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.