The media would have you believe the quest for AL MVP was one that has long since been over and done–Miguel Cabrera’s for the taking. It seems like everyone is so quick to write off the 21 year old rookie from the West Coast, on an under-performing team, that had not for his presence would be laughably bad. Why hasn’t the race for this year’s MVP between Mike Trout and Miguel Cabrera been treated like the near flat-footed tie that it deserves to be?
The debate over who’s the more deserving MVP has been whittled down two differing aspects–history vs numbers. For Miguel Cabrera he has history on his side, all 100 years plus of baseball history is weighing in on his favor. There hasn’t been a Triple Crown winner since Carl Yastrrzemski in 1967, and that weighs heavy on the hearts of baseball purists who treat the Triple Crown like the holy grail of baseball. Then, on the side of Mike Trout there’s the numbers, and boy how they don’t lie, but your average baseball fan and it seems like most journalists as a whole don’t like to fuss over a silly thing like numbers. Miguel Cabrera has a higher average and more homers so he’s obviously better…right? Not necessarily so.
I’ll be the first to admit it, the sabremetrics system is deeply flawed–there, I said it. And when you consider that the stat (WAR) that many baseball stats addicts are using to give Trout the leg up is one of the more flawed aspects of the science as a whole. The much ballyhooed Wins Above Replacement stat, or W.A.R for short pretty much sums up a players given value to his respective team (I speak tersely because the numbers crunching aspect may make you feel as if you’ve been trapped within the Matrix). Essentially what WAR does is it measures how many wins that given player has contributed to his team above a replacement player (e.g, a minor leaguer at the same position) . The primary reason it’s flawed is because there’s too very varying versions the one on Baseball-reference and the other on Fangraphs. It varies in the area of fielding stats, and that is where it’s very flawed. You can’t attempt to measure every single aspect of a player’s performance if 50% of the performance is composed of estimates due to not enough given data.
But I digress, Trout’s performance in comparison to Cabrera’s should speak for itself, and shouldn’t have to rely on nerds behind a keyboard punching in mind numbing calculations to measure how quickly the ball lands in his glove. *Regains composure* Let’s get down to the bare facts of the matter–Mike Trout has been more valuable to his team. There I said it, and I said it indisputably, because it’s a fact. In terms of value to a team between Cabrera and Trout, Trout has been by far more valuable. Trout has missed 21 games due to a AAA stint early in the season, and still has done more for his team. Don’t believe me? The Angels started the year at an embarrassingly slow pace in which they did nothing right, when Trout was down in the minors the Angels went 6-14 and when Trout came up they’ve since gone 82-57. Not to mention the very black and white fact that the Angels actually have a better record over Miguel Cabrera’s Tigers winning two more games and its clear in terms of value Trout is the victor.
But then why has it seemed like Trout hasn’t even been at the forefront of the MVP discussion? Simply put, because we’re suckers. Sports fans are suckers for power–and Miguel Cabrera has all the gleaming power numbers that would make any MVP voter wet his/her pants on sight. And also we can’t forget the fact that baseball has become almost a slave–a thirst monster to the Triple Crown, and what would make better headlines an MVP/Triple Crown winner or a kid winning MVP? You decide. But you say, ‘But if Miguel Cabrera’s a shoo in for the Triple Crown then why shouldn’t he win MVP?’ Well, to that I’d say take apart the word MVP–most VALUABLE player, not player more able to drive the ball out the park. By no means am I saying Cabrera isn’t valuable but when compared to Trout the odds fare way more in Trout’s direction. And 99% of the time a triple crown candidate very much should win the MVP, which makes the fact that Trout is even in the discussion of snatching up MVP from a triple crown candidate all the more impressive. Ted Williams won two Triple Crowns and never won MVP–but then you have to take into account that Williams was hated by most of the league and it makes sense.
So should the Baseball Writers of America give Trout the MVP? The debate isn’t apples and oranges, it’s apples and apples these are two remarkable players and there’s literally just centimeters separating them it’s all a matter of what they take greater import in. Do you hold more dear Cabrera’s power numbers or do you take in Trout’s more well-rounded approach to the game despite the fact has under 40 homers. Things will ultimately come down to a matter of opinion since the numbers between the to are just so very stacked and close. If baseball of say 5 years ago had its way Miguel Cabrera would win the triple crown, be handed the MVP and Trout would be patted on the back and given the Rookie of the Year of the award for his ‘efforts’. But that was times of old, the new era of MVP voting has seen two consecutive years in which voters looked off the field and took intangibles to heart as well and is why we’ve seen a pitcher with a losing record in the Cy Young and a pitcher win the Cy Young and the MVP. Despite the media’s romanticism of the Triple Crown Trout still deserves strong consideration.