Thursday, November 15, 2012
It's Trout, No Doubt
The race for American League MVP between Miguel Cabrera and Mike Trout has become one of the most controversial in recent memory, odd since it really isn't even close, when you look at it the right way.
The common description of the race is old-school vs. new-school, the stat geeks vs. the baseball guys. But really it's common sense vs. faulty logic.
These are the main arguments for Miguel Cabrera:
He won the Triple Crown which hasn't been done since 1967. Miguel Cabrera hit 44 home runs in 161 games. Josh Hamilton hit 43 in 148 games. So if you give Cabrera the award just because he led the league in home runs, you're basically doing it because Josh Hamilton got hurt.
He led his team to the playoffs. Granted, Cabrera was hot down the stretch and Trout cooled off but all wins count the same in standings. But you also have to consider that the Tigers won 88 games and the Angels won 89. And Trout missed the first 20 games, and the Angels went 6-14. With Trout on the roster the Angels had a .585 winning percentage. With Cabrera the Tigers were .543. Add to that the fact that all the teams in Trout's division (Rangers, A's and Mariners) had better team ERAs than any team in Cabrera's division. So if you give Cabrera the award just because his team made the playoffs, you're basically doing it because the White Sox (and the Twins and Royals) suck.
Now that I have shot holes through the two biggest arguments in favor of Cabrera, let's look at the biggest thing Trout has going for him. The award is called Most Valuable Player. Not best hitter.
Defense: according to UZR, Trout saved the Angels 11 runs with defense. Cabrera cost his team 10. Would this race even be a race if Trout had 11 more homers, and Cabrera 10 fewer? No, and runs saved on defense are every bit as important as runs created at bat.
Base-running: Trout created 12 extra runs with his base-running thanks to his 49 steals (an 91% success rate) and Cabrera cost his team three runs.
The reason it comes down to little things like defense and base-running is because offensively they are so close. Cabrera has slight advantage in OPS, but Trout takes OPS+ because of park advantage. Both players are exactly tied in wRC+ (weighted runs created plus), also an adjusted number. Those are all very good measures of total offensive production.
Unlike RBI, which is frequently used to bolster Cabrera. Sure driving in runs is important, but runners need to be on base in order for that to happen.
This is not just a debate of stats vs. scouts. It's the right stats vs. the wrong stats. This is not about WAR, notice I didn't even mention it. It is about the things that WAR tells us. That these two players are very equal in offensive production. But in value (the other key word in MVP) they're not even close. Trout contributed more to his team in the field and on the bases, enough to overcome the slight, very slight, deficit in offensive production. And he did it all at a position that is much more valuable (harder to fill) than the one Cabrera played.
And that is why Mike Trout deserves to be the 2012 AL MVP.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Obviously a day late but I did still disagree yesterday. MVP to me means the player who puts up great number but also whose team wouldn't be a contender/playoff bound without them. I think that Cabrera, they wouldn't be in WS without him and LA didn't make the playoffs with or without trout. Plus Cabrera was much better down the stretch when it really counted
Player of the year might go to Trout, but Cabrera was deserving of MVP
Jleary
Cabrera was MVP
Trout was the best player
AE
Again, I think the old guard is doing what they accuse the computer nerds of doing: paying attention to the numbers and not what happens on the field.
The notion that Miguel Cabrera carried his team to the playoffs is simply not true. After August 31, the Tigers were 18-13, the Angels were 19-11. Trout helped his team win more games. The White Sox lost 11 of 15 and the A's won 8 of 9. Nothing to do with either of these players.
This is an individual award. It should go to the player who made the most valuable contributions to his team efforts to win. What the other players and team management did to either win or lose games shouldn't impact this individual award.
Trout fells off down the stretch...still good numbers but he slowed down and Miggy did not. So even if Angels played 1.5 games better than Tigers down the strech, Trout wasn't the guy playing his best ball. Trouts lowest two OPS months were Aug and Sept (866 and 835) and Cabrera was over 1000 Aug and Sept for 2 of his best 3 months. I know OPS isnt the only number to look at but you can't deny Trout came back to earth the last 2 months of the season. September he batted .257 with 6 RBI and 6 SB's....don't think he carried the team at all in Sept
What if you included October? Do October games count? Because then Trout's OPS jumps to .900 for Sept. and Oct.
Yes Cabrera did better at the end of the year and Trout did better at the beginning. But the timing of the contributions should matter far less than the value of the contributions.
Even if you wanted to give Cabrera a boost because his best performances occurred in what are ostensibly more pressure-packed situations it shouldn't be nearly enough to cover the wide chasm of Trout's overall performance.
the 13 AB's that Trout had in October you mean?
Yes, 13 at bats, and 7 hits. At a time when he supposedly fell off. Enough to raise his September OPS to 900.
The danger of small samples.
That's why it's unfair to so heavily weight September performance. You need to look at the entire season.
I had another long winded response with more numbers, but i fear we can go like this for a while....So in the interest of time, I guess we can just agree to disagree
I'm pretty sure you would run out of evidence way before I would.
You've never beat me at anything before....not sure why this time would be different
Post a Comment