American League MVP is ... ???

Miguel Cabrera is on the verge of the first triple crown in the major leagues since 1967, and his current line is (with one game remaining in the season):

.331 BA, .608 SG, 1.002 OPS, 44 HR, 139 RBI, 109 R, 6.9 WAR*

Mike Trout, on the other hand is at:

.324 BA, .561 SG, .958 OPS, 30 HR, 83 RBI, 129 R, 10.7 WAR*

and I read somewhere (can't find it now) that he is the first player EVER with that combination of BA, HR and SB.  Also consider that Trout is a Gold Glove caliber center fielder (.992 FA, 2.1 DWAR**) while Cabrera is an average third baseman (.966 FA, -0.2 DWAR**)

Thoughts??

* Wins Above Replacement

** Defensive Wins Above Replacement

(I vote for Trout)

Trout has been horrible at the plate in August and September.....check the stats.....Cabrera has put together the most complete season at the plate that we've seen in the last 40 years. No question he should be the MVP.

I voted for the 3rd baseman.

I wouldn't say 'no question' ... that is why I asked ... but, yeah, I think that he has dropped off lately.  Another stat in Trout's favor is that he was in the minors through most of April so his numbers would be a lot higher (not averages obviously) if he had that extra month.  And as much as we value hitting, its most valuable PLAYER, so baserunning and defense have to factor in as well.

I, personally, (I can say that because Shorty is probably not lurking in any baseball threads to catch it) think it's a toss up, and I won't have a complaint no matter which way it turns out, but the very idea that a guy can get the triple crown and not be the runaway MVP winner says a lot about his competition.

If Cabrera wins the triple crown he deserves to be the MVP

Ted Williams did not win the MVP in the years that he won the triple crown.  But as much as I like the advanced stats, its hard for me to go against a triple crown winner.

Cabrera will win, and you watch, the voting won't be as close as a lot of people think. He was superb down the stretch as the Tigers overtook the White Sox and then kept them at bay, and then there's the whole Triple Crown thing on top of that.

September performance usually matters a lot (I say usually only because Josh Hamilton won in 2010 despite sitting out nearly the whole month). I'm predicting that Cabrera's number of first-place votes will come close to doubling Trout's.

Remember, there are still a lot of baseball beat writers who've been around a good while and don't buy into all the Sabermetric stuff. In their view, the playoff push and the Triple Crown will blow that gibberish away.

If Cabrera had come up short in one of the categories, like HRs by like one or two, would you still give him the MVP?  To me it seems like everyone would vote for Trout, but then those who don't say, "Well, Cabrera won the triple crown, you have to give him the MVP."

MVP is a different award than the Triple Crown title (triple crown isn't even an award, I shouldn't even capitalize it).  MVP is just that, who would you rather have on your team?  Therefore, triple crown great, but it's arbitrary.  I would much rather have Trout on my team; his defense, runs scoring, presence.  He is of more value to a team.  Cabrera just rakes.

Plus, I have always suspected Cabrera to be juicing.  His evolution from when he was on the Marlins reminds me a lot of A-Rod.

I guess I qualify as one of those new-school sabermetric nerds, because, while I appreciate feat, I just don't think those should be THE stats that matter.  I'm not going to go on a rant about why on base percentage is more important than batting average, but I do think that RBI are way over-rated.  That stat is much too dependent on the rest of your team getting on base in front of you.  A leadoff hitter (like Trout) is never going to lead the league in RBI because 20% (or so) of his at-bats are guaranteed to be with the bases empty.  Not to mention that the guys "in front" of him in the lineup are typically the worst hitters.  Runs, I feel, should be pretty interchangeable with RBI when comparing guys like this.  Now, on the other hand, it's not like Cabrera's 109 runs are anything to sneeze at.  He had a phenomenal season, no doubt, but those stolen bases and defense give the edge to Trout in my book.

Yes, I believe this too.  Not enough people are going to be able to make themselves vote a triple crown winner 2nd.

This is a good point.  I read something like this the other day.  If Josh Hamilton were to hit 2 homers today and Cabrera none, that would somehow change his status as an MVP candidate?  That seems a little arbitrary, yet that is what you (general) are saying if you say Cabrera should win the MVP BECAUSE he won the triple crown.

Exactly.

Now everyone ignore the fact that the guy who agrees with me is from Orange County

Yes, I would. His late-season performance is the determining factor. You can't fade in September (as Trout did) as a member of an underachieving team that failed to reach the postseason.

These guys play a LONG schedule and travel a ton.  That takes a huge toll on your body.  Coupled with the advancements and pure number of 'natural' and 'organic' stimulants and supplements are growing by the day.  Therefore, as I've said before... I'm sure most of the professional athletes in 2012 are taking 'something' to help them recover day to day. Many of these supplements that are being digested by the professionals today, in time, will be considered performance enhancing.

The Angels finished 3rd in the West, and would've done so even if Trout had never suited up for them.

Any notion that the Tigers could've won the Central without Cabrera is preposterous.

Ha!  I certainly get biased coverage of the whole thing out here, but I haven't watched an Angels game in weeks and, besides, I am a Padres fan. (My vote is for Chase Headley!!!)

Yes, but don't forget that the Angels finished the season with a better record than the Tigers.  And they did it playing an unbalanced schedule against Oakland (94 wins), Texas (93) and Seattle (75).  Seattle, by the way, would have finished 3rd in the AL Central ahead of KC, Cleveland and Minnesota.

The Angels certainly WOULD NOT have had the same record had Trout not been playing for them.  But I get your meaning ... they would have still missed the playoffs without him.  That is always the underlying argument in the MVP races at the end of the year when one team makes the playoffs and the other didn't.  If you take the "V" literally, then any player whose team doesn't make the playoffs isn't valuable because they could have done that without him.  I am one who considers the award more of a "who had the best season" deal, and wouldn't put much weight on the playoffs/no playoffs angle.

Still, while I would give it Trout, I think Cabrera is also a fine choice and won't have a problem with him winning either.  (I'm in the minority, along with Jamo ... they did a poll on SC last night and Cabrera won 80%-20%)

160 out of 162 games played at a new position AND claiming the triple crown???  Give Cabrera the MVP.  Trout set the bar for a phenomenal career out of the gate, and his stat line is remarkable.  But what were his expectations? The URP category doesn't yet exist (Unheralded Rookie Phenom), but maybe it will now. Cabrera had to continue to grind in 2 of 3 unrelated offensive areas late in the season and he did.  Again, Cabrera deserves the MVP

Since the MVP award was created, 12 players have won the triple crown.  Surprisingly, only 6 won MVP in the same year.  This makes me think Trout has a shot.  Writers are more aware of advanced stats these days and the triple crown has never been a lock.