For all I know, Trout is the A-Rod on the west coast.   Puts up numbers in games that are decided.  

I wouldn't even vote Cabrera as MVP of the Tigers. That would go to Verlander.

Wonder why no one is touting Verlander for MVP?

Do you have a rational explanation for Cabrera being in the discussion?

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2012 4:45:00 PM (view original):
Will the Angels be playing next weekend?     The Tigers will.   Does that sound "better" to you?

The Angels won more games with a more difficult schedule. The Tigers made the playoffs because the White Sox suck. Cabrera should definitely get a bonus for that.

So is that a "No, the Angels finish on Wednesday"?

I guess my point is, so what? MVP is not a team award. That the Angels were a couple games better than the Tigers is irrelevant to the Trout vs Cabrera debate. Obviously, without Trout, the Angels wouldn't be the better team, but who cares. Trout was the most valuable individual player on any team in baseball (not just the AL).

He matches Cabrera offensively and then absolutely smokes Cabrera at fielding and base running.

And my point is "You don't get to decide what's important for everybody."    

I've listed several "old" and "new" stats that show Cabrera had the better year.   I've asked you why, if WAR is your statnerd stat of choice, Cabrera is a candidate when Cano had a better WAR.   Again, it's a debate because both had great years.    People get to decide, for themselves, what makes a player more "valuable".

And, again, anyone who says "It's no comparison" is either a moron or doesn't understand baseball.

I say forget all this debate and crown Adam Dunn the MVP. He's the 3 true outcomes winner.

I'd consider voting Cano over Cabrera. It's not as cut and dry as Trout over Cabrera, but Cano has significantly more defensive value than Cabrera.

Realistically, if your argument for Cabrera centers on the Tigers making the playoffs with an inferior record over the Angels, you have nothing.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2012 10:10:00 AM (view original):
You can't just boil it down to "make or don't make playoffs".

The Angels played in a much tougher division.  They had to play 38 games against Texas and Oakland.  The Tigers only played 17 games against those two teams.  Overall, the Angels (by my count) have played 26 more games against teams that won 90 games this season than did Detroit.  One can make a pretty good argument that the Angels 89 wins are more impressive than Detroit's 87 wins because they played the tougher schedule from April-September.

Then you factor in Trout's 10.7 WAR as compared to Cabrera's 6.8 WAR, and also consider that Trout did not come up to the majors until late April so he did that in 20 fewer games, that's pretty impressive.

Also, the Angels have had the best record in the American League since Trout joined the team.  The best player on the best team in the AL since April 28.  That's a very good argument for MVP.

This

I'm sure this will come as a major shock to you but I have as much say in who becomes MVP as you do, Kurkjian_luck.

I'll refer back to the 1981 Reds.  Best record in the NL(maybe baseball, I don't really remember) with no post-season.    Virtually NO ONE knows this.   That's what happens to teams that don't play on.

That was a split season fluke. And completely irrelevant to Trout vs Cabrera.

You don't want to say that you think Cabrera was the best player in the league, because he wasn't and that would make you look foolish. So you fall back on this weird "Tigers made the playoffs so Cabrera was more valuable" argument. Which makes you look just as foolish.

I think the only foolishness is when people think their opinion is the only one that matters. "Most Valuable" is a subjective term, and with anything subjective, there are going to be multiple opinions. "I disagree, and here's why" is a valid discussion. "I'm right, you're wrong and an idiot" convinces nobody and does nothing but stir up negative emotions.