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?

I would just argue that no matter how you slice up the stats, weight them etc, when considering hitting, defense and base running, Trout was better.

I won't argue that Cabrera isn't the best middle of the Ryder hitter. But that's not what the are is for.

There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.

#StrokePost

It's more fun to be a victim

There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.

From BP per @JPosnanski, Cabrera created exactly 1 more run than Trout, but made 56 more outs in the process. That's before D & baserunning.

It's pretty much a I care about baserunning and defense or I don't argument and I think the don'ts have it

From BP per @JPosnanski, Cabrera created exactly 1 more run than Trout, but made 56 more outs in the process. That's before D & baserunning.

How many runs did Trout create in the postseason?

It's pretty much a I care about baserunning and defense or I don't argument and I think the don'ts have it

It's a regular season award

I'm not sure it's quite that simple. I think it's more of a slow evolution from the old school guys til the new school guys. 20 years from now the triple crown probably wont have the same significance, but it still does right now. It got brought up on Mike and Mike. Greenberg said "Cabrera won the triple crown and his team made the playoffs. That's it, he's the MVP, anything else is just arguing to argue." Any sabr guys who heard that probably had to keep their head from exploding. I get the feeling a lot of sabr guys think that sabr is mainstream now. It's not. The traditional media is still mostly old school.

Totally agree. The problem with this, is that people like Greenberg refuse to even listen to the argument. If you can't reason with them, it's a waste of time... which is frustrating.

The point is, whatever he did, he didn't help his team win enough to get to the postseason. So who gives a shit. He didn't put up good enough numbers to overcome his team not winning its division or the wild card.

Angels had a better record playing in a tougher division. So what else you got?

Angels had a better record playing in a tougher division. So what else you got?

"Whatever he did" is actually MORE than what Cabrera did. That's the point. And A-Rod won in '03, so the precedent of a non-playoff MVP is set.

They didn't even get one of the two wild cards. Plus, when they needed to win in September, Trout sucked.

ARod won because his numbers were so incredibly better than anyone else in the league. Trout's are not incredibly better.

[
Well, Trout's WAR this year is higher than A-Rod's in 03.

There's no debate with that. The Angels were a better team this regular season and won more games playing a MUCH tougher division. Angels in the AL central win 95 games at least.

I don't disagree with you guys that Trout deserves it, but aren't you basically making a case that all of these awards should simply go to whoever has the highest score on the advanced metrics that have been created?

Why not just cancel all voting on all awards?

I don't disagree with you guys that Trout deserves it, but aren't you basically making a case that all of these awards should simply go to whoever has the highest score on the advanced metrics that have been created?

Why not just cancel all voting on all awards?

One could make a case for that.

I'd make the argument taking any 'advanced' stats out of it. Show me basic stats and eye test and I'd vote for Trout. Gold Glove caliber defense, amazing baserunner and slightly less accomplished hitting season Cabrera.

If Hamilton had 2 more homeruns we wouldn't be having this discussion

Why though? Are you saying that they are definitely right?

Just remember, that the defenders of all these advanced statistics always fall back to "It's just one tool to use" and "no one thinks they are all that matter".

No, there is no "right." But what's the alternative?