Posted by tecwrg on 10/3/2012 11:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/3/2012 11:02:00 AM (view original):
I still don't see how this is relevant to the MVP. The Angels won 89 games and the Tigers won 87. That one team made the playoffs and the other didn't is a fluke in the division alignment, not the result of one player being more valuable than the other.

Even if we suspend reality for a minute and say OK, that isn't a retarded way to break a tie, we'd have to be at a tie in the first place. The only way you could argue that Trout and Cabrera are tied for the MVP race is to COMPLETELY ignore base running and defense.

That's still the old school vs. new school way of thinking.

Old school: batting average and RBI's are excellent metrics to use to judge performance.
New school: WAR (specifically, oWAR and dWAR) rocks!

And I just noticed this: at baseball-reference.com, they use a WAR of 8+ as a rule of thumb for "MVP quality" season.

Cabrera's WAR is 6.9
Trout's WAR is 10.7

Posted by bad_luck on 10/3/2012 12:09:00 PM (view original):
How much more weight should offense get? And is Cabrera's slight offensive lead (Trout actually has a higher OPS+) enough to overcome Trout's gigantic lead in defense and base running?

Posted by tecwrg on 10/3/2012 12:53:00 PM (view original):
You're missing the point:

Old school: Cabrera and his probable Triple Crown
New school: Trout and his WAR rating

Cano's not in the discussion. though I'd expect him to get a lot of second and third place votes.  The second place votes will come mostly from the new school voters.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2012 12:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/3/2012 11:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/3/2012 11:02:00 AM (view original):
I still don't see how this is relevant to the MVP. The Angels won 89 games and the Tigers won 87. That one team made the playoffs and the other didn't is a fluke in the division alignment, not the result of one player being more valuable than the other.

Even if we suspend reality for a minute and say OK, that isn't a retarded way to break a tie, we'd have to be at a tie in the first place. The only way you could argue that Trout and Cabrera are tied for the MVP race is to COMPLETELY ignore base running and defense.

That's still the old school vs. new school way of thinking.

Old school: batting average and RBI's are excellent metrics to use to judge performance.
New school: WAR (specifically, oWAR and dWAR) rocks!

And I just noticed this: at baseball-reference.com, they use a WAR of 8+ as a rule of thumb for "MVP quality" season.

Cabrera's WAR is 6.9
Trout's WAR is 10.7

Not really.

If WAR was the stat of choice, the question would have been:   Trout or Cano?

As I said earlier, you can find whatever stat you need to back your case.    That's baseball.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2012 12:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/3/2012 12:53:00 PM (view original):
You're missing the point:

Old school: Cabrera and his probable Triple Crown
New school: Trout and his WAR rating

Cano's not in the discussion. though I'd expect him to get a lot of second and third place votes.  The second place votes will come mostly from the new school voters.

If "new" school wanted a legit debate, which they don't as WAR tells them all they need to know, Cano is in the discussion.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2012 12:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/3/2012 12:09:00 PM (view original):
How much more weight should offense get? And is Cabrera's slight offensive lead (Trout actually has a higher OPS+) enough to overcome Trout's gigantic lead in defense and base running?

How did you determine a "gigantic lead in defense and base running"?

How much is a SB worth?   You can figure it out if you know when he stole(outs/base).

From what I see, he looks just slightly above league average in CF. 

Maybe "gigantic" is a silly term to use.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/3/2012 12:53:00 PM (view original):
Can you really find stats that make a case for Cabrera though? Even if we say he was slightly better offensively, what about defense and base running?

Posted by bad_luck on 10/3/2012 1:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2012 12:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/3/2012 12:09:00 PM (view original):
How much more weight should offense get? And is Cabrera's slight offensive lead (Trout actually has a higher OPS+) enough to overcome Trout's gigantic lead in defense and base running?

How did you determine a "gigantic lead in defense and base running"?

How much is a SB worth?   You can figure it out if you know when he stole(outs/base).

From what I see, he looks just slightly above league average in CF. 

Maybe "gigantic" is a silly term to use.

According to Fangraphs, Cabrera was worth -9.2 fielding runs. That's almost 1 win below replacement level. Trout was worth 13.3 fielding runs, over 1 win above replacement.

On the bases, Cabrera was worth -2.3 runs compared to Trout's 6.8 runs.

That's just one site's version of those stats, but they line up pretty well with other fielding and base running evaluations of the two players. 

Posted by tecwrg on 10/3/2012 1:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/3/2012 12:53:00 PM (view original):
Can you really find stats that make a case for Cabrera though? Even if we say he was slightly better offensively, what about defense and base running?

You're missing the point as well.

Old school thinking doesn't place as much value on defense and base running as you do.

You seem to be unwilling or unable to accept that.  It's OK to disagree with a different viewpoint, but you should at least acknowledge that it exists and is very real to those who hold it.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/3/2012 1:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2012 12:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/3/2012 12:09:00 PM (view original):
How much more weight should offense get? And is Cabrera's slight offensive lead (Trout actually has a higher OPS+) enough to overcome Trout's gigantic lead in defense and base running?

How did you determine a "gigantic lead in defense and base running"?

How much is a SB worth?   You can figure it out if you know when he stole(outs/base).

From what I see, he looks just slightly above league average in CF. 

Maybe "gigantic" is a silly term to use.

According to Fangraphs, Cabrera was worth -9.2 fielding runs. That's almost 1 win below replacement level. Trout was worth 13.3 fielding runs, over 1 win above replacement.

On the bases, Cabrera was worth -2.3 runs compared to Trout's 6.8 runs.

That's just one site's version of those stats, but they line up pretty well with other fielding and base running evaluations of the two players. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2012 1:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/3/2012 1:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2012 12:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/3/2012 12:09:00 PM (view original):
How much more weight should offense get? And is Cabrera's slight offensive lead (Trout actually has a higher OPS+) enough to overcome Trout's gigantic lead in defense and base running?

How did you determine a "gigantic lead in defense and base running"?

How much is a SB worth?   You can figure it out if you know when he stole(outs/base).

From what I see, he looks just slightly above league average in CF. 

Maybe "gigantic" is a silly term to use.

According to Fangraphs, Cabrera was worth -9.2 fielding runs. That's almost 1 win below replacement level. Trout was worth 13.3 fielding runs, over 1 win above replacement.

On the bases, Cabrera was worth -2.3 runs compared to Trout's 6.8 runs.

That's just one site's version of those stats, but they line up pretty well with other fielding and base running evaluations of the two players. 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/abRuns_top_ten.shtml

Cabrera has a 5 run lead.   And he gets to play next weekend. 

I'll also note that you're saying Trout's fielding/baserunning is worth 20 runs while his adjusted batting is worth 54 runs.  Something seems off there.