Yes, diseased. If I asked you which home on your street had the highest value, would you add up all the furniture, possessions, money, and cars inside each house and base your answer heavily on that?

Voting for the best player on a playoff team rather than the best player is like answering Ray's question by arbitrarily crossing off all the homes that aren't in the top eight neighborhoods by average property value. It's just asinine, particularly given that the ballot instructions explicitly say that the winner doesn't need to come from a playoff team.

Next year, the BBWAA should just mail out a sheet that says "VOTE FOR THE BEST PLAYER, YOU MORON" 500 times. Maybe then, a few voters might get the message.

Trout actually getting SOME first-place votes is progress! In 1980 or 1990, Cabrera would have been unanimous or at most 2 votes shy. Old schoolies, we will hunt you down one by one until the last Jedi is dead.

Except in 2001 he would have won! We are losing ground, not gaining it!

Again, the surprise here was not the vote; it was the fact that otherwise knowledgeable people, such as the ones posting here, were distracted by a shiny object comprised of a silly grouping of three stats.

I have to agree with the article that there are too many situational stats. Most seem pretty random to me with very limited. sample size. I'd be hesitant to use them to judge a player

There is – I'd say literally nobody – on BBTF (using us as shorthand for thinking-geek fans) who puts any store into what somebody is hitting in the sixth inning of home day games or whatever. Nobody; in fact the practice is ridiculed.

Sean's B-Ref (and Fangraphs and other such sites) count and post such things, true. But that's because they're there. More knowledge in more detail is always better than less and making a WAG about something. If nothing else, one can use the situational stats to dispel arguments for the specialness of somebody who's hitting .400 in the sixth inning. It's not that there are "too many" such stats; the stats are simply facts. Facts are good.

It tends to be only on broadcasts that one sees a flash of a number like "In home day games after a night loss, Adrian Beltre has hit .400 this year" – with implied claims that this means anything at all and that it tells you that something big will come of Beltre's PAs today.

I feel like this is Bizaaro world where the candidate favored by "stat geeks" is getting that boost because of things like defense and baserunning that the "non stat geek" people allegedly appreciate more than the geeks.

That's pretty much my reaction, too. And I can't believe that anyone would need much more than to look at Trout's SB numbers and watch him play in the outfield to see how much better an all-around player he is than Cabrera. But then I've always favored the 5 tool player over the wooden Indian, even if Cabrera wasn't quite on that low level of fielding.

That said, I only wish they could have given two awards here. It's just kind of a sad coincidence that the first triple crown winner in 45 years eclipses one of the best half dozen or so seasons in the past 50.

Does anyone know who first thought of "The Triple Crown"? How did BA, HR, and RBI come to be considered more important than any other stats.

I assume because they were the shiniest of the few stats they had. Of course homers are obviously better than doubles or triples. BA, Runs and HRs would have been better though.

Gotta love Old Hoss Radbourn.

There seems to be agreeent here that Cabrera would NOT have won the trophy if Granderson had hit 2 more HR, and the TC had eluded Cabrera.

This IMHO is a mistaken notion.

Voitng patterns over many, many years show that Cabrera won the MVP because he led the league in RBI for a playoff team. The TC; yes, that probably helped the narrative some. But it did not swing 12 ballots or anything like that.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's gotten vertigo from the "old school" telling us stat nerds that we're overvaluing defense and baserunning.

So in areas such as “how many Cabrera home runs would have gone out in Angel Stadium of Anaheim” or “batting average when leading off an inning” or “Win Probability Added,” Trout had the edge. At least this is what we were told

Die in hell Mitch Albom, die in hell.

I looked up the Triple Crown in The Dickson Baseball Dictionary, turns out that it started as Hits, BA, and Runs. First reference according to Dickson to current triple crown was related to Gehrig in 1936 going for a second triple crown.

Cobb in his autobiography mentioned he was a 3x winner from 1907-1909 for leading in RBI, Hits and Avg.

#56: Western Australian in the 1850s.

oh, wrong sport.

Wonder if Cabrera will note in his biography that he won the Quintuple Crown in 2012?

Sean, was that the ghostwritten autobiography that has since come under scrutiny (Wild last 9 months)?
I suspect this is something Ty or his ghostwriter acknowledged WELL after the fact.

Great mini-research to find the "Gehrig's 1936" answer!

So considering the Angels swept the Sox Sept 21-23, helping the Tigers win their division, shouldn't Trout get credit for that?

No link because I don't feel like going there, but apparently ESPN polled their writers and like 20 of the 27 said they'd vote Trout first, which is interesting.

I was one of the Trout voters, which I guess isn't surprising to anyone (ESPN, not BBWAA). I was considering putting Trout for NL MVP, too and waiting to see how long it would take for that editor to get mad at me.

Albom should stick to writing books about his dead relatives and teachers or whatever and try not to dredge up the old "triples on even numbered Thursday" crap, and presenting that as if its a pearl of wisdom and that no one else had ever beaten that dead horse before.

There seems to be agreeent here that Cabrera would NOT have won the trophy if Granderson had hit 2 more HR, and the TC had eluded Cabrera.

This IMHO is a mistaken notion.

Voitng patterns over many, many years show that Cabrera won the MVP because he led the league in RBI for a playoff team. The TC; yes, that probably helped the narrative some. But it did not swing 12 ballots or anything like that.

Since 2000, there have been 10 RBI leaders who played for playoff teams. Two won MVP: Arod (the legitimate best player in the league that year) in 2007 and Cabrera in 2012 (the TC winner). Whatever historical correlation there is between that single category and the MVP is not present in 21st century voting patterns.

It was the Triple Crown.

I think the Triple Crown helped. And the Tigers winning the AL Central with Miguel being very very good in September helped.

I also think the fact that he has never won the MVP before and had such a great season probably helped as well.


I am going to just enjoy my favorite baseball player on my favorite team get some props. Wish it was not so bitter on both sides of the argument. I am sure in 2 or 3 years when they change the WAR formula perhaps Trout wasn't that much better than Miggy this season.

Heh. Had things swung a little different I could be playing Mitch Albom in "Tuesdays with Morrie", a scant few weeks after calling him an idiot. Small world.

I am going to just enjoy my favorite baseball player on my favorite team get some props. Wish it was not so bitter on both sides of the argument. I am sure in 2 or 3 years when they change the WAR formula perhaps Trout wasn't that much better than Miggy this season.

Don't sweat it, he led the league in a bunch of important offensive categories and is an entirely deserving MVP. The WARriors are basically talking to themselves at this point.

There is – I'd say literally nobody – on BBTF (using us as shorthand for thinking-geek fans) who puts any store into what somebody is hitting in the sixth inning of home day games or whatever.

True but ...

“how many Cabrera home runs would have gone out in Angel Stadium of Anaheim” or “batting average when leading off an inning” or “Win Probability Added,”

Two of those things are essentially arguments that we do bring up. The current stat geeks (the real ones) are quite deep into the weeds. Park effects are easy and straightforward but there are guys who look at "how many of his HRs would have gone out if he played in ..." And now we're also adjusting for (or raising in arguments) quality of defense behind a pitcher, the average OPS of a batter faced by a pitcher, pitch framing, umpire effects, leverage (for relievers). Somebody at fangraphs did write a big article on Trout's lead in WPA (rather some adjusted version of it). The pitch guys are now looking at how batters/pitchers fare on fastballs, curveballs, etc. The defensive stats are essentially just a sum of small samples (he caught x% of fly balls in this zone and y% of fliners in that zone). And of course things like Rbase and Rdp are based on a miniscule number of opportunities.

I'm not saying we shouldn't -- if it's significant, it's significant -- but the story stat geeks tell is increasingly detailed. That is the appeal of something like WAR -- they've tracked down and incorporated those pesky "trivial" factors so you don't have to.

It shows up more in pitching that hitting as you can see above so take a look at the Verlander vs. Price discussion.

I am sure in 2 or 3 years when they change the WAR formula perhaps Trout wasn't that much better than Miggy this season.

I know this is a throwaway line, but...it kind of gets at the whole thing.

That this ended being some knock-down fight about WAR is just crazy. Trout was really really really obviously better this year. It doesn't have anything to do with WAR. It has to do with him hitting almost as well as Cabrera, running the bases as well as anyone in baseball, and playing stupendous defense.

That this ended being some knock-down fight about WAR is just crazy. Trout was really really really obviously better this year. It doesn't have anything to do with WAR. It has to do with him hitting almost as well as Cabrera, running the bases as well as anyone in baseball, and playing stupendous defense.

Exactly. Unless you think defense and baserunning are completely without value, Trout was better. And if defense is completely without value, why didn't Detroit just stick Fielder at 3rd and leave Young in LF?

My buddy and I are having a different arguement. He agrees that Trout was better, but argues Cabrera was more "valuable" because of Aug/Sept and late/close games (if he can really step it up when it matters, what about October?), Tigers made the playoffs (despite LA winning more games in a tougher division), that stuff; essentially, the "value is however I choose to define it" arguement.

How does a guy like Albom get to call someone else a geek? Seriously!

This MVP result was significant because it was the first time that people who should have known better -- such as most of the people who post here -- threw their tacit support to a player they knew to be undeserving because of the silliness of something like the triple crown.

Tacit support = "I would vote for Trout, but if/when Cabrera wins, I'm not going to mail a box of rattlesnakes to the BBWAA offices."

Screw you Theo Epstein!

Amen, Brother!

I feel like this is Bizaaro world where the candidate favored by "stat geeks" is getting that boost because of things like defense and baserunning that the "non stat geek" people allegedly appreciate more than the geeks.

How come this angle isn't getting much, much more play?

OK, maybe I did not SAY it well enough, but it absolutely true that "leading the league in RBI for a winner" has been, and CONTINUES to be, a large factor in MVP voting.

There seems to be agreeent here that Cabrera would NOT have won the trophy if Granderson had hit 2 more HR, and the TC had eluded Cabrera.
This IMHO is a mistaken notion.
Voitng patterns over many, many years show that Cabrera won the MVP because he led the league in RBI for a playoff team. The TC; yes, that probably helped the narrative some. But it did not swing 12 ballots or anything like that.

Since 2000, there have been 10 RBI leaders who played for playoff teams. Two won MVP: Arod (the legitimate best player in the league that year) in 2007 and Cabrera in 2012 (the TC winner). Whatever historical correlation there is between that single category and the MVP is not present in 21st century voting patterns.
It was the Triple Crown.

'since 2000' conveniently cuts off before 98, when Sosa stole an MVP from McGwire, simply because of this effect.

Some examples since then:
2000AL Edgar (WC) lost to Giambi - who has ALMOST as many RBI, and more HR, and better SLG, & played for a division winner. The RBI/win thing helped Edgar.
2001AL Boone lost to Suzuki - for other reasons; his teammate had the cool many hits plus many SB plus he was new luster.
2004NL Rolen lost to Bonds. Well, the BBWAA noticed that 232 walks were a bit of an outlier maybe? Rolen got far more votes than he should have. The RBI/win thing helped him.
2005AL Ortiz (WC) lost to ARod, who was on a div winner, and who had other bigger ##s than Papi. Papi finishd higher than he 'should' have.
2005NL Jones lost to Pujols. Well, yes, Pujols hit 67 points higher than Andruw. Pujols would have won by more if not for the RBI/win thing.

So if I could word it more carefully, leading the league in RBI for a division winner is a very large factor in MVP voting. It seems to be less important now than it was from the 60s thru the early 90s, maybe because of the new playoff format.
The TC had likely little effect.

Since 2000, there have been 10 RBI leaders who played for playoff teams. Two won MVP: Arod (the legitimate best player in the league that year) in 2007 and Cabrera in 2012 (the TC winner). Whatever historical correlation there is between that single category and the MVP is not present in 21st century voting patterns.

Yes, that was true from the mid 50's till the mid 90's. Thing is, during that period there were only 2, then 4 playoff teams. When they went to 8 and now 10, it's not surprising the affect has disappeared.

The TC had likely little effect

Well, most of us respectfully disagree. Given all the buzz about Trout, I think it had a huge effect. Everywhere you went, when people were discussing it, the traditionalists said "Cabrera - Triple Crown - case closed".

If he had not won the Triple Crown, I think he still gets some buzz, but does not win.

And as these things go, 2000 is a long time ago.

'since 2000' conveniently cuts off before 98, when Sosa stole an MVP from McGwire, simply because of this effect.

Or he stole it because his Maris-breaking homers resulted in a playoff berth and Mac's didn't. Just because you link RBI titles/playoff berths (where convenient) as if they're inseparable doesn't make it so.

But even if you're right that it was Sammy's RBIs that did it, it doesn't have much to do with my claim, since I'm specifically talking about changes in voting habits. Whatever correlation that existed in earlier years (and, I agree, a correlation is pretty obvious) isn't as strong any more. The 20 percent MVP rate for RBI-leading, playoff bound ballplayers from 2000 on should be pretty damn strong evidence of that.

Some examples since then:

Some more recent examples:

Granderson led the league in RBIs, as a centerfielder with a decent defensive rep, for a playoff team last year. He finished fourth, behind two postseason non-invites and a pitcher.

Teixeira led the league in RBIs in 2009 for the league's best team. Mauer ran away with the award.

Holliday led the league in RBIs in 2007, led the Rockies on one of the all-time great pennant surges in MLB history, won a playoff berth in a single-game playoff and lost the MVP to Jimmy Rollins.

So if I could word it more carefully, leading the league in RBI for a division winner is a very large factor in MVP voting. It seems to be less important now than it was from the 60s thru the early 90s, maybe because of the new playoff format.

Being really good is a big factor. Guys who drive in the most runs in the league tend to be really good.

Playing on a playoff team: Very important. No question. If the Tigers don't slip into the playoffs, Miggy's TC may not be enough.

Having a narrative: Way too important. And winning the Triple Crown is a ####### A narrative.

Don't get me wrong. Driving in runs has been and continues to be overvalued relative to other stats (Howard and Morneau's MVP support are exhibits A and B in this regard).

But the idea that RBIs=MVP is simply not the case today. Sure, they were 1/3 of Miggy's MVP case this year, but they were only meaningful as part of the set. If he's just the RBI leader, while finishing behind Trout in BA and Grandy in homers, he's not taking home the hardware.

It is actually creating a divide between those who like to watch the game of baseball and those who want to reduce it to binary code.

As an Asperger's friend of mine once said, "The world is divided into 10 groups -- those who like binary code, and those who don't."

Yeah, but Mitch's columns are a victory for diminutive toupee wearers, payroll frauds and producers of low grade shmaltz writing everywhere.

Look, I agree with most of what you said, SoSH. Yes, narrative is key, and the TC IS A Narrative. But I am not trying to say RBIs=MVP. I am saying that just 'being on a winning team', while PERCEIVED to be a big voting factor, in actuality has NOT been a big factor *in and of itself*; it tends to be a factior when coupled with some specific other factors, such as playing shortstop or catcher (which is why Mauer won in 09, because he hit three-freaking-sixty plus for a division winner while catching!), or stealing a pile of bases (ooh, a sparkplug; he must have spurred on the winner! Which is why Rollins won in 07, altho being a Rockie understandably also costs some MVP points)... or leading the league (or even finsihing close) in RBIs.

Go ahead, create a MVP voting system based on stats, and you will find, even if only using the last 15 years, that tying RBI-lead to division winners makes the correlation BETTER than leaving it out.

I believe it is true that no RBI leader on a division winner has ever lost an MVP award to a player whose team did NOT win (I have not checked pre-1946). Miggy would have been the first. Ergo, how can I NOT conclude that the TC was not The Thing which pushed him over? Unless, of course, a number of voters come out and say that it was the swaying criterion. In which case I will admit I am wrong :)

Go ahead, create a MVP voting system based on stats, and you will find, even if only using the last 15 years, that tying RBI-lead to division winners makes the correlation BETTER than leaving it out.

I wouldn't be surprised. Guys who play for division winners fare better in MVP races. And the guy who drives in the most runs in the league tends to be among the league's best players, and is frequently reflected in other stats (BA and homers and SLG).

I believe it is true that no RBI leader on a division winner has ever lost an MVP award to a player whose team did NOT win (I have not checked pre-1946).

In 2008, Albert Pujols was the MVP as a member of the fourth-place Cardinals, finishing comfortably ahead of Ryan Howard of the division-winning Phillies. Howard's 146 RBIs were 22 better than the NL runner-up.

You won't find many other examples because MVPs (particularly in the expanded playoff era) predominantly come from playoff-qualifying teams. But it was just last year where an RBI leader from a division champion RBI leader, Granderson, finished behind two guys from also-rans (Ellsbury and Bautista) in the AL MVP race. It just so happened that those two guys finished behind a pitcher.

This MVP result was significant because it was the first time that people who should have known better -- such as most of the people who post here -- threw their tacit support to a player they knew to be undeserving because of the silliness of something like the triple crown.

Tacit support = "I would vote for Trout, but if/when Cabrera wins, I'm not going to mail a box of rattlesnakes to the BBWAA offices."

Strawman. No box of rattlesnakes was involved. In the past, people would express their disagreement on the internet. That is all that was at issue here. In the past, people wouldn't say "I'm ok" with a clearly undeserving player winning. That is what happened here. And why did it happen? Because of the silly grouping of three stat categories. As people specifically stated.

Strawman. No box of rattlesnakes was involved. In the past, people would express their disagreement on the internet. That is all that was at issue here. In the past, people wouldn't say "I'm ok" with a clearly undeserving player winning. That is what happened here. And why did it happen? Because of the silly grouping of three stat categories. As people specifically stated.

As people also specifically stated, this was merely resignation to an incorrect but understandable (coming from the BBWAA) result, which, since everyone you're referring to specifically stated that, given the opportunity, they would have voted for Trout, can hardly be construed as any kind of support for Cabrera's candidacy (apart from the kind that comes from fondness for Cabrera as a player, which was expressed in some cases).

I missed 2008 Pujols/Howard. Thanks.

First reference according to Dickson to current triple crown was related to Gehrig in 1936 going for a second triple crown.

I hope nobody in Washington or Colorado is reading that sentence, because I'm dead sober and it's even freaking me out a bit.