10-15 years ago, there would be very little argument against cabrera getting the MVP. but, the evaluation of a player through the analysis of baseball statistics has evolved to the point where players with certain statistics who attain particular accolades are not worth as much, in the public eye but more so to those making decisions on the field and in management. we've seen some of this surface into these post season awards the last several seasons - felix and his 13 wins beating out price (19 wins), sabathia (21) and lester (19) in 2010 for the cy is a perfect example. in the end, it's an award given by the baseball writers and its a debate perfect for sports talk radio, internet forums, and over a glass of beer at your favorite pub. in other words, nothing really to get bent out of shape over if cabrera or trout wins the mvp - it's just a game and it's meant purely for our entertainment.
i personally think the triple crown is a great achievement and signifies a great season - but, let's keep in mind that cabrera has had similar seasons in the past, most notably in 2010 (2nd in MVP voting) when he notched 38 home runs, 126 rbis, and a .328 batting average. give the award to cabrera not simply because he won the triple crown - it's a nice achievement, but it's three variables in a multivariate equation - but because of his complete profile, which includes how much he meant to his team (let's keep things in perspective when we start saying that a triple crown automatically equates to an MVP - frank thomas hit 40 home runs, drove in 134 rbis, and hit .349 in 1996 and finished 8th in MVP voting - had he won the triple crown then (those numbers are similar to miguel's), would he automatically be the MVP?).
i think cabrera will win the award because the tigers made the playoffs and the angels didnt. the writers have been fairly consistent about this criteria, only diverging when a player puts up really crazy numbers (e.g. ARod's ranger season, dawson's cubs season).
|