I've offerered this in the past, but it's worth repeating.

MLB needs a third "major" award, at the same level of Cy Young and MVP.  For the sake of argument, call it the "Babe Ruth Award", or the "Ted Williams Award", or the "Willie Mays Award".  Whatever.  Much like the CYA, it would go to the best hitter in the league.  That then frees up the MVP to go to the player who most contributed to his team's success.

This then solves two problems: (1) the success of the player's team, or whether or not they make the playoffs, is irrelevent to the discussion for the new award . . . much like Steve Carlton's CYA in 1972, if the player was arguably the best hitter in the league, it doesn't matter if his team loses 100 games; and (2) it removes the bias against pitchers ("because they have their own award") from the MVP discussion, because now bother hitters AND pitchers have their own awards separate and distinct from MVP.

If this was the case, then one could then argue that Cabrera's Triple Crown (assuming he hangs on for the next two days) gives him the "hitter" award, and Trout gets the MVP.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2012 10:46:00 AM (view original):
Truthfully, I'd have rather had MC at 1B/DH than Trout in the OF. 

But no one is having that discussion.  We're talking about which player is deemed "most valuable".     Angels play 162 with or without Trout, right?

Since Cabrera played 9 games between 1B/DH, I'm not sure why that's a choice here.  Aren't we dealing strictly in what actually happened?

As to your question, absolutely - which by the way is why the fact that Trout came up late shouldn't come up in the discussion at all.  Late call-up or injuries - it's the same thing, games missed add no value to his season. 

That being said, if I only get to pick one for my team, I take Trout in CF (mostly) over Cabrera at 3B even with Trout having the shorter season.   And since both these guys were on decent teams, that pretty much ends it for me.  I do generally have an issue with an MVP from a total crap team - it's like giving Best Actor to a guy in an otherwise terrible movie - sure, it's possible it could technically be true, but if the overall product is crap, who cares?

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/1/2012 7:51:00 PM (view original):
Explain "almost as valuable".

Cabrera hit 44 HR with a 329/393/608 line and a 166 OPS+
Trout hit 30 HR with a 325/398/533 line and a 170 OPS+

On offense alone they were fairly close, the biggest difference is obviously the extra 14 home runs. Cabrera has a lower OPS+ because he plays in a better hitters park.

When you add in the difference on the bases and in the field, the choice is fairly obvious. And, if this kind of thing matters to you (it doesn't to me), the Angels had a better record than the Tigers this year. I don't think Cabrera should get the MVP just because the A's and Rangers were better than the White Sox.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2012 10:53:00 AM (view original):
I've offerered this in the past, but it's worth repeating.

MLB needs a third "major" award, at the same level of Cy Young and MVP.  For the sake of argument, call it the "Babe Ruth Award", or the "Ted Williams Award", or the "Willie Mays Award".  Whatever.  Much like the CYA, it would go to the best hitter in the league.  That then frees up the MVP to go to the player who most contributed to his team's success.

This then solves two problems: (1) the success of the player's team, or whether or not they make the playoffs, is irrelevent to the discussion for the new award . . . much like Steve Carlton's CYA in 1972, if the player was arguably the best hitter in the league, it doesn't matter if his team loses 100 games; and (2) it removes the bias against pitchers ("because they have their own award") from the MVP discussion, because now bother hitters AND pitchers have their own awards separate and distinct from MVP.

If this was the case, then one could then argue that Cabrera's Triple Crown (assuming he hangs on for the next two days) gives him the "hitter" award, and Trout gets the MVP.

It's called the Hank Aaron Award

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_Aaron_Award

The Hank Aaron award is not a major award, and winners are not selected using the same voting procedures as MVP and Cy Young.

Elevate it and change the voting rules, then it serves my purpose.  As it currently is defined, it does not.

If you want to use "the MVP to go to the player who most contributed to his team's success", shouldn't a team's success play into the equation?

Tigers-playing on
Angels-playing golf

Seems simple to me.

Posted by AlCheez on 10/2/2012 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2012 10:46:00 AM (view original):
Truthfully, I'd have rather had MC at 1B/DH than Trout in the OF. 

But no one is having that discussion.  We're talking about which player is deemed "most valuable".     Angels play 162 with or without Trout, right?

Since Cabrera played 9 games between 1B/DH, I'm not sure why that's a choice here.  Aren't we dealing strictly in what actually happened?

As to your question, absolutely - which by the way is why the fact that Trout came up late shouldn't come up in the discussion at all.  Late call-up or injuries - it's the same thing, games missed add no value to his season. 

That being said, if I only get to pick one for my team, I take Trout in CF (mostly) over Cabrera at 3B even with Trout having the shorter season.   And since both these guys were on decent teams, that pretty much ends it for me.  I do generally have an issue with an MVP from a total crap team - it's like giving Best Actor to a guy in an otherwise terrible movie - sure, it's possible it could technically be true, but if the overall product is crap, who cares?

Well, since my team is the Yankees, I'd much rather have Cabrera at 3B in place the oft-injured A-Roid, the played way over his head Chavez and the other collection of clowns over Trout in place of Granderson.


I guess that settles it for me. 

I meant if I'm building a team, not if I get to put one of them on the Phillies.

FWIW, I don't like the fact that Trout strikes out every game a whole lot either.  

Posted by AlCheez on 10/2/2012 1:26:00 PM (view original):
I meant if I'm building a team, not if I get to put one of them on the Phillies.

If I'm building a team, I put Cabrera at 1B/DH so he stands less of a chance of getting hit in the face.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2012 1:27:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, I don't like the fact that Trout strikes out every game a whole lot either.  

It isn't worth much. His OBP is .398. An out is an out.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2012 1:21:00 PM (view original):
If you want to use "the MVP to go to the player who most contributed to his team's success", shouldn't a team's success play into the equation?

Tigers-playing on
Angels-playing golf

Seems simple to me.

Angels won more games. They were more successful, just didn't make the playoffs because their division was better.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2012 1:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2012 1:27:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, I don't like the fact that Trout strikes out every game a whole lot either.  

It isn't worth much. His OBP is .398. An out is an out.

So one cannot make a productive out?

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2012 1:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2012 1:21:00 PM (view original):
If you want to use "the MVP to go to the player who most contributed to his team's success", shouldn't a team's success play into the equation?

Tigers-playing on
Angels-playing golf

Seems simple to me.

Angels won more games. They were more successful, just didn't make the playoffs because their division was better.

Playoffs are an indicator of success.

Does anyone, outside of me, recall the strike season when the team with the best overall record didn't make the playoffs?

No out is productive. Some outs are slightly less ****** than other outs.