2012 American League MVP

[Ben Grimm]

Wait a second... did I just see earlier that because Zobrist had a high WAR, he should be MVP? Sorry, I don't know WAR nearly as much as many here, but I can't agree to that. If anything, he got it there with his defensive WAR, and even the most die-hard on it will likely aknowledge that defensive stats are iffy at best.

IMO, Ben Zobrist was an above average 2B for two seasons. No knock on him, but hardly MVP consideration worthy. But wtf do I know?!?

[willshad]

Cabrera's MVP award was based on him performing a unique statistical achievement as much as it was about his actual value. It is similar to Dimaggio winning when he had a 56 game hitting streak, or Maris winning when he hit 61 home runs. The achievement doesn't necessarily make the guy the most valuable..in fact, none of the three men were close to being the most 'valuable' in their respective seasons. I have no problem, however, in rewarding such things. It sure beats simply awarding the MVP to the guy in each league who had the most WAR. I think I can spot more 'mistakes' with WAR (such as Zobrist having the highest total last year) as I do with the actual MVP voting.

[Mr. Lasorda]

I think Trout would be more valuable on any team. Voters are split it seems between metrics and old school stats.

[GiambiJuice]

No, my point flew right over your head. I'll spell it out for you: To say a game in May is exactly equal to a game in September is taking a human experience, sucking the context out of it, flattening it out and forcing into a two-dimensional, statistical paradigm; i.e., a spreadsheet.

Those who lend no weight to the fact that Cabrera had a far superior August and September to Trout, and insist, "a win in May is the exact same as a win in September" are looking at the game through Microsoft Excel. With this worldview, because 1 = 1 on paper, then players' performances should be judged equally, no matter when they happen. Even though there is far, far more pressure during the latter part of the season, on paper 1 = 1, so a game-winning hit in May is lent equal weight to a game-winning hit in September.. That's pretending the game is played on a spreadsheet.

It wasn't a "nonsensical statement" -- you just failed to understand it. No problem, though. Have a nice day. The right man is MVP -- the guy who performed at a superior level when his team needed him most.

Joe Posnanski did a good job of responding to all the anti-Trout arguments. The argument you pose here is a very popular one and is destroyed particularly well by Posnanski:

Argument 2: Cabrera was better in August and September.

Three things this time. First is, yes, Cabrera was better than Trout offensively those two months. He hit .344/.411/.670 to Trout’s .287/.383/.500. That’s better. Trout did score more runs, however. He stole 18 bases to Cabrera’s 0. He was still the much, much better defensive player. Was Miguel Cabrera really the better PLAYER the last two months of the season, or just the better hitter? I mean, if the MVP is only about who hits the ball in August and September, well, Prince Fielder’s .337/.453/.607 should have put him pretty close to Cabrera's level as an MVP candidate.

Which leads to the second thing: Isn’t it interesting that Fielder and Cabrera both went cuckoo at the plate the last two months of the season. I wonder why. Maybe it’s because they are both extraordinary pressure hitters who rise to the occasion when it matters most, when backs are against walls, when time is up, when chips are down, when fat ladies sing. Maybe it’s because they have some sort of inner strength that others lack, some sort of clutch hitter gene that triggers when the team needs them the most.

Or -- and I’m just spitballing here -- part of it could be that the Tigers played Cleveland (last in league in ERA), Minnesota (second-last in league in ERA) and Kansas City (11th in league in ERA) 28 times in the last two months. I suppose that is at least possible. Meanwhile Trout played Oakland (2nd in ERA) and Seattle (third in ERA) 21 times, just those two teams.

Look, it’s never as simple as saying that ballpark factors or strength of schedule or anything like that makes all the difference. They don't make all the difference. Cabrera hit good pitchers and bad all year -- the guy's a masher. But it seems impossible to me that people would divvy up the season like that -- making games after August 1 sacrosanct -- without taking that little tidbit into consideration.

And there’s the third thing. Take a look at July:

Mike Trout: .392/.455/.804 Miguel Cabrera: .344/.409/.677

Do you see it? Yep: Miguel Cabrera was almost exactly the same in July as he was in August and September. Seems he didn’t just turn it on August 1st because the team needed him. He’s just a really good hitter. Meanwhile Trout was otherworldly.

And ... wait a minute: It looks like they played baseball in June too:

Trout: .372/..419/.531 Caberra: .311/.387.604

Hmm. And wait, what’s this? They played baseball in May too?

Trout: .324/.385/.556 Cabrera: .331/.371/.468

It’s fun to parse the baseball season into nice, bite-sized chunks to make a point. You know from Sept. 25 to October 3 -- the last nine games of the season! The crunchiest of crunch times -- Mike Trout thoroughly outhit Cabrera

Trout: .361/.465/.694 Cabrera: .313/.353/.500

And do you know what that means? Nothing. It's the MVP. Whole season.

[drstrangelove]

I think Trout would be more valuable on any team. Voters are split it seems between metrics and old school stats.

The split is about 75-25 (imo), with 75% relying on what they feel comfortable with, i.e., popular counting stats. I cynically give it about 20-30 years before we finally swing it the opposite way (where intuition and superstition are not the correct ways to evaluate performance.) I thought that baseball would be ahead of the curve in this, but now I'm wondering. Having a longer history of thinking that a certain stat is the only way to evaluate someone may also mean we'll take the longest to change.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...anerll01.shtml

This is an example of old school stat choices. We are a bit improved as far as the Hall goes, but judging by some of the MVP and CYA votes in the last 10 years (including this year), we aren't any better than the 1940's. In 70 years, despite better and easily available stats and measures, we get the voting wrong just as often and by margins that are just as large.

There is no one I think who will argue that Waner, or Kell, or a dozen or 2 dozen more players belong in the Hall of Fame. Yet they got in on the same basis that we vote for the MVP and CYA.

[brett]

Cabrera had an MVP caliber year, so it was not an all time bad selection, but Trout's omission was pretty near all time bad. I still think Cabrera did a very MVPish thing in going to third. He and Fielder combined for 11.3 WAR this year and without his move to third they would have had a hard time finding someone to add those (4.4) war.

If you give the Tiger's Cabrera's 6.9 war at first and an average (2.2) war total at third they net 9.1, so given that they got 4.4 from Fielder the move could be deemed to be worth another 2.2 war in addition to Cabrera's 6.9 for a total of 9.1. And War is not perfect, but straight up it doesn't take war to see that Trout, with his immense defense and baserunning edge had a better "isolated" season than Cabrera. Cabrera didn't have an all time great season for a third baseman IMO. Voters simply do not comprehend the value of defense, don't downgrade below average defenders or know anything about park offensive issues.

[ipitch]

The right man is MVP -- the guy who performed at a superior level when his team needed him most.

Last 15 games of the season:
Cabrera - .906 OPS
Trout - 1.008 OPS

Oddly, both went exactly 16 for 55.

[brett]

The split is about 75-25 (imo), with 75% relying on what they feel comfortable with, i.e., popular counting stats.

What ever happened to the "tradition" of the well rounded 5 tool star though? Its not like Sosa versus Mac where Mac had all the walks but was perceived as one dimensional.

I think Cabrera was probably helped because voters didn't want to vote down a triple crown winner who was Latino for a white player who had stats that the general public perceived as inferior. I am not saying that it made the difference in the winner but some voters may have just wanted to avoid the appearance of racism. Some voters took Cabrera more as a kind of anti saber protest, desiring to preserve some of their childhood beliefs about baseball. Some preferred "crowning" the career of an established star over a season by a rookie who might turn out to be a fluke. Some also probably looked at Cabrera's move to third to bring another bat to the team.

[GiambiJuice]

What ever happened to the "tradition" of the well rounded 5 tool star though? Its not like Sosa versus Mac where Mac had all the walks but was perceived as one dimensional.

I think Cabrera was probably helped because voters didn't want to vote down a triple crown winner who was Latino for a white player who had stats that the general public perceived as inferior. I am not saying that it made the difference in the winer but some voters may have just wanted to avoid the appearance of racism. Some voters took Cabrera more as a kind of anti saber protest, desiring to preserve some of their childhood beliefs about baseball. Some preferred "crowning" the career of an established star over a season by a rookie who might turn out to be a fluke. Some also probably looked at Cabrera's move to third to bring another bat to the team.

Are we playing the race card now?

[SamtheBravesFan]

I have to believe that the color of Cabrera's skin and nationality are the last and least likely reasons they voted for him.

[milladrive]

I have to believe that the color of Cabrera's skin and nationality are the last and least likely reasons they voted for him.

I agree. ...and let's hope that's not the direction this thread will take.

P.S. "hope" = "will not be tolerated"

[brett]

I have to believe that the color of Cabrera's skin and nationality are the last and least likely reasons they voted for him.

These are writers for basically big city newspapers. I certainly don't think they would have a pro-white bias. I think they have a motivation to not look racist especially if they think the vote is going to come down that way anyway, so it might explain the larger than expected gap in the first place voting.

[dominik]

So, then, you're saying it's easy to measure ballplayers, just like the weather.

If it's 98 degrees in Phoenix, and 80 degrees in Minneapolis, then it's an exact science -- it's hotter in Phoenix, and there's no room for debate.

And if Ben Zobrist has a higher WAR than Miguel Cabrera last year, then Zobrist was the player you'd most want on your team -- there's no room for debate. Because Zobrist's WAR was higher.

Gotcha.

Boy, can you imagine all those stupid GMs and managers who would ignore the hard, scientific data and choose Cabrara over Zobrist? Danged Flat-Earthers!!!

well you don't need WAR to see that trout was more valuable.

Same production at the plate+better fielding+better running+tougher position= more valuable. Of course not all of those mean the same and depending on position around 70% of the value is in hitting but if hitting is basically equal (do you also doubt OPS+?) and all other factors exept playing time are in favor of one player I think it becomes pretty clear who is more valuable. I know miggy had 58 PAs more but is that enough to offset all those advantages trout had?

[NJYankeeFan]

well you don't need WAR to see that trout was more valuable.

Same production at the plate+better fielding+better running+tougher position= more valuable. Of course not all of those mean the same and depending on position around 70% of the value is in hitting but if hitting is basically equal (do you also doubt OPS+?) and all other factors exept playing time are in favor of one player I think it becomes pretty clear who is more valuable. I know miggy had 58 PAs more but is that enough to offset all those advantages trout had?

Well said.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[filihok]

No, my point flew right over your head.

Error on VF, then.

I'll spell it out for you: To say a game in May is exactly equal to a game in September is taking a human experience, sucking the context out of it, flattening it out and forcing into a two-dimensional, statistical paradigm; i.e., a spreadsheet.

Those who lend no weight to the fact that Cabrera had a far superior August and September to Trout, and insist, "a win in May is the exact same as a win in September" are looking at the game through Microsoft Excel. With this worldview, because 1 = 1 on paper, then players' performances should be judged equally, no matter when they happen. Even though there is far, far more pressure during the latter part of the season, on paper 1 = 1, so a game-winning hit in May is lent equal weight to a game-winning hit in September.. That's pretending the game is played on a spreadsheet.

There is far, far more pressure on a rookie who has played in less than 162 games in his career than there is for a player who has 9.5 seasons under his belt. Yet, Trout performed almost as well with the bat as Cabrera did, while under MORE pressure.

It wasn't a "nonsensical statement" -- you just failed to understand it. No problem, though. Have a nice day. The right man is MVP -- the guy who performed at a superior level when his team needed him most.

On September 27th the Tigers were 2 games up on the White Sox and the Angels were 2 games back of the A's. From that point through the rest of the season:
Trout hit .440/.517/.920 with 2 HR, 5 RBI and 5 Runs
Cabrera hit .430/.450/.710 with 2 HR, 6 RBI and 2 Runs

If a game in August is more important than a game in July, then games in the last week of the season, must be even more important than games in August and September, right?

Obviously Trout was actually more 'clutch' than Cabrera

[drstrangelove]

These are writers for basically big city newspapers. I certainly don't think they would have a pro-white bias. I think they have a motivation to not look racist especially if they think the vote is going to come down that way anyway, so it might explain the larger than expected gap in the first place voting.

I'm going to disagree, not because I think voting that way is beneath them, but because many of them make poor decisions all the time. They don't want or understand anything complex. They strive to have a simple vote for their simple mind. They look at RBI, and if they need to look further they look at HR or BA. If it still is confusing, they may write it all down and look to see if there is a catcher still in the mix.

They HAVE to be able to explain their vote. (Think of a 12 year giving a book report at school.) If it's too complex, they know they'll screw it up and then everyone will know that they didn't read the book! (In this case, we'll know they don't understand a thing about baseball.)

Trout is too complicated for a 30-50% of them to understand. Cabrera wasn't. It has nothing to do with race, imo, and everything to do with a bunch of 12 year old writers not reading the book and trying to skate.


And I'll say this with complete certainty. Both, pro and con, we have spent more time and effort, and put forth more meaningful arguments (from both sides) analyzing this choice than 75% of them did.

[cooperstownersincanada]

Here's an interesting article about why Austin Jackson should have got some AL MVP consideration:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index...ustin-jackson/

[filihok]

http://www.fangraphs.com/not/index.p...b-ben-zobrist/
benzo.png

Yeah, he's valuable