I debated between a few titles for this article. Before we really get into the guts of this debate I’d like to list a few of them off for you.
- Why Mike Trout Is the MVP and If You Believe Otherwise You Need To Get Back Into Your Time Machine and Return to the 1890’s.
- Why Mike Trout Is the MVP and If You Believe Otherwise You’re Probably a Tigers Fan.
- Why Mike Trout Is the MVP and If You Believe Otherwise You’re Probably a Member of the Baseball Writers Association of America.
- Mike Trout. MVP. Cabrera. Not.
- Triple Crown? More Like TRIPLE CLOWN.
I would like to immediately apologize for all of those titles and I hope that we can remain friends. If you’re one of my ones of readers you probably know that this is my first full article. “Congratulations! You’re so impressive”, is what I am assuming you just said out loud to yourself. “Thank you!”, is what I just said out loud to myself. I know you can’t hear it, but just trust that I said it and think of it whenever you congratulate me later. Anyway, let’s get to the meat of this debate.
Now, in order for one to hand out an award one must first define what the award signifies. So what does “Most Valuable Player” really mean? Does it mean the player with the most talent, greatest impact on the success of his team, or the player with the most liquid assets? I’m going to argue that the award should be given to the player with the greatest impact on the success of his team which I believe is the most widely accepted definition for the award. We definitely don’t want to give the award away based on criteria #3 lest we give a certain not-so-magic third baseman for the Yankees another trophy.
As you may have heard from my good friends at Fox during this world series MIGUEL CABRERA WON THE TRIPLE CROWN THIS SEASON. Truly an amazing feat, no? He finished the 2012 regular with a .330/.393/.606 triple slash line to go along with 44 HRs and 139 RBIs. I am not going to be the writer to tell you that Miguel Cabrera did not have an amazing season. By any measure, traditional or new age, he was one of the best players in baseball and has been since he became a full time player in 2004. However, I AM going to be one of the many writers to tell you that Mike Trout was the better player in 2012 and was more valuable to his team. I’m first going to tackle this argument from a traditional perspective as to not seem saber-biased, but I will completely obliterate any non-Trout argument once I get to advanced statistics which is an article for another day. Below is a table containing some of the most cited traditional statistics.
| Mike Trout | Miguel Cabrera | |
| Batting Average | .326 | .330 |
| On-Base Percentage | .399 | .393 |
| Slugging Percentage | .564 | .606 |
| Home Runs | 30 | 44 |
| RBIs | 83 | 139 |
| Stolen Bases | 49 | 4 |
| Plate Appearances | 639 | 697 |
The most common argument for Trout of Cabrera has been that Trout is a better defender and baserunner. While this is true I will argue that he has also been at least Cabrera’s equal with the bat as well. As you can see the batting average and on base percentage categories are essentially a wash. If Trout had been able to collect three more hits over his 559 at bats this season we would not even be talking about Cabrera as the triple crown winner. The home run totals here look like the death blow for the, “Mike Trout is as good offensively as Miguel Cabrera” argument. However, one has to keep in mind the home runs are not the only stat that is an indication of power. Trout had eight triples compared to Cabrera’s ZERO. That’s an infinite percentage higher! Cabrera did have 40 doubles compared to Trout’s 27, but we have to keep in mind that Cabrera had 58 more plate appearances than Trout when comparing counting stats. When adjusting plate appearances to Cabrera’s 697 we would expect Trout to end up with around 30 doubles, 9 triples, and 33 home runs. Not to mention this would make Trout only the third (Barry Bonds, Eric Davis) player EVER with over 30 HRs and 50 steals. There have been 17 triple crown winners, so if you’re into counting meaningless numbers (which since you’ve read this far you clearly are) Trout clearly comes out ahead here.
So, from a traditional perspective it looks like Cabrera and Trout managed to get on base and hit for average at roughly an identical clip. Cabrera clearly has a bit of a power advantage, but not nearly as large of an advantage as one would think judging by just HR numbers. Trout has a HUMONGOUS SB advantage by any measure. So what about defense? There are not many traditional statistics that accurately quantify the value of defense, but I’ll do my best to compare the two. First off, Fangraphs.com has Cabrera listed at 6’4” 240 lbs and Trout listed at 6’1” 210 lbs. Well, just from those numbers I know which guys I’d trust to catch a baby dropped from a blimp onto the outfield grass. I don’t want to just stop there though. Trout committed only four errors in 1225.2 innings of work in the outfield, most of which was spent in center field. He also had 3 outfield assists. Trout definitely is known more for his range than his arm, but that’s still in stark contrast to Cabrera who is most likely a better drinker than third baseman. Cabrera ended the season with 13 errors which third worst among qualified AL third baseman. However, I believe that statistic is a little bit misleading. Cabrera has almost no range and poor reaction time for a third baseman. One surely can’t make an error on a ball that they don’t even get to can they? There are many other advanced statistics that I would like to cite for a Trout over Cabrera win in the defense category, but those will be saved for another day. Suffice it to say that Trout blows Cabrera out of the water at a more important defensive position.
Additional proof!
What have we learned today? Well, I believe I have proved with traditional statistics that Trout is at least the offensive equal to Cabrera and by far the better defender. He led his team to more wins in a tougher division and did so in his age 20 season. I know it’s easy to get wrapped up in things like the triple crown, but we have to put things in perspective. If Josh Hamilton had played in a few more games or Trout had had a few lucky hits fall in there would not even be an argument for Cabrera for MVP. Trout is the better player. Period. His team won more games. Period. He should be the MVP, but I don’t think he will be. Unfortunately, there are still a few too many old people in this world.
I still love you grandma!
-Chris Rice
You overlooked the effect of strikeouts and walks. A strikeout is a wasted at bat, and Mike Trout averaged one per game. He had more than twice as many strikeouts as walks, and even though Cabrera had more strikeouts than walks also, it wasn’t as drastic as Trout. The stolen base factor counts for something, but is quickly forgotten when you take a look at how much better Cabrera’s power and run production numbers were.
Thanks for the comment, Cole. Strikeouts are actually only marginally more damaging than any other out. The difference between a ground out, flyout, line out, and strikeout is highly dependent on base/out state. Trout did have a very high strikeout rate this season. However, his walk rate was actually higher than Cabrera’s. I might concede that Cabrera has been a little bit better than Trout this season offensively. Regardless, Trout’s vastly superior defense and baserunning more than makes up for Cabrera’s superior offensive season. I’d still go with Trout for MVP.
Run production numbers are pretty meaningless in comparing these two players since Trout batted leadoff and Cabrera batted third. Also another huge advantage for Trout: grounding into double plays. Trout: 7, Cabrera 28. Cabrera was the league leader in this stat. Since GIDP is the worst thing you can do offensively, this has to count against Cabrera’s case for MVP. Cole calls a strikeout a “wasted out” but a GIDP is far more damaging.
Agreed, Joe. According to The Book by Tom Tango the preferred out for a number two hitter is actually a strikeout! This is due to the high probability that a number two hitter will be batting with a man on first. This is obviously not always the case which is why base/out states are so important when determining what type of out is most damaging. One would obviously prefer a strikeout with a man on first rather than a ground ball to the shortstop. In any case, the GIDP number being in Trouts favor reaffirms the value of his baserunning and further solidifies his MVP case.
However, Joe, GIDP can also constitute a product of where a hitter bats in a lineup and how many potential GIDP situations he finds himself in. Indeed, what stands to reason is that Cabrera, by batting third behind a leadoff man (Austin Jackson) who posted a .377 on-base percentage yet only stole 12 bases, found himself in far more potential GIDP situations than Trout, who hit leadoff.
Now, the discrepancy in GIDP also stems from the enormous difference in speed between the two players, but GIDP and speed are less important when one player (Cabrera) possesses a major advantage in home runs and can trot around the bases in situations where he has given his team at least one guaranteed run.
The thing about the Triple Crown, though, is that anyone who improbably leads the league in both batting average and home runs clearly constitutes the best hitter in the league. The popular reaction among some people is to suggest that the Triple Crown sort of represents a superficial, simplistically “old school” achievement, but any Triple Crown winner is in some ways better than the BA/HRs/RBIs statistical trio would suggest. Indeed, let’s examine the last five Triple Crown winners before Miguel Cabrera. When Carl Yastrzemski won the Triple Crown in 1967, he also led the major leagues in on-base percentage (.418), slugging average (.622), OPS (1.040), OPS+ (193), and total bases (360), not to mention leading the American League in runs scored (112) and hits (189). And when Frank Robinson won the Triple Crown in 1966, he also led the AL in OBP (.410) and led the majors in SLG (.637), OPS (1.047), OPS+ (198), total bases (367), and runs scored (122). When Mickey Mantle won the Triple Crown a decade earlier in 1956, he also led the majors in SLG (.705), OPS (1.169), OPS+ (210), total bases (376), and runs scored (132). When Ted Williams won the Triple Crown in 1947, he also led the majors in OBP (.499), OPS (1.133), OPS+ (205), and walks (162), while also leading the AL in SLG (.634), total bases (335) and runs scored (125). When Williams won his first Triple Crown in 1942, he also led the majors in OBP (.499), SLG (.648), OPS (1.147), OPS+ (216), total bases (338), walks (145), and runs scored (141). Cabrera did not prove as dominant as those Triple Crown predecessors, but he also led the American League in SLG (.606, 29 points higher than the runner-up), he led the majors in OPS (.999) and total bases (377, more than any of the aforementioned Triple Crown winners), and he finished fourth in the AL in OBP (.393), second in runs scored (109), second in hits (205), and seventh in doubles (40). The point, then, is that one could argue that the Triple Crown’s greatest utility comes as a source of insight into a broader array of hitting excellence, hence challenging the notion that the Triple Crown’s value is superficial. For one basically cannot win a Triple Crown without being the best hitter in one’s league, hands down.
Of course, being the best hitter in one’s league is not necessarily the same as being the best player, hence the MVP debate with Mike Trout. Cabrera clearly constituted the best hitter in the American League due to his superior power compared to Trout (by the way, while triples create a great chance of scoring, their value still lags quite a ways behind that of home runs because homers guarantee runs). But Trout’s overwhelmingly superior base running and base stealing narrows the offensive gap between the two players and his far higher defensive value would thus seem to render him the MVP. But there’s one caveat that proves consequential in my estimation and that is the fact that Trout only played in 139 games, compared to 161 for Cabrera. To be sure, Trout cannot be blamed for spending the season’s initial month in the minors, but the fact that Cabrera started 99.4 percent of his team’s games (all except one) arguably vaults him over the top, especially when one considers that he maintained elite efficiency despite that overwhelming volume. Often, the cost of playing virtually every game is that a player wears down during the stretch run and his performance falters. For instance, one of the complaints about Cal Ripken’s consecutive game streak was that it may have worn him down, causing him to lose offensive efficiency (although in those days, no one used that term). Although Ripken received two MVP Awards, he also batted .264 or lower six times in a seven-season stretch from 1987-1993 (during which he was residing in a prime age range of twenty-six to thirty-three). Over the course of his career, Ripken’s lowest monthly batting average, on-base percentage, and slugging average all came in September, while his second-lowest monthly OBP and SLG came in August. Although he certainly refused to buy into the theory, there is thus empirical evidence suggesting that Ripken’s “iron man” status negatively affected his offensive efficiency late in seasons. Yet even though Miguel Cabrera played in (and started) 161 games this year, he thrived down the stretch, recording his highest monthly totals for home runs (11), RBIs (30), and runs scored (23) in September. In fact, in Cabrera’s final 47 games, from August 12 through the end of the regular season, he hit .351 with a .415 OBP, a .678 SLG, 15 home runs, and 43 RBIs. Far from wearing down over his 161 games played, Cabrera’s efficiency became heightened and he led the American League in both batting average and slugging average. So to play in 161 games and prove the most efficient hitter in the league, compared to Trout playing in 139 games, represents enough of a difference to barely give my theoretical MVP vote to Cabrera. I possess no problem with anyone selecting Trout and indeed, combining offensive and defensive measures, Trout probably constituted the American League’s most efficient player. But in sports, the ultimate goal is to combine efficiency with volume and by playing in over 160 games, whereas Trout played in under 140, Cabrera arguably realized that goal better than anyone in his league.
This article is incredible. Cabrera moved to third base to allow Prince Fielder come to Detroit, won the Triple Crown, Tigers classified to the playoff and people say that is not the AL MVP. Trout had an amazing season, but that argument that the team started to win because of him, for me it is false; Angels started to win because Pujols went out of the slump.
The other arguments about “If Hamliton had played more games” and “If Trout had had three more hits” are ridiculous, Cabrera won because he was the best and because he was healthy to help his team the whole campaign. What about this, If Mariano Rivera had strike out Luis Gonzalez in 2001 WS, the Yankees had won that WS, if Bill Buckner had made that play in 1986 WS, Red Sox had won that WS!
If Trout is really the best player in baseball, he will have other chances, because this MVP is for Cabrera
I see where you’re coming from Juan, but just because Trout has been more valuable to his team this season doesn’t mean the Cabrera’s contributions somehow become invalid. Cabrera moved to 3B and proceeded to put up the worst defensive performance for a qualified starter at the position. This really shouldn’t be a close race. Trout was MUCH better at a more important defensive position on a team that won more games in a more difficult division. If the Tigers had played in the AL West they most likely would not have even made the playoffs. Still, I recognize that Cabrera had a fantastic offensive season. Unfortunately, Trout had an offensive season to nearly equal it and then wiped the floor with Miggy in both baserunning and defense. Those parts of the game DO matter.
If Cabrera really is the best player in baseball he will also have other chances to win the MVP. However, Trout was the better player this season and deserves to win.
I do really appreciate your comment! Thanks for reading even though you disagree.
Pingback: Five Totally Sane Reasons Why Mike Trout Should Be AL MVP | Baseball Ruminations