Discounting RBIs as being primarily a result of circumstances beyond the hitter's control while pumping up stolent bases, which are just as circumstantial as RBIs (the pitcher's delivery speed, the catcher's arm, accuracy, and delivery speed, the type and placement of the pitch, whether the opposing team is even concerned if you steal in that situation or not, etc...) is a tad disingenuous.
OT: Cabrera to win Triple Crown Tonight?
It's not a coincidence that Austin Jackson has had a career year getting on base (I was dead wrong on him) and Cabrera's sudden boost in RBI.
As a Tigers fan, i certainly want Cabrera to win the MVP, but i can make a compelling arguement for either player. And i certainly wouldn't feel like it's a travesty if Trout wins.
However, i'd end up voting for Miggy based on a few things. One, the higher average over more games; not playing as many games isn't Trout's fault, but it's still a fact. Two, Trout's production has fallen off in August and September. Three, late season and late inning production stats really favor Cabrera. Four, the intagibles of switching positions to a more difficult to field position and performing above expectations (certainly not being a liability). This one you could balance out with Trout being a rookie, which counts for something; on the other hand, Trout has only proven that he's really fast and had an incredible couple of months in the middle of the season.
In the end and assuming Cabrera wins the Triple Crown, that will matter a hell of a lot more than winning the MVP. Cabrera will be on a short list with some of the games greatest hitters and will be the last Triple Crown winner for what could be a few decades based on history. In five years Trout winning the MVP will be forgotten by most except when it pops up as a question about rookie MVP winners in bar trivia or becomes the exclamation point on the first season of an incredible career.
Hamilton, 2 ABs, no HR through 3. He is up 2nd in the 4th.
Hamilton strikes out in the 4th.
Holy crap the A's are playing some inspired baseball, that was a crazy 4th inning!
I fully agree and I hate to say this but you're probably never gonna convince many people that WAR is a useful stat. It isn't a HUGELY subjective stat, but there is a degree of uncertainty to it because of the nature of evaluating defensive ability and baserunning. People tend to either trust the stats and math that go into producing WAR or they cling to the old-guard stats. The people in the middle (like most on this board) that are willing to consider WAR but are still a little skeptical are few and far between.
More importantly you're also not gonna convince a bunch of Tigers fans of its immense value and that is simply because right now WAR says there has been a guy with a significantly better season than Cabrera did. That's not necessarily a bad thing. WAR is easy to discount because it hasn't been widely accepted yet and because quantifying baserunning and defense is difficult to do and even more difficult to understand. The argument against WAR being the end-all-be-all makes sense because trying to condense all the things a guy does onto the field into one useful stat does seem rather impossible.
Full disclosure, I like WAR. I think it is an extremely useful stat to guide further evaluation of a player's production. The argument about Trout vs. Cabrera will just come down to what each voter values in their baseball players though. If all a voter cares about is what a guy does at the plate the choice seems pretty obvious. If Trout wins the MVP it probably will signal a major changing of the guard in voter thinking about the MVP award (kind of like King Felix's Cy Young did).
For the most part I agree, but one point of contention, RBI isn't the worst stat, saves is.