View Single Post
11-16-2012, 12:03 PM
Registered User
RayzorIsDull's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,144
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Nasty Nazem View Post
You don't even have to look at sabremetrics to know Trout was better. There is a misconception out there that Trout vote for MVP thing was only being put out there because of sabremetrics stats when in fact, that's not true at all unless you consider OBP/stolen bases/runs scored/defense to be sabremetrics stuff. Cabrera produced a slightly better OPS but it isn't a big enough gap to justify all the other things Trout did like steal 49 bases, put up a better on base percentage, scored more runs despite fewer games (lead the AL in runs scored -- got on base a lot, got into scoring position a lot more often and gave his teammates the opportunity to drive him in) and he played elite level defense while Cabrera... sucks at playing defense and you don't even need advanced stats for that -- just look at the eye test.

Trout was a much much much better player all-around and provided more value to his team with all the things he did. Its too bad the Hank Aaron awards isn't more recognized because it should be as its awarded to the best hitter and Cabrera certainly was that, but he was not the most VALUABLE player.
Why are stolen bases considered more valuable than HR's or RBI's? I guess you can pick and choose your stats to suit your argument. Are there any statistical measures that account for the position you bat in the lineup? Seems to me Trout would have an easier time scoring runs with a guy like Pujols batting 3rd as compared to Young batting 5th for the Tigers. Cabrera had much better stats in late and close situations as compared to Trout, better stats with RISP and 2 outs. This is what makes baseball interesting but it isn't interesting when people tell you what an injustice it is that Cabrera won the MVP. If Trout should have won MVP then let's just get rid of voting and base the MVP off of who had the highest WAR.

RayzorIsDull is offline