Baseball Ideology and the 2012 MVP "Election"

There are two parties in this country separated by fundamental differences of opinion. One party supports a candidate based on traditional values and the other rallies behind a man representing more progressive ideas. Lines are drawn between youth and experience, between excitement and consistency. The results of the upcoming voting will speak volumes about the future trajectory of the electorate.

The above statement could refer to either this year's Presidential election or the AL MVP race. And while I admit I'm an amateur baseball analyst, I'm even more "amateur" when it comes to politics, so from this point I'll focus on our MVP candidates. This year's race is the most interesting award race I can think of in quite some time. It is infinitely more compelling than last year's MVP race because unlike last year when the candidates were all so-so but not outstanding (my apologies to Curtis Granderson), Miguel Cabrera and Mike Trout have both had excellent seasons.

Let's look at the tale of the tape:

	Cabrera	Trout
Avg	0.330	0.326
HR	44	30
Runs	109	129
RBI	139	83
OBP	0.393	0.399
SLG	0.606	0.564
OPS	0.999	0.963
WAR	7.1	10
TB	377	315
BB/K	0.67	0.48

Of the ten categories listed above, Miguel Cabrera wins 7 to 3. Typically, the top four listed (Avg, HR, Runs, and RBIs) are the categories most commonly considered when choosing MVP. Of the four, Cabrera wins three with batting average being very close. The next six are more modern measurements and Cabrera bested Trout in all but two with OPS being fairly close.

Before we talk about what matters most in this discussion, let's talk about what doesn't matter at all. First, the fact that the Tigers made it to the postseason and the Angels didn't. It does not matter that the Angels, who actually won one more game than the Tigers, failed to make the postseason. The Tigers were gifted with a White Sox September implosion that Detroit would not have made it to the postseason without. Second, it does not matter that Mike Trout is a rookie. Pundits will inevitably want to give Trout extra credit for performing so well despite being a first year player. Conversely, people will want to give Cabrera the MVP award because Trout will win the Rookie of the Year award, almost as a consolation prize. Both are ridiculous, (naturally). Finally, it doesn't matter that the Angels didn't call up Trout until April 28th. Like the second issue, it could be seen as a pro or a con depending on your point of view.

It basically comes down to what you put more value in: Cabrera's Triple Crown or Trout's superior defense. Again, we're looking at an argument of traditional baseball values against modern progressive metrics. Trout supporters will point out that in the past, the Triple Crown was not an automatic victory in the MVP race. Of the eleven past players that won the Triple Crown in a year that an award was given for MVP, only six won the award, (there are fifteen previous triple crowns but the first four were achieved prior to the existence of the MVP award). But the Triple Crown used to be much more prevalent than it is now. From 1911, the first year the MVP award was given out, until 1967, someone achieved the Triple Crown on average once every five years. After 1967, it took 45 years for someone to win. Now more than ever, the Triple Crown means something. For all intents and purposes, it's a perfect game wrapped in a hitting cycle covered with an in-the-park home run.

Trout's offensive short comings (compared to Cabrera) may be made up for with his defensive prowess. He could very well win the Gold Glove award and Cabrera will definitely NOT be winning one. According to FanGraphs, Trout ended the season with a UZR (Ultimate Zone Rating) of 11.4, compared to -10 for Cabrera. This is an incredible difference but without it, Trout is likely not even in this discussion.

For the purposes of this argument, I offer a tie-breaker: total bases. The total bases statistic is simple and measures perhaps the most fundamental aspect of the game: traveling around the bases from beginning to end. There is no run scored that does not first touch each preceding base. Cabrera tagged 62 more bases than Trout.

Both are fantastic players and this truly was one of the more entertaining award debates in recent history. In my opinion, there are no wrong answers. Trout is one of the brightest young players in the game and Cabrera perhaps just cemented himself as one of the best all-around hitters of his generation. In the end, I think it boils down to what voters think of Cabrera and the meaning of his Triple Crown achievement in modern day baseball. For what it's worth, I'll take Cabrera and I think voters will too.