I've heard Jeff Passan pimping Mike Trout for the MVP a couple of times this year. I respect his knowledge as a baseball writer, but I disagree with him. Trout is certainly an exciting player, and he may just be the best player in the game. I know that if I were starting a team Trout would be my #1 pick, and it's not even close. But the fact is that Cabrera put up even better numbers than Trout did this season. Many voters base their votes upon whose team won something. Well, the fact is that the Tigers won their division,and Angels couldn't even win a wildcard spot. Passan can talk all he wants about how Trout was in the minor leagues for 3 weeks and how bad the Angels were without him. But you don't give a guy the MVP for that. By that logic, Peyton Manning would have been MVP last year.

I've also seen the argument that Trout hit 30 home runs and stole 47 bases, and that combination is even rarer than winning the Triple Crown, and therefore Trout should be MVP. OK, fine. You can combine whatever stats you want to make any argument you want. I remember late in George Brett's career when KC baseball writers were constantly combining about half a dozen different stats, and the would always wind up concluding that George Brett was right up there with Babe Ruth and Willie Mays. It was bogus.

I guess I'm a traditionalist. The Poindexters of the world can point to their nerdy stats like WAR and UZR all they want. All that shows is that they have WAY too much time on their hands, and they probably never actually played the game when they were young because they were too busy getting beat up by the cool kids.

Anybody that wins the Triple Crown should be MVP. Period. I've never really cared one way or the other about Miguel Cabrera, whereas I often turn on the Angels games just to see Mike Trout bat. But you've got to give Cabrera his due. Right now he's leading in all 3 triple crown categories. He is the MVP even if Josh Hamilton hits a couple of dingers tomorrow. He's had a historic season.

You're really bad at being smart. That penultimate paragraph is atrocious, dude. Does it irritate you that whatever MLB franchise you're a fan of is run by these guys who were getting beat up or whatever juvenile shit you can imagine? The sabermetric community being talked about as if they don't understand the game is such a tired cliche, proven incorrect ten thousand times over.

The Angels are 2 games better than the Tigers, and the Angles played a much more difficult schedule to boot.

It's ridiculous to me that Cabrera is going to win this MVP award because of goddamned ribbies.

You're right. Stolen bases and spectacular defense are much more important than actually driving in runs.

Yes. Saving runs yourself and creating runs yourself is vastly more important than you getting credit for the work of those ahead of you in the lineup.

Dayton Moore should be sitting in the Royals dugout watching the Tigers celebrate

Both with big nights, Miggy taking back the HR lead for now. Very interesting. Look at Fielder and Cabrera combined. That was a move that worked out pretty damn well.

I get tired of hearing people say RBIs don't count or that they're not important, or that they're just the product of being in a good lineup with runners on base in front of you. Baseball is a team game. If you're going to dismiss RBIs simply because somebody else has to get on base in front of the hitter, then you also have to dismiss runs scored because somebody had to drive the runner in. While you're at it, you have to dismiss stolen bases because by itself a stolen base doesn't lead to a run. And as long as we are arbitrarily dismissing things, we might as well dismiss the great plays in center field that rob the opposing teams of home runs, because they don't directly lead to runs for the player's team, and you can't win games without scoring runs.

See how ridiculous that is?

Now that you've dismissed all of the statistics that require help from another player in order for a run to score, the only stat you're left with is home runs.

Who's leading the league in home runs again? Oh yeah, it's Miguel Cabrera.

Hey, I get it. Mike Trout is an exciting player, and he had a historically great rookie season. He's a 5-tool player with a combination of speed and power reserved for the all-time greats like Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays. About a month ago I assumed Mike Trout would be MVP, and there was no doubt in my mind he deserved it.

However, Miguel Cabrera put on a hell of a charge at the end of the season when it mattered the most. It's just Mike Trout's bad luck that he had his great rookie season the same year somebody else won the Triple Freaking Crown. When somebody wins the Triple Crown and his team wins their division, there's no way in hell you can award the MVP to someone whose team finished out of the playoffs. Mike Trout is a close #2 choice, but he's still #2.

If Mike Trout wins the MVP award, they should change the name of the award to Most Popular Player.

Jut compared their stats. Trout and Cabrera. The only thing Trout has over Cabrera is speed. Stolen bases and triples...

Cabrera leads in hits, .avg, HRs, doubles, slugging pct, OBP...

Trout has 30 HRs and only 83 RBIs? Does he hit alot of HRs with no one on base??

Perhaps that is why the people in the Trout camp are so quick to dismiss the importance of RBIs. Because that's the one part of his game that's really not very good.

He bats leadoff? Leadoff hitters typically dont get the RBI opportunities that guys batting 3-5 get obviously....

but either way, i dont see how you cant give MVP to Cabrera? Dudes had a dream season.

The only Triple Crown he's getting is one bourbon, one scotch, and one beer.

Isn't the Triple Crown an offensive accomplishment? Isn't MVP an all around award? Best Player award?

Trout wold have 100 RBIs if he played all season. He'd probably be in the 35 hr area if he played all season, and imagine his stolen bases and other stats if he began the season in the Majors.

He easily has stolen 4 hrs this season. Two of them are going to make it in the top ten plays of the year, one of them more than likely the top play of the year. He has been by far the better overall player, and as far as with the bat, barely behind Miggy who is a clean up guy, not a lead off guy. So, 80+RBIs 50 SB, 30HR and killer slugging% number OBP numbers for a lead off guy means nothing because a guy who hits 3-4 has more RBIs?

I hope Miggy gets the Triple Crown too, but to say he deserves MVP because of an offensive accomplishment when he is a far weaker player than Trout in everything else, is short sighted.

Oh, and getting the triple Crown doesn't immiately make you MVP, at least not in the past.

LMAOLMAOLMAOLMAO
Dude, he hits n the lead off spot. You know, talesetter, run scorer?
And he has murdered in that position plus it 80+RBIs and 30HR. What a ricilous thing you just said..LMAOLMAOLMAO

Sure lets totally over look the other HALF of the game, defense. Trout is so far ahead of Miggy in that aspect of the game its not even close. Add in, again, how much better Trout is on the base path IMO Trout is more deserving of the MVP. To answer your RBI question, Trout has hit lead off in all but ONE AB this season so yea he's hitting with fewer people on base.

I don't want to see it. it has never been done in my lifetime, and I want to see a royal do it first.