There's a logical argument to be made that Cabrera is the MVP. There is no argument that he is a better player.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

Of these two, who would get your vote for MVP...Mark Trumbo, or Alejandro De Aza?

_________________

I think you know my vote.

Gordon Beckham wasn't an option

_________________

Trout's line has never happened in the history of baseball. It's much much much more rare than a Triple Crown.

We have absolutely no way of knowing if such a thing is true.

With WAR we have to make a lot of assumptions. At its heart it's a statistic that attempts to isolate a player from his team, something that can't really be done.

The value of the steals and base-running are already reflected in Trout's runs scored. If you steal 100 bases and don't score any runs, the steals have no value.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Does anyone here really think Darwin Barney was over twice as valuable as Derek Jeter this season?

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Jeter's WAR is higher. But his defense was brutally bad. Really really bad.

The question is, what is better than WAR? What system do you have that does a better job of aggregating every single play and isolating things like ballpark advantages, etc?

So why track hits? They don't matter unless someone scores, right?

In your world the only thing that matters is runs. Trouts really good at scoring runs.

I take it you're looking at Fangraphs? Baseball Reference has Barney at 4.7 and Jeter at 2.1.

These composite stats are always being tweaked and "improved". I know I've read in one of the older Abstracts where James almost completed dismisses defense on the outfield corners. Now Hatchetman is telling us that viewpoint isn't embraced by SABR at this time. I'm not sure if he's right or not.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

I'm not suggesting we stop tracking steals. I'm just pointing out that if they don't result in a run, they were pretty pointless. I'm not impressed by a guy with 200 hits either if he doesn't score a lot of runs, which he usually does.



Aren't runs really the only thing that matters in a ballgame when we get right down to it? I know Trout is good at scoring runs. I'm not knocking Trout. Cabrera is good at scoring them too.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

It's not perfect. No one ever says it is. But it's a great tool. A tool that is better than most everything else I have seen. If there is a better system out there, let us know.

A better system to to do what exactly?

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

That's all that matters in winning baseball games. It's not all that matters in figuring out a single player's value.

If Trout gets a hit, it's not up to him to score. That's up to a teammates to knock him in. That's why runs aren't a great evaluation of a single player's value. Same with RBI.

We're talking in circles, you just don't get it.

Give me an idea of the value of a particular player.

I do get it. I'm as familiar with WAR as you are. No need to talk down. I though we were having a decent conversation. I want you repeat what you typed here and really think about it before you suggest that I "don't get it": That's all that matters in winning baseball games. It's not all that matters in figuring out a single player's value.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Do you think it's unreasonable to question a system that suggests the second baseman on a 101 loss team is twice as valuable as the captain and most important infielder on a division winner who also got on base 36 percent of the time and slugged .430?

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

This discussion isn't bout winning baseball games. If it was, Trout wins. His team won more and he scored more runs.

This discussion is about doing the somewhat impossible... Comparing two baseball players. I don't know a perfect way to do it. But WAR, an imperfect system, takes in to account a lot of data. Every single pitch. And tons of other factors. And it makes it so that I can compare players relatively without seeing every pitch.

Not unreasonable. But WAR values defense a lot. If you don't, find their offensive WAR and I'm sure you'd be more satisfied.

Okay, Chris, it is starting to feel like we're going in circles here, so let me just say one more thing and we can agree to disagree. WAR assigns fixed values to various components. A stolen base is worth x, a plus UZR is worth y. And that's fine as far as it goes. Trout steals at a high percentage. Cabrera doesn't steal at all. A complete picture of each player should reflect those things. But- and this is why I don't think we should simply make postseason award based on WAR, even if it is the "best single stat we have"- all steals aren't created equal, Soriano's homers didn't mean as much as Cabrera's or Trout's did in 2012. You and I can know that inherently without it having the slightest effect on the WAR of any player in the discussion.

I'm 100% certain that Detroit wouldn't be a playoff team without Miguel Cabrera. I can't say that the Angels would have won any less games with someone other than Mike Trout playing in his spot. Of course, I could be wrong. But as a guy who watches and has watched a lot of baseball, I feel I'm entitled to that opinion. And indeed, such opinions are what make the game so great. You're free to disagree, but I don't believe a tool like WAR, as comprehensive as it may be, was designed so you could club me over the head with it to make your case.

If you're familiar with the work of Bill James, and obviously he's an important figure in baseball's statistical revolution and he has his own system of "win shares" similar to WAR, you know that he hates Dick Allen. This in spite of the fact that according to his own systems, Allen was a plus, plus player and a deserving Hall of Fame candidate. His opinion is based upon anecdote and personal feelings and James makes no apologies for that. Just as I will make no apologies for my belief that Miguel Cabrera is the best right-handed hitter I have ever seen and the clear MVP in 2012 over Mike Trout and anyone else.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

" I can't say that the Angels would have won any less games with someone other than Mike Trout playing in his spot. "


This is the most assanine statement yet. Just ridiculous. You seriously, do not get it. And I'm not talking down at all. It's just the truth. You're in a different world than I am. If I didn't respect you and know you are a really bright guy, I would dismiss you as a moron.

Miggy also played 161 games. Shows he is durable. Now, its not Trout's fault he was in AAA for the first month. But still Miggy played 161 games.

Look at the overall WAR list; http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagu ... ting.shtml
There are some players on that list that are higher than guys who clearly had better years. I'm sorry, I don't buy Ben Zobrist having a better year than Cespedes. Jeter in no way shape or form meant more to the Yankees on the field than Granderson did. I don't believe that Jason freakin Kipnis was better than AJ Pierzynski this year.

Miggy was the best player in the AL all season. That really can't be disputed. Trout had an awesome year, but he comes in 2nd in the race of overall best player.

Sometimes you need to tell you statistics to shut up.

_________________

Baseball is a funny game. I'm sure you know that. That's why "experts" can pick teams to win 60 games and they end up winning 90. That isn't some rarity either.

Any opinion on what a team may have done with this guy or without that guy is purely that- opinion. I thank you for considering me a bright guy. I respect your opinion too, but I think you're far too convinced that WAR is supplying you with a hard, fixed number on the value of players.

Let me put it this way, and it's a little difficult because the two guys in question are clearly different types of players. Anthony Rizzo and Alejandro DeAza have similar WAR. If we replaced Trout with DeAza, there might not be any difference in the Angels record. If you replaced Cabrera with Rizzo it would be a fucking disaster for Detroit. Maybe you disagree. I'm guessing there are many fans and serious baseball guys who wouldn't.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

I believe if you replace a top 5 player with a way worse player, the team will be worse.


Take out WAR entirely. I believe offensively, Trout and Cabrera had similar years. Purely hitting, Cabrera comes out on top. When adding in defense and base running, the edge goes back to Trout. Big time. Remember, this isn't the Silver Slugger award. This is the MVP. Cabrera probably deserves the Silver Slugger. Trout was more valuable though.

The beauty of baseball is that that is simply not true. And that's why baseball is a funny game and other sports are not. There are so many variables and so much randomness that just doesn't exist in other team sports. If you replace a top five running back with a way worse player, that football team will be worse. If you replace a top five point guard with a way worse player, that basketball team will be worse. In baseball, that isn't necessarily so. It doesn't mean I wouldn't take Trout over DeAza every damn time, but the ultimate results are far more difficult to predict.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

I don't care about the results, and don't see how they are relevant though either, I shouldn't have addressed that. I would rather have the better payer.

To me, your paragraph only shows how silly the argument of the Tigers making the playoffs is.

You have to admit that sounds kind of silly. It seems that the easy availability of statistics and the development of advanced metrics has gotten us to a place where we've lost sight of the object of the game. I'm sure that wasn't the intention.

And I do understand what you mean. I'm just not sure "better"- however we decide to define it- is equivalent with "most valuable".

And I guess you aren't addressing me directly with the part about the Tigers making the playoffs since I haven't mentioned it. I know some others have in this thread. Although I would consider it irrelevant in this case, as the teams of both players contended for the postseason until nearly the very end, I do think a player's team should have to meet some type of baseline in order for him to win an MVP. After all, how valuable could a guy have been if his team would have finished in the same spot if he had been replaced by you or me?

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

We're at a better place, and yet still a confusing one. I think the difficulty is defining valuable. Disregarding team wins, etc, Mike Trout was better this year. That's accounting for hitting, fielding and base running. He was a better player. To me, that's the MVP. I understand your argument, if Trout was on the Cubs and was replaced with me, what's it matter? Either way the Cubs suck really bad. But this is no way reflects how good Trout was, even if it were for the Cubs. He was individually great and this is an individual award.

I can see the different in how much it matters in the grand scheme of things, if Trout were on the Cubs compared to the Tigers. But that gap doesn't exist. The angels were better than the Tigers. So I feel like that entire argument is off the table.

To me, this is not a team award, it's an individual one. Mike Trout had a better individual year.

Yeah, like I said, I don't think the results of their teams is relevant in this case. I would suggest that the respective teams were fairly equivalent. A strong case can certainly be made that the Angels were better.

But I'm not convinced that Trout had the better year either. I understand that determining value is what statistics like WAR or win shares are driving at. And they do a decent job. But I don't really think there is a consensus on the weights of each component as illustrated by the fact that the formula are being changed all the time.

And then we get in to subjective opinion which isn't invalid, though some people approach it as if it were. Statisticians ignore things that cannot be measured. That's their job. There are no such constrictions upon you or me or danny bernstein. For example, Nick Swisher is a valuable player. His worst season came with the White Sox when they attempted to bat him leadoff for a good part of the season. Is there a correlation between his order position and his performance? Maybe, maybe not. But there certainly could be.

I tend to give more weight to a strong leadoff man, simply because they are so rare in the game today. ( I just realized as I type this that you may have forced me to talk myself into the superiority of Trout. ) But Miguel Cabrera is the best middle of the order run producer in the game today. If I had to have a player get a hit to save my life, I'm taking him.

And this is a little off-topic but it relates in a way, but it gets me thinking about the way the game is viewed today and the way the walk is valued. If there were a hypothetical player with a .000 BA who simply walked every time, would he be the greatest player ever?

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don