Cabrera dodsn't have to make up a WAR "gap"; Trout has to make up a gap in offense.

You're still on this, huh? Really?

I think it's been lost in all this discussion that Cano has as good of a case for MVP as Cabrera does. He finished a distant 4th.

No one's buying the ca. 12% park adjustment

This is pretty cocky. I'll certainly buy it. Park factors should measure actual results (the horror!) and not be as lazy as "hey, it can get kind of cold here in April and September"

Rudies. A message to you from Morosi.

MVP: Joe Rudi. Nevahhhhh.

Somebody (on tv; I forget who) was trying to make this into a generational thing; the young hip saber types for Trout, old school grampas for Cabrera. I am an old school grampa, I guess, but I gave the nod to Trout; but it's not like it's a huge miscarriage of justice or anything. It's close, and I can see why people went to Cabrera.

If you use the park factors that BB-ref is using, then Trout is a better HITTER than Cabrera. At that point the game is over. Sorry Karl, but Cabrera's chances of making up the offensive gap with his defense/baserunning is comparable to Romney's chance of making up a slim Obama lead in Ohio with only the districts in the city of Cleveland.

If you use no park factors, then Cabrera has a +12 run lead. My math is in #29 based on these weights: BB/HBP .33, 1B .47, 2B .8, 3B 1.00, HR 1.40, Out -.25. If you disagree then show your math.

Trout makes that gap up with baserunning and avoiding GIDP (yes, adjusted for opportunities).

He pulls ahead on defense, either by a little or a lot depending on the source.

On the question of whether my future selections will be swayed by numbers or narratives, my riposte is a bald-faced equivocation: It depends. In some years, I will probably agree with the sabermetric orthodoxy. In other cases, I won’t.

Better think of the future...

I don't want to go MGL here; I do think civility is important. Still, if all you've got to defend yourself in a logical argument is that your opponent is being rude, you've really got nothing. (Especially if, as is always the case, there are other people making the same argument who aren't being rude.)

Coke to the DA here. Most all the discussion I've seen on the issue has been thoughtful, maybe at worst a little impassioned. There will always be those few who are trolling or otherwise are being clueless -- but if you pay attention to folks like this and subsequently blame everyone else who disagrees with you because of their antics, you've only got yourself to blame.

People in this country (and maybe around the world) have this notion that if there are two sides to an issue and that if each side has enough proponents, that both positions then have the same objective validity.

This, definitely, and coke to JJ1986. A more extreme version is the notion that Creationism is somehow a reasonable alternative to Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Sorry, but saying it over and over, publishing several articles full of bad science, having a number of people believe in the idea, and getting a couple yahoos in high places to pass laws forcing schools to teach both concepts doesn't make Creationism valid.

Hate to imagine what BBTF would've done in 1996 for Gonzalez over A-Rod

No need to guess. The response on RSB would tell you pretty much the way it would have been greeted by the regulars here.

A more extreme version is the notion that Creationism is somehow a reasonable alternative to Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

Trout vs Cabrera bears exactly zero resemblance to Creationism vs. Evolution. None, zero, zip, nada. Stop flattering yourself -- and this "issue" -- with melodramatic nonsense.

How much weight you give it is another matter; as Rants suggests in #4 it probably doesn't outweigh the on-field difference in this case.

Cabrera + Fielder = 11.3 WAR
Trout = 10.7 WAR

So in terms of what weight to assign to Cabrera's move to 3B, you have to give it the entire weight of Prince ... which is rather a lot. :-)

People, plesae, don't engage SBB or if you are going to engage SBB at least call him on his utter total ########:

MT home: 976 OPS
MT road: 951 OPS

MC home: 1094 OPS
MC road: 913 OPS

Which of these guys "hit far better at home" than he did on the road? Which of these guys hit better on the road when compared to the other? Which of these guys benefits most if we ignore park effects?

Which of these guys "hit far better at home" than he did on the road? Which of these guys hit better on the road when compared to the other? Which of these guys benefits most if we ignore park effects?

Not responsive. Cabrera isn't the guy asking for a 12% welfare check.

Not responsive. Cabrera isn't the guy asking for a 12% welfare check.

Feel free to re-read this thread, which includes the last 3 years of home/road splits for Angel hitters and pitchers, and 2012 home/road splits for all the regular hitters on both the Angels and Tigers, among other things.

Then feel free to keep saying, "Comerica Park is bigger," and calling the rest of us the non-responsive ones.

MT home: 976 OPS
MT road: 951 OPS

MC home: 1094 OPS
MC road: 913 OPS

Which of these guys "hit far better at home" than he did on the road? Which of these guys hit better on the road when compared to the other? Which of these guys benefits most if we ignore park effects?

Not responsive. Cabrera isn't the guy asking for a 12% welfare check.

Quite responsive, actually. Trout is a slightly better hitter at home (all hitters are), while Cabrera is a much better hitter at home. It seems pretty clear that Cabrera is, in fact, playing in a more friendly hitting environment.

EDIT: A simple comparison (Home OPS/Road OPS, controlled for road) shows Trout's home OPS "should" be about 1.002, while Cabrera's "should" be about .962.

Trout is a slightly better hitter at home (all hitters are)

Nonsense. Clearly, the 38-points-of-OPS home-field advantage proves that the American League is a hitter's park.

Their road stats are not relevant to park factors. What park factors do is adjust the replacement level part of WAR. You'd expect a replacement level player in a hitters park to hit better than a replacement level player in a pitchers park. That's why they use the average park factor instead of adjusting it on a hitter by hitter basis.

It's a value stat, not a predictive one.

>
The rival could just as easily lose on a day when you aren't playing them.

But they will never lose on a day you lose to them, which is the point. And they will never win on a day you beat them. You are controlling both sides of the equation on those days, so they are more important to do well in. That seems very obvious, yet apparently not.

It's September and your team is in a division race with the hated Cardinals. You have one series left against them, and one against the last place team. You can choose one series to sweep.

"Trout vs Cabrera bears exactly zero resemblance to Creationism vs. Evolution. None, zero, zip, nada. Stop flattering yourself -- and this "issue" -- with melodramatic nonsense."

True. I suppose there is some minuscule chance that Crom played a joke on us and planted all the fake evidence to make it look like evolution happened. Crom, he is funny like that. But there is no chance that Cabrera was better than Trout.

You geeky nerds who should leave your mom's basement and watch a game for a change have made this debate unnecessarily rude.