CABRERA OR TROUT?—IT’S STILL BASEBALL SEASON (COMMENT). Dick Weisfelder asked in a comment on my post on football referees: “Cabrera or Trout?” Talking about baseball is more fun than talking about football, much less football referees. The question is which of two great players—Miguel Cabrera or Mike Trout—should be voted the most valuable player in the American League. Cabrera has just won the triple crown (leading a league in batting average, home runs, and runs batted in), a feat which hadn’t been done since 1967. Trout only turned 21 in August, and came close to leading the league in batting average and did lead the league in stolen bases. Cabrera was first in the league in OPS (on base average plus slugging average) and Trout was second.
Cabrera will win for the extraneous reason that his team made the playoffs and Trout’s did not. MVP voters give a lot of weight to that kind of thing. I would vote for Cabrera because he had the kind of year that hasn’t happened for 50 years. But Trout is the most exciting player I have seen in that period of time.
Another question that Nick asked me by e mail a few days ago: Is Trout the first pick in fantasy baseball leagues next year?
Those favoring Trout think that his far superior fielding tips the tables to him. Cabrera moved to third to make room for Prince Fielder at first. Yes, he made a fair number of errors, but his willingness to do what the team needed should also be taken into account. Do off the field matters count? The dui in Florida might tip the scales, but should it?
You’re right that defense should matter, and Trout is a spectacular center fielder. I think Cabrera is underrated as a third baseman in that he is a respectable defender even if perhaps below average. They say that Cabrera is good in the clubhouse. I’m a big fan of both of them.
This should be discounted because I followed many more central division games than those out west, but it seemed to me that Cabrera had an extraordinary number of crucial homers this year.
It shouldn’t even be close. Even the team-based arguments like, “Tigers made the playoffs” (which shouldn’t matter because it’s an individual award) should be nullified by the fact that the Angels won more games than the Tigers. Cabrera isn’t more valuable than Trout because the Rangers and As are better than the White Sox.
I’m not a Dave Cameron fan but this covers some of it too: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/trout-versus-cabrera-offense-only-context-included/
The fact is: Trout is roughly an equal player offensively — and THEN you add in the absurd disparity in defense, baserunning, positional value, and the fact that Cabrera plays in a hitter-friendly park while Trout is in one of the hardest parks to hit in for half of his games.
While Miguel Cabrera was not the historically atrocious 3B many expected him to be, he was still legitimately bad there.
Mr. Weisfelder — Character, leadership, loyalty, etc. etc. is technically a criterion for the award.
To elaborate, as I touched on the parks they play in: Cabrera won in OPS, but Trout had him beat in OPS+ which adjusts for park.
Oh! And one last thing — people point to the rarity of the Triple Crown in Cabrera’s favor, but I believe players winning Rookie of the Year and the MVP award are more rare historically.
I think Trout and Bobby Bonds are the only players ever to hit 30 home runs and steal 45+ bases in a season.
Wow! This series of comments shows which issues really count!
I feel qualified and educated enough to discuss this issue – unlike many other topics on this site, which are an education for me.
Are the playoffs for the league championship included in the evaluation of who should be MVP? If so, then they should provide a big plus for Cabrera,
I checked in wikipedia, which says that the voting is done before the postseason and is announce after the World Series. It also notes that there are no criteria for “most valuable player”, which is one of the reasons why opinions are all over the map on who should win the award.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/the-statistical-case-against-cabrera-for-m-v-p/
To further put it into context: If Mike Trout had hit 3 more singles, he’d have taken the batting title (and Triple Crown) away from Miguel Cabrera. If that happens, doesn’t it totally neuter any argument for Miguel Cabrera? And therefore, are 3 singles really why Miguel Cabrera deserves the MVP?