Miguel Cabrera Triple Crown?

[Nellie_Fox]

Let me stir the pot further. Can an argument be made that you should have to show that you're not a "one-year wonder" before you can be an MVP as opposed to a Player of the Year? Cabrera has put up year after year of big numbers.

[DSpivack]

Originally Posted by Nellie_Fox

Let me stir the pot further. Can an argument be made that you should have to show that you're not a "one-year wonder" before you can be an MVP as opposed to a Player of the Year? Cabrera has put up year after year of big numbers.

Interesting question, but I don't see why that would be the case. The MVP award is for the MVP of that particular season, and I think each award is separate from the other. Also, if that were true, should no rookie ever win the award?

[Nellie_Fox]

Originally Posted by DSpivack

Interesting question, but I don't see why that would be the case. The MVP award is for the MVP of that particular season, and I think each award is separate from the other. Also, if that were true, should no rookie ever win the award?

I didn't say that I was taking that position, just throwing it out for consideration. Of course it's most valuable for that season, but the question could be is there more value in a player who's proven himself to be reliably that good, as opposed to someone who might be "exposed" in subsequent seasons.

The landscape is littered with rookie phenoms who faded into oblivion. To answer your question, I'd be very hesitant to vote for a rookie as "Most Valuable." It's the Most Valuable, not the Player of the Year.

[DSpivack]

Originally Posted by Nellie_Fox

I didn't say that I was taking that position, just throwing it out for consideration. Of course it's most valuable for that season, but the question could be is there more value in a player who's proven himself to be reliably that good, as opposed to someone who might be "exposed" in subsequent seasons.

The landscape is littered with rookie phenoms who faded into oblivion. To answer your question, I'd be very hesitant to vote for a rookie as "Most Valuable." It's the Most Valuable, not the Player of the Year.

Oh, I didn't take it that way, just responding to that particular thought experiment. To me, I take the MVP as who contributed the most to his team. Riffing off of that (and obviously it's an imperfect comparison, as there are park factors involved, and teams are built differently, and there are other players present at the positions to begin with), if you swapped the two players, what would be the better team? In this case, the Tigers with Cabrera, or the Tigers with Mike Trout? The Angels with Mike Trout, or the Angels with Miguel Cabrera? Obviously that's completely hypothetical as Trout and Austin Jackson would have to fit somewhere, as well as Miguel Cabrera with Albert Pujols (not to mention Trumbo and Morales, as well), but it's an interesting thought in my head.

What's the difference between MVP and Player of the Year? As for rookies, were Fred Lynn and Ichiro not as valuable to their teams in their rookie years than in subsequent ones?

[Frater Perdurabo]

Separate from the MVP, MLB ought to have a "Hank Aaron Award" for the best offensive player in each league in each year, just like there is a Cy Young award for the best pitcher.

[pythons007]

Originally Posted by DSpivack

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.

He scored over 100 runs with players that didn't do much behind him. I don't have the statistics but I heard that the players after him and Fielder were awful. To call him a base clogger, is not correct. Paulie and Dunn, are base cloggers, station to station guys.



Yep.

Originally Posted by DSpivack

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.

So do scoring runs. He hit at the top of the lineup where he's going to get the opportunity to score more runs with big hitters behind him.


For as much argument on who should win the MVP and as close as these two players are, I think it would have to come down to how the two helped their teams down the stretch. One team got into the playoffs and the other did not. One was the player of the month in August and September and the other was not.

[DSpivack]

Originally Posted by pythons007

So do scoring runs. He hit at the top of the lineup where he's going to get the opportunity to score more runs with big hitters behind him.

For as much argument on who should win the MVP and as close as these two players are, I think it would have to come down to how the two helped their teams down the stretch. One team got into the playoffs and the other did not. One was the player of the month in August and September and the other was not.

Runs are, yes, but Cabrera did not help the team on base paths, whereas Trout was perhaps the best base runner in baseball. How you run on the base paths is not dependent on the rest of the team. And is it not MVP of the whole season, instead of August and September? A win is just as good in May as it is in August. And Trout was no slouch in these months. If you're cooling down to .284/.366/.500 and .289/.400/.500 (his August and September/October, respectively), then you're having a pretty damn good season.

And if runs and RBIs are dependent on your teammates, then whether or not your team makes the playoffs is even moreso dependent on it. Besides, the Angels finished with a better record in a much tougher division.

[Nellie_Fox]

Originally Posted by DSpivack

As for rookies, were Fred Lynn and Ichiro not as valuable to their teams in their rookie years than in subsequent ones?

Ichiro is a whole different argument. I don't think guys who have played Japanese Major League baseball for nine years should qualify as rookies at all. Yes, Lynn went on to a solid major league career. But nobody knew that at the time, just as nobody has any guarantees that Trout won't be a flash-in-the-pan as many phenoms before him have been.

Either I'm not making my point clear or you're missing it. This year was really just a little better than what Cabrera has done for many years. Trout has absolutely no track record. To be "most valuable," I think it can be argued that a guy who has shown he can do it over and over again is more valuable than a rookie.

[DSpivack]

Originally Posted by Nellie_Fox

Ichiro is a whole different argument. I don't think guys who have played Japanese Major League baseball for nine years should qualify as rookies at all. Yes, Lynn went on to a solid major league career. But nobody knew that at the time, just as nobody has any guarantees that Trout won't be a flash-in-the-pan as many phenoms before him have been.

Either I'm not making my point clear or you're missing it. This year was really just a little better than what Cabrera has done for many years. Trout has absolutely no track record. To be "most valuable," I think it can be argued that a guy who has shown he can do it over and over again is more valuable than a rookie.

I get your point, but I'm not seeing what affect that has, or should have, on an MVP award in any one given season. If Trout hits .280 the rest of his career, or hits .320, I don't see how that retroactively changes what he did in 2012. As for Cabrera, you could argue that 2012 was his worst season of the past 3; I don't think that's an argument for or against him deserving the MVP award in 2012, it just shows what a great hitter he is and what a great career he has had thus far. I just don't see how Trout is any more or less valuable for the 2012 Angels based on what he does in seasons that have yet to occur.

[Nellie_Fox]

Originally Posted by DSpivack

I get your point, but I'm not seeing what affect that has, or should have, on an MVP award in any one given season. If Trout hits .280 the rest of his career, or hits .320, I don't see how that retroactively changes what he did in 2012. As for Cabrera, you could argue that 2012 was his worst season of the past 3; I don't think that's an argument for or against him deserving the MVP award in 2012, it just shows what a great hitter he is and what a great career he has had thus far. I just don't see how Trout is any more or less valuable for the 2012 Angels based on what he does in seasons that have yet to occur.

And there we're back to the vague definition. Is it most valuable to his team, or most valuable as viewed by baseball? In other words, if you were to throw all the players into a giant draft, do you think Trout or Cabrera would be the #1 draft choice? That's how I view "most valuable," and why I don't think you have to have been on a winning team to be considered. And if Trout simply disappears, then in retrospect, he won't have been very valuable at all.

[Bob Roarman]

You still have to contain it to this season though.