Miguel Cabrera Triple Crown?

[pythons007]

Originally Posted by ron_j_galt

WAR is a needless complication in the case for Trout, which can easily be made in plain language.

Mike Trout hit .329/.399/.564 in 639 PA. Miguel Cabrera hit .330/.393/.606 in 697 PA. These lines are not all that different, though Cabrera had more power and more PA. Cabrera was the better hitter, but not by a large margin.

On to the non-hitting aspects of the game. Sometimes the difference between Trout and Cabrera is presented in a manner that suggests "Cabrera is a slow, large guy, so just about any player will be better than him." This is probably true, but that sells Trout short. Trout was easily the best baserunner in the majors this year, stealing 49 bases at a 90% success rate. I'm fairly certain that the last time anyone stole 40+ bases at 90% success was Willy Taveras in 2008. This helped Trout lead the majors in runs scored, with 129. That's the second-highest total since 2007 (Granderson in 2009). Remember that Trout only played in 139 games due to the Angels gaming his service time or whatever was going on in April.

Defensively, just for the hell of it, grant that Miguel Cabrera is at best an average 3B. Trout is easily one of the top CFs in the game. Everyone's seen the highlights; this isn't a case where one would need to reference any defensive metrics, so it doesn't matter if one trusts those or not. Trout is clearly superior by a wide margin.

Personally, I have a very hard time taking the playoff argument seriously. The Tigers were not better than the Angels. Their record was worse, their run differential was worse, their schedule was easier. The Tigers made the playoffs because they played in a division with Kansas City, Minnesota, and Cleveland as opposed to Oakland and Texas. Cabrera didn't have anything to do with that.

I guess one could give Cabrera a slight bonus for AVG/HR/RBI. I personally don't care, especially in the MVP discussion, because this depends on how the rest of the league performed. Cabrera hit better in 2011 than he did in 2012.

In sum: if you have a great CF with elite baserunning skills, would you ever want to transform him into a lumbering 3B just to gain a little power? For the last ten years, all we hear is that statistically-oriented folks are fixated on OBP and don't account for all the things that don't show up in the top of the box score (or anywhere in the box score at all). Trout and Cabrera were just about the same hitter. One stole bases with ease, one went first-to-third on singles, one played superior defense at a premium position. One of these players did the little things better than almost anyone else in the game. The other did no little things whatsoever.

Each team plays 162 games, they don't create the schedules and you really can't come up with the strength of schedule until after the season is over. There are always surprise teams that either suck that should have been good (Boston) or team that had Cinderella stories (Oakland and Baltimore).

To argue strength of schedule is laughable. Any team can beat any team any day or series. Also for the argument for the playoffs, read my last post above.

To say Cabrera had nothing to do with the Tigers getting in the playoffs is ludicrous! I don't care who is in your division, he was the player of the month in August and September. You know the stretch run...when a team was down 3 games with 12 to go, and squeaked into the playoffs? Give me a break.

[soxfan2504]

Originally Posted by doublem23

Trout's team won 1 more game, let's not make it sound like the Angels buried Detroit in the standings.

Trout's team won 1 more game in a far superior division (well, at least it WAS far superior, now that they're getting the Astros). They would have blown away the Tigers (and Sox, for that matter) were they an AL Central team.

[MUsoxfan]

I'm typically the guy that roots for the MVP to be the best offensive player on a team that makes the playoffs. I'll say that Cabrera should win the MVP even if Detroit lost 100. The Triple Crown is truly something special

[Bob Roarman]

I think there are two different arguments going on here: who was the best player in baseball and who was the MVP. They aren't always the same, at least not to me.

[DSpivack]

Originally Posted by Bob Roarman

I think there are two different arguments going on here: who was the best player in baseball and who was the MVP. They aren't always the same, at least not to me.

I really fail to see the difference there.

And I think I've come around on this argument overall, I think Trout should get it.

[soxfan2504]

Originally Posted by RKMeibalane

But... but... but... Mike Trout's glove! Mike... Trout!

Defense is half the game of baseball. And baserunning is a significant part of playing offense. Miguel Cabrera sucks at both of these, whereas Trout is one of the very best at each of them. And Cabrera does not have a significant edge over Trout as an offensive player, though it is a definite edge. See ron_j_galt's post for more information.

Miguel Cabrera = Offensive Player of the Year
Mike Trout = MVP

[Oblong]

I admit to being totally biased in that I want Miggy to win it. If it were some other player with the triple crown I'd probably go with Trout. But there it is.

I also have to admit I didn't expect this to get as much attention as it did. It caught me by surprise.

check out the class move by the Royals the other night.



MLB took out full page ads in the local papers congratulating him. Cabrera is a joy to watch, not just because he mashes. He's always in the game. Talks to everybody in between pitches, coaches, umps, other players. He's notorious for calling appeals down to 1B on himself. I remember a game where the ump or C called time while the P was in his windup and Miggy made sure the P knew it wasn't him that called it, he didn't want to get beamed. It's the little things like that which I like so much about him.

He's like Manny without all the drama and BS. (other than his 2 arrests, but let's not go there )

[happydude]

Originally Posted by Bob Roarman

I think there are two different arguments going on here: who was the best player in baseball and who was the MVP. They aren't always the same, at least not to me.

Agreed. If a player has a monster year and his club still performs poorly then how much "value" did said player ultimately have in a team sport where team accomplishments have the greater focus? Trout's team could not have been said to have performed poorly but they aren't still playing while Cabrera's team is.

Additionally, both teams had an opportunity to make the playoffs going into the final month and Cabrera put that Tigers team on his back and carried them the whole month with his bat while Trout continued to play well but nowhere near as well as Cabrera, at least offensively. That's the kind of late push that comes to my mind when I consider what the MVP Award should mean.

All things being equal, and it can be argued they are since both players had otherworldly years, my vote would go to the guy whose team gets in the playoffs. The "x player is in a tougher division" argument is not persuasive to me; it essentially suggests that a particular team would have done better or worse under a separate circumstance which is just speculation.

[Dibbs]

Cabrera is MVP hands down in my opinion. Triple Crown is a huge deal, even with all of these new statistics.

I love me some Mike Trout, but Cabrera led his team to the division win. Without Cabrera, Tigers wouldn't have a chance. Without Trout, I think the Angels would have competed similarly.

[soxnut1018]

Originally Posted by Dibbs

Cabrera is MVP hands down in my opinion. Triple Crown is a huge deal, even with all of these new statistics.

I love me some Mike Trout, but Cabrera led his team to the division win. Without Cabrera, Tigers wouldn't have a chance. Without Trout, I think the Angels would have competed similarly.

Angels before Mike Trout: 6-14
Angels after Mike Trout: 83-59

[DSpivack]

Originally Posted by Dibbs

Cabrera is MVP hands down in my opinion. Triple Crown is a huge deal, even with all of these new statistics.

I love me some Mike Trout, but Cabrera led his team to the division win. Without Cabrera, Tigers wouldn't have a chance. Without Trout, I think the Angels would have competed similarly.

I disagree. I think Mike Trout contributed more to his team than Miguel Cabrera did to his. I think if you swapped the two, the Angels would have been ever so slightly worse and the Tigers just a tad better. Their bats were nearly identical, while Trout was the most dangerous man on the base paths in baseball this season in addition to being a gold-glove caliber CF; Cabrera is a base-clogger and a butcher at 3B.

Originally Posted by soxnut1018

Angels before Mike Trout: 6-14
Angels after Mike Trout: 83-59

Yep.

[Marqhead]

Originally Posted by soxnut1018

Angels before Mike Trout: 6-14
Angels after Mike Trout: 83-59

Albert Pujols hit .217 with 0 HRs and 4 RBI in his first 23 games this year.

He finished with 30 HRs, 105 RBI and batted .285.

[DSpivack]

Originally Posted by Marqhead

Albert Pujols hit .217 with 0 HRs and 4 RBI in his first 23 games this year.

He finished with 30 HRs, 105 RBI and batted .285.

So, the W-L thing is imperfect, then, as like RBIs they depend on more than just one player. That said, the post he was responding to said that the Tigers would have no chance without Cabrera and the Angels would have been fine without Trout. I really fail to see why that is the case, or the evidence supporting that argument.

[Bob Roarman]

Originally Posted by Dibbs

Cabrera is MVP hands down in my opinion. Triple Crown is a huge deal, even with all of these new statistics.

I love me some Mike Trout, but Cabrera led his team to the division win. Without Cabrera, Tigers wouldn't have a chance. Without Trout, I think the Angels would have competed similarly.

I don't think it's hands down Cabrera's at all. I go back and forth myself. Yeah the Triple Crown is a great achievement, but there's other phases of the game that Trout is miles ahead of Cabrera in. Even the hitting aspect of it can be argued that it's in favor of Trout.

[SOXSINCE'70]

Originally Posted by Marqhead

Albert Pujols hit .217 with 0 HRs and 4 RBI in his first 23 games this year.

He finished with 30 HRs, 105 RBI and batted .285.

For him,that's a bad year.