Who should win the 2012 AL MVP award?

[Going Commando]

1. WAR is not the end all be all. There are multiple formulas which by definition means it is far from perfect.

2. Yastremskii's season was amazing for four decades before WAR was even thought of. I don't need sabremetrics to tell me that. The eye test if I was alive then would've been easy enough.

Trout is a better all-around player, that is obvious to everyone, but, he certainly wasn't adding enough wins down the stretch when the Angels needed him to lift them into the postseason. Cabrera meanwhile lit it up. Trout hit .257 and that matters. Harper won ROTY thanks to his scorching September and we needed all that production when the games mattered most.

There are two formulas to speak of that slightly differ in method for batters, mainly differ for pitchers. One method controls more for uncontrollables like BABIP so as to be a better predictor of value. The other doesn't so as to be a better reflector of value.

WAR is, hands down, the single best comprehensive metric of total value there is. It's king until someone devises a better quantifier.

Bryce won the ROTY on the strength of his whole season. He had the best WAR of any rookie in the NL. He needed that September to get there, but if he'd have posted that month in July instead, he would have still deserved it.

Maybe you could argue for giving the award to Cabrera based on Trout's slumping last month if the difference in their year long value wasn't so striking. But it was not close between them.

Cabrera just doesn't have a good case unless you over value the triple crown.

[lovetoaster]

Didnt the Angels win more games than the Tigers? So, because Cabrera plays in a ****tier division, he's a more valuable player?

I am not running around with a Cabrera flag today, but it does matter to me how the players performed down the stretch with playoff berths on the line. That is Valuable in my mind, and gives an ever so slight advantage to Cabrera. You are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to mine. I don't think there is a right/wrong here.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

How would we know? They aren't in the same division, we don't know how the Tigers would have reacted.

Because the Angels won more games!

So Miggy can only play the teams he can play, but Trout should have gotten his team into the Central division and won it?

This is silly now. The reason you can say "Miggy got his team to the playoffs" is because despite losing more games than the Angels, they were in a less competitive division. If they were in any other AL division, you wouldn't have this argument.

Its why this "playoff team" argument tells you NOTHING about who was more valuable.

[CrypticVillain]

Because the Angels won more games!

First of all, it was only like 5 or six games. What was their head to head record?

We can't fault the Tigers or Cabrera for the division they played in.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

There are two formulas to speak of that slightly differ in method for batters, mainly differ for pitchers. One method controls more for uncontrollables like BABIP so as to be a better predictor of value. The other doesn't so as to be a better reflector of value.

WAR is, hands down, the single best comprehensive metric of total value there is. It's king until someone devises a better quantifier.

Bryce won the ROTY on the strength of his whole season. He had the best WAR of any rookie in the NL. He needed that September to get there, but if he'd have posted that month in July instead, he would have still deserved it.

Maybe you could argue for giving the award to Cabrera based on Trout's slumping last month if the difference in their year long value wasn't so striking. But it was not close between them.

Cabrera just doesn't have a good case unless you over value the triple crown.

Its not even WAR. Basically, people who like Cabrera like RBI, and people who like Trout rightfully know that RBI is a completely useless stat that tells you nothing about a players ability.

Someone explain to me why RBI is more valuable than Runs even? And please, please tell me that Runs don't reflect a player's value because someone has to drive them in. That would be a wet dream.

I am not running around with a Cabrera flag today, but it does matter to me how the players performed down the stretch with playoff berths on the line. That is Valuable in my mind, and gives an ever so slight advantage to Cabrera. You are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to mine. I don't think there is a right/wrong here. Apparently you feel differently.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But your opinion is also wrong. This is not a close comparison looking at these two players' years.

---------- Post added November-15th-2012 at 01:47 PM ----------

First of all, it was only like 5 or six games. What was their head to head record?

We can't fault the Tigers or Cabrera for the division they played in.

It was 1 game, actually. But now we are going to give MVP based upon head to head record of teams? That's new.

I see some people are going to look for made up reasons to give the award to a player who had a far inferior year, and I realize I can't convince everyone that they are wrong. But please think about the lengths you are going to defend your choice.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Just so everyone in the "how they performed down the stretch thread," Trout was 2nd in WAR for the whole MLB for the last week of the season. Cabrera is not in the top 30.

Trout was also third in WAR for the last two weeks of the season. Cabrera is not in the top 30. Prince Fielder is actually 11th. (Thus, he should win MVP, right?)

And I don't know where .257 came from. Trout hit .289/400/500 with the 4th best WAR in MLB for September and October, according to Fangraphs. Is that wrong. Assuming that's correct, he didn't really falter down the stretch.

[Going Commando]

The Tigers weren't a better regular season team than the Angels IMO. They had a losing record on the road, played in the worst division and had the worst record of any division winner. They won one less game than the Angels did--who finished third in their own division. They had a worse run differential than the Angels.

I think it's clear the Tigers only got into the postseason by beating up on the ****ty teams of their division at home.

[lovetoaster]

And Cabrera played a terrible third base.

I just wanted to point out that this is not necessarily true. I think we all thought he would be terrible, but he actually played a lot better than expected. Now there is no doubt that Trout played better overall defensively, but Cabrera was no slouch. He finished fourth in the AL in fielding percentage at third, and was good in some other metrics such as range factor.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I just wanted to point out that this is not necessarily true. I think we all thought he would be terrible, but he actually played a lot better than expected. Now there is no doubt that Trout played better overall defensively, but Cabrera was no slouch. He finished fourth in the AL in fielding percentage at third, and was good in some other metrics such as range factor.

What's the basis for that? He was god awful.

I think UZR is helpful, but not as helpful as some other metrics. But he was the worst 3B according to UZR and had the worst range factor for 3B in all of baseball. He is an awful defensive 3B.

[lovetoaster]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But your opinion is also wrong. This is not a close comparison looking at these two players' years.

Did you get a kick out of that?

Listen, I am not emotionally invested in either player, and maybe I cannot produce stats to tell you why I feel the way I do except for their individual numbers in the last month of the season. But sometimes stats don't tell the whole story.

---------- Post added November-15th-2012 at 02:03 PM ----------

What's the basis for that? He was god awful.

I think UZR is helpful, but not as helpful as some other metrics. But he was the worst 3B according to UZR and had the worst range factor for 3B in all of baseball. He is an awful defensive 3B.

I looked his numbers up and the leaders on Baseball Reference. Honestly, I forgot to look up UZR. I know he is not a good defensive 3B, but in the games that I saw him play this year (probably 20 or so), he was a lot better over there than I thought he would be. Maybe low expectations played into that, but only taking this year into account, I would not say he was awful. Mark Reynolds was awful.

Anyways, I have to get back to work now.

[CrypticVillain]

It was 1 game, actually. But now we are going to give MVP based upon head to head record of teams? That's new

It was only one game.

You said, If the Tigers and Angels were in the same division, then the Tigers would have finished behind the Angels.

I said how would we know, they aren't in the same division. Basically saying that we don't know how the Tigers would have played if they were in the same division.

The "silly" thing is assuming that the Angels and Tigers would have had the same season if they played in the same each others division. We don't know how they would have played.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Did you get a kick out of that?

Listen, I am not emotionally invested in either player, and maybe I cannot produce stats to tell you why I feel the way I do except for their individual numbers in the last month of the season. But sometimes stats don't tell the whole story.

Not really a "kick." But I meant it, sorry.

I just looked and Trout had better numbers in September and October than Miggy, and better numbers the last week of the season and the last two weeks of the season. But your penalizing him for "struggling" down the stretch. He didn't.

I know that Miggy is going to win the award tonight, but its the wrong choice by a mile.

---------- Post added November-15th-2012 at 02:07 PM ----------

It was only one game.

You said, If the Tigers and Angels were in the same division, then the Tigers would have finished behind the Angels.

I said how would we know, they aren't in the same division. Basically saying that we don't know how the Tigers would have played if they were in the same division.

The "silly" thing is assuming that the Angels and Tigers would have had the same season if they played in the same each others division. We don't know how they would have played.

You are giving the Tigers credit for "winning" their division. But they played in a worse division and won fewer games. I'm not saying the Angels or Tigers wins are the basis for either candidate getting the award. You are. I'm saying how wrong that is given that the only reason the Tigers made the playoffs over the Angels is that they were in the AL Central.

[Going Commando]

Its not even WAR. Basically, people who like Cabrera like RBI, and people who like Trout rightfully know that RBI is a completely useless stat that tells you nothing about a players ability.

Someone explain to me why RBI is more valuable than Runs even? And please, please tell me that Runs don't reflect a player's value because someone has to drive them in. That would be a wet dream.

I agree. The case for Cabrera really boils down entirely to two things: playoff team & RBIs.

I think the playoff thing is pretty bunk. It says nothing about Cabrera that he got to play in a crappy division. His team was actually worse than Trout's in the regular season by most measures.

And I think RBIs are pretty bad. Of course Cabrera will get more RBIs batting cleanup than Trout will leading off. It would be bad if he didn't.

Proponents for Cabrera assume that he was more valuable than Trout offensively, and then they make a further assumption that fielding and baserunning are much less valuable than hitting. Both assumptions are wrong.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/trout-versus-cabrera-offense-only-context-included/

The AL MVP debate continues to rage on, and at this point, most of the arguments have already been made on both sides. If you think the Triple Crown should always be rewarded with an MVP, you’re voting for Miguel Cabrera. If you think the winner of the award has to come from a playoff team, you’re voting for Miguel Cabrera. If you think that WAR is a decent measure of player value, you’re voting for Trout. At this point, both sides are basically just yelling at each other, and no one is changing their minds.

However, for those who are uncomfortable with any of those positions and might still be on the fence, I wanted to offer one more perspective on the issue. The reality is that the case for Cabrera requires the assumption that baserunning and defense are of marginal value, and that position players should really by evaluated by their hitting statistics. The case for Cabrera also wants you to take context into account, since Cabrera drove in so many more runs than Trout did, and wants Cabrera to receive credit for his accomplishments with men on base. Interestingly enough, we have a metric here on FanGraphs that measures only offense and credits hitters for their performances with men on base. At the risk of adding to the alphabet soup, I think it’s worth looking at this little-used metric that measures exactly what the Cabrera contingent wants us to measure.

This metric is called RE24. It’s been on the site for years, and is available as part of our Win Probability section. We don’t use it a lot, because in general we prefer to talk about players from a context-neutral perspective, but for the purpose of this discussion, it might just be the perfect metric.

RE24 is essentially the difference between the run expectancy when a hitter comes to the plate and when his at-bat ends. For example, September 16th, Cabrera came to the plate against Joe Smith with runners at first and second and two outs, a situation where the Tigers would be expected to score 0.33 runs on average. Cabrera hit a three run home run, so they actually scored three runs, and RE24 gives Cabrera credit for +2.67 runs, the gap between what they were expected to score and what they actually scored.

Unlike with context-neutral statistics like wRC+, RE24 takes the number of outs and number of baserunners into account. It does not assume that all home runs are equal, nor does it treat a strikeout with a man on third base and one out as just another out. The rewards for performing with men on base are higher, and the blame for failing in those same situations is steeper as well. This is a metric that essentially quantifies the total offensive value of a player based on the situations that he actually faced. This is not a theoretical metric. If you hit a three run home run, you get more credit than if you hit a solo home run. If you are consistently getting hits with two outs to drive in runs, you get more credit than if those hits come with no outs and the bases empty. And, of course, it’s only an offensive metric, so there’s no defensive component, no position adjustments, and no replacement level. This is just straight up offense, adjusted for the context of the situations that they faced.

Here’s the AL leaderboard for this season. If you don’t want to click the link, I’ll just reproduce the top five here.

1. Edwin Encarnacion: +55.84 runs

2. Mike Trout: +54.27

3. Prince Fielder: +50.59

4. Miguel Cabrera: +47.43

5. Josh Hamilton: 44.44

Offense only. Context Included. Trout is just barely behind Edwin Encarnacion for the league lead, and slightly ahead of Miguel Cabrera, who is actually second on on his own team.

I know these new-fangled “advanced” stats can be scary, but this isn’t some kind of black box where you just have to take our word for it. We have RE24 on each player’s Play Log, so you can see the exact amount of value that each player was credited with on every single offensive play they were involved in all year long. Here’s the top five plays from Cabrera’s play log, for instance:

9/16 vs Joe Smith, 2 on, 2 out, 3 run HR: +2.67 runs

9/18 vs Jesse Chavez, 3 on, 0 out, Grand Slam: +2.16 runs

9/29 vs Casey Fien, 2 on, 0 out, 3 run HR: +2.00 runs

4/8 vs Alfredo Aceves, 2 on, 0 out, 3 run HR: +1.99 runs

7/24 vs Joe Smith, 1 on, 2 outs, 2 run HR: +1.88 runs

There’s evidence of Cabrera’s monstrous clutch September in RE24, as his three most valuable outcomes all came in the last couple of weeks. In fact, Mike Trout only had one plate appearance all year where his RE24 was over +2 runs — a three run homer off Felix Hernandez in August — so Cabrera’s certainly had more big moments where his ability to drill the ball over the wall created runs for the Tigers offense.

So, why is Trout ahead of Cabrera? And, for that matter, why is Cabrera behind even his own teammate, Prince Fielder, as well as Encarnacion, who is not even in the MVP discussion?

It comes back to double plays. I noted a few weeks ago that Cabrera had hit into an AL leading 28 double plays. Turns out, a bunch of those were big-time rally killers. 12 of the 28 double plays Cabrera hit into lowered the run expectancy by at least one run; Trout only had two plate appearances all season where the run expectancy went down that much in a single play. Because RE24 is available for every play, and easily accessible from the play logs, it’s easy to put each player’s individual performances into groups, so we can see the distribution of their offensive events...........

And Trout still comes out on top. Ignore defense. Ignore things like going first to third on a single, or taking the extra base on a fly ball. Ignore WAR. Trout still wins. This is how amazing his season actually was. Even if you strip away the things that make Mike Trout special, he was still the best offensive performer in the American League this year, even while starting the season in the minors. This isn’t just the best performance of 2012 – it’s one of the best individual performances in the history of baseball.

Read the whole thing at the link. It's a fantastic piece.

There is no good case for Cabrera winning the MVP IMO. You either accept that the MVP can come from a non playoff team & RBIs are a crap measure of value or you accept the opposite.

[CrypticVillain]

Can we stop using the logic that the Angels won more games than the Tigers. I thought it was like 5 or 6 games, it was only one.

[lovetoaster]

I just looked and Trout had better numbers in September and October than Miggy, and better numbers the last week of the season and the last two weeks of the season. But your penalizing him for "struggling" down the stretch. He didn't.

The last month matters.

On Sept. 1, the Tigers were 71-61, one game behind the White Sox in the AL Central, and a half-game behind the Rays for the final wild-card spot. The Angels were 71-62, one game behind the Rays.

From that point on, Trout hit .284, with a .400 on-base percentage and .500 slugging percentage.

Cabrera hit .318, with a .379 on-base percentage and a .673 slugging percentage.

Trout's numbers were very good. Cabrera's were extraordinary.

Does that fully explain the Angels' fade and the Tigers' rise? Of course not. Do all games count equally in the standings? Sure. But I do think those games with the season on the line bring a different level of pressure. If voters give Cabrera some extra credit for his final month, I think that is reasonable.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/michael_rosenberg/11/15/miguel-cabrara-mvp/index.html#ixzz2CJtS52RO

I know these are not advanced metrics, but they are important metrics, IMO.

[Going Commando]

Can we stop using the logic that the Angels won more games than the Tigers. I thought it was like 5 or 6 games, it was only one.

It was one game in a much, much harder division. The Angels could have lost many more than Detroit and still have been considered a better team according to other metrics. And yet they even won one more game than the Tigers.

I mean the Tigers made the playoffs and actually had a losing record on the road.

[Sticksboi05]

If the Tigers and Angels were in the same division, then the Tigers would have finished behind the Angels. And then you'd be saying Trout's season was more valuable?

And as for pressure, I already showed that Trout had a higher WPA then Miggy.

You're not getting it. Regardless of divisions, Cabrera knew the Tigers were in a heated division race. That puts pressure on. If it's the last week of a season and one team has 90 wins and one team has 80 wins in a different division but the team with 90 wins has somehow already been eliminated from contention, the pressure is off regardless of them being a better team. If that 80 win team can get in winning its last four games they have far more pressure to perform in that scenario. Doesn't mean it's fair but that's sports.

Now, both teams were in a playoff race in this case and both had pressure to perform. Compare the numbers from August onward when teams start making playoff pushes.

AUGUST

Trout -

.366 .500 .866 .284

OBP SLG OPS AVG

Cabrera -

.429 .663 1.092 .357

OBP SLG OPS AVG

SEPTEMBER

Trout

.380 .455 .836 .257

OBP SLG OPS AVG

Cabrera -

.378 .654 1.032 .308

OBP SLG OPS AVG

Now, bring in all the defensive stats you want but hitting .257 when it matters is not going to help your team make the playoffs.

Now, despite Cabrera's torrid performance, the Tigers still were barely over .500% in those two months suggesting he has less help around him despite Fielder's protection in the lineup. Despite Trout's slump, the Angels were red-hot in September which leads me to believe he had more help and wasn't the main cause of their final playoff push.

For the record, both would be fine choices either way and depending on the day of the week, I'd argue for either. It happened to be a Thursday.

[CrypticVillain]

You are giving the Tigers credit for "winning" their division. But they played in a worse division and won fewer games. I'm not saying the Angels or Tigers wins are the basis for either candidate getting the award. You are. I'm saying how wrong that is given that the only reason the Tigers made the playoffs over the Angels is that they were in the AL Central.

I am not giving the Tigers credit for winning the division, I am giving Cabrera credit for playing well when his team needed him to and getting them in the playoffs. I am also giving him credit for performing in the playoffs. Something that Trout can't say. And yes, it is a regular season award :blahblah: , but if that is the case, they shouldn't wait until after the season to give it away. That way our opinions would be effected by the playoffs.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

You're not getting it. Regardless of divisions, Cabrera knew the Tigers were in a heated division race. That puts pressure on. If it's the last week of a season and one team has 90 wins and one team has 80 wins in a different division but the team with 90 wins has somehow already been eliminated from contention, the pressure is off regardless of them being a better team. If that 80 win team can get in winning its last four games they have far more pressure to perform in that scenario. Doesn't mean it's fair but that's sports.

Now, both teams were in a playoff race in this case and both had pressure to perform. Compare the numbers from August onward when teams start making playoff pushes.

AUGUST

Trout -

.366 .500 .866 .284

OBP SLG OPS AVG

Cabrera -

.429 .663 1.092 .357

OBP SLG OPS AVG

SEPTEMBER

Trout

.380 .455 .836 .257

OBP SLG OPS AVG

Cabrera -

.378 .654 1.032 .308

OBP SLG OPS AVG

Now, bring in all the defensive stats you want but hitting .257 when it matters is not going to help your team make the playoffs.

Now, despite Cabrera's torrid performance, the Tigers still were barely over .500% in those two months suggesting he has less help around him despite Fielder's protection in the lineup. Despite Trout's slump, the Angels were red-hot in September which leads me to believe he had more help and wasn't the main cause of their final playoff push.

For the record, both would be fine choices either way and depending on the day of the week, I'd argue for either. It happened to be a Thursday.

I don't know why we are getting different stats, but this does not show what you are saying:

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2012&month=9&season1=2012&ind=0&team=&rost=&age=0&filter=&players=

:whoknows:

That says that Trout had much better numbers than you show and was more valuable in terms of WAR than Miggy for the last month of the season.

Mike Trout Angels 30 135 33 5 23 9 7 14.8 % 25.9 % .211 .378 .289 .400 .500 .389 152 2.4 1.9 1.8

---------- Post added November-15th-2012 at 02:14 PM ----------

I am not giving the Tigers credit for winning the division, I am giving Cabrera credit for playing well when his team needed him to and getting them in the playoffs. I am also giving him credit for performing in the playoffs. Something that Trout can't say. And yes, it is a regular season award :blahblah: , but if that is the case, they shouldn't wait until after the season to give it away. That way our opinions would be effected by the playoffs.

They vote on it before the playoffs start.

[Sticksboi05]

There are two formulas to speak of that slightly differ in method for batters, mainly differ for pitchers. One method controls more for uncontrollables like BABIP so as to be a better predictor of value. The other doesn't so as to be a better reflector of value.

WAR is, hands down, the single best comprehensive metric of total value there is. It's king until someone devises a better quantifier.

Bryce won the ROTY on the strength of his whole season. He had the best WAR of any rookie in the NL. He needed that September to get there, but if he'd have posted that month in July instead, he would have still deserved it.

Maybe you could argue for giving the award to Cabrera based on Trout's slumping last month if the difference in their year long value wasn't so striking. But it was not close between them.

Cabrera just doesn't have a good case unless you over value the triple crown.

Ah, see, he may have "deserved" it but would he have won it, is my point. Voters value performing down the stretch.

As I said before Trout was the AL's best player this season, I'm simply playing devil's advocate and examining why voters may pick Cabrera.

---------- Post added November-15th-2012 at 02:24 PM ----------

I don't know why we are getting different stats, but this does not show what you are saying:

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2012&month=9&season1=2012&ind=0&team=&rost=&age=0&filter=&players=

:whoknows:

You included October's three games for Trout, I didn't.

[CrypticVillain]

They vote on it before the playoffs start.

I see. If that is the case, around the time they voted, everybody was still talking about Cabrera. Trout didn't have a chance.

---------- Post added November-15th-2012 at 02:35 PM ----------

As I said before Trout was the AL's best player this season, I'm simply playing devil's advocate and examining why voters may pick Cabrera.

I am kind of doing the same thing. I could give two shifts about who win. All I really care about is my Nats.... and I wish Steve would change that sig already. I cry a little inside every time I see it.

[Going Commando]

For the record, both would be fine choices either way and depending on the day of the week, I'd argue for either. It happened to be a Thursday.

I think Cabrera would be a good choice in a normal year. His stretch run of hitting is compelling no doubt. He also played the whole season and it doesn't help Trout that he only played 139 games (although I do think it makes leading the league in so many ways seem more special).

But this definitely wasn't a normal year. It had a 10 WAR season in it. And not from the guy who won the triple crown.

I just can't see a good case for Cabrera relative to Trout.

---------- Post added November-15th-2012 at 02:42 PM ----------

I am kind of doing the same thing. I could give two shifts about who win. All I really care about is my Nats.... and I wish Steve would change that sig already. I cry a little inside every time I see it.

It's better than the one I'm about to change it to.

I honestly don't know if I can do it.

Nah, I'm going to change it. You convinced me.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

You included October's three games for Trout, I didn't.

1) Why wouldn't you count his last three games, especially if you are going to argue that the end of the year is more important?

2) Are you sure that is it? Because that seems like a big difference for three games worth of data.

Where are you getting your numbers?

[CrypticVillain]

It's better than the one I'm about to change it to.

I honestly don't know if I can do it.

Nah, I'm going to change it. You convinced me.

:notworthy

I love it

[Sticksboi05]

1) Why wouldn't you count his last three games, especially if you are going to argue that the end of the year is more important?

2) Are you sure that is it? Because that seems like a big difference for three games worth of data.

Where are you getting your numbers?

I didn't add it because one 4 for 5 game skews the statistics and makes it look like he wasn't on nearly the slump he actually was. Kind of like when Kobe has one random hot shooting night in between a bunch of abysmal performances and gets that average up to 45% FG.