Let me preface this by saying: Miguel Cabrera is awesome. He won the Triple Crown, he's going to the Hall of Fame, and he's either the best or second-best hitter in baseball (depending on what you think of Joey Votto). That's amazing. So I don't mean to disparage him when I say that he's not the American League's Most Valuable Player this year. I'm saying that, as good as Cabrera has been, Mike Trout has been even better, which perhaps starts to describe how truly epic the Angels outfielder's season has been.
Miguel Cabrera is the best hitter in baseball. Mike Trout is the best player. He's almost Cabrera's equal at the plate (more on that later...) and is miles better than Cabrera at every other facet of the game. Advanced metrics like Wins Above Replacement can quantify Trout's advantage in value over Cabrera. I don't even think that angle of the pro-Trout argument is necessary. Common sense says that Mike Trout should win the American League MVP, and it really should be unanimous.
But a lot of people disagree. So here are the most popular MVP arguments made for Cabrera and against Trout, and why most of them are either misleading or complete bogus.
"Cabrera won the Triple Crown, so he deserves the MVP."
No, he doesn't. Winning the Triple Crown is an awesome historical achievement. It's also three arbitrary statistics pulled out of a hat and given a cool name. What if the three statistics were Runs, Stolen Bases, and Spectacular Home-Run-Robbing Catches? Then Mike Trout would have just won the "Triple Crown." It hasn't been done in a long time? Since 1967, you say? Sure, then my counter would be: Mike Trout just became the first player EVER to hit 30 home runs, score 125 runs, and steal 45 bases. If one wants to play the 'historical' card, well, it works both ways.
Now, it is relevant that Cabrera put up great numbers in the Triple Crown categories: a .330 batting average, 44 home runs, and 139 RBIs. But the MVP is an individual award, and two of those statistics are poor evaluators of individual value. Batting average counts all hits as the same, doesn't include sacrifices or walks, and only counts double plays as one out. RBIs are dependent on opportunity, luck, and where a batter hits in the lineup. These statistics, while mainstream, just aren't the best way to determine value.
And if people cite Cabrera's advantage in RBIs over Trout (139 to 83) as evidence of his superior baseball skills, well, those people should be flogged. Cabrera hit in the middle of the order while Trout hit in the leadoff spot ahead of the Angels' worst hitters. If you're going to look at RBIs, then you're obligated to also look at runs scored. Trout led the league in that category with 129 in 139 games played. Either you consider both RBIs and runs, or you thrown them both away. It makes no sense to immortalize RBIs as part of the Triple Crown and ignore runs. They're the two sides of the same statistical concept.
"Cabrera made the playoffs, and Trout didn't."
Reaching the playoffs is a team accomplishment, not an individual one, so it doesn't have much of a place in a debate over an individual award like the MVP. Is it Trout's fault that the Angels had a terrible bullpen, or that Ervin Santana had a thing for giving up home runs, or that Mark Trumbo forgot how to hit after the All-Star Break?
Anyway, here's the best part. The Angels went 6-14 without Trout on the roster; in other words, they were on pace for 48.6 wins over a full season, which obviously would have been the worst record in baseball. The Angels called up Trout from the minor leagues on April 28th, and from that day on they went 83-59. Over a full season, that that's a 94.6-win pace, which would've been good enough to make the playoffs. I'm obviously not saying that Trout alone was responsible for that massive swing in win total, but traditionalists often ask themselves the following hypothetical question when deciding on an MVP: "Where would Team X be without Player Y?" Well, we kind of know the answer in this case. Look at the difference between the two Angels teams.
But on the most simple level? Cabrera's Tigers finished with 88 wins in the easiest division in baseball. Trout's Angels finished with 89 in the toughest division in baseball. The fact that Cabrera is going to the postseason instead of Trout is completely attributable to a poorly-constructed divisional system with an unbalanced schedule. The Angels are better than the Tigers. Cabrera supporters simply can't make any claim that involves playoffs.
"Cabrera carried his team."
The worst argument of them all. A) it's subjective, B) it's completely un-provable, C) it implies that Trout didn't do the same, and worst of all D) it implies that Cabrera had no help. Are we completely ignoring the fact that the Tigers also had the best pitcher in baseball, Justin Verlander, and one of the best hitters in baseball, Prince Fielder? Did they not do any carrying of their own? What about Detroit's 3.10 team ERA in the final month of the season, 2nd best in the American League? Did that have nothing to do with the team's late-season run at the division title?
"Cabrera helped his team win a division title."
The Tigers get to play in the AL Central. Its second-place team was the White Sox, who won 85 games, which would've been good enough for only a 4th-place finish in the other two AL divisions. It's the only division in baseball that had three teams win less than 45% of their games. Detroit got to play dozens and dozens of games against the Twins, Royals, and Indians, three of the worst pitching teams in baseball. Perhaps one of the most unimpressive, meaningless titles that can be bestowed on any team is "2012 AL Central Champions."
"Cabrera was better than Trout when it mattered most: September."
It's true that Cabrera was a better hitter than Trout over the final month. He hit .333/.395/.675. But Trout wasn't exactly a slouch: he hit .289/.400/.500 over the same period (and his OBP was better than Cabrera's, so he was still committing fewer outs). And this is implying that all value is derived from hitting, which isn't true; even when Trout's slumping, he's providing value with his legs and glove. That's not the case for Cabrera.
Then there's the assumption that games in September somehow "matter more" than games in other, inferior months. Nope. Wins in, say, May and July (months when Trout was a better hitter than Cabrera) count just the same as wins in September. Just ask the Angels: they essentially missed the playoffs because of a bad stretch in April.
"Trout didn't play in April, so Cabrera played more games."
This is the converse of the previous argument. You shouldn't be able to make both claims simultaneously. You can't say "September counts way more than every other month!" while also saying, "Trout didn't play in April, so he can't win!" Totally incongruous. Either the months all count the same or they don't.
Cabrera did play in more games than Trout. Trout still came to the plate 639 times, compared to 697 for Cabrera. Plus, Cabrera had a lower on-base percentage than Trout (.393 to .399) and grounded into more double plays (28 to 7), so whatever small advantage he has in playing time is totally nullified by the extra outs he made. Cabrera did play roughly 100 more innings in the field, but Trout was such a better defender in his innings at a more important position that the difference barely matters.
Finally, in 2010, Josh Hamilton won the MVP even though he played in only 133 games. That was 17 games fewer than the second-place finisher, but voters agreed that Hamilton was so much better in his fewer games that he merited the award. Who finished second that year? Miguel Cabrera. It's not like there's no precedent.
"Cabrera changed positions so that the Tigers could sign Prince Fielder, helping his team win."
Heck, if Cabrera didn't change positions for Fielder, what would that say about him? No, hang on, that's not the point. People are suddenly heaping credit on Cabrera for what they perceive as selflessness when he moved to third base to allow Prince Fielder to play first. They've even gone so far as to credit Cabrera with the value Fielder brought to the team, as if Cabrera was solely responsible for signing him and paying his salary. No, the Tigers wanted Cabrera to DH; he didn't consider himself a DH and wanted to move to third instead. The Tigers let him. This created an offensive hole at DH (ughh Delmon Young, the worst) and a defensive liability at third. The Tigers probably would have won more games if Cabrera had been a DH and the team had gotten a defensively sound third baseman to help the pitching staff prevent runs.
I'm not trying to detract from Cabrera; his personal value is obviously greater as a third baseman rather than a DH. This whole angle is just hopeless flawed. Thirty times this year, Trout moved off center field so that his manager could field a better team. No one recognizes that or gives him credit for it. There's just no evidence to suggest that Cabrera is any more of a "team player" or "selfless" than Trout. This is stupid, we're done with this one.
"Cabrera deserves it. Trout can win Rookie of the Year; he has a whole career to win MVPs."
Awards aren't given out based on career achievement or whose turn it is. They're based on merit, and Trout is the more deserving candidate. Hey voters, if you think Cabrera "deserves" an MVP, why didn't you give it to him last year?
Cabrera, 2012: .330/.393/.606/1.033, 166 OPS+
Cabrera, 2011: .344/.448/.586/.999, 179 OPS+
Cabrera's 2011 was in some ways better than his 2012. The only thing that's better this year is the sexy stats: the home runs and RBIs, probably because Cabrera now has Austin Jackson in front of him and Prince Fielder behind him. So Cabrera maybe should have won the MVP last year, but the voters thought that his teammate, ace Justin Verlander, was more valuable. He won the MVP instead. This year, Verlander is having basically the exact same season, but everyone is falling over themselves to crown Miguel Cabrera king of the world. If everyone decided Verlander was the more valuable Tiger just last year, and Verlander basically just repeated last year's season, why has Cabrera suddenly leapfrogged Verlander in terms of value? I will tell you why: because of home runs and RBIs. Cabrera didn't have enough to win the MVP in 2011, and now he has enough to win in 2012. Home runs and RBIs. They're all anyone cares about. It wasn't fair to 2011 Miguel Cabrera and it isn't fair to 2012 Mike Trout.
"Picking Trout over Cabrera puts too much stock into Wins Above Replacement."
No one's saying that the leader in Wins Above Replacement (a rough measurement of a player's all-around value) should automatically win the MVP. That's a straw man argument. WAR just backs up what we observe: that Mike Trout is the most valuable player in the league because he impacts every facet of the game at the highest level.
WAR is just one small piece of the vast pie of evidence supporting Trout's case. It is, however, one of the most delicious. There are two different ways of calculating WAR, but both methods have Trout at the top of this year's leaderboard (with either 10.4 or 10.7 WAR; no other player had more than 8). Baseball Reference.com has Trout's 10.7 WAR season as tied for the 20th-best season by a position player in baseball history (tied with Willie Mays in 1964 and Ted Williams in 1946). The only players in baseball history who have had better single seasons: Ruth, Hornsby, Yastrzemski, Bonds, Gehrig, Ripken, Wagner, Cobb, Mantle, Morgan, and Mays. And Trout didn't even play a full season. WAR could be overstating Trout's value a little, or even a lot, and 2012 would still rank as a historically elite season.
You don't need WAR to prove Trout is the most valuable player in baseball. It's just the icing on the cake.
"Cabrera was so much better offensively than Trout that baserunning and defense don't matter."
Of all the arguments here, this is the one that's most reasonable. A Cabrera supporter could claim that the superior offensive player should get the nod because there's no exact measurement of Trout's 'baserunning' or 'defensive' value, so we can't be sure.
This is still wrong, because the argument can be made that Trout was just as good a hitter--and perhaps a better hitter--than Miguel Cabrera this year.
First of all, their triple-slash lines are closer than one would expect: .330/.393/.606 for Cabrera compared to .326/.399/.564 for Trout. Cabrera's advantage comes in the slugging department, giving him 377 total bases compared to Trout's 315, but Trout closes that gap with his 49 stolen bases.
Another way to compare the two players at the plate is to look at adjusted-OPS, or OPS+, which takes a player's on-base-plus-slugging% and adjusts it to account for league and park factors. An OPS+ of 100 is league average; every point over or under that represents a percentage point better or worse than average. When you adjust for the fact that Cabrera played his home games in a park slightly favorable to offense, while Trout played his home games in a ballpark that suppresses offense, the American League leaders in OPS+ this year looks like this:
1. Mike Trout: 171
2. Miguel Cabrera: 166
However, a lot of people don't like obscure context-neutral statistics when it come to MVP voting. So there's another very simple metric that includes context, called RE24. An article about it was recently posted at Fangraphs.com. RE24 is the difference in run expectancy between the beginning and end of a hitter's at-bat. For example, when a hitter comes to the plate with runners on first and third with two outs, teams are expected to score an average of 0.33 runs in that situation. So a three-run home run would give the hitter a +2.67 bonus in RE24. It works in the opposite way if a hitter detracts from his team's run expectancy, thus losing points. It might seem like Cabrera would lap the field in RE24 because he has so many RBIs, hits for so much power, and is acknowledged as "the last player you'd want to face with men in scoring position."
The American League leader in RE24 is Mike Trout (+56.52 runs). Cabrera ranks fifth (+45.18) after Edwin Encarnacion, Prince Fielder, and Joe Mauer.
Again: this isn't taking baserunning into account, or defense, or position, or competition, or ballpark. This is just a straight-up measurement of how much better-than-average a player is at helping his team score runs. Trout comes out better than Cabrera.
Now throw in the fact that Trout is a 21-year-old rookie center fielder, who is probably the best baserunner and best defensive player in the sport, who plays in a pitcher's park, in the toughest division in baseball, for a team that instantly transformed from a loser into a winner when he was called up, and....why are we still having this discussion?
No comments:
Post a Comment