I think this award deserves it's own thread.

The most hotly debated and interesting race ever.   We also have a tremendous split among tradtonalists vs the sabemetric group.

A Triple Crown winner vs one of the highest WAR figures ever.


I think Cabrera wins.

I think I would vote for Trout.

What do you guys think?

It would be fitting to end up in a tie like in '79 (Stargell and Keith). They both are incredibly deserving.

My vote would go to Trout by a slim margin. He was almost as good with the bat and much, much better on defense and on the base paths.

Any other year and Trout wins in a landslide.  He'd get my vote, but ultimately I think Miggy wins.

oct271986 wrote:


I think Cabrera wins.

I think I would vote for Trout.

MLB Network has a roundtable discussing the topic right now with Brian Kenny, Verducci, Billy Ripken, Harold Reynolds, Bowa and Rosenthal from FOX.

It is comical how out of touch Harold Reynolds is.

I think Miggy has been the best offensive player in the league for the past 3 years.

If Trout would have played a full year than I think it would have made the voting more debatable but not playing all year, and winning the triple crown I think you have to give it to miggy. 

Trout is a unique talent, I have never seen anything like him, ever.  His swing is so short and quick, there are no holes and he has pop.  He is Mickey Mantle, all he needs is an arm.

If you give Trout another 20 games last year, I think he wins hands down w/ the increased stats, traditional and WAR when you take all aspects into account.

Miggy is definitely the Hank Aaron guy, but Trout's just a better all round player. which is what the award is for.

This is one of those things where I don't there should be a question as to who should win. When a guy does something as special as the triple crown and helps lead his team to the playoffs to boot. That is all she wrote in my book. What is so awesome about Trout though is he is not lacking for any confidence, he flat out said he should win. I think he talks almost as much as Ryan Thompson did. But he backs it all up. I still think however Bryce Harper will have the better career.

Trout should win in my view....but i'd bet good money Miggy wins

funny thing is i like trout much more than harper after seeing them both in the bigs.  Harper has a big swing, I feel he has weaknesses to be exploited at the plate, while Trout has none.  Trout wasn't supposed to be a slugger, but he is going to hit 30 Hrs every year w/ a very quick short stroke while doing everything else minus having a canon for an arm

There are flaws in using WAR (or similar sabre stats) as a key MVP metric.

#1  Defensive metrics are still very flawed statistics as best evidenced by fairly wide fluctuations from year to year with a given player that are not supported by the "eye ball" test.   Defensive impact on MVP should remain a qualitative adjustment until such time as reliable defensive stats are available.

#2  Stats like WAR may be a wonderful predictive tool to help calibrate an appropriate contractual worth of a player compared to other alternatives.   However, the MVP should heavily weight what actually happened and not would "might of" happened in a parallel universe.  "Luck" wins ball games and helps propel teams to championships.  "Luck" matters.  We can debate what role "luck" plays into stats like RBI's.   However, driving in runs is very important.   When you happen to get your extra-base hits is also very important, regardless of how much actual control you might think that a player has over these outcomes.   A bases loaded double by your cleanup hitter is much more important than a 2 out, no one on base double by your #7 hitter.  WAR doesn't really think so and perhaps there is some merit in that perspective as a compartive, predicitive tool.   However, it is clear that in terms of the ACTUAL game, the clean up hitter's 3 RBI double was much more valuble in actually contributing to the actual win as opposed to the other double and this is underweighted in WAR for purposes of ascribing value to an actual game that has been played.

#3  Some of the WAR-like stats make adjustments for ball parks.  Again, this is perfectly appropriate for comparitive forecasting of free agents, trades, etc.   However, if a team plays in a band box it is very valuable to that team if one of its key players happens to have a swing that produces a lot of "cheap" home runs that fuel a lot of "cheap" wins, whilst a team that plays in a cavern may have a player that hits more balls harder and farther but that fall into OF-er's gloves.   The guy who actually hit the home runs was "more valuable" to his team, although he may not be a better player.

KABOOOOM wrote: There are flaws in using WAR (or similar sabre stats) as a key MVP metric.

#1  Defensive metrics are still very flawed statistics as best evidenced by fairly wide fluctuations from year to year with a given player that are not supported by the "eye ball" test.   Defensive impact on MVP should remain a qualitative adjustment until such time as reliable defensive stats are available.

#2  Stats like WAR may be a wonderful predictive tool to help calibrate an appropriate contractual worth of a player compared to other alternatives.   However, the MVP should heavily weight what actually happened and not would "might of" happened in a parallel universe.  "Luck" wins ball games and helps propel teams to championships.  "Luck" matters.  We can debate what role "luck" plays into stats like RBI's.   However, driving in runs is very important.   When you happen to get your extra-base hits is also very important, regardless of how much actual control you might think that a player has over these outcomes.   A bases loaded double by your cleanup hitter is much more important than a 2 out, no one on base double by your #7 hitter.  WAR doesn't really think so and perhaps there is some merit in that perspective as a compartive, predicitive tool.   However, it is clear that in terms of the ACTUAL game, the clean up hitter's 3 RBI double was much more valuble in actually contributing to the actual win as opposed to the other double and this is underweighted in WAR for purposes of ascribing value to an actual game that has been played.

#3  Some of the WAR-like stats make adjustments for ball parks.  Again, this is perfectly appropriate for comparitive forecasting of free agents, trades, etc.   However, if a team plays in a band box it is very valuable to that team if one of its key players happens to have a swing that produces a lot of "cheap" home runs that fuel a lot of "cheap" wins, whilst a team that plays in a cavern may have a player that hits more balls harder and farther but that fall into OF-er's gloves.   The guy who actually hit the home runs was "more valuable" to his team, although he may not be a better player.

Great post.  Wish you would post more often.

DocK16 wrote: Any other year and Trout wins in a landslide.  He'd get my vote, but ultimately I think Miggy wins.

This is where I'm at.  I expect Cabrera to win.

+1...I like WAR, but that argument against it is better than 99% of the drivel you'd get from the media.

this is laughable to me, honestly. Cabrera had the most HR, most RBI and highest average in the AL. All better than Trout. I don't care about a margin - Cabrera was better. Trout had a better OBP, Cabrera better OPS. 49 stolen bases is impressive, but it isn't legendary. There is about guy every year that steals that many.

i also may not understand the wins above replacement. What is replacement? an average MLB player? Does that take into consideration that Trout plays CF and perhaps the average CF is not as good as the average 3B? So maybe Cabrera is great, but compared to an average 3B there isn't as much separation?

This kind of sounds like the old AROD or Ripken argument at SS. They were offensive beasts for that position that made them so much more valuable than an average SS. What are the WARs of 1B in the MLB? Or DH? You would think that at 1B, DH or 3B, the difference between an elite player and an average player would not be as great as in another position.

I don't have much of a problem with Miggy winning it, but I would have a problem with voters who select him over Trout simply because he won the triple crown. For example, I bet there are a couple of voters who might have selected Trout if a couple of groundballs Miggy hit in May found gloves instead of grass and he hit 325 instead of 330.

IMO pick Miggy if you believe he was the most valuable player...don't pick him as a reward for achieving a feat that, while impressive, is also arbitrary.

plus, what does the position have to do with offense? we should have a statistic that figures out how valuable the player is vs other players in the field then another that measures against others in their batting position. how much better of a leadoff hitter was trout than other leadoff hitters? how much better of a #3 hitter was cabrera than other #3 hitters (or was he cleanup?)

Nate Silver is not only smart but writes really well too.... he chimes in on this debate here.  You can guess which side he takes.

"What is replacement? An average MLB player?"
A replacement level LFer is the typical LFer a team has in the minor league system. An average player will be worth about 2 wins above a replacement level player per 150 games.

"Does that take into consideration that Trout plays CF and perhaps the average CF is not as good as the average 3B?"
Yes. Positional adjustments.

"So maybe Cabrera is great, but compared to an average 3B there isn't as much separation?"
Yes. FWIW Cabrera's 7.1 WAR is MVP level -- he just happened to have his MVP level season when another guy put up a historic level season.