Who should win the 2012 AL MVP award?

It's a two man race, and it's basically traditionalists vs. sabremetricians so who deserves the AL MVP award this season.

For the record, neither is a bad choice so any posts suggesting so might as well be laughed off.

I gotta say Trout. I don't think it boils down to a sabermetrician debate, either.

Trout brings more to the game, he's a true 5 tool talent. He runs, defends and throws better than Cabrera. Trout arguably should have won a Gold Glove this year.

Add to that that he wasn't that far off in OPS (.963 to .999) from Cabrera, lead the league in steals with a ridiculous 49/5 rate and lead the league in runs, it's no contest, IMO. Cabrera gets a lot of deserved attention for winning the Triple Crown, however he was arguably worse this past year than the previous two.

Trout

I dont care who took Golden Glove over him, dude was the best CF in the field this year.

The stolen bases too.

And he turned around a poor Angels team.

Cabrera. Both are really good, but you can't ignore the first triple crown in 40 years just because Trout is fast and plays defense well. He'll have his time. This year was Cabrera's.

I still have to go with Cabrera. Trout was awesome, but I can't take him over a Triple Crown winner. I just can't. A big thing in my mind is that Cabrera performed better down the stretch in August and September when it mattered. The White Sox collapse helped the Tigers get to the playoffs, but Cabrera also put them on his back late in the season. Trout fizzled out later in the year, and the Angels did not make it to the postseason. Is that all his fault? Absolutely not, but in addition to winning the Triple Crown, Cabrera performed better when it mattered most.

Don't get me wrong, I am a stat guy for the most part and numbers matter. But I don't think that they tell the whole story. They both deserve it and it is damn close, but I have to go with Cabrera.

I said Cabrera, mainly for what sknsfan_1215 and lovetoaster said.

Trout will get his. It's Cabrera's year. Plain and simple.

I wouldn't call myself a traditionalist, I'm probably more on the sabermetrics side, but I'd go with Cabrera. You have to give it to the guy who made history.

The thing I wonder is whether some people won't vote for Cabrera because they don't like him. Let's be honest, he has made some mistakes. But by all accounts, he has cleaned up his act. But there are a lot of people that have a negative reaction to him when his name is mentioned.

Trout on the other hand is a clean-cut guy that, to the best of our knowledge, does not have any skeletons in his closet.

This is not a morality award, but I have given up trying to figure out what baseball writers are going to do with their votes. I am fairly certain that some will not vote for Cabrara because they don't like him.

I always thought MVP went to the guy who was the best player. Its not close between these two. Trout was a far superior overall player.

That being said, Cabrera will win because people think a triple crown is something more than a collection of three random stats.

---------- Post added November-15th-2012 at 10:58 AM ----------

I wouldn't call myself a traditionalist, I'm probably more on the sabermetrics side, but I'd go with Cabrera. You have to give it to the guy who made history.

trout made history as well. a lot of history.

I still have to go with Cabrera. Trout was awesome, but I can't take him over a Triple Crown winner. I just can't. A big thing in my mind is that Cabrera performed better down the stretch in August and September when it mattered. The White Sox collapse helped the Tigers get to the playoffs, but Cabrera also put them on his back late in the season. Trout fizzled out later in the year, and the Angels did not make it to the postseason. Is that all his fault? Absolutely not, but in addition to winning the Triple Crown, Cabrera performed better when it mattered most.

Don't get me wrong, I am a stat guy for the most part and numbers matter. But I don't think that they tell the whole story. They both deserve it and it is damn close, but I have to go with Cabrera.

Trout did fizzle a bit, but you can point to him arriving in Anaheim as the time that the Angels started winning, too.

I always thought MVP went to the guy who was the best player. Its not close between these two. Trout was a far superior overall player.

That being said, Cabrera will win because people think a triple crown is something more than a collection of three random stats.

To me, best player and most valuable player can be two different things. But yes, the vote usually tends to skew toward best player.

---------- Post added November-15th-2012 at 11:02 AM ----------

Trout did fizzle a bit, but you can point to him arriving in Anaheim as the time that the Angels started winning, too.

Oh, absolutely. He definitely gave that lineup exactly what they needed. People benefitted throughout the lineup, especially Pujols.

Cabrera. Both are really good, but you can't ignore the first triple crown in 40 years just because Trout is fast and plays defense well. He'll have his time. This year was Cabrera's.

This. PLUS, Cabrera lead his team to the playoffs. That has to count for something.

Triple Crown and a World Series appearance.... This shouldn't even be debatable :whoknows:

I'm going Cabrera. Yes Trout had an amazing year, but you don't see a Triple Crown season very often. I won't argue if Trout wins it, I just think Cabrera deserves it more.

Triple Crown and a World Series ring.... This shouldn't even be debatable :whoknows:

Detroit got swept in the series this year.

As for the triple crown fete, its one hell of an accomplishment, but Trout's season was even more rare in terms of how many times its been done in MLB history.

Not to mention, the Angels finished with a better record than Detroit, because Trout turned their season around.

Cabrera AINEC

I'd be fine with either, but I lean Cabrera. The Triple Crown thing is amazing, but I don't think of it as random stats. Batting average is important, and even if you prefer to go OPS, his was higher than Trout's anyway. HR's put runs on the board and give your team a better chance to win, plain and simple. I've never understood why sabremetric folks devalue RBI's...you can't win unless the runs get driven in, and Cabrera drove in more than anyone. I'd assume many of them came with two outs, which is clutch hitting. Sure, Trout has a better arm, but Cabrera plays 3rd. To me, it's hard to use that as an argument because it automatically devalues 1st/3rd basemen and gives an edge to outfielders and middle infielders. As for steals, maybe I'm getting sabremetrics confused with moneyball, but aren't those supposed to be unimportant?

Anyway, Cabrera also struck out 41 times fewer, had more total hits, was walked intentionally more times (more respect from pitchers) although he did lead the league in GIDP, which I know is a big no-no in sabremetrics. Even if you click on the advanced Sabremetric stats on ESPN, he leads Trout in a few of them, like Runs Created, Isolated Power, and AB/HR, though I think the first of those is probably a function of him playing about 20 more games.

Either way, they both had great years, but what Cabrera did was historic, and he has enough secondary things going for him that I'd vote for him. Trout I'm sure will see a few of these before his time is up.

Detroit got swept in the series this year.

:doh: The funny part is I just read an article about the Giants' chances of repeating next year.

I meant appearance.

So how are people looking at this? I am going strictly on numbers and post-season success. Yeah, the Angles had a better record, but the Tigers went further and I can't ignore a triple crown.

:doh: The funny part is I just read an article about the Giants' chances of repeating next year.

I meant appearance.

So how are people looking at this? I am going strictly on numbers and post-season success. Yeah, the Angles had a better record, but the Tigers went further and I can't ignore a triple crown.

I can't ignore the fact that what Trout did has been replicated fewer times than the triple crown.

I respect the sabremetric obsessors but here's the reality: down the stretch Cabrera carried Detroit to the playoffs in August and September he lit it up while Mike Trout floundered and hit .257 among other decreased production.

If you ask me who is "the best player in the AL", it's Trout all-around (which by the way doesn't necessarily make you a better player period; Scottie Pippen was a better all-around player than Durant is now but Durant is the better basketball player) but the MVP was Cabrera who did something not done since the idea of landing on the moon was still just a concept AND carried his team to the playoffs down the stretch with clutch performances. Trout will get multiple MVPs in his career but it's Cabrera in 2012.

I'd be fine with either, but I lean Cabrera. The Triple Crown thing is amazing, but I don't think of it as random stats. Batting average is important, and even if you prefer to go OPS, his was higher than Trout's anyway. HR's put runs on the board and give your team a better chance to win, plain and simple. I've never understood why sabremetric folks devalue RBI's...you can't win unless the runs get driven in, and Cabrera drove in more than anyone. I'd assume many of them came with two outs, which is clutch hitting. Sure, Trout has a better arm, but Cabrera plays 3rd. To me, it's hard to use that as an argument because it automatically devalues 1st/3rd basemen and gives an edge to outfielders and middle infielders. As for steals, maybe I'm getting sabremetrics confused with moneyball, but aren't those supposed to be unimportant?

Anyway, Cabrera also struck out 41 times fewer, had more total hits, was walked intentionally more times (more respect from pitchers) although he did lead the league in GIDP, which I know is a big no-no in sabremetrics. Even if you click on the advanced Sabremetric stats on ESPN, he leads Trout in a few of them, like Runs Created, Isolated Power, and AB/HR, though I think the first of those is probably a function of him playing about 20 more games.

Either way, they both had great years, but what Cabrera did was historic, and he has enough secondary things going for him that I'd vote for him. Trout I'm sure will see a few of these before his time is up.

You don't understand why RBI's is a useless stat? Its about opportunity more than anything. Trout hit leadoff mostly, of course he's not going to have as many RBI's as a guy hitting 4th.

RBI does not tell you much about a player's actual ability. If you want something that reflects a players ability to produce runs, especially when it counts, try WPA.

Oh, guess who led the league in WPA... http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=3&season=2012&month=0&season1=2012&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0

Here's an article on how on bat alone Trout was more valuable than Cabrera. That is put aside Trouts 49 steals, and other great baserunning, and then put aside all of his valuable defense (at which Cabrera is a negative for his team), and Trout is more valuable: http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=3&season=2012&month=0&season1=2012&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0

This is not a close call, but Cabrera is going to win.

I can't ignore the fact that what Trout did has been replicated fewer times than the triple crown.

I can't argue against that.

Has there ever been a tie for MVP. If there hasn't, I think this would be the year to do it.

I don't understand the notion of "Trout will get his in the future"

That literally should have no bearing on the vote.

I really don't understand the triple crown thing? So, if Mike Trout had gotten three more hits all year, and beaten Cabrera by 1 point in batting average, he'd be the MVP. But since Cabrera batted .330 to Trout's .326, he locked it up? WTF?