Who's your AL MVP?

[690West]

For what its worth, Trout has a 171 OPS+ as compared to 146 for Ellsbury last year. The park effects for the Angels may be a little overstated, but Trout has been a much better hitter than Ellsbury.

Also, Cabrera has a 166 OPS+. Trout has arguably been better at the plate, even without taking into account his steals/baserunning, which is obviously better than Miggy.

The biggest knock on Trout is the games played. He's about 20 behind Cabrera, because of when he got called up. If you ask me, if Trout put up the same rate stats over 158 games it wouldn't be close. The guy has been just about as good a hitter as Cabrera, plus he has 49 steals and plays awesome D.

Bingo! I am shocked at how smart people are clinging to this "triple crown" nonsense when we've come so far with real statistics. The triple crown includes 2 meaningless stats, BA and RBI. Laughable.

 

[Knicks411]

The best argument for Cabrera is the playing time one, but I haven't seen that a lot.

For the record, I'm not a Miggy hater. Dude is an awesome player, an even better hitter, and winning a triple crown is really freaking cool.

 

[br801]

The best argument for Cabrera is the playing time one, but I haven't seen that a lot.

For the record, I'm not a Miggy hater. Dude is an awesome player, an even better hitter, and winning a triple crown is really freaking cool.

No, the best argument for Cabrera is that he had an outstanding offensive season, won the Triple Crown and helped his team win a division title. But the criteria for what constitutes the MVP have long been vague and open to the interpretation of voters. Some years it has been awarded to the best offensive player in the league regardless of where that player's team finished, other years it has gone to the best or most impactful player on the best team regardless of position. What happens this year is anybody's guess.

 

[Knicks411]

No, the best argument for Cabrera is that he had an outstanding offensive season, won the Triple Crown and helped his team win a division title. But the criteria for what constitutes the MVP have long been vague and open to the interpretation of voters. Some years it has been awarded to the best offensive player in the league regardless of where that player's team finished, other years it has gone to the best or most impactful player on the best team regardless of position. What happens this year is anybody's guess.

The best argument for Cabrera compared to Trout is the playing time. If Trout had as many games with the same production then it'd be a walkover, IMO. Which doesn't change the fact that Cabrera did indeed have an outstanding offensive season. (Also funny that Trout's team ended up winning more games).

I really don't have a feel for this MVP vote. As I said before, if Hamilton hit an extra 2 HR and won the HR title, then Miggy doesn't win the triple crown but it really doesn't make him any less of an MVP candidate, though I'm sure he'd have lost some votes.

 

[BuffOrange]

Funny you'd say that; I think the "stathead" conventional wisdom 10 years ago might lean to Cabrera because of the idea that defense/base running were overrated and weren't worth all that much, but Trout has just been so overwhelming awesome at pretty much everything that I'm not sure.

Yah I don't really know. It is interesting to hear Colin Cowherd and Scott Van Pelt (who are more open than most generic espn guys to advanced stats) speak with a sort of anger towards the stat/Trout guys. A lot of the sabermetric guys are smug & dogmatic for sure and that helps escalate the problem. But in a way I don't blame them given how stubborn and thick-headed 'old baseball writer guy' is.

It's like hearing the football announcer talking about "playing the %'s and punt" when he has no bleeping clue what he's talking about or what the %'s are because the %'s usually say you should not punt. But no matter how black & white the #'s are they just won't change their minds, ever.
The whole thing is eerily similar to politics.

 

[690West]

Yah I don't really know. It is interesting to hear Colin Cowherd and Scott Van Pelt (who are more open than most generic espn guys to advanced stats) speak with a sort of anger towards the stat/Trout guys. A lot of the sabermetric guys are smug & dogmatic for sure and that helps escalate the problem. But in a way I don't blame them given how stubborn and thick-headed 'old baseball writer guy' is.

It's like hearing the football announcer talking about "playing the %'s and punt" when he has no bleeping clue what he's talking about or what the %'s are because the %'s usually say you should not punt. But no matter how black & white the #'s are they just won't change their minds, ever.
The whole thing is eerily similar to politics.

This whole post is just beautifully put. (no homo)