BA, RBI, and HRs is all you need to know when evaluating a player's value. I don't understand why people even bother looking at fielding, base-running, pitching, etc. Those are negligible facets of the game and should only be considered in the event of a tie. (And even then, that would only be if you couldn't find a coin to flip.)

The "runs produced" stat has always been the most bogus stat in baseball. It penalizes a player for hitting a home run because he scores a run and drives in a run in the same at-bat. Yet virtually every time a run is scored, SOMEBODY gets credit for scoring it, and SOMEBODY gets credit for driving in the run. That's a total credit for 2 runs produced for every run that is actually scored, EXCEPT when the run scores as a result of a home run.

Adding up RBI and runs scored is a fine indicator of runs produced. Subtracting home runs doesn't give you a better idea of a player's production. All it does is add an element of complexity to a formula that is more accurate when it's kept simple.

Nicely done. You built a straw man and knocked it down. Congratulations.

Five minutes of work. Go to fangraphs. Go to League Leaders section. Select August as a filter. Then select September/October as a filter.

Anyway, I actually don't like the overall WAR stat very much (as the defensive statistics are just too flaky/inconsistent), but offensive WAR - especially the way Baseball America calculates it - is very reliable. Cabrera would hold the edge there, I'm sure (I haven't found a site that will split out offensive and total WAR month-by-month yet), because all of his value is derived from his bat.

I'm of the mindset that statistical analysis is a nice complement to old-fashioned scouting. When the two are worked together in a way that is sound, you get great results (See the Tampa Rays). You can't go all sabermetrics, and you can't go all old-school.

In defense of offensive WAR: Here's the top 10 all-time list at Baseball America.

Babe Ruth
Ty Cobb
Barry Bonds
Willie Mays
Hank Aaron
Ted Williams
Stan Musial
Rogers Hornsby
Honus Wagner
Tris Speaker

Factor in longevity (which is what gets a guy like Speaker on there), and I think that's a pretty accurate list. 9/10 of those guys would come up when discussing "best all-time hitter."

Tell me more about this straw man I created.

It doesn't penalize the player. It just prevents counting the same run twice.

When you start combining counting statistics, you have to account for duplication like that.

You want to talk about runs knocked in, sure, you count the HR as an RBI.

You want to talk about runs scored, same thing.

When you want to talk about the runs that Player A contributed to his team in a given period compared to the runs that Player B contributed, though... Player A's home runs still only accounted for one run. Giving him credit for them in R and RBI (without subtracting the HR count from the total) makes it look like Player A contributed (number equal to home runs) more runs than he actually did.

I think Cabrera should win unless Josh Hamilton hits two HRs tonight. Then, Trout should win.

I still haven't heard anyone explain how Trout leading the Angels to a 3rd place finish makes him the MVP. Spare me the talk about the Angels' tough division and all the other crap. The fact is that he was leading the league in hitting on August 1st, and he didn't perform nearly as well down the stretch when the Angels were actually in the pennant race. He hit .284 after August 1st. That is not an MVP performance.

You don't decide the MVP on August 1st. You decide it after ALL of the games have been played.

Sure it does. If Mike Trout gets a double and Albert Pujols hits a singe and Trout scores, they each get credit for a run produced. How is that worth twice as much as a run produced by a home run?

This just proves my point that when you try to make statistics too complex, they lose their validity. And regarding WAR, I'm glad you mentioned that Fangraphs and Baseball America can't even manage to agree how WAR should be calculated. That's another thing about WAR that has always made me question its usefulness.

No it shouldn't.

His season is marginally better than the season Jacoby Elsbury had last year. A 30/30 season with a 300+ batting average and a lot of runs scored is a very very good season and worth of MVP consideration in a lot of years, but if Cabrera had won the triple crown last season and made the playoffs, there wouldn't be a discussion on this front - he'd have probably won it unanimously over Elsbury.


Trout's had arguably the greatest rookie season in baseball history and a very very good season overall. That said, his service time and rookie status are immaterial when discussing an MVP award - a single season award. Rookies are on the same field as the vets.

Ultimately, this is a hardcore battle between the SABRE dork and the crusty old baseball men where where the stats guys are going to point at stuff like WAR and claim that Trout's smoked Cabrera when in reality he hasn't. Cabrera's been a better hitter AND he's moved to 3b and played it admirably, allowing his team to go sign Prince Fielder. Trout's advantage in WAR comes from his defensive value but even the most ardent stats guys will grudgingly concede that defensive statistics are largely crap right now (at least the ones we know about, the good ones are all in-house and the teams won't release the results).

I will allow that Cabrera's defense isn't as good as Trouts, certainly, but playing a passable 3b allowed the Tigers to go get the best LH slugger on the market and that's extremely valuable in its own right.

Yes, hell yes, I want Cabrera to win the triple crown. A) It's history and I love seeing history get made. B) It's not Albert Pujols, the presumptive favorite for the crown for a decade. C) It should be sufficient to get him the MVP and make the SABRE folks absolutely lose their goddamn minds.

And that's always fun. I love me some baseball stats, but they aren't the end all, be all. To argue that a triple crown winner and the leader of a playoff team should not get the MVP because a rookie led the league in WAR is just crazy talk to me.

Miguel Cabrera deserves the MVP because he finagled his team into a division with the White Sox, Royals, Indians, and Twins whereas Trout put his team in a division with better teams.

Also, Alabama didn't deserve to be in the NC game over Ohio. Ohio won their division, and Alabama didn't.

How a player closes the season is important in the MVP race, no doubt about it. You're fresh/hot in the mind of voters, most importantly. But the stuff that happens early counts, too. I'll point out that despite hitting .284 after August 1, Trout still posted a sterling OBP (.377).

If the award is truly "Most Valuable Player, " it should go to the player who was the best player in the league over the course of the whole season. Not just the first four months of the season, and not just the last two months.

You can make a fine case for Miguel Cabrera. Same thing with Trout. It's not a slam dunk in either direction. Neither choice is egregiously wrong.

I've long thought that the whole "Did his team make the playoffs" thing is ridiculous. Basing an individual award on team performance is about as dumb as basing a Gold Glove on offensive performance. So OF COURSE it happens all the time.

Matt Kemp was the best player in the National League last year (that WAS a slam dunk), but didn't take home the hardware.

Ask me again where you set up a straw man so that you can easily knock it down. At least Duncan Idaho is providing intelligent responses, even if I disagree with his choice for MVP.

I completely agree with you on that, and I feel a little sheepish about even using that argument.

I didn't get beyond stat 101 and am not a hardcore SABRE guy. So my explanation is not as complex as a true statistician would make it...

But there is a statistical flaw in counting the same occurrence in two lists, then adding the two lists together without accounting for the double-dip.

Think about the way accounting works. It would be like adding a sale to an individual counter for the salesman, adding it to the total company sales, and then adding the salesman's figures to the total company figures again.