Trout, Cabrera, and the Elusiveness of "Value"

For the second consecutive year, Miguel Cabrera has won the American League MVP over the objectively superior candidate, Mike Trout. In the long run, this isn't really a big deal. Cabrera had great, MVP-worthy seasons. Trout at least finished second both times, and not eighth or something crazy like that. But what is a big deal is the questionable logic that influential baseball writers are resorting to in order to justify the Cabrera-over-Trout position.

The best example is an article written at FoxSports.com by Jon Paul Morosi. He's a member of the Baseball Writers' Association of America, meaning he gets to vote on these annual awards and will receive a Hall of Fame ballot in a few years. His article, titled "Miggy's MVP a good call  by voters," features the following sub-headline:

"Mike Trout had a superb season, but Miguel Cabrera led his team to the playoffs."

This is the crux of the Cabrera-over-Trout argument. Basically: how much "value" could Trout really have provided if his team didn't make the playoffs? Because the official BBWAA guidelines for this award are nebulous, Morosi is free to use this subjective argument. Here's how he explains himself in the article:

"In 2013, as in 2012, the question was not whether Cabrera or Trout deserved the honor. They both did. The issue, instead, was how each voter defined “value.” The official voting criteria empower us to choose the meaning of “value” for ourselves. Based on my interpretation, as one of the 28 BBWAA voters for this award, I ranked Cabrera first and Trout second."

Fine. But this is where it gets really good:

"Statistically, did Trout have the superior all-around season? Yes, he did."

I wish I could frame this quote and carry it around with me at all times. Let's see it again:

"Statistically, did Trout have the superior all-around season? Yes, he did."

Good lord, man. Morosi outright acknowledges that Trout had the better season. He's not even going to dispute that point. So now he's got to come up with a sound reason why the player who had the inferior all-around season deserves to be called the Most Valuable Player.

"Trout is a better defender than Cabrera, and he adds value through his baserunning. But MVP voters aren’t asked to fill out our ballots based on raw numbers. We must consider the context of each candidate’s performance. We are supposed to weigh the “value of a player to his team,” as the instructions suggest. And I believe a player is most valuable to his team when he helps it win."

As if Mike Trout doesn't help his team win. Good one, dude.

"In the baseball industry and among fans, team wins dominate – as they should. Boston hosted a duck boat parade for the Red Sox when they won the World Series. I’m still waiting for the first civic rally to honor an individual OPS title."

A few reactions to this moronic paragraph:
1. Who won the individual OPS title? Miguel Cabrera. So deriding that statistic kind of undermines the whole "Cabrera-for-MVP" thing.
2. The Boston Red Sox winning the World Series is a team accomplishment achieved in the postseason. The MVP award is an individual accomplishment achieved in the regular season. These two things have nothing in common.
3. Team wins are obviously important. But the MVP is an individual honor. Team wins are awarded to entire teams. The MVP is awarded to a single player. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

"Trout’s performance was exceptional. But what was the true value of it? In August, while a gimpy Cabrera won AL Player of the Month honors and moved the Tigers to within range of a division title, Trout amassed an OPS of 1.090 and hit six home runs. He swiped six bases and finished with more walks than strikeouts. It was another crowd-pleasing display of Trout’s breathtaking ability.

But what impact did that month’s .590 slugging percentage have on the Angels’ 2013 season? It carried some significance, surely. It had value. But was it the most valuable? In my estimation, no. That distinction belonged to the man whose ability to play at an elite level, through pain, made certain his team sprayed champagne as AL Central champions for a third consecutive year."

Everyone got it? Trout had the better season, but it was mostly worthless because his team didn't make the playoffs. Well, maybe Morosi hasn't looked closely at the annual letter sent out by the BBWAA to the MVP voters, because its opening paragraph contains this critical sentence:

"The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier."

The official guidelines for the MVP award specifically note that the MVP winner doesn't have to make the playoffs. And yet, Morosi didn't vote for the candidate he himself acknowledged as the superior one just because that candidate didn't make the playoffs.

That position is fairly indefensible on its own. What makes it downright irresponsible is the fact that Morosi wrote a column three years ago, on the 2010 AL MVP race, in which he used the exact inverse of his 2013 voting philosophy to support his MVP choice. The obvious logical contradictions between the two articles suggest either hypocrisy or severe memory loss.

Back then, the MVP choice was between Josh Hamilton (who ended up winning) and, yet again, Miguel Cabrera. Both of them had great offensive seasons, but Hamilton's Rangers won their division while the Tigers finished in third place, leaving Cabrera out of the postseason. In other words, Cabrera in 2010 was ironically a lot like Trout in 2013 -- a worthy candidate whose MVP chances were crippled by not making the playoffs.

Based on the principles Morosi laid out in his Trout article, we would expect him to have supported Hamilton back in 2010, because he made the postseason and Cabrera didn't. And yet, Morosi wrote a column in September of 2010 titled "Cabrera has MVP edge over Hamilton." Here's how he justified that position back then:

"The BBWAA, of which I am a member, acknowledges that the definition of “value” is subjective. Each individual voter must decide. And while I am not part of the MVP electorate this year, I believe a player’s “value” is best defined as how difficult he would be for the team to replace."

Yeah -- this definition of "value" is entirely different from the one he used to disqualify Trout this year. In 2010, Cabrera's team finishing in third place and missing the playoffs didn't affect his value. In 2013, Trout's team finishing in third place and missing the playoffs rendered his season virtually useless. Cool stuff. Morosi elaborated:

"When Hamilton is hurt, manager Ron Washington can summon David Murphy, who would be a full-time player on many other teams. By comparison, how good would the Tigers be if they didn’t have their MVP candidate?"

One could easily apply this same logic to the Cabrera-Trout debate this year. When Cabrera was hurt and terrible in September, the Tigers were still good enough to win games and make the playoffs. The Angels would've been unspeakably bad without Trout keeping them somewhat respectable. The logic that Morosi used to support Cabrera in 2010 could easily be used in the same way to support Trout in 2013. So of course he just ignored that argument and came up with a new one that supported his desired conclusion.

Another one of his pro-Cabrera points in 2010 was this:

"Take away Hamilton, and the Rangers still have a very good lineup. Take away Cabrera, and Ryan Raburn is the potential cleanup man."

Again: one could say this same exact thing about Cabrera and Trout in 2013. Take Cabrera off the 2013 Tigers and they still would've had a very good lineup, with Torii Hunter, Prince Fielder, Victor Martinez, and Jhonny Peralta. Take Trout off the 2013 Angels and you're left with a sad bunch of guys led by the corpse formerly known as Josh Hamilton. Yet Morosi made no mention of this argument in his more recent MVP column, because the logic would have benefited the wrong player this time around.

Three years ago, Morosi made up a definition of "value" that justified his support for a player whose team finished in third place and missed the playoffs. This year, Morosi made up a whole new definition of "value" that justified his decision to withhold support from a player whose team finished in third place and missed the playoffs. Yes, the BBWAA lets individual voters determine the meaning of that nebulous word on their own, but that doesn't give guys like Morosi the license to keep moving the goalposts and inventing new criteria every single year.

The problem with Cabrera winning two MVPs over Trout isn't the "injustice" of that decision. They're both great players, and who really cares about a stupid award, anyway. The real problem is what these last two MVP races have revealed about some of the sport's most visible and influential writers. Those that are committed to portraying Cabrera as the more valuable player have been willing to resort to flimsy premises like "individual value is tied to team accomplishments" and "great offense renders great defense and base-running irrelevant." The intellectual inconsistency and basic misunderstandings inherent in these weak rationales undermine the credibility and authority of the writers who resort to them.

the most valuable player is the player you'd pay the most to recover via ransom were he to be kidnapped
— Jeff Sullivan (@based_ball) November 14, 2013

Chrysler Disapproves of Your Steroid Use

A Chrysler commercial titled "Road to Greatness," featuring Miguel Cabrera, has been airing throughout the MLB playoffs. But it's not just trying to sell you a car -- it's also sending a subliminal message about baseball morality:



So, two things stand out. First, when the voice-over says, "The road to greatness is the same for everyone -- no rest stops, no fast lanes, and definitely no short cuts," this image of a guy holding up a sign appears:

What looks like a Chinese character is probably supposed to be an asterisk. Not coincidentally, the image appears exactly when the voice-over emphasizes the phrase "no short cuts" and the music suddenly becomes ominous. So this has to be a judgmental jab at steroid cheaters like Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire, who apparently have foregone their chance at "greatness" by taking artificial "shortcuts." According to the supreme moral arbiter known as ... Chrysler. How this is relevant is beyond me.

The message is confirmed later in the commercial, in a far more obvious way. The voice-over continues: "It's a road paved with hardship ... and crafted by hard work. That is how true greatness is made." During that last phrase, this image scrolls by:

Very subtle. Roger Maris' home run record was "true greatness," achieved through "hardship" and "hard work." Cheating asterisks Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire, on the other hand, just popped a bunch of short-cutting homer-pills to set their records. No hard work or greatness to be found there.

This tiresome moral lecture is bad enough. But what's truly maddening is the placement of Miguel Cabrera and the Detroit Tigers as the centerpiece of the sermon. The Tigers probably wouldn't even be in the ALCS this year if not for Jhonny Peralta's massive three-run home run in Game Four of the ALDS. Yet Peralta was named in the same Biogenesis drug scandal as the much-maligned Ryan Braun and Alex Rodriguez. He served a 50-game suspension for taking banned substances JUST THIS SUMMER. So yeah, as long as Cabrera and the Tigers are benefiting from Peralta's postseason production, it's hard to take this hypocritical moral indignation -- imported from Detroit! -- too seriously.

On top of that: Chrysler thought it would be a good idea to make a preachy car commercial with Miguel Cabrera as its star ... when Cabrera has a DUI and several other alcohol-related incidents on his record. Here are a few paragraphs from his Wikipedia page:

In the early morning of October 3, 2009, police were called to the Cabrera's home and took Cabrera in for questioning. Cabrera had come home at 6:00am, after a night of drinking at the nearby Townsend Hotel, and got in an argument with his wife. He was seen later that day at a game at Comerica Park, with scratches on his face. Cabrera told reporters that the scratches came from his dog and refused to discuss the matter further. It was later reported he had a blood alcohol level of .26 when tested, which is over three times Michigan's legal limit.

On January 21, 2010, it was reported that Cabrera spent three months in an alcohol abuse treatment center to help him recover from his addiction. He said at the time he had not drunk alcohol since he was taken into custody in October 2009, and that he would continue his treatment into spring training and the regular season.

Television station WXYZ had obtained a police report from an incident the preceding August, in which Cabrera was involved in a verbal altercation with diners at a restaurant inside the Townsend. Witnesses say Cabrera threatened to fight the group outside and indicated that he had a gun. Restaurant employees asked Cabrera to leave and police were called. There was no weapon in Cabrera's vehicle and Cabrera told team officials he did not own one. Cabrera then told team officials he had been dealing with personal issues and got upset, and the diners ended up dropping the matter.

Cabrera was arrested in Florida on suspicion for drunk driving and resisting arrest on February 16, 2011.

Chrysler pretentiously lecturing baseball players on taking "shortcuts" and questioning their "true greatness" is one thing. But doing so while championing a drunk driver as the legitimate standard of greatness, and then using his image to sell CARS, of all things? Talk about undermining your own moral high ground. And hey, speaking of "shortcuts" -- didn't Chrysler get a multi-billion dollar bailout from the federal government just, like, a few years ago? Was that not a "shortcut"?

But hold up, this is getting off track. Let's get back to Chrysler's message, because we cant afford to lose sight of what's really, truly important here: those baseball players who took those drugs that one time.

Mike Trout, and MLB Awards

For the second year in a row, Miguel Cabrera will win an MVP award that probably should have been Mike Trout's.

This is a more difficult race than it was last year, when Cabrera won the Triple Crown and Trout had one of the best rookie seasons of all time. Somehow, both players performed better in 2013. Trout hit .323/.432/.557 with 27 home runs and 33 steals; Cabrera hit .348/.442/.636 with 44 home runs and a league-leading 187 OPS+.

The race might be tighter than last year, but the winner should again be Trout. Some people will find this conclusion completely unacceptable when it really should be common sense. Which player is more valuable: the best hitter in the league who provides negative value with his legs and glove, or the second-best hitter in the league who's also one of the best baserunning and defensive players in the sport? This obvious gap in value is reflected by their respective WAR figures: 9.2 for Trout and 7.2 for Cabrera, according to Baseball Reference. And maybe Cabrera's offensive advantage isn't even as large as we imagine. Cabrera had more total bases than Trout (353 to 328), but Trout easily passes Cabrera once you factor in his lead in walks (110 to 90), net steals (26 to 3) and double plays grounded into (8 to 19).

Rather humorously, all the arguments that the pro-Cabrera crowd used last year to support their candidate could be reversed and applied to Trout now. A year ago, Cabrera was given bonus points for playing in more games than Trout and for hitting better in September, when apparently the games "count" more than they do in other months. This year? Trout has appeared in more games (157 to 148) and absolutely crushed Cabrera in September (.949 OPS to .729). But assuredly, the Cabrera supporters won't be citing those arguments this time around, because they don't back up the conclusion they've already arrived at.

Some would penalize Trout for being on an inferior team while Cabrera is going to the playoffs, but ... why? Why should Cabrera get the edge in the AL MVP vote just because his pitching staff has Max Scherzer, Justin Verlander, Anibal Sanchez, and Doug Fister? Why penalize Trout for the black holes of nothingness that were Albert Pujols and Josh Hamilton? This is an individual award, and Trout is the best, and most valuable, individual player.

Here's the rest of my AL MVP ballot, as well as the rest of baseball's award winners.

AL MVP
1. Mike Trout: not only will he lose; he might not even come in second.
2. Miguel Cabrera: might have finished first if not for an injury that's kept him hobbled for weeks.
3. Josh Donaldson: Oakland's best player, he hit .301/.384/.499 with strong defense at third base.
4. Chris Davis: fifty-three home runs is a lot of home runs.
5. Robinson Cano: like clockwork, he had his typical season (.314/.383/.516) in a lineup that featured Brett Gardner as its second-best hitter.
6. Adrian Beltre: the Robinson Cano of third base.
7. Evan Longoria: finally played in 160 games.
8. Dustin Pedroia: didn't even need to hit double-digit home runs to be one of the best players in the AL.
9. Jacoby Ellsbury: about to make at least $100 million on the free agent market.
10. Manny Machado: his offense cratered in the second half, but he's already one of the best defensive players in the sport.

NL MVP
1. Andrew McCutchen: he'll win this award for being the best all-around player; why is this logic nowhere to be found in the AL race?
2. Matt Carpenter: led the league in hits (199), doubles (55), and runs scored (126), all as a second baseman.
3. Paul Goldschmidt: the best offensive player in the NL.
4. Carlos Gomez: went unnoticed despite being an outstanding defensive center fielder who also slugged .508, hit 24 homers, and stole 40 bases.
5. Joey Votto: supposedly had a "down" year, when in reality he broke Pete Rose's franchise record for most times on base in a single season.
6. Yadier Molina: the best catcher in baseball also hit .319 and slugged .477.
7. Clayton Kershaw: one of the few times a pitcher actually deserves to appear on an MVP ballot.
8. Shin-Soo Choo: only teammate Joey Votto had a higher OBP in the National League.
9. Troy Tulowitzki: health is the only thing keeping him from winning an MVP.
10. Hanley Ramirez: had the greatest offensive season by any shortstop ever (.345/.402/.638), but only played in 86 games.

AL Cy Young
1. Max Scherzer: just barely ekes out the next few candidates in a very tight race.
2. Felix Hernandez: perennially the best case for ditching win-loss record as a legitimate statistic (12-10 record, 3.04 ERA).
3. Yu Darvish: a delicious 277 strikeouts in 209.2 innings.
4. Chris Sale: gave up a grand total of three extra-base hits to left-handed hitters all season (in 163 plate appearances).
5. Anibal Sanchez: much like Hanley Ramirez, Sanchez had the best numbers of anyone but didn't stay on the field enough.

NL Cy Young
1. Clayton Kershaw: his 2013 season was roughly as good as Sandy Koufax's 1966 season, and that isn't hyperbole.
2. Adam Wainwright: clearly the second-best pitcher in the league, and he still gave up 31 more earned runs than Kershaw.
3. Matt Harvey: unhittable before a devastating elbow injury.
4. Jose Fernandez: 20 years old, skipped Double-A and Triple-A, and posted a 2.19 ERA in 172.2 innings.
5. Cliff Lee: ho hum, just your typical Cliff Lee season -- 220 innings, a sub-3.00 ERA, and a league-leading strikeout-to-walk ratio.

Verlander and Cabrera

Would the Tigers still have beaten the Athletics in their five-game playoff series without Miguel Cabrera?

Probably. He reached base six times in five games, driving in one run and scoring another.

Would the Tigers still have beaten the Athletics in their five-game playoff series without Justin Verlander?

Almost certainly not. He threw 16 innings (including a complete-game shutout in the deciding Game 5 on the road), allowed one run in the series, and basically got the Tigers two of their three victories by himself.

I still believe Miguel Cabrera was more valuable to the Tigers than Justin Verlander over the course of the entire regular season, and he should finish higher on the MVP ballot because of that.

But in a few weeks, Cabrera will win the MVP over Mike Trout. And writers who voted for Cabrera will defend their decision by claiming "Cabrera carried his team," which is what real MVPs do. At that point, I will think back to this Detroit/Oakland playoff series, and I will wonder, "Did Cabrera carry Verlander, or was it Verlander who carried Cabrera?" And I think I know the answer to my question.

Why Mike Trout Should Be The MVP

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?

This is the Problem

This might shock you, but the General Manager of the Detroit Tigers, Dave Dombrowski, thinks Miguel Cabrera should be the MVP. When making his case, he had this to say about advanced statistics like Wins Above Replacement that prefer Mike Trout over Cabrera:

"You can use WAR stats and all of that, but when people used to talk about most valuable player, it used to be, ‘Take that player away from the club and see where that club would be.’ You take Miguel Cabrera out of our lineup right now, and you see where we would be.”

That's literally exactly what WAR is.

This is Wikipedia's definition of WAR, with the most relevant part in bold:

"Wins Above Replacement, commonly known as WAR, is a non-standardized sabermetric baseball statistic that is used to show how many more wins a player would give a team as opposed to a "replacement level", or minor league/bench player at that position."

This is the problem with people who discount WAR when it prefers Mike Trout over Cabrera. They throw it away without even trying to understand what it actually is. Even General Managers of baseball teams.

This Is Bad Logic

ESPN.com had the following poll up on its website:

The potential answers to the poll are poorly set up. The fact that we should evaluate Miguel Cabrera's MVP case differently depending on whether or not he wins the Triple Crown is bogus. Apparently, 30% of people would pick as their MVP regardless of his Triple Crown chase. BUT 41% of people would pick Cabrera as their MVP only if he DOES win the Triple Crown. I would love to meet those people and talk to them for a little while. This is what I would say:

"Hi, 41% of ESPN.com visitors who took this poll. I have a scenario for you. Pretend Miguel Cabrera finishes the season with 43 home runs, okay? Now, if Josh Hamilton ends up with 42, Cabrera would win the Triple Crown, so he would be your MVP, right? Okay. So if Hamilton finishes with 44 home runs, Cabrera would not win the Triple Crown, so he wouldn't be your MVP, right? All right. Do you not realize that Cabrera's value was exactly the same in both scenarios? Do you not realize that you changed your mind about Cabrera's worthiness for MVP based on a couple extra home runs hit by another player not even in the conversation for MVP? Do you not realize the complete absurdity of using Josh Hamilton's home run total or Joe Mauer's batting average to determine an MVP race between Miguel Cabrera and Mike Trout?" At this point, my head would implode and the conversation would end abruptly.

I'm concerned for the future of this country when I see that all but a few states are colored green, meaning they don't understand this logic. Anyway, the 41% aren't the only ones who are wrong. The 30% are wrong too, for picking Cabrera over Trout. The 41% are just wrong AND stupid. The 29%, though? Those guys are groovy. Alaskans, Californians, Utahns, and Mississippians have always been my kind of people.

How To Make Yourself Look Like An Idiot

Baseball is being seized by an increasingly contentious debate over who should win the American League's Most Valuable Player award. The dividing lines aren't this clear, but for the most part, the "new-school" baseball blogging community prefers Mike Trout of the Angels, while "old-school" sportswriters and analysts for majors sports organizations and newspapers favor Miguel Cabrera of the Tigers. The argument should, by all rights, be settled with this succinct line of logic:

Miguel Cabrera has been a slightly better hitter than Mike Trout in 2012. However, hitting is only one of baseball's three dimensions, and Trout has a sizable advantage in the other two (baserunning and defense). Cabrera's small edge in hitting is not enough to overcome Trout's massive edge when it comes to baserunning and defense. The award is not titled 'Most Valuable Hitter,' But 'Most Valuable Player.' Trout is the MVP.

There are a whole bunch of advanced statistics and metrics that can actually prove the above statement numerically, but truthfully those shouldn't be necessary. These are very simple concepts about the nature of baseball that we're dealing with.

Yet apparently some people can't grasp them. This includes this man:

His name is Rob Parker. He was a sports journalist for The Detroit News, and now works for ESPN, where he appears on a number of different debate shows. On Wednesday afternoon, ESPN aired a segment where Rob Parker argued for several minutes over who should win the AL MVP. He sided with Cabrera. His opponent was another ESPN analyst, Keith Law. Keith Law is one of the most respected baseball writers on the Internet. He provides advanced statistical analysis, evaluates minor league prospects, and unlike Parker, actually worked in baseball, for the Toronto Blue Jays as the Special Assistant to the General Manager. Law sided with Trout in the MVP debate. Some evidence that this actually took place:

FYI: I'll be on SportsCenter at 4:15pm today. Imma destroy stat man Keith Law over who should b AL MVP -- Trout or Cabrera. Not even close.
— Rob Parker (@RobParkerESPN) September 26, 2012

 After the segment, Rob Parker took to Twitter and made an absolute fool out of himself:

To all the stat-geeks that follow @keithlaw: please put ur calculators down and watch the damn game. That's why the A's haven't won jack.
— Rob Parker (@RobParkerESPN) September 26, 2012

"Stat-geeks"? Who are they? People in baseball who value statistics? That's EVERYONE WHO WATCHES BASEBALL. It would be impossible to for baseball--or any sport--to exist without statistics. I'm sure Rob Parker cited Miguel Cabrera's home run total and batting average to support his argument. Those are stats. Heck, the final score of every game is a statistic. The best part about this is the fact that Parker appears most frequently on an ESPN show titled "Numbers Never Lie." Ha. Irony.

"Watch the damn game"? Keith Law watches 'the damn game' for a living. I'm positive he watches 'the damn game' more than Rob Parker. He watches 'the damn game' so well that ESPN pays him to write columns, hold chats, and host podcasts on a daily basis. Of course, ESPN also pays Rob Parker, so maybe that does rob him of some credibility.

"That's why the A's haven't won jack"? I'm assuming he means that the A's emphasis on statistical analysis is the reason why they haven't 'won jack.' Well...I'm positive that every single team in baseball focuses on statistical analysis. That's how, you know, players are evaluated and teams are run. How else would you do it? Also, Parker chose a terrible time to accuse the A's of not winning jack. Because even though ESPN ranked them as the second-worst team in baseball entering the season, and even though their Opening Day payroll was the second-lowest in baseball, the Oakland Athletics are currently on track to make the postseason. Hey, just for the heck of it:

2012 Wins by the "Can't Win Jack" Oakland Athletics: 87
2012 Wins by the "We've Got the Obvious MVP, Miguel Cabrera" Detroit Tigers: 82.

I'm assuming Rob Parker is also referring to the Moneyball-Era Athletics when he said the team hasn't 'won jack.' Right. Except for the fact that between 1999 and 2006, despite microscopic payrolls, the Athletics finished either first or second in their division every single year. Their lowest win total in those seasons was 87. But don't forget--the A's haven't won jack. All they did was set the AL record for consecutive wins in 2002.

It gets worse.

I've watched that Billy Beane movie 20 times and the A's never won the World Series. Stats so lame, they couldn't add a Hollywood-ending.
— Rob Parker (@RobParkerESPN) September 26, 2012

 Maybe Rob Parker doesn't understand how movies work?

Where's my pocket protector, glasses, laptop and another date-less night? I wanna fit in. Lol
— Rob Parker (@RobParkerESPN) September 26, 2012

Haha! Get it? Because only nerds who use newfangled "statistics" have vision problems and use computers! Classic. Classic Rob.

On a serious note, the one thing I don't understand most of all is this: why are you automatically a nerdy, statistics-worshiping, pocket-protecting, loveless-guy-with-glasses-and-a-laptop-in-your-mom's-basement if you support Mike Trout for MVP? You don't need obtuse computer-generated stats to argue his case. He's just so obviously the best all-around player in baseball that anything said to the contrary sounds foolish.

In fact, going off that point, I'm utterly confused why old-school guys like Rob Parker aren't falling over themselves to kiss Mike Trout's feet and champion him as the MVP. Because Trout is the exact kind of player that classic sportswriters and journalists love to write hyperbolic pieces about in every major newspaper and on every major website. He's the perfect baseball player. His frame is big enough and strong enough that he can effortlessly hit the ball out of the park the other way, yet he's still fast enough to play a great center field and never get caught stealing. He's always causing havoc on the basepaths, setting things up for teammates, energizing his team. He does "all the little things" that the old school adores: stealing a bag, laying down a bunt, making a diving catch, robbing a home run, outrunning a double play, scoring from second on a single, stretching doubles into triples, playing at 110% intensity at all times. The baseball writers love preaching about how valuable and selfless and throwback-y all that stuff is and how it's massively under-appreciated and how it can never be accurately captured by dumb statistics churned out of computers by basement-dwelling 'stat-nerds' who don't watch the game.

Yet now that the numbers and computers and 'stat-nerds' all support this point of view? That yes, Mike Trout's all-around play is worthy of the Most Valuable Player award? All the Rob Parkers of the world have jumped ship. They've done a complete about-face to champion Miguel Cabrera, who in the past they would have scorned because he can't play defense or run fast or do "all the little things." It's as if the old school is terrified of holding the same point of view as the new school, for fear of turning into glasses-wearing, laptop-using stat-nerds. To heck with the actual right answer.

Why does it matter what Rob Parker says on Twitter? He's probably just being provocative on purpose to generate buzz or something. Why care? I can't really say it better than Brandon McCarthy, who might actually know something about the subject considering he's a real-life pitcher for the can't-win-jack Oakland Athletics and his career was turned around when he embraced advanced statistics:

Those are the words of an 'expert debater'. One who's employed by the biggest sports media company in the country. Embarrassing
— Brandon McCarthy (@BMcCarthy32) September 26, 2012

Want another reason? Rob Parker has a vote for the Baseball Hall of Fame. Keith Law doesn't. If that doesn't tell you something's messed up, nothing will.

A Note About the AL MVP Race

On Tuesday night, Miguel Cabrera announced his assault on the Triple Crown. His two home runs gave him 40 on the season, which trails Josh Hamilton by two. His six RBIs give him a commanding lead in that category, 129 to 123 over Hamilton. Cabrera also leads the AL batting race with a .333 average, six points better than Mike Trout's .327.

So if Cabrera out-homers Josh Hamilton over the next two weeks, while maintaining his lead in the RBI and batting average departments, he will win the first Triple Crown since Carl Yastrzemski did it in 1967. If this happens, it seems as though Cabrera will be a mortal lock to win the MVP over Mike Trout. That's how historic this achievement would be.

However, there's another statistical achievement in play that should be considered. BaseballReference.com tracks the history of single-season Wins Above Replacement figures. WAR, unlike the Triple Crown, is an all-encompassing statistic that does its best to quantify a player's all-around value--offense, defense, baserunning--in one simple number. This stands in direct contrast to the Triple Crown, which, despite its aura, only measures home runs, runs batted in, and batting average.

In the history of baseball, only 19 players have ever accumulated 10 WAR in a season. It's the holy grail of the statistic. If you're interested, those players are:

Babe Ruth
Rogers Hornsby
Carl Yastrzemski
Barry Bonds
Lou Gehrig
Cal Ripken Jr.
Honus Wagner
Ty Cobb
Mickey Mantle
Willie Mays
Joe Morgan
Stan Musial
Ted Williams
Robin Yount
Lou Boudreau
Jimmie Foxx
Eddie Collins
Alex Rodriguez
Sammy Sosa

That's 16 Hall of Famers, plus three more (Bonds, Rodriguez, Sosa) who may one day get there.

This year, a 20th player joined this exclusive group. He currently sits at 10.3 WAR and the season isn't even over yet. The player isn't Cabrera. It's Mike Trout.

Cabrera could win the Triple Crown by a landslide and it still wouldn't matter. Not only has Trout has been the most valuable player in baseball this year; he's achieved a season of dominance that only 19 Hall of Fame-caliber players have ever achieved before. And he's done it in only 125 games so far, thanks to missing the first month of the season through no fault of his own.

Trout is the MVP. Any other result would be a joke.