UPDATE: Cabrera over Trout for A.L. MVP

Re: The Cabrera-Trout debate

A good fielding third baseman is a joy to watch. However, one doesn't have to be a good fielder to be a valuable third baseman. It's a hitter's position. It's about the seventh-most important defensive position, ahead of left field (due to park architecture) and pitcher. Center fielder is third most important, behind catcher and shortstop.
It is infinitely more likely that Trout will string together more seasons like 2012 than that Cabrera will ever win another Triple Crown. Acknowledging all that, I would still, had I a vote, select Cabrera as MVP. Triple Crown plus his September pennant race production (not the same thing as played for a winner, means got more valuable during the most important part of his team's season), does it for me.

 

Re: The Cabrera-Trout debate

Is runs scored really a wash with RBIs? I find that difficult to believe. Driving in the runs would seem to be the more important part of that process.

Be that as it may, it should be noted that Cabrera was second in the league in runs scored. Trout was +20 in RS and Cabrera was +56 in RBI. In both cases it's largely because of their spot in the order, but if it's supposed to be a wash, it isn't really.

 

Re: The Cabrera-Trout debate

Mark, which team won more games?

 

Re: The Cabrera-Trout debate

It's not a subjective argument. It's an objective one. Now we may not be able to precisely measure a player's contributions to winning baseball, and there certainly are a lot of complications and caveats and context necessary, but it's not subjective.

What you personally "value" is of no consequence.

 

Re: The Cabrera-Trout debate

Fair enough, but my larger point stands: The question was, "What else could Cabrera have done?" The answer was, "Well, here are some things."

 

Re: The Cabrera-Trout debate

If I had a vote, and a column where I defended my vote, I would start with this -- and since I don't have a vote or a column I'm just going to bore all of you with it:

TROUT MONTHLY OPS
April .348
May .941
June .950
July 1.259
August .866
Sept/Oct .900

CABRERA MONTHLY OPS
April .940
May .839
June .990
July 1.086
August 1.092
Sept/Oct 1.071

The one thing that jumps out is Trout's July. That is outlandish, Pujols-in-his-prime kind of production. And for those 25 games he was far and away baseball's dominant player.

But the rest of the season? Good or very good, even great if you consider .950 the mark of a great hitter.

Cabrera, on the other hand, dominated the final three months, or four if you want to go with his .990 in June. His high wasn't as high as Trout's, but he spent 100 games producing on an unbelievably consistent basis. So, over the course of the season, it seems reasonable to conclude that Cabrera affected a lot more games the Tigers won. And down the stretch, he wasn't just a little better. Down the stretch it wasn't even close.

 

Re: The Cabrera-Trout debate

Goddammit, Creosote. I suppose you're also going to bait me into pointing out Trout's .782 with 2 outs/RISP and Cabrera's 1.211.

I'm not going there, though. Not gonna do it.

 

Re: The Cabrera-Trout debate

He's just a compiler! [HOF threads/crossthread]

 

Re: The Cabrera-Trout debate

It definitely is a subjective argument. When it comes down to it, some human being is going to come up with the formula we use, even if that formula is home runs + batting average + RBI. Statisticians will never create a truly perfect and undeniable value metric because it's impossible to actually measure someone's contributions to a baseball team. They will continue to weigh their catch-all statistics in favor of what they value. Moreover, there are intangibles that are, well, intangible.

 

Re: The Cabrera-Trout debate

In a strange way it is a subjective argument. But as your own answer points out, it's an argument over the meaning of the word "valuable."

 

Re: The Cabrera-Trout debate

No, it's not subjective.

It's objective.

What if I said, "I voted for Joe Mauer because I value singles above home runs. Hey, it's all subjective!"

Would that be reasonable?

 

Re: The Cabrera-Trout debate

What are you even talking about at this point? I'm all for #TeamTrout (though I've conceded), but to say that he was objectively better really debunks a major point in statistical analysis: There is always a better formula, and formulas don't have to agree.