Miguel Cabrera wins Triple Crown, but is he the MVP?

You stated my case Boik! I too vote for Trout.

I think either guy deserves it and neither could complain.

Winning the triple crown is a HUGE accomplishment in this day and age and his statistics for the year speak for themselves.

On the other hand what Trout did is unprecedented for ANY season. I'd probably go with Trout.

IMP Its Miguel. We have not seen a triple crown since the late 60's. It is unheard of now a days. HR Hitters don't hit for average, High average hitters don't hit homeruns. Cabrera done just that. So Mike Trout did not play a all year, who knows what he does in those games, maybe he wears down towards the end of the season if he did. You cant count that for him or against him. In a single season, Cabrera was the MVP, no question about it.

He did play in the minor leagues. It's not like he was resting up until his promotion.

Big difference from the Minors and the Pros

"Jt0323 wrote:

Big difference from the Minors and the Pros

I don't think there is any data or even any eyeball test that would say an extra twenty games would have hurt Trout. His SB and HR numbers certainly couldn't DECREASE in those extra games. Even if he wears down those numbers are better. Worst case his AVG slips a few points maybe.

I do think that Cabrera deserves it if he wins. I mean....can we do Co-MVP's

"Jt0323 wrote:

Big difference from the Minors and the Pros

In terms of physical wear and tear? I seriously doubt it.

In fact, there's a case to be made that MiLB is more taxing physically with the constant all day bus rides, crappy hotels, crappy food, no sleep, etc.

We can do hypotheticals all day but the fact remains that Trout was the better baseball player this year. It'd be a shame if Trout gets robbed because Cabrera achieved something that is, while is admittedly rare, is also mostly meaningless in determining a players worth.

"Jt0323 wrote:

Big difference from the Minors and the Pros

Not really. The rules are the same. He still has to hit, run and field. If playing in the major leagues would have worn him down, then so would the minors.

It wouldn't be a travesty either way, but Trout did something that's never been done. Not as rookie, but ever. Leader in SB's, WAR, Uzr. He was amazing.

I think the TC is a HUGE deal..but the MVP was Trout. The best rookie campaign in MLB history? maybe.

Just rename the award to most outstanding player instead.

"I used to be a Marlin like you, but then I took a Jeffrey Loria to the knee."

"Section126 wrote:

I think the TC is a HUGE deal..but the MVP was Trout. The best rookie campaign in MLB history? maybe.

I used to think the TC was a huge deal, but don't anymore. I think Miggy had an unreal year without even factoring that in. Crazy part is that you could argue this being his 3rd best offensive season.

"HardKoreXXX wrote:

I used to think the TC was a huge deal, but don't anymore. I think Miggy had an unreal year without even factoring that in. Crazy part is that you could argue this being his 3rd best offensive season.

ehh..

The TC is still a big deal as evidenced by it not being done in 45 YEARS.

"Section126 wrote:

ehh..

The TC is still a big deal as evidenced by it not being done in 45 YEARS.

I don't consider it a big deal for a couple reasons 1) The Steroid era is over and 2) Two of the stats have been proven pretty worthless

Don't get me wrong, he had a monster year and is deserving (along with Trout) of MVP, but I think the TC has definitely lost some luster.

I think Im going to rephrase my argument:

Mike Trouts 2012 was so good that not only should he win AL MVP over Cabrera, they shouldnt even give an NL MVP just out of respect. His WAR of 10.4/10.7 (depending on whether you use fangraphs or baseball reference) is statistically one of the top 5 hitter seasons of the last 50 years. Only 2 years by a juiced up Barroid Bonds, a historic season by Joe Morgan in 1975 and a great year by Yastremski in 1967 actually exceed what Mike Trout did this year. And Trout did it in 138 games since his call up. Projected out to a full season, hes working on a WAR over 11 (which is unheard of) and its very possible he might have beaten all 4 of those seasons by Bonds, Morgan and Yastremski. http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/WAR_season.shtml

"Boik14 wrote:

I think Im going to rephrase my argument:

Mike Trouts 2012 was so good that not only should he win AL MVP over Cabrera, they shouldnt even give an NL MVP just out of respect. His WAR of 10.4/10.7 (depending on whether you use fangraphs or baseball reference) is statistically one of the top 5 hitter seasons of the last 50 years. Only 2 years by a juiced up Barroid Bonds, a historic season by Joe Morgan in 1975 and a great year by Yastremski in 1967 actually exceed what Mike Trout did this year. And Trout did it in 138 games since his call up. Projected out to a full season, hes working on a WAR over 11 (which is unheard of) and its very possible he might have beaten all 4 of those seasons by Bonds, Morgan and Yastremski. http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/WAR_season.shtml

Babe Ruth had a WAR of 13.7 in 1923 lol

"HardKoreXXX wrote:

I don't consider it a big deal for a couple reasons 1) The Steroid era is over and 2) Two of the stats have been proven pretty worthless

Don't get me wrong, he had a monster year and is deserving (along with Trout) of MVP, but I think the TC has definitely lost some luster.

Maybe so but I am going to argue that it is actually harder to attain now because of how specialized pitching is.....the days of pitchers pitching 15-30 complete games a year are over. Hell I dont even think anybody got to 10 CG's this year...maybe Verlander??

"HardKoreXXX wrote:

Babe Ruth had a WAR of 13.7 in 1923 lol

Exactly. Man, that live ball era and expansion really changed things. All the great WAR seasons were before WW2. :lol:

Hell and yes El Cabajo is the AL MVP.

I think sometimes people look so hard into sabermetrics they forget that hard stats matter as well.

You can't say AVG doesn't matter. OPB is great, so is OBPS but at the end of the day getting a base hit (even a single) is far superior to a walk in many situations. Walks don't move runners first to third or score runs.

HR's obviously matter. Though HR per AB or PA is probably a better measure all things considered.

RBI don't matter? I understand that it has a lot to do with how many opportunities your team allows you, but it also has to do with a player cashing in on those opportunities. I refuse to believe it is all luck. Certain guys seem to always come through in clutch spots and high a much higher BA with runners on. Some hit much worse with runners on as well. I don't believe it is an anomaly in most cases. Baseball is a sport and like any sport there is pressure to perform in key spots. Some guys do and some don't.

I'm surprised people haven't gone so far as discrediting players accomplishments based on the strength of pitching they faced over the course of a season.

All that said it is still Trout IMO

I hate sabermetrics and am normally a stats guy but Trouts season is THAT good. Cabrera had a great year but how is different then his 2010 year? Its not really.

"finyank13 wrote:

Maybe so but I am going to argue that it is actually harder to attain now because of how specialized pitching is.....the days of pitchers pitching 15-30 complete games a year are over. Hell I dont even think anybody got to 10 CG's this year...maybe Verlander??

I don't think it makes a difference because everyone is at the same disadvantage.

"Alex44 wrote:

I think sometimes people look so hard into sabermetrics they forget that hard stats matter as well.

You can't say AVG doesn't matter. OPB is great, so is OBPS but at the end of the day getting a base hit (even a single) is far superior to a walk in many situations. Walks don't move runners first to third or score runs.

HR's obviously matter. Though HR per AB or PA is probably a better measure all things considered.

RBI don't matter? I understand that it has a lot to do with how many opportunities your team allows you, but it also has to do with a player cashing in on those opportunities. I refuse to believe it is all luck. Certain guys seem to always come through in clutch spots and high a much higher BA with runners on. Some hit much worse with runners on as well. I don't believe it is an anomaly in most cases. Baseball is a sport and like any sport there is pressure to perform in key spots. Some guys do and some don't.

I'm surprised people haven't gone so far as discrediting players accomplishments based on the strength of pitching they faced over the course of a season.

All that said it is still Trout IMO

The objective of baseball is to get on base and score runs. RBI's are a product of having guys on base. For example, Miggy had 70 more PA's with RISP than Trout did this year. Of course a lot of that has to do with where they hit in the lineup. This is also why the Triple Crown is overvalued. You can basically eliminate Trout from it every year just by virtue of him hitting leadoff.