Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 6  Next >

OT: Trout vs. Miggy

Avatar

Posted: 10/1/2012 3:29 PM

OT: Trout vs. Miggy 


Raw hitting stats:

T: .321 BA, .395 OBP, .557 SLG, 30 HR, 80 RBI, 127 R, 48 SB
M: .325 BA, .390 OBP, .601 SLG, 43 HR, 136 RBI, 108 R, 4 SB


Pretty similar hitters, Miggy slugs a bit more. Trout has a huge speed advantage, which shows up in his SB totals. Trout plays CF well, the less said about Miggy's defense the better. Miggy has a pretty good shot at the triple crown.


Soooooooo, who ya got for MVP?

I say Trout should win, but Miggy will win.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/1/2012 3:57 PM

Re: OT: Trout vs. Miggy 



Ocramruf wrote: Raw hitting stats:

T: .321 BA, .395 OBP, .557 SLG, 30 HR, 80 RBI, 127 R, 48 SB
M: .325 BA, .390 OBP, .601 SLG, 43 HR, 136 RBI, 108 R, 4 SB


Pretty similar hitters, Miggy slugs a bit more. Trout has a huge speed advantage, which shows up in his SB totals. Trout plays CF well, the less said about Miggy's defense the better. Miggy has a pretty good shot at the triple crown.


Soooooooo, who ya got for MVP?

I say Trout should win, but Miggy will win.

I would probably vote for Trout as well, but yes Miggy will win the MVP. They won't take defense into consideration and while Trout is a +defender, Miggy is a liability defensively.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/1/2012 4:27 PM

Re: OT: Trout vs. Miggy 


i tend to think cabrera will win, but things are starting to change and we're seeing an influx of better stats influencing the voters.

my vote would be trout, with cabrera a distant second. heck, cabrera's season isn't even as good as his previous two, when he finished 2nd and 5th.

trout, on the other hand, may be the second coming of willie mays.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/1/2012 9:58 PM

Re: OT: Trout vs. Miggy 


To me it's real simple:

Trout's having the better year no question, but he's got 3 things working against him:

1. His team isn't likely to make the playoffs. I think if the Angels were to get in he would be a shoe in for the award.

2. He is a rookie.  While he's having arguably the best rookie year of any player in the history of the game, voters tend to lean towards veteran players.  Ichrio did win the MVP in his rookie year, but Seattle also won 116 games that year, so that was a big factor.

3. Miguel Cabrera being on a winning team and the high probability that he wins the Triple Crown being the first to do so in 45 years.

IMO the Tigers don't make the playoffs without Cabrera, but the Angels couldn't make the playoffs despite Trout's efforts.  No question in my mind at least that Cabrera is MVP.  While Trout's individual all-around numbers are probably better (although I don't know if a 10 HR and nearly 60 RBI deficit makes up for the speed and defensive advantage), he still couldn't get his team to the post-season.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/1/2012 10:02 PM

Re: OT: Trout vs. Miggy 


Stat wise I could understand voting for either, but looking at the name of the award I'd have to give it to Cabrera. It's called the most valuable player, not the best player, and Cabrera has meant more to the Tigers. Over the last four months when Detroit was in a playoff struggle, Cabrera posted an OPS over 1000 every month. Trout posted an OPS around 850 over the past two months as the Angels fought unsuccessfully to catch the A's and/or Rangers. Trout had an awesome July but did not have another month with an OPS over 950. Trout probably was the better all around player, but without Miggy the Tigers would be a .500 team. The Angels without Trout still have a loaded lineup.  Since it is an MVP award, it should go to Cabrera.

Last edited 10/1/2012 10:42 PM by dms1964

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/1/2012 10:49 PM

Re: OT: Trout vs. Miggy 


If I had a vote, it would go for Cabrera.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/1/2012 10:59 PM

RE: OT: Trout vs. Miggy 


Just one nugget of thought regarding MVP: The typical misconception about the award is that, by nature, it goes to the player Most Valuable Player to His Team. But it's not MVPHT. It's MVP- aka most valuable player in the league, simply a more eloquent way of saying best player.

That said, I say defense is overrated. Miggy for me.

Last edited 10/1/2012 10:59 PM by mooseahoy

Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/1/2012 11:13 PM

Re: OT: Trout vs. Miggy 


I think Miggy wins basically because he's been a stud for awhile and because Trout is a rookie.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/1/2012 11:20 PM

RE: OT: Trout vs. Miggy 



mooseahoy wrote: Just one nugget of thought regarding MVP: The typical misconception about the award is that, by nature, it goes to the player Most Valuable Player to His Team. But it's not MVPHT. It's MVP- aka most valuable player in the league, simply a more eloquent way of saying best player.


Just the opposite the award is intended to go to the MVP in each league to his team but often goes to the "best player."

BBWAA voters make the award.  The ballot that goes out to them says:

Dear Voter:

There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:

1.  Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.

2.  Number of games played.

3.  General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.

4.  Former winners are eligible.

5.  Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from 1 to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot. Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration.

Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, including pitchers and designated hitters.

Link


I hate this software

Last edited 10/1/2012 11:53 PM by JenniferMarie

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/2/2012 6:46 AM

RE: OT: Trout vs. Miggy 


I never understand the weird semantic games some people play with 'Valuable.' And I don't direct that specifically to anyone here, but to the baseball community writ large. Hell in 2003 Jayson Stark insisted Shannon Stewart was a top tier MVP candidate based on some tortured definition.

It's Trout, and anyone who says otherwise needs to explain how little defense and baserunning mean.

Cabrera's the better hitter, but Trout' close enough that his vast superiority defensively clearly gives him the edge.

The reason Cabrera will win is simple: We've come full circle, and hilariously anyone who says that baserunning and defense matter is labelled a sabermetrician and dismissed. Remember when it was the opposite?

On a related note, I wish the Indians had anyone who was as good at either defense or baserunning as Trout is at both.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/2/2012 7:23 AM

RE: OT: Trout vs. Miggy 



GopherIndianHybrid wrote: I never understand the weird semantic games some people play with 'Valuable.' And I don't direct that specifically to anyone here, but to the baseball community writ large. Hell in 2003 Jayson Stark insisted Shannon Stewart was a top tier MVP candidate based on some tortured definition.
Finding the best player can usually be done without much work and can always be done without the help of writers.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/2/2012 8:58 AM

RE: OT: Trout vs. Miggy 


I love the argument that Cabrera should win the MVP because his team made the playoffs when the Angels have a better record while playing in one if the best divisions in baseball.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/2/2012 10:07 AM

RE: OT: Trout vs. Miggy 



GopherIndianHybrid wrote: I never understand the weird semantic games some people play with 'Valuable.' And I don't direct that specifically to anyone here, but to the baseball community writ large. Hell in 2003 Jayson Stark insisted Shannon Stewart was a top tier MVP candidate based on some tortured definition.

It's Trout, and anyone who says otherwise needs to explain how little defense and baserunning mean.

Cabrera's the better hitter, but Trout' close enough that his vast superiority defensively clearly gives him the edge.

The reason Cabrera will win is simple: We've come full circle, and hilariously anyone who says that baserunning and defense matter is labelled a sabermetrician and dismissed. Remember when it was the opposite?

On a related note, I wish the Indians had anyone who was as good at either defense or baserunning as Trout is at both.
Not to pick on you specifically, really but doesn't your post exemplify the semantic problem?  You've equated the most valuable play in the AL to his team by which of the two is the better hitter and the superior fielder/base runner, weighting these two categories and concluding Trout deserves to win.  In other words, you have treated best overall player in the AL to be the most valuable to his team.


The implication of your post is that the best overall player in the AL by definition is the MVP of his team but is this necessarily true if value is equated with number of team wins a player is responsible for using a metric such as win shares?  Can't a lesser player than Trout and Cabrera have a higher win share?

And seldom does anyone ever mention that in determining the MVP "general character, disposition, loyalty and effort is to be considered."  Indeed, just the opposite is true.  Whenever these characteristics are mentioned it is someone asserting that a player didn't win because the writers wrongfully took character into consideration.  For example, how often have you heard the claim that Albert Belle never winning an MVP is a travesty because writers wouldn't vote for him because of his bad character.?  

The semantics problem you complain of is, as the BBWAA itself acknowledges there is "no clear-cut" definition of what constitutes a "most valuable player."  The elusiveness allows one person to use "best" to mean "most valuable" while a second might mean the degree a player contributes to his team win record and a third something else.

Finally, you assert that Jayson Stark reasoning for considering Stewart was "tortured."  Here is what he actually said:

Shannon Stewart? The Twins went from 7½ games out of first to a playoff team after he arrived in July. But no MVP has ever changed teams in midseason.

Link

Giving you the benefit of misremembering what Stark said it is understandable that your differing definitions of "most valuable" results from how strongly you disagreed with Stark.

While Stark included in his list nine players Steward finished 4th in the balloting.

Link


Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/2/2012 12:52 PM

RE: OT: Trout vs. Miggy 



JenniferMarie wrote:
GopherIndianHybrid wrote: I never understand the weird semantic games some people play with 'Valuable.' And I don't direct that specifically to anyone here, but to the baseball community writ large. Hell in 2003 Jayson Stark insisted Shannon Stewart was a top tier MVP candidate based on some tortured definition.

It's Trout, and anyone who says otherwise needs to explain how little defense and baserunning mean.

Cabrera's the better hitter, but Trout' close enough that his vast superiority defensively clearly gives him the edge.

The reason Cabrera will win is simple: We've come full circle, and hilariously anyone who says that baserunning and defense matter is labelled a sabermetrician and dismissed. Remember when it was the opposite?

On a related note, I wish the Indians had anyone who was as good at either defense or baserunning as Trout is at both.
Not to pick on you specifically, really but doesn't your post exemplify the semantic problem?  You've equated the most valuable play in the AL to his team by which of the two is the better hitter and the superior fielder/base runner, weighting these two categories and concluding Trout deserves to win.  In other words, you have treated best overall player in the AL to be the most valuable to his team.

There's no difference. 

Are you arguing either Cabrera or Trout has superpowers and can affect the proceedings on the field when they're not at all involved? Doubtful. Are either unbelievable motivators who single handedly drive better performance? No one's said that. No one's even tried to make these arguments, because they'd be self-evidently ridiculous. Instead they have to be implied as if the mere possibility of these things happening means they definitely did happen. Unfortunately, Doctor Who logic is decidedly not part of MVP voting. 

Moreover, the Tigers got rid of a superior defensive 3b because Cabrera refused to DH, even thought that would be better for the team. Even if you want to argue that Inge was terrible, surely Delmon Young at DH wasn't ideal either.

But more to the point, we can measure that impact with positional adjustments. So just do that! There's no bonus points for someone playing a position they used to play. Brantley moved back to CF once Gardy went down. Should he get MVP consideration for his sacrifice? That seems ridiculous, right? And it is! 

The problem when you try to use expansive definitions of valuable is that it spins off into complete subjectivity where 30 voters measure 30 things and it becomes completely meaningless who actually wins. Measuring impact on the field is the only way "valuable" means anything. 

I mean hell, why not just give the award to whoever gives the most money to charity while ignoring performance? Or just give the award in place of the Nobel Peace Prize! Surely the value of Aung San Suu Kyi to humanity is more than her complete worthlessness as a baseball player, right?

THAT SAID: my measurements could be wrong, of course! That's entirely possible! And it's what is actually more fun to argue, instead of absurd statements like Shannon Stewart deserves the MVP because of NEVER MIND THAT'S WHY.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/2/2012 12:52 PM

RE: OT: Trout vs. Miggy 



Lando12 wrote:
GopherIndianHybrid wrote: I never understand the weird semantic games some people play with 'Valuable.' And I don't direct that specifically to anyone here, but to the baseball community writ large. Hell in 2003 Jayson Stark insisted Shannon Stewart was a top tier MVP candidate based on some tortured definition.
Finding the best player can usually be done without much work and can always be done without the help of writers.
Writers vote for the best story. I've said it a thousand times. That's kind of their job.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/2/2012 1:25 PM

RE: OT: Trout vs. Miggy 



GopherIndianHybrid wrote: 

It's Trout, and anyone who says otherwise needs to explain how little defense and baserunning mean.


Leaving the Trout/Miggy debate for a moment, I still believe that the burden of proof lies with those asserting defense is valuable.

Clearly it has value, but I'm not sure that we're at the point where we can definitively speak to the severity of the value, let alone how it is assigned to a particular player.


Full disclosure: I believe Trout should win, because their offensive stats are so close that I'm comfortable saying that the value of the steals and the defense outweighs the extra SLG. That being said, I don't think the difference is 4 WAR (B-REF's number) If we really believe that 4 WAR number, it implies that a team could build a really, really good ball club out of all-glove no-hit players. (This doesn't pass the sniff test for me)
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/2/2012 1:34 PM

RE: OT: Trout vs. Miggy 


Good point. Allow me to rephrase?

Both sides need to clarify to the best of their ability the value of defense. Ignoring it is wholly unacceptable.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/2/2012 2:04 PM

RE: OT: Trout vs. Miggy 



GopherIndianHybrid wrote: Good point. Allow me to rephrase?

Both sides need to clarify to the best of their ability the value of defense. Ignoring it is wholly unacceptable.
Fully agree.

My largely useless opinion is that defense was undervalued for so long that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/2/2012 2:19 PM

RE: OT: Trout vs. Miggy 


That's probably true, but I think in this specific case defense is undervalued - largely because of the OMG TRIPLE CROWN effect.
Reply | Quote
  • JimBeau
  • Member
  • 65 posts this site

Posted: 10/2/2012 2:44 PM

Re: OT: Trout vs. Miggy 


The offensive stats are close.  Edge to Cabrera for power (small to moderate).  Edge to Trout for speed (moderate to large).  YMMV.

Not much dispute on defense.  Regardless of the methodology employed, Trout is significantly better at a tougher, more valuable position.  Edge to Trout.  YMMV, but I see it as pretty significant; a run saved is just as valuable as a run scored.

Playing time.  Edge to Cabrera (large). 

Value to team:  Again, YMMV, but for me, edge to Trout.  Trout has made the largest contribution to the Angels winning ballgames throughout the season.  Even with Pujols and Weaver, etc., Trout has had a bigger impact on them winning more games (as best we can measure it); and they won more games then Detroit (Divisional structure is arbitrary).  While Cabrera has been a huge contibutor for the Tigers, I think Verlander has been even more valuable to them in terms of their success in winning games.  So, I don't think that Cabrera is even the MVP of his team.

I think Trout should win.  But I figure that Triple Crown is now rare than 30-30, so my guess is that Cabrera will win.
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 6  Next >