For those who think Trout over miggy

[element1286]

I think Valueable and Outstanding have different meanings. Detroit won the Central, LA of Anaheim in California finished third in the west. You can dislike that playoff appearances factor into value, but they do. (While everyone likes to write Cabrera off as a baserunner, he did manage to score 103 runs. That's 6 less than Trout. Who hit more triples, more doubles and stole or bases. Sometimes speed and base running ability get confused.). Had none of the top three made the playoffs, base running and defense may been important in the conversation. But it's not like MT is a Gold Glover, or even the Angels first choice to play center. He started the season in left. For a reason. And defense isn't something that historically matters in MVP voting. Not like say, offensive power numbers anyway. The voting wasn't even close, as I assumed. (I am surprised Davis finished third though)

Please explain how 'value' has anything do with a playoff appearance.

 

[StanMarsh51]

I think Valueable and Outstanding have different meanings. Detroit won the Central, LA of Anaheim in California finished third in the west. You can dislike that playoff appearances factor into value, but they do. (While everyone likes to write Cabrera off as a baserunner, he did manage to score 103 runs. That's 6 less than Trout. Who hit more triples, more doubles and stole or bases. Sometimes speed and base running ability get confused.). Had none of the top three made the playoffs, base running and defense may been important in the conversation. But it's not like MT is a Gold Glover, or even the Angels first choice to play center. He started the season in left. For a reason. And defense isn't something that historically matters in MVP voting. Not like say, offensive power numbers anyway. The voting wasn't even close, as I assumed. (I am surprised Davis finished third though)

Frank Thomas had 9 seasons of 100+ runs
Jim Thome had 11 seasons of 90+ runs, with 8 of them 100+ runs


The following players each had multiple seasons scoring 115+ runs:
Jason Giambi
Andres Galarraga
Carlos Delgado
Rafael Palmeiro
Mark McGwire
Manny Ramirez

So the sloths listed above who were all subpar baserunners all had no trouble scoring 100+ runs in some seasons....when you're hitting 40+ HR a year such as Cabrera did, it kinda makes it easier. So I don't know how 103 runs for Cabrera automatically assumes it was his smart baserunning skills.

Also take it for what it's worth, but I heard a stat earlier today saying that Cabrera and Trout each had about the same number of chances to take the extra base during the season (something around 85 chances), and Trout successfully took the extra base 45x, while did so 22x.

 

[broncosmitty]

Please explain how 'value' has anything do with a playoff appearance.

It has everything to do with value. Without your team making the playoffs, how can you be more Valueable than the best player on another team who did? (There were several areas where Cabreras "value" could have been questioned, none have been mentioned in this thread) Most Oustanding Player would be a completely different beast. Also would be a better indicator of which player had the best individual season, but it doesn't exist in MLB.

 

[_Xer0_]

rofl at Mike Drought.

the only reason Cabrera didn't get MVP in 2010 was because his team didn't make the playoffs, even though he had better numbers than Hamilton.

 

[broncosmitty]

Frank Thomas had 9 seasons of 100+ runs
Jim Thome had 11 seasons of 90+ runs, with 8 of them 100+ runs


The following players each had multiple seasons scoring 115+ runs:
Jason Giambi
Andres Galarraga
Carlos Delgado
Rafael Palmeiro
Mark McGwire
Manny Ramirez

So the sloths listed above who were all subpar baserunners all had no trouble scoring 100+ runs in some seasons....when you're hitting 40+ HR a year such as Cabrera did, it kinda makes it easier. So I don't know how 103 runs for Cabrera automatically assumes it was his smart baserunning skills.

Also take it for what it's worth, but I heard a stat earlier today saying that Cabrera and Trout each had about the same number of chances to take the extra base during the season (something around 85 chances), and Trout successfully took the extra base 45x, while did so 22x.

What do any of those players have to do with Miguel Cabrera? (That was a who's who list of steroid era juicers, not back to back to back batting champions) Im not surprised Trout took the extra base 23 more times than MC. Cabrera had a torn groin for te last two months. His doubles were down significantly as well. (My point was that Cabrera isn't "worthless" as a baserunner. Just like defense, #'s don't capture the art of base running, IMO.)

 

[broncosmitty]

Why is it pointless to go into those categories? We can take them into context, no?

I mean, is a 1st baseman who hits .300/30/100 with a .900 OPS necessarily better than the shortstop who hits .295/28/95 with a .880 OPS?

If we're using the reasoning I think you're using, it's the 1st basemen since he led in all 4 of the categories. But positional differences would tell you that it's harder to put up those numbers from the shortstop position than at 1B.

Ummmm.... When you're making a case for a player to be MVP, stats which your chosen player doesn't trail the other candidate would make more sense to me. This isnt me disrespecting Trout, I just didnt see how his standing in those areas helped his cause any. Your hypothetical stat question confuses me. They are a third baseman and a left fielder/centerfielder respectively. And the power numbers weren't anywhere near that close. If Trout played short and Miggy first this might be a different conversation. But, as I've stated, without making the playoffs, Trout was at a great disadvantage. (Regardless of it being one of my Tigers who benefitted, I agree with that)

 

[da55bums]

without Miggy Cabrera the Tigers would have finished 3rd, maybe lower.....without Mike Trout the Angels could have still finished 3rd....both plausable

Miggy winning the MVP is a very good choice, plus he just won it last year, so you have to beat the incumbent by a large margin...Trout, Donaldson (who was way better than I thought before a few days ago) and Davis didn't beat him by enough...

Congrats to Miggy on another great personal achevement award.

 

[jalopy]

If you are going purely on the numbers, Trout is easily the best position player in the game. The argument that Miggy is better offensive is a thin one and based largely on his RBI total. I would argue that BA with RISP is a better barometer than RBI. Trout has a better offensive WAR (10.0 v 9.0 baeball-reference) and his value on defense vs Miggy isn't really debatable. The only real debate is whether MVP includes intangibles. Miggy's clubhouse presence is undeniable but should that cause him to leapfrog Trout? I don't have an answer but my personal opinion is no.

 

[Wazmankg]

Or because you think the award is an individual award and therefore playoff appearance shouldn't matter. Your stance is illogical. You just made up a criteria that doesn't exist (playoff appearance) and tried to apply it universally amongst opinions on who should be MVP. If someone believed that the award should simply go to the most valuable player, regardless of team success, they can make an argument without using WAR

Well there's a reason it's called most valuable player and not most outstanding player. Like it or not team success has always mattered and always will with this award. One's team doesn't have to make the playoffs but they should have at least been in contention. The Angels were not. Not even close. Now if Trout or anyone not on a contending team was head & shoulders above the competition exceptions can and have been made. That wasn't the case this season. Subtract Miggy and the Tigers don't make the playoffs. Subtract Trout and the Angels finish 4th instead of 3rd.

 

[Darkstone42]

If you are going purely on the numbers, Trout is easily the best position player in the game. The argument that Miggy is better offensive is a thin one and based largely on his RBI total. I would argue that BA with RISP is a better barometer than RBI. Trout has a better offensive WAR (10.0 v 9.0 baeball-reference) and his value on defense vs Miggy isn't really debatable. The only real debate is whether MVP includes intangibles. Miggy's clubhouse presence is undeniable but should that cause him to leapfrog Trout? I don't have an answer but my personal opinion is no.

I don't really like RISP stats, either, to be honest. It's just sequencing, and it often varies drastically from year to year.

 

[jalopy]

I don't really like RISP stats, either, to be honest. It's just sequencing, and it often varies drastically from year to year.

Well, the sample size is quite smaller but should be statistically adequate. I don't really like it either but I think it is helpful to have some indication of "clutch" hitting. The Trout argument is often favored by those that like sabermetrics but situational hitting needs to be accounted for somehow.

 

[dougplayer]

TROUT VOWS angels will get at least 3 games within reach of making play offs.

I guess WAR doesn't figure in things like that... who cares about winning games and those clutch old time RBI thingys..

 

[element1286]

It has everything to do with value. Without your team making the playoffs, how can you be more Valueable than the best player on another team who did? (There were several areas where Cabreras "value" could have been questioned, none have been mentioned in this thread) Most Oustanding Player would be a completely different beast. Also would be a better indicator of which player had the best individual season, but it doesn't exist in MLB.

The definition of value never mentions the playoffs, it's supposed to measure value. There is no way to have a better season and be less valuable than a player who had a worse season at the same time. You are then using the other players on the team to measure 'value', ie making the playoffs to make the determination.

Without your team making the playoffs, how can you be more Valueable than the best player on another team who did?

This sentence is non-sensical, this isn't an argument, and should never be accepted as an argument.

 

[element1286]

Well there's a reason it's called most valuable player and not most outstanding player. Like it or not team success has always mattered and always will with this award. One's team doesn't have to make the playoffs but they should have at least been in contention. The Angels were not. Not even close. Now if Trout or anyone not on a contending team was head & shoulders above the competition exceptions can and have been made. That wasn't the case this season. Subtract Miggy and the Tigers don't make the playoffs. Subtract Trout and the Angels finish 4th instead of 3rd.

He was though.

But as a counter argument. Say a teams wins their division by 10+ games. How valuable could their "MVP Candidate" possibly be? Their team would have made the playoffs regardless, thus their "value" is greatly diminished.

 

[powerchord86]

Fuck yo WAR!

 

[MilkSpiller22]

The definition of value never mentions the playoffs, it's supposed to measure value. There is no way to have a better season and be less valuable than a player who had a worse season at the same time. You are then using the other players on the team to measure 'value', ie making the playoffs to make the determination.

Without your team making the playoffs, how can you be more Valueable than the best player on another team who did?

This sentence is non-sensical, this isn't an argument, and should never be accepted as an argument.

It is said that great players make their teammates better... So if you take that logic then "team" stats are important... Even if you dont take that logic, i still think "team" stats are important...

 

[element1286]

It is said that great players make their teammates better... So if you take that logic then "team" stats are important... Even if you dont take that logic, i still think "team" stats are important...

So how many games better did Cabrera make his teammates?

 

[jalopy]

It is said that great players make their teammates better... So if you take that logic then "team" stats are important... Even if you dont take that logic, i still think "team" stats are important...

Adding intangibles or "clubhouse presence" is the only way you can successfully argue that Miggy is more valuable than Trout. Numbers are numbers and they clearly support Trout being a better all-around baseball player and, thus, adds more value to his team.

 

[da55bums]

Miggy is the reason the Tigers ever see the playoffs...without him that offense is horrible.

 

[element1286]

Miggy is the reason the Tigers ever see the playoffs...without him that offense is horrible.

Yeah, having the best starting rotation in baseball made no difference, it was Miggy and only Miggy.