For those who think Trout over miggy

[da55bums]

Well, I really doubt that. Even if he was, what does that matter? When the season started he was Detroit's second best infielder. (That's not argueable, it's the truth). It didn't matter, as he's the best hitter in baseball and his team was easily in control of their division from June on. When defensive wizards start getting 20 million a season I might start to believe defense is valued like offense is.

over Peralta and Fielder...have to agree there.

 

[jalopy]

The numbers show Trout is a much better defender and a marginally more valuable offensive asset. Not sure Miggy's intangibles make up that difference.

 

[broncosmitty]

Why do you doubt that? He doesn't even pass the eye test.

K. Why are you so butt hurt over the AL MVP?

 

[MilkSpiller22]

You need to get out and watch some games if you don't think that Miggy cost his teams games with his defense.

And we don't all agree that Miggy had a better offensive year. His offensive WAR was a full point (game) behind Trout.

And I don't include the fact that the Tigers made the playoffs. It is 100% irrelevant when determining value.

WAR is based on position, there is a difference between who is the better offensive player than who is the better player... Miggy had the better offensive season...

 

[element1286]

K. Why are you so butt hurt over the AL MVP?

And here I thought this was a place where we shared ideas and opinions, silly me.

 

[broncosmitty]

And here I thought this was a place where we shared ideas and opinions, silly me.

Don't want to answer, that's cool though. Neither do folks who keep complaining about the electoral college.

 

[da55bums]

And here I thought this was a place where we shared ideas and opinions, silly me.

If the idea and opinion is anything other than Tigers Players Rule....then off with your head.

 

[Ronnie]

It's a silly award. Means nothing if you look at baseball as a team sport.

Two years now and we still have the Cabrera/Trout argument. The answer (with or without stats) is still the same. If you want a more complete baseball player - you pick Trout. Want the best hitter (only) - you pick Cabrera. What their WAR is or isn't does not matter. What place their team ended up shouldn't matter either (but it always has). Who won the MVP does not matter either....it's a popularity contest somewhat like a Miss America contest. A ten year old Little Leaguer knows the answer. Crap, even Muzz can eyeball the answer. Pick your poison and shut up. No one asked anyone here for their vote....not one media hack cares who you favored....just blowing wind to try and prove you know more than someone else.

White or dark turkey meat? Talk among yourselves.

 

[Howie115]

If 2 players are close then you have to give it to the player who made the playoffs... you may not like it but making the playoffs is a statistic as well and should be included in analysis...

"Making the playoffs" isn't in the criteria for MVP, as given to the writers, but all voters are asked to use their own judgment as to what "valuable" means. So a team's performance has an effect for that reason. The unwritten rule seems to be, if a player from a losing team (Angels were 78-84) is to win MVP, his stats have to be considerably better than anyone else's that season. This is simply not the case with Trout.

 

[navamind]

Cabrera might not have great range, but he made the plays that he could make... Not saying he is a good defender, but i dont think he costed the team that much for his poor defense... Nor am i sold that helped his team that much solely on defense... But even if you are correct with your estimation that Trout won 2 more games because of his defense, and lets say miggy lost the same amount(both are probably going with the maximum numbers), that is only a 4 win difference... And we all agree that Miggy had the better offensive year(not by much), so lets say that miggy won one more game than Trout for offense(includes baserunning)... then that is Trout winning 3 more games. That is not a very significant number... So if you include the fact that Miggy made the playoffs, while Trout did not how can you give it to trout if the difference is so close to begin with...

And he would make a lot more plays if he had more range. He's a statue.

 

[soxfan1468927]

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.

I don't think team success shouldn't be a factor. I simply question to what extent. I look at the whole picture and simply do not weigh team success as high as others. That's fine, not all the voters weigh team success too high either. I would be in the minority if I was in the BBWAA but considering the hypocrisy of that group, I'm not sure that's a bad thing

 

[jalopy]

I don't think team success shouldn't be a factor.

I DO think team success shouldn't be a factor. I believe it is MORE impressive for a player to put up offensive numbers when the rest of their team sucks. Do you think if Miggy were on the Astros he would put up those numbers? Would that make him less valuable?

 

[soxfan1468927]

I DO think team success shouldn't be a factor. I believe it is MORE impressive for a player to put up offensive numbers when the rest of their team sucks. Do you think if Miggy were on the Astros he would put up those numbers? Would that make him less valuable?

Sure, to an extent. Just like hitting a two run home run in a game that you're losing 9-0 is less valuable than hitting one when you're losing 2-1. I believe it should be taken into account as part of the whole picture. Clearly some people weigh it more than myself and others don't weigh it at all. I don't care what stance you take as long as you can back that up with facts and you're consistent

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

I DO think team success shouldn't be a factor. I believe it is MORE impressive for a player to put up offensive numbers when the rest of their team sucks. Do you think if Miggy were on the Astros he would put up those numbers? Would that make him less valuable?

Jalopy -- have you followed Cabrera? He AVERAGED 100+ runs scored, 30+ HRs, 110+ RBI's and a .320 BA with the Miami Marlins, from the ages of 21-24.

OF COURSE team success plays into the MVP voting. how valuable can a player be if a team finishes in last place and they have a great season? the only way a player is going to win an individual award on a losing team is if they are head and shoulders better than anyone else.

And for the love of god, can we stop talking about WAR. Unless WAR is going to take into consideration the player who is going to replace the current player, instead of putting together a guestimation of the players stats -- it is worthless.

Don Kelly is who would have replaced Cabrera at 3rd base this year. If you think putting in a career .227 singles hitter with a .634 career OPS is going to step in for Cabrera and Detroit would only drop 5 games in the standing -- I'd be willing to bet my life savings otherwise.

And all the talk about Mike Trout's defense makes me laugh. He isn't even the best outfielder on his own team. He was moved from CF to LF because of Bourjos. On top of that -- he had exactly ZERO outfield assists this year.

 

[StanMarsh51]

And all the talk about Mike Trout's defense makes me laugh. He isn't even the best outfielder on his own team. He was moved from CF to LF because of Bourjos. On top of that -- he had exactly ZERO outfield assists this year.

So what if he wasn't the best defensive OFer on his team? That speaks volumes about how good Bourjos is, no?

I mean, Curt Schilling wasn't the best pitcher on the D-Backs teams when Randy Johnson was his teammate. Does that mean Schilling didn't have great seasons then? David Ortiz wasn't the best hitter on his team some years he was teammates with Manny, but does that say anything bad about Ortiz, or is it saying how good Manny was?

That's essentially what's the deal with Trout and Bourjos. Bourjos for a while was regarded as arguably the best defensive outfielder in baseball. That doesn't mean Trout's not providing value in the field.

 

[jalopy]

Jalopy -- have you followed Cabrera? He AVERAGED 100+ runs scored, 30+ HRs, 110+ RBI's and a .320 BA with the Miami Marlins, from the ages of 21-24.
...........

OF COURSE team success plays into the MVP voting. how valuable can a player be if a team finishes in last place and they have a great season? the only way a player is going to win an individual award on a losing team is if they are head and shoulders better than anyone else.

I follow all of baseball, even if I have a rooting interest in the Tigers. His averages for any year other than 2013 are irrelevant for this conversation.
Value is a word that is easily defined. Simply put, it is the importance, worth or usefulness of something. I'm not sure why it is so troublesome for baseball fans and writers. I haven't heard many people claim that Miggy is a better overall baseball player than Trout yet they claim he is more valuable. This contradicts logic.

If you were drafting a team for one year (real baseball, not fantasy), can you really tell me you would choose Miggy over Trout?

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I follow all of baseball, even if I have a rooting interest in the Tigers. His averages for any year other than 2013 are irrelevant for this conversation.
Value is a word that is easily defined. Simply put, it is the importance, worth or usefulness of something. I'm not sure why it is so troublesome for baseball fans and writers. I haven't heard many people claim that Miggy is a better overall baseball player than Trout yet they claim he is more valuable. This contradicts logic.

If you were drafting a team for one year (real baseball, not fantasy), can you really tell me you would choose Miggy over Trout?

actually i would rather pick cabrera on my team... Miggy affects lineups more than trout ever will... Any pitcher would rather face trout than miggy... I can get defensive strong with lesser players and i am fine with that... But i would rather have the best hitter than the best player on my team any day... There is nothing better than having miguel cabrera up at bat when the game is on line...

Remember the Pujols game winning HR in the playoffs vs Houston??

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

I follow all of baseball, even if I have a rooting interest in the Tigers. His averages for any year other than 2013 are irrelevant for this conversation.
Value is a word that is easily defined. Simply put, it is the importance, worth or usefulness of something. I'm not sure why it is so troublesome for baseball fans and writers. I haven't heard many people claim that Miggy is a better overall baseball player than Trout yet they claim he is more valuable. This contradicts logic.

If you were drafting a team for one year (real baseball, not fantasy), can you really tell me you would choose Miggy over Trout?

So it is relevant to bring up if Miggy would put up the kind of numbers he does with the Tigers, if he played a team like the Astros (which you did), but when I point out he did exactly that on a Miami team who sold off everyone after his rookie year, when they won the World Series, it is irrelevant?

What is so confusing to you? The award is called the most VALUABLE player. I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing if the LAA were without Mike Trout in 2012 and 2013 -- they would have finished in the same spot they did WITH him on the team. Out of the playoffs.

Mike Trout is a great player and will win a couple MVPs if he continues to play like he has been. In the last 2 years though -- Miguel Cabrera has been the most dominant player in the game. Trout had almost 60 more ABs than Cabrera, yet Cabrera had more hits, more homeruns, more RBI's, a higher OBP, a higher slugging % and a higher OPS. And everyone keeps talking about how Trout creates runs, takes extra bases and steals bases, yet with 60 more ABs, he only scored 6 more runs than Cabrera.

If you are going to have 60 more ABs and hit 25 points lower, with 17 fewer homeruns and 40 less rbi's. You had better be doing something extraordinary to make up that difference. Is Trout a better defensive player? Yeah. But he was nothing special this year. As I stated -- he had exactly zero outfield assists.

And I will say once again -- if you want a stat like WAR to be taken seriously. Use the ACTUAL replacement player to come up with the stat. You take off Miguel Cabrera from the Tigers and replace him with Don Kelly and the Tigers are a COMPLETELY different team. Anyone who actually believes Detroit wins 90 games with Don Kelly replacing Miguel Cabrera is foolish -- and THAT is one of my biggest issues with stats like WAR.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

actually i would rather pick cabrera on my team... Miggy affects lineups more than trout ever will... Any pitcher would rather face trout than miggy...

I actually forgot to answer this question, but i'd take Cabrera over Trout in 2012 and 2013. If I was starting a team from scratch and i'd have the player for the next 10 years -- I'd take Trout obviously because of his age. If it was for one year -- I'd take Cabrera every time, until he slows down, which hasn't happened -- he has actually become better each year.

 

[da55bums]

So you would rather have Peralta than Inglesis with that logic, correct?