AL MVP- Trout or Cabrera

[burke23]

Originally Posted by bd3d86

I have this strange thought that JohnAndrew really really REALLY wants Mike Trout to win the MVP. I haven't seen another person on this forum fight so hard to prove he should win. I'm not saying anything is wrong with that, but my goodness.....

And the pro-Cabrera's don't? Perhaps he wants Trout to win for objective reasons (of which there are legitimate ones)?

[CALVINXLIONSX81]

Originally Posted by romad97

They are so close that I will say if both teams made the playoffs, Trout. If neither team made the playoffs, Trout. But, since it seemas as though the Tigers are going to be in and the Angels out, I would have to say slight, and I mean extremely slight, edge goes to Cabrera. Without him, the team wouldn't have made the playoffs, let alone won their division. I know that MVP doesn't have to come from a playoff team, hence Arod with the Rangers. With Melkys's number though and the fact that he did help his team I say its his at this point.

Miguel not Melky

[JohnAndrew]

Originally Posted by bd3d86

I have this strange thought that JohnAndrew really really REALLY wants Mike Trout to win the MVP. I haven't seen another person on this forum fight so hard to prove he should win. I'm not saying anything is wrong with that, but my goodness.....

Making cases for these players is nothing new for me...you obviously haven't spent much time in the NL Cy Young award thread

Here's the deal: I have no more Trout cards to sell. I am not an Angels fan. My only horse in this MVP race is my main man Robinson Cano and he's not sniffing the top 2. And I'll give it to you straight: I don't like the Tigers. I don't like most Tiger players not named Austin Jackson or Justin Verlander and I especially don't like Miguel Cabrera. I don't dislike him quite as much as the anti-Semitic Delmon Young, but I don't like him quite as much as, say, Prince Fielder, who actually seems fairly jolly. But mostly I just don't like the Tigers. I don't want my Yankees to see them in the playoffs (again) and get knocked out by them (again).

Trout, on the other hand, is a Jersey kid, and being from New Jersey, I like for him to do well. I am also more inclined to look at the game from a sabermetrics perspective, which happens to favor the candidate that I like and not the candidate I dislike. And so that's why I keep making these lengthy posts. That, and I've been bored at work.

[zonacats8]

Originally Posted by JohnAndrew

100% wrong? ONE HUNDRED PERCENT WRONG?

If it's THAT wrong, why do I see GOOD players with HIGHER values and BAD players with LOWER values? Surely if it was 100% WRONG, we'd see a Jeff Francoeur or a Casey Kotchman or a Jemile Weeks in the mix, right?

No one said WAR is perfect. There is of course no way to exactly determine how many wins would be "lost" if a player did not play for a given team. But if you don't think it does at least a pretty good job at measuring player value, I don't really know what to tell you.

First of all, did your not see the post just before yours saying Zorbist and Figgins were 1 and 3 in WAR a few years back? Throws your Kotchman/Weeks argument out the window

Second of all, I don't know if it does a good job representing the players value because it's a bunch of random, NON-SITUATIONAL STATS, thrown together to come up with one number.

And finally, you missed the whole point of my post, the WAR stat isn't supposed to show a representation of a players value, according to the Wikipedia page, which I know isn't god, but in this scenario would be okay to quote is....

Wins Above Replacement, commonly known as WAR, is a non-standardized sabermetric baseball statistic that is used to show how many more wins a player would give a team as opposed to a "replacement level", or minor league/bench player at that position.

Which is why it is a 100% (even if you can't actually prove it) wrong stat, because anyone with half a brain can tell you the Tigers lose more than 7 more games and the Angels more than 10 without Cabrera and Trout respectively.

Mainly because it doesn't take into account situational hitting, something Cabrera is the best in the game at.

Here's the closest simple example I can think of

WAR is quarterback rating, what we're missing is a Total QBR stat, as in QB rating is a compilation of various passing stats but doesn't take into account the non-throwing stats or when during a game the plays happen. The QBR is a better representation to what that player means to his team than their QB rating.

The WAR, even if a new stat, is already the old and antiquated QB rating, we need a new QBR that takes more into account than just the raw end of game numbers

[bd3d86]

Originally Posted by burke23

And the pro-Cabrera's don't? Perhaps he wants Trout to win for objective reasons (of which there are legitimate ones)?

I didn't say they didn't. I want Cabrera to win, but I just post as much about it. I have just noticed response after response in multiple threads and he just seems to be the most vocal. Like I said, nothing wrong with that.

[hanes1111]

Mike trout only because I have his 09 chrome auto

[MarshallCutler6]

Originally Posted by JohnAndrew

He plays subpar defense and runs like a moose?

He runs like a moose. Well keep in mind hes trotting around the bases most of the time, so he dosent get much Conditioning. He plays subpar defense because he moved to a new position this year. Hes about to win the Triple Crown, I cant even believe that people are still saying trout.

[bd3d86]

Originally Posted by JohnAndrew

Making cases for these players is nothing new for me...you obviously haven't spent much time in the NL Cy Young award thread

Here's the deal: I have no more Trout cards to sell. I am not an Angels fan. My only horse in this MVP race is my main man Robinson Cano and he's not sniffing the top 2. And I'll give it to you straight: I don't like the Tigers. I don't like most Tiger players not named Austin Jackson or Justin Verlander and I especially don't like Miguel Cabrera. I don't dislike him quite as much as the anti-Semitic Delmon Young, but I don't like him quite as much as, say, Prince Fielder, who actually seems fairly jolly. But mostly I just don't like the Tigers. I don't want my Yankees to see them in the playoffs (again) and get knocked out by them (again).

Trout, on the other hand, is a Jersey kid, and being from New Jersey, I like for him to do well. I am also more inclined to look at the game from a sabermetrics perspective, which happens to favor the candidate that I like and not the candidate I dislike. And so that's why I keep making these lengthy posts. That, and I've been bored at work.

There you go! Thanks for posting the reasons. I have absolutely no problem with that at all. You have personal reasons for wanting Trout and I have personal reasons for wanting Cabrera. Although my only personal reason is that I'm a Tigers fan. I don't dislike Trout at all.

[Tugarpj]

All of the argument is moot. Cabrera will win it. I'm a homer but I love Trout. I give it to Cabbie for the triple crown and his importance for the playoff run. Playoff contention should count. However, it shouldn't make or break a player's eligibility. It just shouldn't be totally ignored either.

[JohnAndrew]

Originally Posted by zonacats8

First of all, did your not see the post just before yours saying Zorbist and Figgins were 1 and 3 in WAR a few years back? Throws your Kotchman/Weeks argument out the window

Addressed. Both were top 10 MVP vote-getters. Continue.

Originally Posted by zonacats8

Second of all, I don't know if it does a good job representing the players value because it's a bunch of random, NON-SITUATIONAL STATS, thrown together to come up with one number.

It certainly takes into consideration "situations". Such as, when there's a runner on first base and Miguel Cabrera grounds into one of his league-leading 28 double plays.

Originally Posted by zonacats8

And finally, you missed the whole point of my post, the WAR stat isn't supposed to show a representation of a players value, according to the Wikipedia page, which I know isn't god, but in this scenario would be okay to quote is....



Which is why it is a 100% (even if you can't actually prove it) wrong stat, because anyone with half a brain can tell you the Tigers lose more than 7 more games and the Angels more than 10 without Cabrera and Trout respectively.

Mainly because it doesn't take into account situational hitting, something Cabrera is the best in the game at.

Here's the closest simple example I can think of

WAR is quarterback rating, what we're missing is a Total QBR stat, as in QB rating is a compilation of various passing stats but doesn't take into account the non-throwing stats or when during a game the plays happen. The QBR is a better representation to what that player means to his team than their QB rating.

The WAR, even if a new stat, is already the old and antiquated QB rating, we need a new QBR that takes more into account than just the raw end of game numbers

You are literally just talking about the name of the stat itself and ignoring the fact that you can go back over 100 years worth of baseball and find that a high WAR ALWAYS corresponds to a very good season. That is why people reference it...not because they actually think the Angels would've absolutely won 10 less games if Trout spent the year in AAA.

[kordell1]

Originally Posted by MarshallCutler6

He runs like a moose. Well keep in mind hes trotting around the bases most of the time, so he dosent get much Conditioning. He plays subpar defense because he moved to a new position this year. Hes about to win the Triple Crown, I cant even believe that people are still saying trout.

Keep in mind that this is a baseball card forum where more people are probably fans and collectors of Trout(who still is losing the vote on here) and several want him to win so their Trout cards can go up in value even more. The actual voters will vote Cabrera because a lot of them are going to be impressed by the Triple Crown(if he gets it), plus I am sure there are a lot of them who don't think some 20 year old punk kid should be the MVP of baseball(not saying it is right, but some of the older voters may feel this way). It will be close, but Cabrera will get it.

[kordell1]

Originally Posted by JohnAndrew

Addressed. Both were top 10 MVP vote-getters. Continue.

And as #1 and #3 in WAR both had ZERO % chance of winning the MVP while Teixeira who was 14th is WAR blew both of them away in the voting.

[Tugarpj]

Trout cards have peaked. Honestly how can they still go up?

[kordell1]

Originally Posted by Tugarpj

Trout cards have peaked. Honestly how can they still go up?

They peaked a month or two ago. They can still go up from current values.

[alwayson22]

Originally Posted by kordell1

So the fact that Trout basically sucked while his team was fighting to get into the playoffs in September and Cabrera stepped it up a notch helping his team get there is stupid? I thought the whole point of the season for players is to get the playoffs and World Series. The most valuable players step it up when the playoffs are on the line, they don't tank. Had Trout had great numbers during the crunch time of the season and the Angels still did not make the playoffs, then I think he still might have deserved it, but with lousy numbers and his team missing the playoffs, I think it matters to voters.

Since September 1, Trout has hit .283/.402/.500 and the Angels are 19-9. When you say that Trout has "sucked" with "lousy" numbers, either you are too lazy to look up those numbers or you hold players to ridiculously high standards.

[uberfatty]

Originally Posted by zonacats8

Here's the biggest problem with the WAR stat.......

It's clearly 100% WRONG!!!!!!!

I don't care what goes into it as all the sites seem to have their own calculation, but it clearly doesn't take everything into affect as I needs to because it's supposed to be the stat that shows how many more wins a team has because of that player compared to having a replacement bench or minor league player in that spot instead.

There is absolutely no chance in hell that if you were to take Cabrera off of the Tigers that they only win 7 less games, that number would quite honestly be 20 or more, and frankly the same goes for Trout.

But that's my biggest problem with the stat, it doesn't accurately give you what the stat is supposed to represent, which is why it's a bunk stat

It doesn't take into account when things are done during the game, an RBI single in the first inning when you're up 10 runs is worth exactly the same to the WAR stat as an RBI single in a tie game in the bottom of the ninth. It's also a measurement compared to the average players at that position and 3rd base has a lot more stars, at least in terms of hitting, than CF which itself will bring down Cabrera's WAR number.

I don't know where to find the stats, but they've been talking about it for weeks that Cabrera leads, and by ridiculous margins, so many late game statistics it's not even funny. His hits, RBIs, HRs, in the 7th inning or later is what should be winning him this award and are the direct reason his "7 additional wins because of him instead of a replacement player" is such a ridiculously wrong number.

People keep saying that a win in September is worth the same as a win in April when all is said and done at the end of the year, which to a point it is, but an RBI hit in the first inning isn't "worth" the same as an RBI hit in a tied ninth inning.

This post is all buckets of wrong and when you look at context it actually makes Trout a better MVP pick. Let's go through a couple items:


1. "It doesn't take into account when things are done during the game...but an RBI hit in the first inning isn't "worth" the same as an RBI hit in a tied ninth inning...Cabrera leads, and by ridiculous margins, so many late game statistics it's not even funny"

Late in games doesn't necessarily mean the player gave his team a better chance to win, for example if the game was already a blowout who cares that you hit a HR in the 9th inning?

You know what does take into account context of each at bat? Win percentage Added (WPA). WPA takes each at bat for a player's season and determine's their team's winning percentage before the at bat and after the at bat, and credits the player for increasing the winning percentage or discredits them for decreasing their team's winning percentage (GIDP would be a big negative, for example). So in essence, a player with a WPA of 6.00 made their team more likely to win a total of six games during the year, just counting what happened during each at bat. No SB, no defense, no position adjustment, no baserunning is accounted for in WPA to my knowledge.

And you know who leads the AL in WPA? Mike Trout (5.61). Cabrera is at 4.40 for the year.

Which basically means when looking at the context of each player's at bats, Trout made his team more likely to win games this season than Cabrera did(perhaps Cabrera hit his HR's when his team was already way ahead or behind?).


2. It's also a measurement compared to the average players at that position and 3rd base has a lot more stars, at least in terms of hitting, than CF which itself will bring down Cabrera's WAR number

You are misinterpreting WAR. There is an adjustment for position included in WAR's calculations because it is much more valuable ot have a good hitter at toucher defensive positions, irrespective of how well the player actually plays the position (WAR also has a component for defense relative to position to account for that part). The positional adjustment is based on the historical production at each position, so a player playing 1B needs to produce more on offense to get to 3.0 WAR than a SS does. This, in effect, makes WAR comparable across positions. So when one player is a 2B with a WAR of 3.5, they were equaly valuable that season to a RF with a WAR of 3.5, or a 1B with a WAR of 3.5, even though their offensive levels were likely very different.

[kordell1]

Originally Posted by alwayson22

Since September 1, Trout has hit .283/.402/.500 and the Angels are 19-9. When you say that Trout has "sucked" with "lousy" numbers, either you are too lazy to look up those numbers or you hold players to ridiculously high standards.

I was talking about September numbers which he batted .257 with 6 RBI's. Those are pretty "sucky" full month numbers for someone who is supposed to be an MVP. I hold MVP candidates to a pretty high standard. Sorry.

[alwayson22]

Originally Posted by kordell1

I was talking about September numbers which he batted .257 with 6 RBI's. Those are pretty "sucky" full month numbers for someone who is supposed to be an MVP. I hold MVP candidates to a pretty high standard. Sorry.

And there's the problem with a small sample size. All it took was one game in October to give Trout a .283/.402/.500 line.

[zonacats8]

Originally Posted by JohnAndrew

You are literally just talking about the name of the stat itself and ignoring the fact that you can go back over 100 years worth of baseball and find that a high WAR ALWAYS corresponds to a very good season. That is why people reference it...not because they actually think the Angels would've absolutely won 10 less games if Trout spent the year in AAA.

And again missed the point

Is anyone arguing that either Cabrera or Trout haven't had a very good season?

Absolutely not

The point is determining who among the good seasons, had THE BEST season

But when you're this close in the discussion as to who had the better season when looking at the numbers, what's the next thing to think about, to me it's who did more in big situations to help that team win.

That's what they need a stat for, and yes, while I don't know what the ACTUAL numbers are in these situations, I'd be willing to bet my left nut that Cabrera blows Trout away in anything stat you want to come up with in the 7th inning or later in close games.

And to your point of Zorbist and being in the top 10 in MVP voting, good for them, but here is all that matters when talking about that

Originally Posted by kordell1

And as #1 and #3 in WAR both had ZERO % chance of winning the MVP while Teixeira who was 14th is WAR blew both of them away in the voting.

They probably got those couple votes solely because of their WAR numbers, which proves even more how that stat doesn't accurately show a players TRUE value to wins and losses. If you want a stat that shows their overall value to a team, then so be it, but don't then call it a stat that shows how many wins or losses that player represents because then it's just wrong

[kordell1]

Originally Posted by alwayson22

And there's the problem with a small sample size. All it took was one game in October to give Trout a .283/.402/.500 line.

As I stated before, a sample size that included the Angels trying to make the playoffs. If you want to be an MVP, you need to perform when your team in trying to make the playoffs. I am not saying one guy makes it or breaks it, but his performance last night was with the playoffs pretty much out of the picture and all the sudden he hits great. You don't get that?

[hoopster3977]

Cabrera, for sure. He could be the first legitmate Triple Crown winner since Frank Robinson in 1966. I don't count Yaz's in 1967 due to being tied in Hr's with Killebrew in 1967.

[burke23]

Originally Posted by alwayson22

And there's the problem with a small sample size. All it took was one game in October to give Trout a .283/.402/.500 line.

Hey now - don't rain on the cherry-picking parade.
I will say this - the one argument not made against Trout has been how he piled a lot of his offensive power over 1 month and change whereas Cabrera has been brilliant for 4+ months or so. Of course - Trout has been a defensive stalwart and a fiend on the basepaths all along, but I digress. No opinions are being changed anymore.

[zonacats8]

Originally Posted by uberfatty

This post is all buckets of wrong and when you look at context it actually makes Trout a better MVP pick. Let's go through a couple items:


1. "It doesn't take into account when things are done during the game...but an RBI hit in the first inning isn't "worth" the same as an RBI hit in a tied ninth inning...Cabrera leads, and by ridiculous margins, so many late game statistics it's not even funny"

Late in games doesn't necessarily mean the player gave his team a better chance to win, for example if the game was already a blowout who cares that you hit a HR in the 9th inning?

You know what does take into account context of each at bat? Win percentage Added (WPA). WPA takes each at bat for a player's season and determine's their team's winning percentage before the at bat and after the at bat, and credits the player for increasing the winning percentage or discredits them for decreasing their team's winning percentage (GIDP would be a big negative, for example). So in essence, a player with a WPA of 6.00 made their team more likely to win a total of six games during the year, just counting what happened during each at bat. No SB, no defense, no position adjustment, no baserunning is accounted for in WPA to my knowledge.

And you know who leads the AL in WPA? Mike Trout (5.61). Cabrera is at 4.40 for the year.

Which basically means when looking at the context of each player's at bats, Trout made his team more likely to win games this season than Cabrera did(perhaps Cabrera hit his HR's when his team was already way ahead or behind?).


2. It's also a measurement compared to the average players at that position and 3rd base has a lot more stars, at least in terms of hitting, than CF which itself will bring down Cabrera's WAR number

You are misinterpreting WAR. There is an adjustment for position included in WAR's calculations because it is much more valuable ot have a good hitter at toucher defensive positions, irrespective of how well the player actually plays the position (WAR also has a component for defense relative to position to account for that part). The positional adjustment is based on the historical production at each position, so a player playing 1B needs to produce more on offense to get to 3.0 WAR than a SS does. This, in effect, makes WAR comparable across positions. So when one player is a 2B with a WAR of 3.5, they were equaly valuable that season to a RF with a WAR of 3.5, or a 1B with a WAR of 3.5, even though their offensive levels were likely very different.

I stopped reading this after this sentence

Late in games doesn't necessarily mean the player gave his team a better chance to win, for example if the game was already a blowout who cares that you hit a HR in the 9th inning?

Because if you actually read what I said, I didn't say just in the 9th inning, I said in a tie game in the 9th inning, and if you don't think an RBI hit in a tie game in the ninth inning gives you a better chance at winning than any RBI hit in the first inning, then you are literally the dumbest person I've ever had the unfortunate pleasure of coming across.

[xbignick]

Originally Posted by zonacats8

Here's the biggest problem with the WAR stat.......

It's clearly 100% WRONG!!!!!!!

I don't care what goes into it as all the sites seem to have their own calculation, but it clearly doesn't take everything into affect as I needs to because it's supposed to be the stat that shows how many more wins a team has because of that player compared to having a replacement bench or minor league player in that spot instead.

There is absolutely no chance in hell that if you were to take Cabrera off of the Tigers that they only win 7 less games, that number would quite honestly be 20 or more, and frankly the same goes for Trout.

But that's my biggest problem with the stat, it doesn't accurately give you what the stat is supposed to represent, which is why it's a bunk stat

It doesn't take into account when things are done during the game, an RBI single in the first inning when you're up 10 runs is worth exactly the same to the WAR stat as an RBI single in a tie game in the bottom of the ninth. It's also a measurement compared to the average players at that position and 3rd base has a lot more stars, at least in terms of hitting, than CF which itself will bring down Cabrera's WAR number.

I don't know where to find the stats, but they've been talking about it for weeks that Cabrera leads, and by ridiculous margins, so many late game statistics it's not even funny. His hits, RBIs, HRs, in the 7th inning or later is what should be winning him this award and are the direct reason his "7 additional wins because of him instead of a replacement player" is such a ridiculously wrong number.

People keep saying that a win in September is worth the same as a win in April when all is said and done at the end of the year, which to a point it is, but an RBI hit in the first inning isn't "worth" the same as an RBI hit in a tied ninth inning.

Seriously, what did I just read? My head seriously hurts after that. I'll just stick with what I posted in this thread already. I suggest you do some research. Ignorance in this day and age is not flattering.

If anyone wants to send a counterpoint or just discuss things you can PM it and I'll post it here since the thread will probably bury anything to me.

[gamboooler]

Does anyone else get life tilted when people make arguments based on fairy tales? If you think Trout under-performed due to added pressure, Cabrera decided to step it up in September, or a win in May is worth less than a win in September, please either take a statistics class or leave society.