2012 MLB Thread (Cabrera Gets Triple Crown, first since Yaz 1967)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

B) The argument isn't that RBIs are useless, it's that they are a poor indicator of offensive ability because they rely on many things that are out of the batter's control.

I bolded your word there because it seems to be critical to a good bit of the back & forth. "Ability" does not equal "productivity" or "performance". Similar to the earlier bits about "expected runs" ... which not only do I hold in considerably lower esteem than actual runs but so does the scoreboard.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

There's nothing wrong with letting the numbers tell us something.

That's fine, I've got no problem with that.

But any numbers that say a triple crown winner on a playoff team isn't the MVP are some lyin' sumbitches.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

To be honest, this debate is conforming to many of the negative stereotypes that people have on both sides.

+1

SI

[Easy Mac]

we can look at total runs produced to get a dirty calculation of value. This would be runs scored+RBI-HR.

Mike - 182 in 639 plate appearances (.285 runs per PA)
Migs - 204 in 697 plate appearances (.293 runs per PA)

This works out to approximately 6 runs over the course of a season, or a run every 27 games.

Also, Cabrera came up to bat with a runner on first and less than 2 outs 153 times. He hit into 28 double plays.

Trout came up 93 times and hit into 7 double plays. Even if you equal this out Cabrera cost his team at least 16 more base runners this year. If we assume a player score about 1/3 of the time he gets on base, that means Cabrera cost his team about 7 more actual runs than Trout this year, or about 5 runs if their opportunities were equalized.

so now Trout was actually better about getting runs scored for his team where haven't even included defense, which you would have to concede that Trout is light years ahead of Cabrera.

So if the argument between the two is who produced a better run differential for his team, it has to be Trout, the guy who played on the team that actually won more games.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

The beauty of the game is in the game, not the numbers. It's time to evolve Jon.

I agree with this, but while you seem to think it makes a good argument FOR sabermetrics, I would say it argues against it. Because we even have different websites that can't even agree on how some of these measures should be calculated.

Anyone that can simply describe UZR on here to me, and for 50% of folks to understand it, then maybe I will take your side.

But until then: Triple Crown!

And someone earlier who did ask: yes, defense is nearly irrelevant to an MVP discussion, unless you are like Ozzie Smith or you have a down year where no one leaps out at you.

[sterlingice]

Complete WC/DS schedule

2012 MLB playoff schedule: Postseason set | Big League Stew - Yahoo! Sports

(all times TBD unless listed, all games broadcast on TBS )

Friday's wild card play-in games
(winners advance to LDS round)
NL — St. Louis Cardinals at Atlanta Braves, 5 p.m. ET
AL — Baltimore Orioles at Texas Rangers, 8:30 p.m. ET

Saturday
ALDS Game 1 — Oakland Athletics at Detroit Tigers, 6 p.m. ET
NLDS Game 1 — Cincinnati Reds at San Francisco Giants, 9:30 p.m. ET

Sunday
ALDS Game 1 — New York Yankees at Baltimore or Texas
NLDS Game 1 — Washington Nationals at Atlanta or St. Louis
ALDS Game 2 — Oakland at Detroit
NLDS Game 2 — Cincinnati at San Francisco

Monday
ALDS Game 2 — New York at Baltimore/Texas
NLDS Game 2 — Washington at Atlanta/St. Louis

Tuesday
ALDS Game 3 — Detroit at Oakland
NLDS Game 3 — San Francisco at Cincinnati

Wednesday
ALDS Game 3 — Baltimore/Texas at NY
ALDS Game 4* — Detroit at Oakland
NLDS Game 3 — Atlanta/St. Louis at Washington
NLDS Game 4* — San Francisco at Cincinnati

Thursday
ALDS Game 4* — Baltimore/Texas at New York
ALDS Game 5* — Detroit at Oakland
NLDS Game 4* — Atlanta/St. Louis at Washington
NLDS Game 5* — San Francisco at Cincinnati

Friday
ALDS Game 5* — Baltimore/Texas at New York
NLDS Game 5* — Atlanta/St. Louis at Washington

* If necessary, all series are best of five

SI

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's fine, I've got no problem with that.

But any numbers that say a triple crown winner on a playoff team isn't the MVP are some lyin' sumbitches.

Give it the fuck up with the bolded. Trout's team was better. Explain why that is held against him. You keep dodging it because you know you have no comeback.

[DougW]

Originally Posted by Logan

Give it the fuck up with the bolded. Trout's team was better. Explain why that is held against him. You keep dodging it because you know you have no comeback.

Exactly !!!!!

Getting to the post season isn't even important in baseball.

[Easy Mac]

So you're saying the Tigers are the Jack Morris of teams, they just played to the closest competitor's record?

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

16 triple crown winners before Miguel Cabrera. 5 of them won the MVP.

People keep saying this. Why? 7 of them happened before the MVP was awarded. Are people lazy? (Or did I miss the clarification earlier?)

1933- Jimmie Fox won both
1933 - Chuck Klein won the triple crown, but lost it to a pitcher who won 24 games with a 1.66 ERA and was in the midst of a 24 game winning streak.
1934 - Lou Gerhig won the Triple Crown, but lost to a guy who took his team to the playoffs (Not helping the case of winning the MVP on a playoff team)
1937 - Joe Medwick won both
1942 - Williams didn't win it, but his team missed the playoffs and he blamed the draft boards
1947 - Williams again lost it, by one vote. He also didnt make the playoffs.
1956 - Mantle won both
1966 - Frank Robinson won both
1967 - Yaz won both

Seems like the only time the triple crowns didn't win the title (4 times, not 11 as cited) was an absence of playoffs for the player.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Logan

Give it the fuck up with the bolded. Trout's team was better. Explain why that is held against him. You keep dodging it because you know you have no comeback.

It's not a negative judgment of Trout. It's the same reason players on last place teams have rarely won this award. It's a narrative-based criteria, sure, but the idea is that to get this award, your value to the team should have actually have propelled your team to something meaningful. You can disagree with that criteria, and that's fine (I won't say you shouldn't be allowed to vote or post on this or anything), but you're not characterizing the criteria correctly. Nobody's saying it's Trout's fault the Angles didn't make the playoffs. But it's just one of the differences in the ways people look at these awards. Some are committed to using statistics to isolate out every other possible factor to make sure that individuals are evaluated and awarded accurately. That's fine, it's great that those stats exist to be able to do that, and it's sure as hell important for GMs to be aware of the tools that help people do that. But not everyone sees that as the purpose of the MVP. For some, there is a team component, there is a narrative component. Under those components, if a guy was better, had a better season, had better performances, but his team didn't go anywhere, and another guy was not quite as good, but was a key piece of a team that actually advanced past that threshold that we consider so important (getting to the playoffs), then the latter guy should get it. Because his performance actually contributed to something meaningful. The other player didn't do anything "wrong", but that's life - guys who got injured and missed most of the season didn't do anything wrong either, guys who lost playing time because of bad management didn't do anything wrong either.

I mean, the entire way a champion is determined depends to some extent on narratives - the teams are split up into divisions which creates the possibility of better teams staying home and worse teams going to the playoffs. Even MLB itself doesn't try to strictly isolate out performance to crown their champion - they allow for narratives and those kind of quirks. And again, I know that this mindset when it comes to individual awards is losing popularity, and that's fine (and maybe someday that will lead to one big division because that's the only fair and accurate way to determine a champion), but there is no specific criteria for this award, both are entirely valid ways to vote. Someone can think that Trouth had a superior performance season but that Cabrera had a more historically signficant season that actually helped result in a team getting to the playoffs. They can think that and not be evil, cavemen child molesters and they can think that and still be allowed to vote, because it's within the rules. The argument over proper criteria can be fun, but by definition, with an open-criteria award, neither view can be inherently correct.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

So you're saying the Tigers are the Jack Morris of teams, they just played to the closest competitor's record?

I think today I'd rather be the Tigers than the Angels.

SI

[Easy Mac]

so then he should win the MVP because of who you'd rather be? I'm not sure I understand your logic.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Danny

Plus I think to truly measure value taking position into consideration, you need to also look at salary distribution for that position.

Fine you want to bring salary into the equation. Trout makes like $600,000, while Cabrera makes $21,000,000. Trout's production versus cost makes him more valuable to the Angels because they can afford Albert Pujols.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Mike Moustakas for Gold Glove!

(can't fault a guy for trying)

SI

I can only hope, he's the cornerstone of 3B on my Strat-o-Matic team.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd call it devolution, via arrogant determination to "improve" what isn't broken in the first place.

The permanence of the game is a key component of its beauty, and that permanence resides, in part, in the continuity of its numbers.

But the numbers suck. You work in advertising, if you could find numbers that were more true to performance wouldn't you want to use those as well?

[Danny]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Fine you want to bring salary into the equation. Trout makes like $600,000, while Cabrera makes $21,000,000. Trout's production versus cost makes him more valuable to the Angels because they can afford Albert Pujols.

I am referring to position valuation. If a starting MLB SS makes on average 1 million and a starting 1B makes on average 20 million, teams are valuing 1B more and then someone getting wins over a replacement level 1B is a bigger deal. True there is individual salaries, but that really is only due to Trout being a rookie, he'll be making 20+ million himself eventually.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Danny

I am referring to position valuation. If a starting MLB SS makes on average 1 million and a starting 1B makes on average 20 million, teams are valuing 1B more and then someone getting wins over a replacement level 1B is a bigger deal. True there is individual salaries, but that really is only due to Trout being a rookie, he'll be making 20+ million himself eventually.

I know, I was joking with you. I hadn't got back to that post yet to edit it with a smiley face!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

But the numbers suck. You work in advertising, if you could find numbers that were more true to performance wouldn't you want to use those as well?

And I want to make baseball more like work because ... ?

A great deal of the joy has already been stripped out of the game as it is, I'm not among those who would exacerbate that problem.

[Passacaglia]

First Triple Crown since Yaz? Sounds like quite a Situation. Maybe they should settle this Upstairs at Eric's.

[stevew]

I wonder if the makers of Crown Royale can blend a special limited edition triple filtered version to honor Miggy.

Too Soon?

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

First Triple Crown since Yaz? Sounds like quite a Situation. Maybe they should settle this Upstairs at Eric's.

Yaz?

[Scoobz0202]

Was this sad story posted throughout the MVP chatter

Pat Neshek’s baby boy dies 23 hours after birth | Big League Stew - Yahoo! Sports

[lordscarlet]

It was not, and its terrible. One more reason to vote for the A's. (Although, I'd be happy with the O's as well)

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

People keep saying this. Why? 7 of them happened before the MVP was awarded. Are people lazy? (Or did I miss the clarification earlier?)

1933- Jimmie Fox won both
1933 - Chuck Klein won the triple crown, but lost it to a pitcher who won 24 games with a 1.66 ERA and was in the midst of a 24 game winning streak.
1934 - Lou Gerhig won the Triple Crown, but lost to a guy who took his team to the playoffs (Not helping the case of winning the MVP on a playoff team)
1937 - Joe Medwick won both
1942 - Williams didn't win it, but his team missed the playoffs and he blamed the draft boards
1947 - Williams again lost it, by one vote. He also didnt make the playoffs.
1956 - Mantle won both
1966 - Frank Robinson won both
1967 - Yaz won both

Seems like the only time the triple crowns didn't win the title (4 times, not 11 as cited) was an absence of playoffs for the player.

There was a bit of difference, as only 1 team made the playoffs from each league from back then. And looking at the AL, it seems about 75% of the time the MVP came from the team that made the playoffs.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

There was a bit of difference, as only 1 team made the playoffs from each league from back then. And looking at the AL, it seems about 75% of the time the MVP came from the team that made the playoffs.

The years where Gehrig and Williams didn't win the MVP while winning the Triple Crown are absolutely atrocious decisions. Gehrig finished behind 3 players from Detroit and had .363 AVG, 1.172 OPS, 49 HR and 10.1 WAR. MVP Mickey Cochrane had .320 AVG, .840 OPS, 2 HR and 3.7 WAR.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Yaz?

Well yeah, but I don't get why you posted that, instead of Situation, since that's what I referenced.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by mckerney

The years where Gehrig and Williams didn't win the MVP while winning the Triple Crown are absolutely atrocious decisions. Gehrig finished behind 3 players from Detroit and had .363 AVG, 1.172 OPS, 49 HR and 10.1 WAR. MVP Mickey Cochrane had .320 AVG, .840 OPS, 2 HR and 3.7 WAR.

I bet Cochrane was better defensively.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Well yeah, but I don't get why you posted that, instead of Situation, since that's what I referenced.

Because I'm more of a fan of Only You.

[Arles]

First, I think one of the reasons I've come down more on the Cabrera side is because the Trout side is so adamant that there is no way you could choose Cabrera. I think it's a very close decision and would be fine with Trout winning. All that said, if I had a vote I would choose Cabrera. Here would be my reasons:

1. Performance with 2 outs and runners in scoring position.

Cabrera - 57 plate appearances: .420 AVG, 1.211 OPS, 4 HR, 29 RBI, 7 Ks
Trout - 61 plate appearances: .286 AVG, .782 OPS, 0 HR, 16 RBI, 15 Ks

2. Performance in the final 3 innings + extras.

Cabrera - 212 PA: .421 OBP, 1.095 OPS, 38 R, 17 HR, 43 RBI, 26 Ks
Trout - 179 PA: .360 OBP, .837 OPS, 28 R, 8 HR, 18 RBI, 53 Ks

3. Performance in the 7th or later with the batting team tied, ahead by one, or the tying run at least on deck.

Cabrera - 102 PA: .422 OBP, 1.040 OPS, 17 R, 23 RBI, 13 Ks
Trout - 79 PA: .338 OBP, .784 OPS, 9 R, 11 RBI, 20 Ks

4. Performance with men on base

Cabrera - 333 plate appearances: .405 OBP, .993 OPS, 54 R, 112 RBI, 43 Ks
Trout - 214 plate appearances: .383 OBP, .917 OPS, 42 R, 62 RBI, 45 Ks

5. Performance after the All Star Break

Cabrera - 317 PA: .407 OBP, 1.074 OPS, 57 R, 26 HR, 68 RBI, 48 Ks, 192 OPS+
Trout - 349 PA: .401 OBP, .966 OPS, 72 R, 18 HR, 43 RBI, 82 Ks, 165 OPS+

6. Cabrera's team made the playoffs because of a final push that saw him hit a 1.080 OPS in his final 57 games. Trout had a .870 OPS in his final 57 games.

7. Cabrera won the triple crown.

There are many other arguments people could make for Trout. But, in the biggest ABs that could impact wins and down the stretch, Cabrera was simply better than Trout. Then, you add in that Detroit made the playoffs and the triple crown - and my pick in Cabrera by a nose for the MVP.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Arles

First, I think one of the reasons I've come down more on the Cabrera side is because the Trout side is so adamant that there is no way you could choose Cabrera. I think it's a very close decision and would be fine with Trout winning. All that said, if I had a vote I would choose Cabrera. Here would be my reasons:

1. Performance with 2 outs and runners in scoring position.

Cabrera - 57 plate appearances: .420 AVG, 1.211 OPS, 4 HR, 29 RBI, 7 Ks
Trout - 61 plate appearances: .286 AVG, .782 OPS, 0 HR, 16 RBI, 15 Ks

2. Performance in the final 3 innings + extras.

Cabrera - 212 PA: .421 OBP, 1.095 OPS, 38 R, 17 HR, 43 RBI, 26 Ks
Trout - 179 PA: .360 OBP, .837 OPS, 28 R, 8 HR, 18 RBI, 53 Ks

3. Performance in the 7th or later with the batting team tied, ahead by one, or the tying run at least on deck.

Cabrera - 102 PA: .422 OBP, 1.040 OPS, 17 R, 23 RBI, 13 Ks
Trout - 79 PA: .338 OBP, .784 OPS, 9 R, 11 RBI, 20 Ks

4. Performance with men on base

Cabrera - 333 plate appearances: .405 OBP, .993 OPS, 54 R, 112 RBI, 43 Ks
Trout - 214 plate appearances: .383 OBP, .917 OPS, 42 R, 62 RBI, 45 Ks

5. Performance after the All Star Break

Cabrera - 317 PA: .407 OBP, 1.074 OPS, 57 R, 26 HR, 68 RBI, 48 Ks, 192 OPS+
Trout - 349 PA: .401 OBP, .966 OPS, 72 R, 18 HR, 43 RBI, 82 Ks, 165 OPS+

6. Cabrera's team made the playoffs because of a final push that saw him hit a 1.080 OPS in his final 57 games. Trout had a .870 OPS in his final 57 games.

7. Cabrera won the triple crown.

There are many other arguments people could make for Trout. But, in the biggest ABs that could impact wins and down the stretch, Cabrera was simply better than Trout. Then, you add in that Detroit made the playoffs and the triple crown - and my pick in Cabrera by a nose for the MVP.

So you don't think defense or baserunning has an impact, only batting?

[Arles]

I don't think that Trout's advantage in baserunning or defense is enough to overcome the items I listed above. They have an impact, but it's hard for me to overlook what Cabrera did down the stretch and in key moments that directly impact wins.

[dubb93]

I don't see how Cabrera's defense is a negative for him in the MVP race. By all accounts he is in the top 10 in every defensive category I have read for his position. Mike Trout is as well. The actual positions are apples and oranges, they both seemed to perform well compared to their peers. Right?

So basically the argument is that being a top 10 defensive CF is better than being a top 10 defensive 3B? And to the such an extent that we should basically make Cabrera out to be a bum?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by dubb93

I don't see how Cabrera's defense is a negative for him in the MVP race. By all accounts he is in the top 10 in every defensive category I have read for his position. Mike Trout is as well. The actual positions are apples and oranges, they both seemed to perform well compared to their peers. Right?

So basically the argument is that being a top 10 defensive CF is better than being a top 10 defensive 3B? And to the such an extent that we should basically make Cabrera out to be a bum?

So Ozzie Smith's defense is on par with the top 1st baseman's defense?

There are positions that bring more value defensively. You simply can't say top 10 1st baseman is comparable to a top 10 shortstop or centerfielder. The shortstop and centerfielder play a more difficult position and have a bigger impact on the game. It's like saying the top running back in the NFL is on par with the top quarterback in the NFL because they should only be compared to their peers.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by Atocep

So Ozzie Smith's defense is on par with the top 1st baseman's defense?

No I agree SS is a position that gets a whole ton of balls hit their way. Is CF really the same? Most of the top SS's had to play more balls than Miggy and Trout combined.

The shortstop and centerfielder play a more difficult position and have a bigger impact on the game.

Seems Miggy had about 100 more balls hit to him this season than Trout did. Actually going up and down the list most of the top guys at 3B had to field more balls than the CF guys did.

All that said I am a Miggy guy this year for the MVP. I just don't buy the argument about how great Trout was defensively compared to Miggy. Seems all of the CFs in the league played less balls and had a higher fielding % than nearly all the guys playing 3B.

This argument is less about who the more important player is between QB and RB and more about who intercepts a higher % of passes between a LB and a CB.

[Arles]

Don't forget that Trout played about 50 of his games in LF.

[ISiddiqui]

It is slightly unreal that this debate has gone in the direction of saying that fielding as a CF is just as difficult as fielding as a 3B.

[Arles]

I think the better question is whether the defensive advantage you get from Trout over an average CF big enough when compared to Cabrera vs an ave 3B to offset some of the hitting stats.

That's pretty tough to quantify. Certainly, Trout is *better* defender than Cabrera, but I'm not sure what impact that makes in this debate.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by dubb93

I don't see how Cabrera's defense is a negative for him in the MVP race. By all accounts he is in the top 10 in every defensive category I have read for his position. Mike Trout is as well. The actual positions are apples and oranges, they both seemed to perform well compared to their peers. Right?

So basically the argument is that being a top 10 defensive CF is better than being a top 10 defensive 3B? And to the such an extent that we should basically make Cabrera out to be a bum?

If costing your team more runs than you save at your position makes you a top 10, I might as well put a glove on and play 3B.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Arles

First, I think one of the reasons I've come down more on the Cabrera side is because the Trout side is so adamant that there is no way you could choose Cabrera. I think it's a very close decision and would be fine with Trout winning. All that said, if I had a vote I would choose Cabrera. Here would be my reasons:

1. Performance with 2 outs and runners in scoring position.

Cabrera - 57 plate appearances: .420 AVG, 1.211 OPS, 4 HR, 29 RBI, 7 Ks
Trout - 61 plate appearances: .286 AVG, .782 OPS, 0 HR, 16 RBI, 15 Ks

2. Performance in the final 3 innings + extras.

Cabrera - 212 PA: .421 OBP, 1.095 OPS, 38 R, 17 HR, 43 RBI, 26 Ks
Trout - 179 PA: .360 OBP, .837 OPS, 28 R, 8 HR, 18 RBI, 53 Ks

3. Performance in the 7th or later with the batting team tied, ahead by one, or the tying run at least on deck.

Cabrera - 102 PA: .422 OBP, 1.040 OPS, 17 R, 23 RBI, 13 Ks
Trout - 79 PA: .338 OBP, .784 OPS, 9 R, 11 RBI, 20 Ks

4. Performance with men on base

Cabrera - 333 plate appearances: .405 OBP, .993 OPS, 54 R, 112 RBI, 43 Ks
Trout - 214 plate appearances: .383 OBP, .917 OPS, 42 R, 62 RBI, 45 Ks

5. Performance after the All Star Break

Cabrera - 317 PA: .407 OBP, 1.074 OPS, 57 R, 26 HR, 68 RBI, 48 Ks, 192 OPS+
Trout - 349 PA: .401 OBP, .966 OPS, 72 R, 18 HR, 43 RBI, 82 Ks, 165 OPS+

6. Cabrera's team made the playoffs because of a final push that saw him hit a 1.080 OPS in his final 57 games. Trout had a .870 OPS in his final 57 games.

7. Cabrera won the triple crown.

There are many other arguments people could make for Trout. But, in the biggest ABs that could impact wins and down the stretch, Cabrera was simply better than Trout. Then, you add in that Detroit made the playoffs and the triple crown - and my pick in Cabrera by a nose for the MVP.

This is the most overused argument there is. You can make an argument for just about anything when you get to move the goal posts. The season starts at the end of March and goes to the beginning of October. Games start in the first inning and, generally, go until the end of the ninth. They don't count September wins twice. A grand slam in the eighth inning is not worth eight runs.

Enough with the changing the bookends argument. It's the same kind of nonsense you get with the "part of the group arguments."

And as an aside, are there still people saying that Cabrera is a good fielder?! Even worse, are there people saying that he is in any way close to Trout as a fielder?!

Someone says it better than I did

[Arles]

Basically, the best numbers I can see are that Trout saved about 13 runs in CF while Cabrera cost about 4 runs at 3B. I'm not sure that's enough to swing this debate.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by oykib

This is the most overused argument there is. You can make an argument for just about anything when you get to move the goal posts. The season starts at the end of March and goes to the beginning of October. Games start in the first inning and, generally, go until the end of the ninth. They don't count September wins twice. A grand slam in the eighth inning is not worth eight runs.

Enough with the changing the bookends argument. It's the same kind of nonsense you get with the "part of the group arguments."

And as an aside, are there still people saying that Cabrera is a good fielder?! Even worse, are there people saying that he is in any way close to Trout as a fielder?!

Someone says it better than I did

The idea that every at bat is equal is fairly silly. Striking out with no one on and down 7 in the 9th inning is not the same as striking out down a run in the ninth, one out and a man at 3B.

This is the fallacy that many stat-centric people get into. When trying to predict outcomes or show how talented a player is - every AB can be equal. When looking back to see the outcome on games (ie, to determine who wins an award based on value to their team), every AB is certainly not equal.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I bolded your word there because it seems to be critical to a good bit of the back & forth. "Ability" does not equal "productivity" or "performance". Similar to the earlier bits about "expected runs" ... which not only do I hold in considerably lower esteem than actual runs but so does the scoreboard.

Originally Posted by Arles

Basically, the best numbers I can see are that Trout saved about 13 runs in CF while Cabrera cost about 4 runs at 3B. I'm not sure that's enough to swing this debate.

I posted the run analysis early that shows it swings the debate.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Arles

The idea that every at bat is equal is fairly silly. Striking out with no one on and down 7 in the 9th inning is not the same as striking out down a run in the ninth, one out and a man at 3B.

This is the fallacy that many stat-centric people get into. When trying to predict outcomes or show how talented a player is - every AB can be equal. When looking back to see the outcome on games (ie, to determine who wins an award based on value to their team), every AB is certainly not equal.

Which is exactly what this article that was already pointed out addresses...
Trout Versus Cabrera: Offense Only, Context Included | FanGraphs Baseball

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

If costing your team more runs than you save at your position makes you a top 10, I might as well put a glove on and play 3B.

Maybe you should. I suspect the "average" guy at 3B is pretty much equivalent to me leaving the bar. Otherwise I can't see how a guy rated in the top third in the league for his position is doing so much worse than the league average guy at that position.

[DougW]

The Trout vs. Cabrera for MVP is really nonsense. Cabrera has already won the award, it just hasn't been made official.

But, I see what's happening. The SABR fans wish to further their stats popularity, and this is an ideal situation to do so. We have a triple crown winner, and a guy with a good bunch of the SABR stats that make him "better" than the crown guy. Discussing these comparisons, when talking about the MVP award, brings light to the statistics themselves. It generates interest in "their cause".

Many years ago, some of the statistics we talk about regularly now weren't popular. I'm sure the SABR folks hope the same will happen again. And who knows maybe in twenty years, every time a batter steps up, the announcers will tell us what his WAR is or what his Hoopy la Doopy stats are - like they do now with AVG., HR, and RBI.

But, it ain't twenty years from now, so Cabrera wins the MVP. The discussion does help to generate SABR interest though.

**Obviously, this is a big picture opinion, and isn't the case for everyone, or possibly not even consciously for some.

[ISiddiqui]

Or, you know, SABR folk actually wish to sway the debate as happened when Felix Hernandez won the Cy Young even though he was only 13-12 in Win Loss Record (which would have been unbelievable even 10 years earlier). Though it's going to be really difficult to beat a Triple Crown winner.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by DougW

The Trout vs. Cabrera for MVP is really nonsense. Cabrera has already won the award, it just hasn't been made official.

But, I see what's happening. The SABR fans wish to further their stats popularity, and this is an ideal situation to do so. We have a triple crown winner, and a guy with a good bunch of the SABR stats that make him "better" than the crown guy. Discussing these comparisons, when talking about the MVP award, brings light to the statistics themselves. It generates interest in "their cause".

Many years ago, some of the statistics we talk about regularly now weren't popular. I'm sure the SABR folks hope the same will happen again. And who knows maybe in twenty years, every time a batter steps up, the announcers will tell us what his WAR is or what his Hoopy la Doopy stats are - like they do now with AVG., HR, and RBI.

But, it ain't twenty years from now, so Cabrera wins the MVP. The discussion does help to generate SABR interest though.

**Obviously, this is a big picture opinion, and isn't the case for everyone, or possibly not even consciously for some.

Yes, it's the Sabermetric Agenda. We took over the Cy Young with Felix in 2010 and now we're coming for the MVP.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Which is exactly what this article that was already pointed out addresses...
Trout Versus Cabrera: Offense Only, Context Included | FanGraphs Baseball

Again, this goes on how it theoretically impacted runs using a fairly arbitrary baseline. We know that Cabrera had better OBP and OPS numbers in nearly every men on base situation (as cited above). Trout didn't have many opportunities in these situations and therefore didn't take the big hits that his numbers would have dictated. Cabrera had a .405 OBP, .993 OPS, 0.34 RBI/PA and a 12% strike out rate in 333 PA with men on base. Trout had a .383 OBP, .917 OPS, .25 RBI/PA and 20.6% strike out rate in 214 PA with men on base. Trout also had a .393 OBP and 22% strike out rate with runners in scoring position compared to Cabrera who had a .424 OBP and 11% strike out rate with runners in scoring position. In those 135 PAs, Trout had 51 RBI. In Cabrera's 174 PAs, he had 90 RBI.

I'm guessing the fact that Cabrera struck out half as much as trout is why he had a much higher rate of RBI. Then again, not striking out also means some double plays. Still, Cabrera had a higher OBP, higher rate of driving in runs and significantly lower strike out rate in all situations where men were on base. The problem was that Trout didn't have the number of chances that Cabrera did to let his poorer numbers negatively impact his RE24 stat.

With no one on base, Trout had a .407 OBP and .985 OPS for 425 PAs. Cabrera had a .385 OBP and 1.004 OPS for 360 PAs with no one on base. Trout went from .407 to .383 in OBP and .985 to .917 OPS when men were on base. Cabrera went from .382 to .405 OBP , stayed at a 1.000 OPS and his K rate went down (15% to 12%) when men were on base. But, because he had so many more ABs (and so many more chances for failure), his numbers got impacted.

The end result of this is that (for most players), hitting with men on base is a lot harder because of the stress of the situation. Yet, for Cabrera, he actually had better numbers when the stress increased the most. Sounds like decent justification for an MVP.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Arles

The idea that every at bat is equal is fairly silly. Striking out with no one on and down 7 in the 9th inning is not the same as striking out down a run in the ninth, one out and a man at 3B.

This is the fallacy that many stat-centric people get into. When trying to predict outcomes or show how talented a player is - every AB can be equal. When looking back to see the outcome on games (ie, to determine who wins an award based on value to their team), every AB is certainly not equal.

The point is that if you look at the entire season's stats, you've already taken all that into account. Cabrera lead the league in RBIs, and Trout led the league in runs. There was a negligible difference in AVG, with Cabrera ahead. The same is true with OBP, with Trout ahead. The best any reasonable look can say is that it's a coin flip between these two at the plate.

An AB when you've got a guy on 2nd is higher -leverage than one with the bases empty. But a run in the 2nd inning is just as valuable as a run in the seventh. A win in April is just as valuable as a win in September.

You have to totally discount defense and baserunning to come up with Cabrera being more valuable.

Originally Posted by Arles

2. Performance in the final 3 innings + extras.

Cabrera - 212 PA: .421 OBP, 1.095 OPS, 38 R, 17 HR, 43 RBI, 26 Ks
Trout - 179 PA: .360 OBP, .837 OPS, 28 R, 8 HR, 18 RBI, 53 Ks

3. Performance in the 7th or later with the batting team tied, ahead by one, or the tying run at least on deck.

Cabrera - 102 PA: .422 OBP, 1.040 OPS, 17 R, 23 RBI, 13 Ks
Trout - 79 PA: .338 OBP, .784 OPS, 9 R, 11 RBI, 20 Ks

Your other problem with these moving endpoints arguments is double counting. You've already taken what Cabrera did in #3, in #2. Repeating it doesn't mean he did that in 300 PAs. Those are the same 200 PAs.

The other 500 or so PAs count as well.