OT - The MVP remains in the D! Miggy Wins!

Submitted by MGJS SuperKick Party on November 15th, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Four letter network announcing that Miguel Cabrera won AL MVP by capturing 22 of the 28 first place votes. Trout got the other 6 votes.

Buster Posey wins NL MVP.

What a year Miggy had! I remember when people were saying imagine what he could do if he were sober. I will tell my children and grandchildren about this season

I am happy he is on the Tigers!




November 15th, 2012 at 7:03 PM ^

Very surprised it was that much of a landslide vote, personally I would have voted miggy but it was much closer than what the writers had, and Adrian Beltre getting a 2nd place vote....come on now.


November 15th, 2012 at 7:07 PM ^

Only mildly surprised at the landslide.  But who cares--it's over!  Congrats Miggy!

Detroit loves you and so do the MVP voters.  Much deserved! See you all in 2013!

Go Tigers


November 15th, 2012 at 9:30 PM ^

That may be true. I'm just saying that they showed the last few triple crown winners, and someone pointed or that Williams didn't get the MVP. One of the MLB guys said it was because no one liked him, and the remaining guys didn't seem at al surprised. He was one of the greatest hitters ever, but was also a famously cantankerous.


November 15th, 2012 at 7:26 PM ^

In reality, you could spin the sabremetrics in the Cabrera direction easily enough, and there is one that is compelling. Going through Baseball-Reference.com as I was the other day, Trout's WAR was 10 against the Angels' team WAR of 37.4, whereas Cabrera's WAR of 7.1 goes into the Tigers' team  WAR of 21.1.

So, if we use that as some measure of value, Miguel Cabrera contributed around 34% to the Tigers, compared to Trout's 27%. I would say that, by this metric, if the sabremetric crowd wants to use it, he was quite valuable. 

A well-deserved award, and congratulations to Miguel Cabrera!


November 15th, 2012 at 7:59 PM ^

That line of thinking is kind of odd considering the Angel's had a better record than the Tigers. Trout can't help the fact that he played in baseball's best division just like Miguel can't help that he was in one of the worst.

I honestly have no dog in this fight. I will readily admit I think Trout was more deserving but I have no problem with Miguel winning. 

Steve Lorenz

November 15th, 2012 at 9:32 PM ^

Is it really that incorrect to say yes? The Central is a terrible division and Detroit has arguably the best starting rotation in the American League. Cabrera had a great end of August/early September, but was awful coming down the actual stretch where they overtook Chicago. Meanwhile, Verlander went 5-1, 1.93 ERA in September, while Fister and Scherzer also had top-10 ERAs in the majors in the month. 

After watching San Francisco completely dismantle Detroit in the World Series with excellent pitching, defense and baserunning, I feel like it showed how important those facets of the game really are. Either way, it is nice to see Cabrera get his due. He should have won MVP in 2010 as well. 


November 15th, 2012 at 7:55 PM ^

Where does it say it's most valuable to his team? I've heard both sides of this argument. I'm not saying you're wrong but I don't think the award has that distinction. It is simply "Most Valuable Player," the interpretation is where the debate comes from. If someone wants to say Miguel was more valuable to his team than Trout I have no problem with that. But to suggest, "you could spin the sabremetrics in the Cabrera direction easily enough," is kind of disingenuos, and makes it seem like the Sabremetric croud has some agenda against Cabrera or toward Trout. If WAR said Miguel had a better season all the guys over at FanGraphs would be on his train, but WAR didn't say that and stat heads are simply trying to point that out. 


November 15th, 2012 at 8:43 PM ^

3 wins. 30 runs. Same thing.  Baseball events can be denominated fairly easily in terms of their actual impact on a game in a given environment.  Trout was 30 runs better than Cabrera per B-R and Fangraphs.  

Not that you asked, but the only real point of contention for WAR calculations is about how good you think Trout and Cabrera were on defense and there's plenty of scouting consensus there. And it's plenty easy to take that kind of qualitative evaluation and come up with a reasonable run differential between the two.  I'd honestly be surprised if it was only 20 runs.  Then tack on baserunning.  

I can't imagine folks who can read park factors and triple slash lines would think there's a difference in their batting lines that would make up that gap.  The only argument you can make comes down to things that disregard absolute value of each player's performance.  I guess maybe you can throw out clutchiness or something, but you shouldn't.



November 15th, 2012 at 8:57 PM ^

According to FanGraphs weighted runs created Cabrera and Trout both accounted for 166 total runs created. The question then becomes how many runs they saved? According to the numbers at FanGraphs (which come with all sorts of caveats and grains of salt) Trout was worth 11.4 runs saved in the field whereas Miggy actually cost his team 10. The difference then becomes 177 total runs saved/created for Trout and 156 for Miggy. If you want to look at the difference in runs then it really is closer to 20 but I get what you are saying. 


November 15th, 2012 at 9:05 PM ^

iirc, their wRC figure only includes SBs but not the totality of base running (e.g. tagging up, single into double, etc.).  and like i said, i think both of those fielding figures are conservative.  having watched both play a lot, Trout is incredible and Cabrera was...not good.

edit: i can't remember if wRC is park adjusted, but there's not going to be a huge difference between using a 1 win per 10 runs conversion and what FG uses.  i.e. there's another 10 runs out there somewhere if the difference in WAR is 3 but you can only find 20 runs in the component differences.


November 15th, 2012 at 8:14 PM ^

I honestly could not agree more. WAR is not the end-all-be-all even though it tries to be. 

If a writer votes Miguel MVP because his team went to the playoffs that's perfectly acceptable. If another writer thinks Trout was more valuable because he did more as a complete player than Miguel that is fine too. I'm just saying if you look at both guys against the rest of the league which is what most stats do there's a whole lot leaning in Trout's favor. Those stolen bases, his ridiculous speed on the basepaths, plus his outstanding defense is pretty compelling. I'll put it this way since I'm not a fan of either the Tigers or the Angels, if my team was facing one of those two players, when my team is pitching I'd rather see Trout at the plate than Miggy, but for the rest of the game I'd prefer to see Miguel running the bases and playing the field. 


November 15th, 2012 at 8:38 PM ^

Making the playoffs shouldn't matter in this discussion. The Angels won more games this year than the Tigers. In a better division. 

Besides, is Cabrera suddenly less valuable if the White Sox don't choke down the stretch and make the playoffs instead of the Tigers? Then neither of these guys make the playoffs and someone like Adrian Beltre wins it just because "he made the playoffs"



November 15th, 2012 at 8:46 PM ^

I was kind of just waxing philosophic. I actually already addressed the disparity between both player's divisions and how Trout shouldn't be marked down for having to play in a tougher division. 

In a tight race for the MVP though why shouldn't a voter place some amount of value on one guy's team making the playoffs?


French West Indian

November 16th, 2012 at 8:30 AM ^

The goal for both teams is to win their division.  The Tigers & Cabrera achieved that and the Angels & Trout failed.  That is the context that really matters.

Additionally, this year isn't a good argument for the Angels have a better won-loss record.  They only tallied one more victory at 89 to the Tigers 88.  The Tigers clinched with a few games left so they didn't even need to win 89.  And the Angels were eliminated with what, nearly a week left?  Who's to say how that effected their last couple of games.  Point being that this year, at least, the won-loss argument is pretty much a wash.  Now if the Angels had finished 10-12 games better than Detroit then it would be a much stronger point.


November 17th, 2012 at 8:04 PM ^

The part that gets me is along those lines. If another player does something not involving you or your team, can that make you less valuable? And if it does, what exactly are you measuring?

One blogger noted that you can pick any measure you want, but you have to accept the results. Put another way if you want to ignore defense and vote for Cabrera, fine; you should also accept that Brandon Inge has never been worthy of a starting role (his only value was in his glove), and that Ozzie Smith should be kicked out of the Hall of Fame.

Personally, I agree that Cabrera was deserving, but "deserve's got nothin' to do with it". It's not like he was bad - he just didn't put up a season among the top-25 in history, rookie or not, the way Trout did.


November 15th, 2012 at 8:12 PM ^

Where does it say it's most valuable to his team?

It says so right in the voting instructions.

Dear Voter:

There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.

2. Number of games played.

3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.

4. Former winners are eligible.

5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from 1 to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot. Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration.

Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, including pitchers and designated hitters.



November 15th, 2012 at 8:23 PM ^

Thank you this is actually what I was hoping for when I asked that question. 

I would also like to point out that just below your bolded statement it says "The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier." I think this is where some of the debate comes from then. The question is how valuable can a player truly be to his team if said team failed to reach the playoffs? According to WAR (although Wolvin and I have discussed this already) Trout was worth more wins to his team than Miguel, but with or without Trout the Angels weren't going to the playoffs. So who was truly more valuable? Clearly the writers that voted felt that Miggy was and I'm okay with that. If Trout had won, I would also have been okay with that. 

I really just like talking about baseball and it's all over now, so I'm kind of playing devil's advocate. 


November 15th, 2012 at 8:14 PM ^

Part of the reason Cabrera is such a huge part of the team value is because the team had to pay market value.  Trout is awesome and makes the league minimum so he actually makes it easier for his team to get better because he's such a huge boon to the profit of the Angels.  

Why credit Cabrera for Dombrowski's decision making process?


November 16th, 2012 at 12:28 PM ^

why Cabrera makes that money, right? He's been really, really good since he was damned near a teenager. He's been in the top five of MVP voting a few times, etc. etc. etc.

Now, maybe Trout will remain as good as his first season (minus September, when he sucked pretty bad) and then he'll be worth tens of millions/season. At which point, your argument will be that he's a less valuable player, even if he improves. That doesn't even make any sense.


November 15th, 2012 at 9:05 PM ^

Actually Triple Crown doesn't equal MVP. Not only, obviously, are they two different measures, but we have precedent that a Triple Crown winner can also not be the MVP. In 1947, the best hitter in the game, and a meh defender in a corner position came in second to a centerfielder who was pretty great with the bat too, and would have won gold gloves if they had existed.


November 15th, 2012 at 7:23 PM ^

I tried so hard to convince myself that MIggy deserved to win the MVP but I couldn't find a single satisfactory argument for it.  

For those of you who did support MIggy, why?  I want to believe damn it!


November 15th, 2012 at 7:26 PM ^

Triple Crown baby. 

In all seriousness I'm in the camp that thinks Trout deserved it over Miggy. However, on top of leading the league in triple crown categories, one other thing Cabrera had that Trout didn't was a trip to the postseason. Some people place a lot of value in that and I don't think it's a bad argument. 


November 15th, 2012 at 7:27 PM ^

Miggy's numbers are better except for t  he SB's and runs scored.  Miggy doesn't get any cheap hits (infield hits etc) which makes his batting average even more impressive.  The biggest thing for me is that in the last month when the pennant drive was on, Miggy's numbers got better while Trout's went down.


November 15th, 2012 at 7:33 PM ^

Miguel Cabrera was the better hitter, despite having almost a month's worth of ABs more than Trout had.  More importantly, Trout had the benefit of racking up crazy stats at the beginning of the season when no one had scouted him, and tailed off as the season ended.  Cabrera is a known commodity, and still put up the stats he did. 

Does anyone remember how Chris Shelton or Brennan Bosch started off their rookie seasons?  It's a lot easier to do well when no one has seen you before.  Now, I think Trout's certainly better than both of those guys, but I bet even if Trout had started off the season playing full-time, his stats would have been a good chunk lower than where they ended up.