A.L. MVP 2013

That was in response to Micheals post, not Xans.

 

Significant advantage in counting stats and ratios. Superior enough to overcome defense and stolen bases. Y'all can talk about other aspects of baserunning all you like, but Cabrera scored only six fewer runs despite batting lower in the order.

 

Albert Pujols was the best all-around player in baseball every year from 2006 to 2010, no question. Yet many times in that span another player had a better year.

And the idea that Cabrera's slow September made the Tigers sweat the division race is incorrect. Their lead never went below 4.5 games until after they clinched.

 

I know. I just thought it was more fun to post that than to offer up a genuine response, which is to say you are absolutely wrong. There is nothing lazy or archaic about including team success in the evaluation players for MVP. It shouldn't be the only factor, but it belongs in the mix.

 

Since they are in completely different lineups...

 

If you switched Cabrera and Trout, would Cabrera have magically put the Angels in the playoffs? Players can't control who their teammates are and how their teammates play.

 

For those citing Trout's superior defense, know that at least according to Baseball Reference, his dWAR was 0.0. (Cabrera's was -1.4.) I don't much go for that whole stat, but really by that logic his defense was not an asset this year, and you're left with Trout's superior baserunning versus Cabrera out-hitting him substantially and carrying the team to a division title. And excluding their Septembers, when neither team was playing for anything, their hitting numbers aren't even close.

CABRERA THROUGH AUG. 31: .358/.449/.681 1.130 OPS
TROUT THROUGH AUG. 31: .330/.427/.568 .995 OPS

The Tigers led the division by 8 1/2 games heading into September. So really, a vote for Trout in this case is a vote for doing more when it didn't matter.

 

I love Win Probability Added, which measures what actually happened, and how it helped a player's team that season. Of course, context-driven stats are disfavored when it comes to predictions. But when it comes to most valuable for a season that actually occurred, I think they are important.

According to BR.com, it goes:

(1) Davis
(2) Cabrera
(3) Trout

I don't think defense plays into it. I'm not sure if base running does.

 

27 HR, 39 doubles, 9 triples, 33 stolen bases -- Trout is the first player in MLB history to reach these totals in the same season.

190 hits, 110 walks, 33 stolen bases - Trout is just the third player to do this (Ty Cobb and Lenny Dykstra are the others).

179 OPS+ and 33 stolen bases - Trout is the fourth player since 1920 to do this (1976 MVP Joe Morgan, 1990 MVP Rickey Henderson and 1992 MVP Barry Bonds are the others)

.323/.432/.557, 27 HR, 97 RBI, 33 stolen bases - Trout is the second player to do this (1997 MVP Larry Walker did it)

 

Who cares. His team didn't win.

 

Is it kosher to allow something like steals be a (possible) deciding factor?

Is it Davis' fault he's built like a middle linebacker and not a tailback?

They both have unbelievable stats.

So Davis doesn't steal bases like Trout (by and large) but he hits 26 more homers and drives in 40+ more runs and it's not like his defense sucks (6 errors in 1420 chances). His BA is much less but he has 42 more total bases.

And then you have Cabrera.

 

Mike Trout is 6"2 and weighs 230 lbs. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/t/troutmi01.shtml

Chris Davis is 6"3 and weighs 230 lbs http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/davisch02.shtml