same argument comes up with relief pitchers, they can win the Fireman award.
My thoughts and fix is simple. Create a hitters type award. Give it a name, say the Williams Hitters Award in the AL and the Musial Award in the NL. (Let the name debate begin. Remember, it is for just offense. Mays, Ruth for the MVP names, they were more complete or in Ruth's case, both a hitter and a pitcher.)
With a hitters award, Cy Young and Fireman award, the MVP comes down to who was most valuable to his team. The debate would be on their contributions to the team and not necessarily on statistical performance.
Any thoughts on the proposal?

Kevin

The big question is how to you measure a players contribution to their team without using statistics? Is the bench player who is a leader in the clubhouse more valuable than a 280/360/510 hitter?

I love how people are saying Miggy carried his team to the playoffs without recognizing the contributions of Verlander, Scherzer, Fielder, Jackson, etc.

What do you think the Over-Under is for 1st Place MVP votes now that Cabrera has won the Triple Crown? With the Tigers in the playoffs and the Angels on the outside looking in, I'm guessing Cabrera gets at least 20 of the 28 first place votes for MVP and wins in a land slide despite Trout looking every bit as good using some of the more modern statistical measurements. IMO, he could get all but 1 or 2 of the non-Angel beat writers who vote for the MVP.