American League MVP is ... ???

[dsc123]

I keep going back and forth on this, but I think you've got to give it to Cabrera.  He had a higher batting average, slugging %, OPS.  His counting stats were better--hits, doubles, HRs, RBIs.  And his team made the playoffs.   Trout lead the league in steals and played better defense.  Both deserving, but I'd give it to Cabrera.

[dsc123]

Man...in 1934 Gehrig had 10.1 WAR, hit .363, with 44 HRs and 165 RBIs.  MVP went to Mickey Cochrane, who had 3.7 WAR, hit .320 with 32 HRs and 76 RBI.   Gehrig was 5th in voting!

Why?  The Tigers won the pennant and the yankees came in 2nd.

Edit: I read that wrong.  Cochrane had 32 doubles.  2 home runs.

[jamo]

I keep going back and forth on this, but I think you've got to give it to Cabrera.  He had a higher batting average, slugging %, OPS.  His counting stats were better--hits, doubles, HRs, RBIs. And his team made the playoffs. Trout lead the league in steals and played better defense.  Both deserving, but I'd give it to Cabrera.

But the Angels have more wins!

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by jamo

But the Angels have more wins!

I know, that really is an interesting twist.  In the more difficult division, too.  But winning the division (or pennant) has always been a big part of it.  That's why the triple crown winner only gets the MVP half the time.

[RoyHotPower]

Another way to look at this.

The basic criteria for MVP has been such an ambiguous debate, at least in my generation.  How does one define value?  Well, in this instance (and we are assuming it will go to Trout or Cabrera (Beltre, Cano and others are having a great year yet aren't in the national conversation), I think there is an interesting angle to consider this year that doesn't happen very often.

the V in MVP: Value.  Let's look at the word Value itself.  At the beginning of the year, great value was placed on Cabrera.  He was expected to be very valuable to the Tigers and was so.  Trout on the other hand was not on the roster and was an unknown commodity.  He had high expectations, but his value couldn't be rated as there was no baseline (consider former Texas' can't miss prospect Adrian Gonzalez.  He was blocked by Mark Teixeira at first and had to find a home in San Diego before his value could be approximated into realistic expectations).

So there was real and expected value considerations on Cabrera before the season began.  There were hopes and expectations that Trout would be better than an average player, but as he had no major league level body of work, his value was unknown.

thoughts?

[Subaroo]

If we truly put the emphasis on the Value part of MVP, the award would always go to (and should) to a 15+ game winning starting pitcher.  This isn't the NBA, just because you have the best player doesn't mean you are going to make the playoffs.  The best/most valuable position player can be on a losing team.

Who would you rather have?  Verlander or Cabrera?

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Subaroo

If we truly put the emphasis on the Value part of MVP, the award would always go to (and should) to a 15+ game winning starting pitcher.  This isn't the NBA, just because you have the best player doesn't mean you are going to make the playoffs.  The best/most valuable position player can be on a losing team.

Who would you rather have?  Verlander or Cabrera?

You're right.  I'd rather have Verlander every day of the week.  I'd also rather have Patrick Roy over Sidney Crosby, and I'd rather have Tom Brady over Walter Payton.  Certain positions (pitcher, goalie, quarterback) are ALWAYS going to have more "value" than the rest.

They should just rename it to "Most outstanding player" or something like that and then the silly debate over the meaning of the word 'value' would end.

I would give the slight edge (basd on defense and baserunning) to Trout.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by RoyHotPower

Another way to look at this.

The basic criteria for MVP has been such an ambiguous debate, at least in my generation.  How does one define value?  Well, in this instance (and we are assuming it will go to Trout or Cabrera (Beltre, Cano and others are having a great year yet aren't in the national conversation), I think there is an interesting angle to consider this year that doesn't happen very often.

the V in MVP: Value.  Let's look at the word Value itself.  At the beginning of the year, great value was placed on Cabrera.  He was expected to be very valuable to the Tigers and was so.  Trout on the other hand was not on the roster and was an unknown commodity.  He had high expectations, but his value couldn't be rated as there was no baseline (consider former Texas' can't miss prospect Adrian Gonzalez.  He was blocked by Mark Teixeira at first and had to find a home in San Diego before his value could be approximated into realistic expectations).

So there was real and expected value considerations on Cabrera before the season began.  There were hopes and expectations that Trout would be better than an average player, but as he had no major league level body of work, his value was unknown.

thoughts?

I think you're over thinking it.  But what the hell.  Maybe we should do WAR/annual salary?  But that isn't quite it either.  Figure out how many wins the guy added, how much revenue the team got for each additional win (tickets, tv, merch, etc), plus playoff revenue where applicable, and divide that by the player's salary?  That would give you his "value" in the truest sense.

It should just go to the best non-pitcher.  defense should be considered, and baserunning.  Or maybe have the MVP with the emphasis on "value" and then a "Best Hitter" award.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by dsc123

It should just go to the best non-pitcher. defense should be considered, and baserunning.  Or maybe have the MVP with the emphasis on "value" and then a "Best Hitter" award.

Agree with all of this.  The fact that the pitchers have their own award AND are eligible to double up on MVP is a bit unfair to position players.  But if you had a separate "best hitter" award, then it would be fair to consider all positions for the MVP.

If that was the case, though, I would bet that Trout would win the MVP this year.  Cabrera will get his "hitting" award, everybody will be happy and they will also want to reward Trout as well, then they will value Trout's running and fielding more for the MVP.

[jamo]

It should just go to the best non-pitcher.  defense should be considered, and baserunning. Or maybe have the MVP with the emphasis on "value" and then a "Best Hitter" award.

I'm with you on that. I wish they would define it as batters only.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

If that was the case, though, I would bet that Trout would win the MVP this year.  Cabrera will get his "hitting" award, everybody will be happy and they will also want to reward Trout as well, then they will value Trout's running and fielding more for the MVP.

Exactly.  Everyone would be happy.  No more debate every year about what "valuable" means.

[ditchparrot19]

Originally Posted by dsc123

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.

Just more proof that it's not all about numbers.

There's no way that Trout's advanced stats are going to trump Cabrera's huge slash line and clutch final-month performance during a successful drive to the postseason. No way.

I don't have a rooting interest in either direction here, but to me, there's a clear-cut choice.

[ditchparrot19]

Originally Posted by jamo

But the Angels have more wins!

Irrelevant.

That team had at least 10 fewer wins than it was projected to have, and that was BEFORE it was known that Trout would be a major factor. Perhaps something similar could be said of the Tigers in regard to win total, but the bottom line is Detroit ended up where it was expected to be in the standings -- just with not quite as big of a cushion.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by ditchparrot19

Irrelevant.

That team had at least 10 fewer wins than it was projected to have, and that was BEFORE it was known that Trout would be a major factor. Perhaps something similar could be said of the Tigers in regard to win total, but the bottom line is Detroit ended up where it was expected to be in the standings -- just with not quite as big of a cushion.

I don't follow this line of reasoning.  Somehow the underperformance of some other Angels hitters and pitchers is Trout's fault?

And it's very relevant in the case we are using it ... as a direct rebuttal to the bump you are giving Cabrera because he helped his team make the playoffs.  The fact that the Angels won more games than Detroit in a much tougher division should negate any points you take away from Trout's resume for not making the playoffs.  And on top of that, what you said about the Angels underacheiving goes even further to make his case, I believe.  He keep them relevant longer with a lot less help than he should have had.

I believe that it should just come down to whether or not you value RBI and HR over SB, runs, and defense.  Not how good Verlander was, or how much of a slump Puhols was in throughout April.

[jamo]

Irrelevant. That team had at least 10 fewer wins than it was projected to have, and that was BEFORE it was known that Trout would be a major factor. Perhaps something similar could be said of the Tigers in regard to win total, but the bottom line is Detroit ended up where it was expected to be in the standings -- just with not quite as big of a cushion.

What? Predicted by whom? If you Google "2012 mlb standings predictions," the first result is: http://www.teamrankings.com/blog/mlb/2012-mlb-predictions-projected-standings-most-likely-world-series-preseason-ratings They predicted the Angles for 82 wins and Detroit for 83 wins. They're going to finish within a game or two of each other.

[RoyHotPower]

Originally Posted by jamo

I'm with you on that. I wish they would define it as batters only.

I would agree but we have the best hitter award. It's the Hank Aaron award, which also is ambiguous at best http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_Aaron_Award

This didn't really solve anything either as everyone began to debate the criteria of hitter.

Final say so:  for 40+ years we're heard that the Triple Crown winner would never happen again, much like hitting above .400.  Well, Migs did it.  His team made it to the post season (I know this isn't supposed to be a factor, but c'mon).  And lets not even get into post season performance.  If MLB was really serious about that, the awards would be handed out tomorrow before post season begins.

[ditchparrot19]

Originally Posted by jamo

What? Predicted by whom? If you Google "2012 mlb standings predictions," the first result is: http://www.teamrankings.com/blog/mlb/2012-mlb-predictions-projected-standings-most-likely-world-series-preseason-ratings

They predicted the Angles for 82 wins and Detroit for 83 wins. They're going to finish within a game or two of each other.

Predicted by the guys on MLB Network Radio, Baseball Tonight, etc. Not sure where you dredged up this David Hess guy. Not a real shock that his predictions generated a total of nine comments -- about half of which were his own.

[ditchparrot19]

Originally Posted by RoyHotPower

If MLB was really serious about that, the awards would be handed out tomorrow before post season begins.

Although the winners won't be announced for more than a month, ballots for all of those awards have to be submitted today.