Why does it have to be solved? The debates are good.

Besides, if there were a statistical standard for one award and MVP was explicitly not to be tied into it - there would be encouragement for voters to have their own meaningless standards "this player wore the nattiest ties to the ball park - I think fashion is important - therefore he is MVP."

Not there aren't already meaningless standards used by some voters - but they shouldn't be encouraged.

Setting aside the embarrassingly juvenile quality of the writing, the essay is littered with one nonsensical comment after another. Just a few:

Sabermetrics should have never been a movement. It became one because the leaders of what I would call the “club” were angling for jobs in the game.

Yeah. That was the end game all along.

The problem is sabermetrics isn’t infallible, although those that subscribe to it would like you to think it is.

Hello strawman.

After all, we are human beings and, by definition, aren’t perfect. If you find a perfect person, let me know. But if you do, I doubt it’s someone who describes themselves as a sabermetrician or member of the BBWAA.

WTF?

Instead of being a tool, they want to be a cult.

Yep, nailed that one. They want to be a cult. Because every true cult self-identifies as such.

If only someone had come up with an award for the best overall player in the league. <Cough>

Both sides have great points, but are too caught up in being important and right that they have lost perspective on what this is all about. In the end, I wonder if we are dealing with a bunch of frustrated wannabe White House Correspondents.

Is there anything about this statement that isn't true?

Is there anything about this statement that isn't true?

Well, the "Cabrera more valuable than Trout" side doesn't have any great points. Not that Ray should be encouraged but to make Cabrera more valuable than Trout you have to

a) ignore defense and baserunning
b) redefine team performance
c) ignore park effects
d) over-value RBI
e) over-value arbitrary leader categories
f) ignore Robinson Cano (and possibly Verlander)

If the Cabrera MVP voters had just said "the TC was considered the sine qua non of offensive achievement when I was a kid and I like feeling 12 again (see 1998)" or even "I am sick and tired of you obnoxious saber nerds" they'd have had a stronger case than the one they've tried to build.

If we are going to have two awards then let's keep "most valuable" and give it to Trout and add a "man that was really cool!" award and we can give that to Cabrera. The "man that was really cool!" award need not be awarded every year (since not every year features somebody doing something really cool) making it more special. Note this award solves some other MVP controversies like Ichiro-Giambi, Stargell-Hernandez, everybody-Dawson and whoever-Wills. It doesn't really get us around McGwire-Sosa though but maybe they could be joint winners of the cool award.

Just a few:

Did we not get even one tossed-off "stat zombie" comment?

Edit: damn that's not Silva is it, it's some other bloggy dude.

Well, the "Cabrera more valuable than Trout" side doesn't have any great points. Not that Ray should be encouraged but to make Cabrera more valuable than Trout you have to

a) ignore defense and baserunning
b) redefine team performance
c) ignore park effects
d) over-value RBI
e) over-value arbitrary leader categories
f) ignore Robinson Cano (and possibly Verlander)

You have a very defined definition of "valuable" that others may not share.

You have a very defined definition of "valuable" that others may not share.

I've yet to see a writer express any such alternative definition.

Are you or they suggesting that defense and baserunning have no value? Are you or they suggesting that an 88-win team out-performed an 89-win team? Are you or they suggesting that Robinson Cano does not exist? Are you or they suggesting that if another player had hit for a BA of 334 that Cabrera's season would be less valuable?

Are you or they suggesting that defense and baserunning have no value?

This is one thing I don't understand. I know they have awards specifically for excellence with the glove, but it's strange how little value these two areas seem to have in the eyes of a lot of baseball writers with regards to this MVP race. I kind of got into it with a normally rational person earlier today when he said that Cabrera shouldn't be penalized because he's bigger and not fast (i.e. Trout being an infinitely better baserunner and fielder than Cabrera).

And perhaps this is something new, but I've seen a lot of references to the fact that Cabrera only missed one game. Obviously you prefer your star players to be able to go every day and avoid injuries, but since when is that really such a supremely valuable asset? Juan Pierre never missed games, either.

And perhaps this is something new, but I've seen a lot of references to the fact that Cabrera only missed one game. Obviously you prefer your star players to be able to go every day and avoid injuries, but since when is that really such a supremely valuable asset? Juan Pierre never missed games, either.

It's not new. You can't have value if you don't play. That doesn't mean you have great value if you do play (like Juan Pierre). But Mike Trout for instance, did not play in 23 games. That means he did not contribute any value to the Angels for 23 games, 22 more than Cabrera. Obviously it's possible to provide enough value otherwise to outweigh that - but it IS an important point. And it's irrelevant for the MVP argument why games were missed.

The point being, that the reason that Cabrera's games are being mentioned, is that it is an advantage - and a significant one - to Trout.

I don't understand the weird idea that 'penalizing' a player is somehow harsh or mean or something. It's just numbers. Of course Cabrera should be penalized for his poor baserunning. And a writer refused to penalize Cabrera for playing in a weaker division. Maybe if a nicer word were used it would be okay.

I've yet to see a writer express any such alternative definition.

Since WWII, I'd venture that literally millions of words have been written by writers delineating how the MVP should be chosen, and what criteria should be used in the choosing.

Brian Kenny brought up a point I hadn't heard here. Former players always emphasize the importance of the little things - baserunning and fielding - when explaining why they know more than a guy in their mother's basement. But when it came to this vote, suddenly the little things Trout could do well didn't matter.

Former players always emphasize the importance of the little things - baserunning and fielding - when explaining why they know more than a guy in their mother's basement. But when it came to this vote, suddenly the little things Trout could do well didn't matter.

One quality players love and respect over most everything else is being a veteran. They will be biased in favor of the veteran.

The point being, that the reason that Cabrera's games are being mentioned, is that it is an advantage - and a significant one - to Trout

Exactly. WAR counts value provided on aggregate, not per game, so if Trout has more in less playing time, it means that he's a significantly better player, as well as just plain helping the Angels win more games absolutely (not just by percentage) in his 139 than Cabrera in his 161.

Obviously there's some theoretical limit to how much a player can contribute in limited playing time. If Mark Whiten hits four HR and drives in 12 runs in a game, that might in itself add more than one win to his WAR, even though you can't win more than one game per game. (I know RBI don't count toward WAR, I'm just making a stupid extreme point.) But on the scales we're talking about, I doubt that theoretical limit matters.

Are you or they suggesting that defense and baserunning have no value?

Nope, they're arguing that you and yours aren't particularly good at quantifying that value.

Are you or they suggesting that an 88-win team out-performed an 89-win team?

No, they are arguing that the entire point of the game is to get into the playoffs, and when you have two teams that are basically equal and one manages to accomplish the final goal, you value that achievement more than failing to do so.

Are you or they suggesting that Robinson Cano does not exist?

Not that I've seen, but this appears to be a red herring. Cano had a good season, but absolutely no one is arguing that the MVP should have gone to anyone other than either Cabrera or Trout.

Are you or they suggesting that if another player had hit for a BA of 334 that Cabrera's season would be less valuable?

The argument, summarized, would be: "Given the vaguely defined nature of defensive statistics; given that even the sabermetric community can't agree on the proper modeling of defensive value and WAR; and given that we have no track record of WAR as a statistical measure, much less as a final arbiter of something as nebulous as 'value', it's reasonable to reward Miguel Cabrera's historic achievement of winning the Triple Crown in a season his team made it to the World Series. While the statistical revolution continues apace and provides unique and valuable insight into the game of baseball, baseball is also a game of history and standards, and the Triple Crown is a historical marker of some significance."

it's reasonable to reward Miguel Cabrera's historic achievement of winning the Triple Crown in a season his team made it to the World Series

But not if the vote is taken right after the end of the season. :)

Cabrera was so awesome he caused the White Sox to fall apart and the Athletics to go on a tear.

But not if the vote is taken right after the end of the season. :)

True. It's almost as if they scheduled the vote later in the off-season to account for potential post-season events.

Cabrera was so awesome he caused the White Sox to fall apart and the Athletics to go on a tear.

This is the sort of counter-argument that gives stat-nerds a bad name.

Brian Kenny brought up a point I hadn't heard here. Former players always emphasize the importance of the little things - baserunning and fielding - when explaining why they know more than a guy in their mother's basement. But when it came to this vote, suddenly the little things Trout could do well didn't matter.

I heard him mention this last Thursday when he had Olbermann and someone else in the studio. The entire segment was interesting if for nothing else than Kenny's demeanor. He seemed so excited to be speaking with people who actually got and agreed with where his argument in the MVP debate was coming from. It was like he was enjoying the euphoria of fresh air after nearly drowning in the idiocy of Verducci, Harold Reynolds, and the like.

Did we not get even one tossed-off "stat zombie" comment?

Edit: damn that's not Silva is it, it's some other bloggy dude.

That's Paul Lebowitz, the Best Baseball Writer You've Never Heard Of (or remembered, as the case might be).

Since WWII, I'd venture that literally millions of words have been written by writers delineating how the MVP should be chosen, and what criteria should be used in the choosing.

Sure. And they mention things like:

hitting
baserunning
defense
team record
clutch performance
leadership

and when you look at those things, Trout easily outpaced Cabrera.

And of those millions of words, a writer will offer one argument one season in support of whoever he wants to vote for then another argument the following season that's counter to that.

The argument, summarized, would be: "Given the vaguely defined nature of defensive statistics; given that even the sabermetric community can't agree on the proper modeling of defensive value and WAR; and given that we have no track record of WAR as a statistical measure, much less as a final arbiter of something as nebulous as 'value', it's reasonable to reward Miguel Cabrera's historic achievement of winning the Triple Crown in a season his team made it to the World Series. While the statistical revolution continues apace and provides unique and valuable insight into the game of baseball, baseball is also a game of history and standards, and the Triple Crown is a historical marker of some significance."

And this is an idiotic argument. First, statistically, you are talking measurement error and the measurement error is not on an order of 4 wins. Secondly, regardless of how it's measured, you'd have to be a blind idiot to argue that Trout is not a superior defender and baserunner to Cabrera. And why should Cabrera's "historic achievement" be recognized when the TC has often not been recognized in the past and even McGwire's single-season HR record wasn't enough to get him recognized? And by resting his MVP on his "historic achievement" you are making the moronic argument that if another player had hit 334 then Cabrera's season is less valuable. Miguel Cabrera was as good or better last year yet finished 4th in MVP voting, including behind an excellent all-around season from a CF whose team "historically" collapsed to miss the playoffs.

PROVIDE A DEFINITION OF VALUE THAT SHOWS CABRERA TO BE MORE VALUABLE THAN TROUT. It's a pretty simple request. Don't take potshots at the obvious definition of value. Provide a definition of value and provide evidence that Cabrera was better than Trout. Then, for extra credit, take an historic look at how your definition of value operated.

It's not about WAR. It's about hitting and defense and baserunning. And heck, throw in team performance and performance down the stretch and whatever else you want. Mike Trout had a much more valuable season than Miguel Cabrera did. That some group of people have decided that the real purpose of an MVP vote and debate is to take some heroic stand against a statistical model doesn't make Cabrera more valuable.

and when you look at those things, Trout easily outpaced Cabrera.

I'd rank Cabrera over Trout in 4 of those 6 categories (changing "team record" to "won division or league" as is appropriate and as writers have historically done).

And of those millions of words, a writer will offer one argument one season in support of whoever he wants to vote for then another argument the following season that's counter to that.

And in one season, WAR will rank Ben Zobrist atop the charts and no one will suggest he should be MVP and the next WAR will rank Mike Trout number one and everyone will insist that he has to be MVP.

PROVIDE A DEFINITION OF VALUE THAT SHOWS CABRERA TO BE MORE VALUABLE THAN TROUT.

You just did, in your six factors (as appropriately modified). Those have typically been used to adjudge the Most Valuable Player award, and Cabrera stacks up very well in the composite of them.

#23 Because margin matters too. Your argument is on the nature that I've encountered before in picking Brooks Robinson over Mike Schmidt.

Schmidt was the better hitter, Robinson the better defender and we'll break the tie for Robinson because third base is a defense first position.

(After a method change) Zobrist happens to have a slightly higher WAR than a few players and statheads don't see him as being the MVP. That shows an understanding of the limits of the method.

And (whether arguing by WAR or by Walt's method or any sensible method) Trout comes out significantly ahead because he has a couple of large advantages that (to anybody who is willing to look at the matter objectively) make up for Cabrera's edge in other areas.

You don't need to conclude that Trout is a gold glove level fielder to come to this conclusion. The idea that he's fast and has good instincts is supported both by the statistical evidence and by anybody who watched him play.

Likewise the notion that Cabrera nearly battled third to a draw (against most people's expectations to be sure) is also supported by the statistical record and by the observation of anybody who watched him play.

To me the Miguel Cabrera MVP is the Al Pacino "Scent of a Woman" Oscar career type award. Trout, if he is this good, will win plenty of other MVP awards.

And why should Cabrera's "historic achievement" be recognized when the TC has often not been recognized in the past

Not that I think the TC should be an automatic MVP or anything, but the last 3 have won it. You have to go back 65 years to find one that didn't. Should current writers be bound to the habits of others from 65 years ago?

even McGwire's single-season HR record wasn't enough to get him recognized?

Again, not that this or any other achievement should ever be an automatic selection, but this is kindof an unfair example considering that he lost to another guy that also broke the HR record. When two players do it in the same year, one of them has to lose. They chose the wrong one, obviously, but it's not like they didn't give any special significance to breaking the record.

To me the Miguel Cabrera MVP is the Al Pacino "Scent of a Woman" Oscar career type award. Trout, if he is this good, will win plenty of other MVP awards

Excellent point. The voting shouldn't be like that, but sometimes it is, and it is (gulp) what it is.

Well, the "Cabrera more valuable than Trout" side doesn't have any great points. Not that Ray should be encouraged but to make Cabrera more valuable than Trout you have to

a) ignore defense and baserunning
b) redefine team performance
c) ignore park effects
d) over-value RBI
e) over-value arbitrary leader categories
f) ignore Robinson Cano (and possibly Verlander)

You don't really have to do this at all. All you have to do is:

a) use a multi-year park factor for the Angels this year.
b) regress Trout's defensive performance due to uncertainty
c) normalize Trout's PA's for the L/O advantage

That pretty much gets you there.

Trout can't possibly be this good every year. I would be shocked if he EVER has a season this good again. Because seasons this good are incredibly rare. They're really special, even for someone with Trout's talent.

Do we really want 'the new Willie Mays' to end up in the same boat as the real Willie Mays: continually denied MVP awards because he's so good that we just wait for other players to have less impressive years?

Do we really want 'the new Willie Mays' to end up in the same boat as the real Willie Mays: continually denied MVP awards because he's so good that we just wait for other players to have less impressive years?

I'm not sure Andruw Jones was ever denied an MVP award unfairly.

What's that? You have to actually put up something more than a teenage dream rookie season to be the new Willie Mays? Crazy talk.

More often than not, I side with the numbers guys on these sorts of things. And yes, Mitch Albom is a ####### idiot. But the outrage over this is absurdly disproportional to the actual "crime." They gave the MVP to the first triple crown winner in decades. OUTRAGEOUS FORTUNE! Good lord.

a) use a multi-year park factor for the Angels this year.


Tigers: multi-year: Batting - 104, Pitching - 103 · one-year: Batting - 104, Pitching - 104
Angels: multi-year: Batting - 92, Pitching - 92 · one-year: Batting - 91, Pitching - 91

Less than half a run. Trout bWAR lead from 3.8 to 3.8.

b) regress Trout's defensive performance due to uncertainty

Let's go farther than regression. Let's just eviscerate it. Knock off 75% of his defensive value.

Trout bWAR lead from 3.8 to 2.2.

c) normalize Trout's PA's for the L/O advantage

The leadoff spot in MLB came to the plate 4.76% more often than the #3 spot. Knocks off another 4 runs, we're down to 1.8 WAR lead.

That pretty much gets you there.

You got us a smidgen more than halfway!

Schubert's 8th has 2 completed movements (of 4), and a piano score of the Scherzo with a few pages fully orchestrated. That's why the symphony was given the moniker it is known for today, "The Pretty Much Finished Symphony."

But the outrage over this is absurdly disproportional to the actual "crime."

I'm not outraged by Cabrera getting the award, I'm outraged by the stupid arguments made in favor of Cabrera getting the MVP award that pass for analysis.

I'm not outraged by Cabrera getting the award, I'm outraged by the stupid arguments made in favor of Cabrera getting the MVP award that pass for analysis.

Yep.

I'm actually starting to get outraged by the chorus of BBTF-ers who are outraged about all the outrage. Okay, not really. But I do think people are grouping a lot of stuff together under the label 'outrage' or other such extreme terms. I feel like the position of people who are irritated by this MVP vote is quite different than the 'OMG Jack Morris is not a HOFer!!!' stuff, for example. If Morris gets elected, you'll see some genuine outrage.

The overwhelming majority of people who are posting on the Trout/Cabrera subject have mostly just expressed annoyance and frustration at the (lack of logic) that has gone into this thing.

I also, BTW, understand that there are different modes of stupidity in MVP votes. And in some sense, the second-best guy winning just can't be THAT terrible. But surely you'd agree that if Mike Mussina had won the Cy Young in 1999 or 2000 it would have been a terrible decision. Right? I'm not saying Trout/Cabrera is quite that bad, but it's at least that SORT of situation.

Tigers: multi-year: Batting - 104, Pitching - 103 · one-year: Batting - 104, Pitching - 104
Angels: multi-year: Batting - 92, Pitching - 92 · one-year: Batting - 91, Pitching - 91

Less than half a run. Trout bWAR lead from 3.8 to 3.8.

If you use a 4 year park factor for Anaheim, it's 94. If you use a 6 year park factor, it's 97.5. If you use a 4 year or 6 year park factor for Detroit, it's 102.

The leadoff spot in MLB came to the plate 4.76% more often than the #3 spot. Knocks off another 4 runs, we're down to 1.8 WAR lead.

Trout came up 4.59 times per game. Cabrera came up 4.32 times per game. That is a 6.25% advantage.

Aren't leadoff hitters' rate stats suppressed by the extra at-bats with the bases empty?

And perhaps this is something new, but I've seen a lot of references to the fact that Cabrera only missed one game. Obviously you prefer your star players to be able to go every day and avoid injuries, but since when is that really such a supremely valuable asset? Juan Pierre never missed games, either.

Actually, games played is specifically mentioned in the MVP voting rules put out by the BWAAA:

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.

There are only five rules to consider, and games played is one of them - and has been since the beginning of the MVP award.

There are only five rules to consider, and games played is one of them - and has been since the beginning of the MVP award

And whether the team made the playoffs is not one of them. Whether the player hit well or badly in September is also not one of them. I am not outraged by Cabrera winning the award, since I don't particularly respect the opinions of sportswriters, and therefore am not surprised when they say or do stupid things, but in this case they turned the award voting into a political statement against objectivity. After all subjectivity is objective.

And whether the team made the playoffs is not one of them. Whether the player hit well or badly in September is also not one of them.

Sure they are -- they go to the "actual value of a player to his team."

As with the HOF voting, "value," even if perfectly defined, is but one component of a more expansive set of wxplicit voting criteria. WAR could be cosmically perfect and it still wouldn't necessarily get you the right answer. I'd venture that this irony is lost on the Keith Laws of the world.

I also, BTW, understand that there are different modes of stupidity in MVP votes.

Yesterday on CC, Brian Kenny mentioned four common such traps. If memory serves, three of them were:

-over-valuing RBIs (Sosa over McGwire, though I don't think this was the example he used on the show)
-we don't like you (Mo Vaughn over Belle)
-you've won enough (Mays and Musial could have won several more times)

The fourth one may have been "his team went to the postseason," but I don't remember for sure.

EDIT: Yes, it was. He used the 1960 NL MVP vote as an example (Groat vs. Mays).

-we don't like you (Mo Vaughn over Belle)

"General character, disposition, loyalty and effort."

#39, another one was the player's own consistent excellence. He sort of wrapped it in with "you've won enough" but he used Derek Jeter as an example - could have won 2 awards, didn't win any.

I'm not 100% sure Jeter was ever the clear #1 MVP choice, but the universe would be a more sane place if the awarders could retroactively give Jeter an MVP in exchange for a few gold gloves.

"General character, disposition, loyalty and effort."

Vaughn is a horrible choice even if you disqualify Belle for character.

So when the Keith Laws of the world pissed and moaned and bored everyone with tales of their "expertise," and made public asses of themselves, were they in possession of the actual voting criteria?

The other question is how heavily to weigh the five criteria vortex pointed out. Any guidelines for weight listed along with the criteria?

Any guidelines for weight listed along with the criteria?

Is this a veiled Mo Vaughn dig?

After all subjectivity is objective.

Not in a rational scheme of perception.

The whole "he's young he'll get other chances" argument is silly. Who knows whether Trout will ever be this good again.

Case in point, Al Kaline. Although he had a Hall of Fame career, Kaline had his best season at age 20 in 1955. In that year, he finished 2nd in the balloting (201 points) to catcher Yogi Berra (218). It was the closest he ever came to winning. (He also finished 2nd in the balloting in 1963, losing out to another Yankee catcher, Elston Howard. )

Is this a veiled Mo Vaughn dig?

We're gonna need a bigger veil.

I'm outraged that Cabrera got the award undeservedly AND I'm outraged at the ridiculous justifications people make for it.

Trout had a season for the ages, and was overlooked in favor of a clearly inferior player. It's outrageous.