MVP should not go to somebody who can't play defense come on.
It's laughable that people think Cabrera should win it over Trout.
I don't care if he wins the Triple Crown... the Triple Crown doesn't take into account walks, it doesn't differentiate doubles or triples from singles, it doesn't take into account skill on the basepaths, and most of all it doesn't factor in defense (of which Trout is upper-echolon while Cabrera is simply below-average).
Taking EVERYTHING into account (not just hitting), it's clear Trout has been the better player and more valuable to his team.
Based on the slash line of AVG/OBP/SLG, statistically speaking, this is Cabrera's WORST year between from 2010 - 2012
2010: .328/.422/.620 (1.042 OPS)
2011: .344/.448/.586 (1.033 OPS)
2012: .325/.390/.601 (.991 OPS)
If Cabrera didn't win the MVP those years, why should he win it this year? Just because he might win the "Triple Crown" because it just so happened nobody has hit more than 45 HR's or has an average above .325?
It's laughable that people think Cabrera should win it over Trout.
I don't care if he wins the Triple Crown... the Triple Crown doesn't take into account walks, it doesn't differentiate doubles or triples from singles, it doesn't take into account skill on the basepaths, and most of all it doesn't factor in defense (of which Trout is upper-echolon while Cabrera is simply below-average).
Taking EVERYTHING into account (not just hitting), it's clear Trout has been the better player and more valuable to his team.
Based on the slash line of AVG/OBP/SLG, statistically speaking, this is Cabrera's WORST year between from 2010 - 2012
2010: .328/.422/.620 (1.042 OPS)
2011: .344/.448/.586 (1.033 OPS)
2012: .325/.390/.601 (.991 OPS)
If Cabrera didn't win the MVP those years, why should he win it this year? Just because he might win the "Triple Crown" because it just so happened nobody has hit more than 45 HR's or has an average above .325?
@ DanTos
Fielding % leaves a lot to be desired. How does fielding % measure range? There are balls that Cabrera has no shot at getting because his range is limited... he doesn't get an error on those, but he's also not saving his team runs. This is a problem with the Tigers as a whole; they're widely considered one of the worst defensive teams in baseball.
Trout, on the other hand, has saved a ridiculous amount of runs with his range to get to balls many other outfielders couldn't get to.
The argument that Trout's team isn't going to the playoffs while Cabrera's is doesn't hold water in my opinion... so Cabrera should win the MVP because his team got to feast on the likes of the Royals, Twins, and Indians while the Angels had the Rangers and A's to deal with? The Angels have a better record, but let's give it to the guy who's going to the playoffs because his team plays in the AL Central?
People don't like it, but WAR measures value better than any stat out there, and Trout BLOWS the competition out of the water. The MVP is not for the best hitter in baseball, it's for the most valuable all around player. That includes offense, defense, and baserunning.
@ DanTos
Fielding % leaves a lot to be desired. How does fielding % measure range? There are balls that Cabrera has no shot at getting because his range is limited... he doesn't get an error on those, but he's also not saving his team runs. This is a problem with the Tigers as a whole; they're widely considered one of the worst defensive teams in baseball.
Trout, on the other hand, has saved a ridiculous amount of runs with his range to get to balls many other outfielders couldn't get to.
The argument that Trout's team isn't going to the playoffs while Cabrera's is doesn't hold water in my opinion... so Cabrera should win the MVP because his team got to feast on the likes of the Royals, Twins, and Indians while the Angels had the Rangers and A's to deal with? The Angels have a better record, but let's give it to the guy who's going to the playoffs because his team plays in the AL Central?
People don't like it, but WAR measures value better than any stat out there, and Trout BLOWS the competition out of the water. The MVP is not for the best hitter in baseball, it's for the most valuable all around player. That includes offense, defense, and baserunning.
@ DanTos
Fielding % leaves a lot to be desired. How does fielding % measure range? There are balls that Cabrera has no shot at getting because his range is limited... he doesn't get an error on those, but he's also not saving his team runs. This is a problem with the Tigers as a whole; they're widely considered one of the worst defensive teams in baseball.
Trout, on the other hand, has saved a ridiculous amount of runs with his range to get to balls many other outfielders couldn't get to.
The argument that Trout's team isn't going to the playoffs while Cabrera's is doesn't hold water in my opinion... so Cabrera should win the MVP because his team got to feast on the likes of the Royals, Twins, and Indians while the Angels had the Rangers and A's to deal with? The Angels have a better record, but let's give it to the guy who's going to the playoffs because his team plays in the AL Central?
People don't like it, but WAR measures value better than any stat out there, and Trout BLOWS the competition out of the water. The MVP is not for the best hitter in baseball, it's for the most valuable all around player. That includes offense, defense, and baserunning.
@ DanTos
Fielding % leaves a lot to be desired. How does fielding % measure range? There are balls that Cabrera has no shot at getting because his range is limited... he doesn't get an error on those, but he's also not saving his team runs. This is a problem with the Tigers as a whole; they're widely considered one of the worst defensive teams in baseball.
Trout, on the other hand, has saved a ridiculous amount of runs with his range to get to balls many other outfielders couldn't get to.
The argument that Trout's team isn't going to the playoffs while Cabrera's is doesn't hold water in my opinion... so Cabrera should win the MVP because his team got to feast on the likes of the Royals, Twins, and Indians while the Angels had the Rangers and A's to deal with? The Angels have a better record, but let's give it to the guy who's going to the playoffs because his team plays in the AL Central?
People don't like it, but WAR measures value better than any stat out there, and Trout BLOWS the competition out of the water. The MVP is not for the best hitter in baseball, it's for the most valuable all around player. That includes offense, defense, and baserunning.
Keep it simple:
Stats matter. Triple Crown winner Cabrera should take the MVP. Should be a landslide if you ask me.
Even this minor note: DET is in the playoffs. The star studded LA Angels are at home watching the playoffs.
Side note: Trout deserves it too but since Cabrera had such a stunning stat, there is NO WAY you don't give it to him. It would be a fix if they gave it to Trout (or anyone) for that matter.
Keep it simple:
Stats matter. Triple Crown winner Cabrera should take the MVP. Should be a landslide if you ask me.
Even this minor note: DET is in the playoffs. The star studded LA Angels are at home watching the playoffs.
Side note: Trout deserves it too but since Cabrera had such a stunning stat, there is NO WAY you don't give it to him. It would be a fix if they gave it to Trout (or anyone) for that matter.
cabrera had a fielding percentage ranked 6th among all 3rd basemen.
trout had a fielding percentage ranked 9th among all CF
It's all about range... fielding % doesn't measure that.
Imagine two players... Player A and Player B.
Out of 10 balls hit, Player A can get to 7 of them and makes 7 outs. He makes no errors for a 1.000 fielding %.
Player B can get to all 10 balls, but makes 3 errors. He also makes 7 outs, but his fielding % is .700.
Both Player A and Player B made 7 outs... but Player B at least had the opportunity to make three more, while player A had no chance because of his limited range.
Yet, Player A is the better fielder because he has a better fielding % than Player B? Sorry, but no.
cabrera had a fielding percentage ranked 6th among all 3rd basemen.
trout had a fielding percentage ranked 9th among all CF
It's all about range... fielding % doesn't measure that.
Imagine two players... Player A and Player B.
Out of 10 balls hit, Player A can get to 7 of them and makes 7 outs. He makes no errors for a 1.000 fielding %.
Player B can get to all 10 balls, but makes 3 errors. He also makes 7 outs, but his fielding % is .700.
Both Player A and Player B made 7 outs... but Player B at least had the opportunity to make three more, while player A had no chance because of his limited range.
Yet, Player A is the better fielder because he has a better fielding % than Player B? Sorry, but no.
It's all about range... fielding % doesn't measure that.
Imagine two players... Player A and Player B.
Out of 10 balls hit, Player A can get to 7 of them and makes 7 outs. He makes no errors for a 1.000 fielding %.
Player B can get to all 10 balls, but makes 3 errors. He also makes 7 outs, but his fielding % is .700.
Both Player A and Player B made 7 outs... but Player B at least had the opportunity to make three more, while player A had no chance because of his limited range.
Yet, Player A is the better fielder because he has a better fielding % than Player B? Sorry, but no.
It's all about range... fielding % doesn't measure that.
Imagine two players... Player A and Player B.
Out of 10 balls hit, Player A can get to 7 of them and makes 7 outs. He makes no errors for a 1.000 fielding %.
Player B can get to all 10 balls, but makes 3 errors. He also makes 7 outs, but his fielding % is .700.
Both Player A and Player B made 7 outs... but Player B at least had the opportunity to make three more, while player A had no chance because of his limited range.
Yet, Player A is the better fielder because he has a better fielding % than Player B? Sorry, but no.
It's all about range... fielding % doesn't measure that.
Imagine two players... Player A and Player B.
Out of 10 balls hit, Player A can get to 7 of them and makes 7 outs. He makes no errors for a 1.000 fielding %.
Player B can get to all 10 balls, but makes 3 errors. He also makes 7 outs, but his fielding % is .700.
Both Player A and Player B made 7 outs... but Player B at least had the opportunity to make three more, while player A had no chance because of his limited range.
Yet, Player A is the better fielder because he has a better fielding % than Player B? Sorry, but no.
I think the point of ranking fielding percentages, (I am not the one who goes to the trouble to rank them) is to compare position players. i think it is more meaningful than you suggest when you rank players who play the same position.
It's all about range... fielding % doesn't measure that.
Imagine two players... Player A and Player B.
Out of 10 balls hit, Player A can get to 7 of them and makes 7 outs. He makes no errors for a 1.000 fielding %.
Player B can get to all 10 balls, but makes 3 errors. He also makes 7 outs, but his fielding % is .700.
Both Player A and Player B made 7 outs... but Player B at least had the opportunity to make three more, while player A had no chance because of his limited range.
Yet, Player A is the better fielder because he has a better fielding % than Player B? Sorry, but no.
I think the point of ranking fielding percentages, (I am not the one who goes to the trouble to rank them) is to compare position players. i think it is more meaningful than you suggest when you rank players who play the same position.
...
it's a mistake to diminish the team contribution, including defensivell, made by cabrera this season...
5 yrs after he last played the position, he was asked to move back to 3rd to accommodate the arrival of prince fielder...as i recall, he did so without complaint...
in spring training a bad-hop groundball fractured his orbital bone...something like can play tricks with your mind but cabrera wasn't affected...
now there's no doubt we're not talking brooks robinson here, or that trout is the better defender, but anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows a manager will say what he values most defensively is the guy who makes the routine play...cabrera does that as well as any 3rd baseman...what he doesn't do is go horizontal a la a craig nettles or b robby...
now unlike cabrera, trout has the extraordinary ability to do the horizontal thing, i.e. make the "spectacular" play, and those kind of plays resonate; they make the hilite shows, they stay with us, the OF leaping over the wall to pull back the HR ball, and they leave the impression the guy who makes them is far superior with the glove...
what im saying is that cabrera making the 'routine' play, over the course of 162 games, is on balance just as important...and don't forget he made the move for the team, and he played a very dependable 3rd base...
trout making the spectacular play look "routine" no doubt leaves a more lasting mark, but IMO doesn't lessen the notion that cabrera made an unselfish and all-around team contribution more than worthy of an MVP
...
it's a mistake to diminish the team contribution, including defensivell, made by cabrera this season...
5 yrs after he last played the position, he was asked to move back to 3rd to accommodate the arrival of prince fielder...as i recall, he did so without complaint...
in spring training a bad-hop groundball fractured his orbital bone...something like can play tricks with your mind but cabrera wasn't affected...
now there's no doubt we're not talking brooks robinson here, or that trout is the better defender, but anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows a manager will say what he values most defensively is the guy who makes the routine play...cabrera does that as well as any 3rd baseman...what he doesn't do is go horizontal a la a craig nettles or b robby...
now unlike cabrera, trout has the extraordinary ability to do the horizontal thing, i.e. make the "spectacular" play, and those kind of plays resonate; they make the hilite shows, they stay with us, the OF leaping over the wall to pull back the HR ball, and they leave the impression the guy who makes them is far superior with the glove...
what im saying is that cabrera making the 'routine' play, over the course of 162 games, is on balance just as important...and don't forget he made the move for the team, and he played a very dependable 3rd base...
trout making the spectacular play look "routine" no doubt leaves a more lasting mark, but IMO doesn't lessen the notion that cabrera made an unselfish and all-around team contribution more than worthy of an MVP
RANGE FACTOR
It is calculated by dividing putouts and assists by the number of innings or games played at a given defense position. The statistic is premised on the notion that the total number of outs in which a player participates is more relevant in evaluating that player's defensive play than the percentage of cleanly handled chances as calculated by the conventional statistic fielding percentage.
Miguel Cabrera was 5th amongst all 3rd basemen with a RF of
2.50
RANGE FACTOR
It is calculated by dividing putouts and assists by the number of innings or games played at a given defense position. The statistic is premised on the notion that the total number of outs in which a player participates is more relevant in evaluating that player's defensive play than the percentage of cleanly handled chances as calculated by the conventional statistic fielding percentage.
Miguel Cabrera was 5th amongst all 3rd basemen with a RF of
2.50
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.