Are you restricting just to position players? Because in 1991 Glavine had a 9.0 WAR vs. 5.8 for Pendleton (Bonds was the highest position player at 7.6). It's a bit crazy that I always viewed Pendleton over Bonds as a historically poor choice, but that was only half as bad via WAR as the decision for Cabrera over Trout.

Which WAR are you using here? BWAR says 8.2, fWAR 5.7 for Glavine, and 7.6, 7.9 respectively for Bonds.

Which WAR are you using here? BWAR says 8.2, fWAR 5.7 for Glavine

BWAR. 8.2 pitching WAR, .7 batting WAR, .1 rounding error WAR.

The BBWAA is just an anachronistic relic (is that redundant?). The fact that Cano was left off any ballots, let alone four, tells you more about the group than Miggy beating Trout.

Yes, forgot to say I was using only position players, to avoid the Cy vs MVP issues. And because the uncertainty in comparing a pitcher to a hitter in WAR is probably larger than comparing a hitter to a hitter.

At any rate, I was making a cutoff at 10 WAR, with the MVP at least 3 WAR lower. Pitchers that meet the criterion:

2000 AL Martinez 11.4, Giambi 7.4

1978 NL Niekro 10.0, Parker 6.9

1972 NL Carlton 12.1, Bench 8.5

1971 NL Jenkins 11.3, Torre 5.6

1935 NL Ferrell 10.4, Greenberg 7.4

Honorable mention: 1989 AL Clemens 11.8, Griffey 8.9

Edited to remove my confusion about BBR pitching WAR.

I enjoyed these threads more when the NerdFury was stronger. And yes I would have voted Trout, but no I am neither surprised nor angered.

The system has won. We have collectively lost our soul (or gotten older, mellower, or something).

I'm certainly happy Miggy won but obviously Trout deserved it.

Condolences Angels/Trout fans!

So it turns out I really don't care about the BBWAA's awards anymore. I thought I'd be outraged, but I'm not!

I'm with Monty on this. It's the same way I feel about the "Batting Title" any more, even if that's an earned accomplishment.

Did it not matter that the Angels only played Trout for five months?

I think that's part of it. I know WAR is a counting stat, but Cabrera did play 20 more games than Trout.

If Curtis Granderson or Josh Hamilton had hit two more HR, Trout would have won. Is Miggy going to send Curtis and Josh a little something? Hell, If Mike Trout had three more hits, he'd have won. Is Miggy going to send Mike a thank you card?

Infinitely worse. It literally hurt your eyes to look at it. I've seen a lot of terrible web design, but the old BBWA site was in an entirely different league.

Think "Geocities site about an obscure anime show" and you'll get the idea.

Like others here, I think this award is going to the wrong person, but I don't think it's a criminal outrage. (The justifications from dimwits like Wilbon is far worse than Cabrera actually getting the award.)

If Curtis Granderson or Josh Hamilton had hit two more HR, Trout would have won. Is Miggy going to send Curtis and Josh a little something? Hell, If Mike Trout had three more hits, he'd have won. Is Miggy going to send Mike a thank you card?

I've seen variants of this written several places. There are so many good arguments for why Trout was the MVP, not Cabrera. This is not one of them. "If, if, if..." They didn't. If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

I didn't post that as an argument for Trout being MVP. It was intended as an argument for the triple crown not being determinative of who is the MVP.

Followed logically, you can use that argument to invalidate any argument about a player leading in multiple categories being award-worthy. I don't see that as helpful.

Followed logically, you can use that argument to invalidate any argument about a player leading in multiple categories being award-worthy. I don't see that as helpful.

As it should.

If you're comparing two players, I do not care how they stack up against other players.

Now, if someone said that Cabrera would have been less valuable than HAMILTON if Hamilton had hit six more homeruns, then yeah, your point is fair. But it's pretty crazy to think that two long flyballs in Arlington dropping just short of the wall have anything to do with whether Cabrera or Trout was a more valuable player.

I don't see that as helpful.

And I see it as quite helpful to acknowledge that differences such as those between 43 and 45, .329 and .334, 2.97 and 3.11, etc, are not definitive arguments for who is more valuable (EDIT: especially when, as Baldrick notes, we're not talking about head to head differences in those categories).

I'm confused. Are we talking about measuring value by what did happen? Or what might have happened? Or what didn't happen? I'm not saying category leading is a definitive argument for most valuable, just that trying to invalidate those leads with hypotheticals is weak and does nothing to embiggen your overall argument.

No one is saying "Cabrera should NOT be the MVP because he didn't win the Triple Crown." Obviously he did win the Triple Crown. We are saying "whether he won the Triple Crown or not has jack-squat to do with whether he was more valuable than Trout." You can demonstrate this by pointing out that Cabrera v. Trout remains exactly the same regardless of whether Hamilton hit two extra HR.

That is: category leading is NOT an argument for most valuable except insofar as it contributes to an actual case for being more valuable.

In fact, the very people who all voted based on the Triple Crown are now writing articles that make exactly this point. They are saying "OMG teh postseason" as the basis for their Cabrera-case. And Cabrera's HRs would count toward that goal exactly the same whether or not Hamilton hit those two extra HR.

As I said in a different thread, if people were honest and just said "Triple Crowns are cool and Cabrera was good enough that I voted for the Triple Crown, even though Trout was better" there wouldn't be a whole lot to get angry about. Yeah, I disagree with that. But at least it's honest. It's the faux-reasoning that really drives me bonkers.

That is: category leading is NOT an argument for most valuable except insofar as it contributes to an actual case for being more valuable.

Cabrera also led the league in slugging and OPS. If he hadn't led the league in slugging and OPS, he wouldn't have led the league in slugging and OPS, but I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove.

I think that's part of it. I know WAR is a counting stat, but Cabrera did play 20 more games than Trout.

Yes and WAR, being a counting stat, already counts playing time. Maybe you think it should be a double-counting stat ha-ha-ha.

Trying to explain WAR to someone who thinks it's a total horseshit, hippy dippy stat is... well, kind of a waste of time.

"How do you know a replacement level player WOULDN'T make that play? They're assuming!"

"It doesn't consider the other eight guys on the field. What happens if no one drives him in? He just has a single and a stolen base. Who cares?"

"What if some guy on the Marlins had... 11 WAR? That means HE'S the MVP? They lost 93 games!"

Speaking of M Cabreras, ESPN Deportes is reporting the Jays have signed Melky Cabrera!

The whole argument seems very similar to the 1950's-60's where the sportswriters contorted themselves into choosing someone besides Mantle or Mays every year.

The whole argument seems very similar to the 1950's-60's where the sportswriters contorted themselves into choosing someone besides Mantle or Mays every year.

1958 is my favorite, I think - the MVP went to Jackie Jensen over Mantle. Mantle hit for a higher average, had more hits, scored more runs (led the league), hit more homers (led the league), drew more walks (led the league), had more total bases (led the league), stole more bases and was caught fewer times, played a tougher position, hit in a tougher park, and played for the team that won the pennant. He did miss four games, but they had the same number of plate appearances.

Jensen had 10 more doubles, though, and led the league in RBI. Plus, they'd already given Mantle the MVP in his last two years, both of which were transcendent; if they gave it to him when he was merely exceptional, he'd lose motivation to be transcendent again.