OT: Trout or Cabrera..Who's the AL MVP?

[primecougar]

I know im late but How is the triple crown meaningless but WAR is everything!

Cabrera won the triple crown in this era, just let that sink in with all the scouting, relievers and extra pitchers he still destroyed everyone.

trout is young he's gunna rack up MVPs but Miguel deserved this one

[Ado05]

He wouldnt have won the triple crown is Bautista didnt get injured, imo.

[trwi7]

I know im late but How is the triple crown meaningless but WAR is everything!

Cabrera won the triple crown in this era, just let that sink in with all the scouting, relievers and extra pitchers he still destroyed everyone.

trout is young he's gunna rack up MVPs but Miguel deserved this one

It's meaningless because batting average isn't as important as getting on base, RBI's are a product of where you hit in the batting order and how many people are on in front of you and homers, while nice aren't really that important. Would Cabrera's season have been less impressive if Hamilton finished with one more homer than him?

The offense was basically even. The defense and baserunning was a huge advantage to Trout. Therefore Trout was more valuable than Cabrera.

[Ado05]

My argument for Cabrera is who got into the PO's. Its not like the Tigers are way better than the Angels talent wise. An MVP should be able to get his team into the playoffs. That would be the deciding factor for me.

[trwi7]

The Tigers don't make the playoffs in any division other than the AL Central. Playing in a crappy division does not make Cabrera more valuable than Trout.

After Trout was called up the Angels went 82-59, a 94 win pace over 162 games. Even without that, the Angels won more games than the Tigers did.

[craig01]

He wouldnt have won the triple crown is Bautista didnt get injured, imo.

And Maris might not have broken Ruth's record if Mantle didn't get hurt.....

[craig01]

I know im late but How is the triple crown meaningless but WAR is everything!

Cabrera won the triple crown in this era, just let that sink in with all the scouting, relievers and extra pitchers he still destroyed everyone.

trout is young he's gunna rack up MVPs but Miguel deserved this one

It's the #'s crowd vs traditionalists

I understand arguments to both sides, and even was a member of SABR ..... and the #'s generally are proven to win most arguments.

I think, and it's jmo, that the WAR and some of the other metrics can be taken too literal by there definition. There are can be so many factors that come into play.... because baseball is a nine-man game.

The metrics are not perfect, and should not be considered so.

So, average is not is important as getting on base.... but the hitter is still on base, as well as providing contact from the plate

RBI's are a product of where a batter is in the lineup.... but he still has to knock them in

Hr's not being that important I would agree with

But winning the triple crown is undeniably a feat in of itself.

The dispute here is about the MVP award.

The analytics say the MVP is Trout because of his complete statistical domination

The traditionalists say it's Cabrera because of the rarity of the triple crown

The best statistical player in college football often times does not win the Heisman

The points leader in Nascar does not always win the Chase.

The lowest average score per round by a player on the PGA tour, does not always lead the tour in wins or money.

What Trout did was amazing.

I'd give my MVP vote to Cabrera by a nose.....who provided terrific production down the stretch....typical of what an MVP does for his team

[TyCobb]

And Trout's defense puts him over Cabrera by a nose hair.

[primecougar]

And Trout's defense puts him over Cabrera by a nose hair.

And the fact that Miguel played 20 more games than trout gives him the edge

[TyCobb]

Yet Trout still had a bigger impact on his team. And I'm not hating on Miguel. Both he and Trout carried my fantasy baseball team to a championship. It's just sad that his season didn't get the proper acknowledgement from MLB, i.e., no GG and MVP.

[primecougar]

Yet Trout still had a bigger impact on his team. And I'm not hating on Miguel. Both he and Trout carried my fantasy baseball team to a championship. It's just sad that his season didn't get the proper acknowledgement from MLB, i.e., no GG and MVP.

Haha I agree he had a phenomenal season especially for rookie. He's a legit 5 tool player and should've won gold glove just because of that catch lol!

MVP wise Miguel at the end of the season had clutch games that propelled his team into the playoffs. it's probably a big accomplishment if the feat didn't happen in 40 years.

Look at all the pitchers, relievers, closer and everything and yet he killed everyone

[UN-Owen]

Nowhere in the voting criteria does it say "the MVP award should be given to the Most Valuable Player of a team that qualifies for the postseason"

Therefore, the argument that Cabrera is the MVP because his team made the playoffs is invalid

[Ado05]

When I think MVP, I think of a guy who can carry his team to the playoffs. Cabrera did that, Trout did not.

[trwi7]

TROUT'S TEAM WON MORE GAMES IN A TOUGHER DIVISION! The only reason the Tigers made the playoffs is because they played in the worst division in baseball. If the Angels were in that division they win it by at least 5 games, probably more.

[UN-Owen]

When I think MVP, I think of a guy who can carry his team to the playoffs. Cabrera did that, Trout did not.

The problem with that is you're punishing Trout and rewarding Cabrera for factors they have no control over

Maybe the Tigers pitching staff allowed on average 2 runs less per game

Maybe the Angels bullpen blew 25 saves over the course of the season

Maybe the Angels lineup is filled with .250 hitters vs. a Tigers lineup filled with .300 hitters


Now, obviously I'm just using some extreme examples here to illustrate my point

But you're basically saying that Trout wasn't the MVP because Cabrera played on a better team

Whereas I would argue that each MVP candidate should be judged ENTIRELY on their own performance and nothing else

[UN-Owen]

Just leave team performance out of the debate all together

It just doesn't hold any water


Player X could hit .750 with 200 homeruns for a team that loses 162 games

And using your criteria he wouldn't be the MVP

[dockingsched]

tigers would've finished 4th in the AL west, lol

[Zeitgeister]

Ill rephrase what I just said: In the last 50 years, only 3 hitters (Bonds 2x, Yaz in 67, and Joe Morgan in 75) have eclipsed the WAR Trout put up this season: http://www.baseball-reference.com/leade ... ason.shtml

If Trout plays another 15-20 games he might have actually passed Morgan and one of Bonds's seasons. Theres no way that Mike Trout should not win the MVP.

Nobody has won the triple crown in 45 years and only 2 in the last 50+ years

The Triple Crown is a silly thing. Albert Pujols has had a few seasons better than Miggy's year this year and he's never won the triple crown. Barry Bonds has had MUCH better seasons than Miggy's and didn't win the triple crown.

[Zeitgeister]

u win the triple crown and your team makes the playoffs you win the MVP....pretty simple end of story.

Trout had a fantastic season and would win the MVP in most years but two major things go against him. His team didn't make the playoffs and Cabrera did something that is almost impossible in todays day and age.

Angels didnt make the playoffs, Tigers did. End of story.

The Angels have a better record in a more difficult division. Not end of story.