CHICAGO -- I haven't kept notes each time I've talked with players, managers and front-office types in the past month about the American League Most Valuable Player vote, and I can't tell you exactly how many have addressed the question of whom they would pick, Miguel Cabrera or Mike Trout. Probably about 50. But the conversations have been so strikingly similar that I can say, for sure, that all but a very small handful of uniformed personnel -- by small handful, I mean two -- have told me they would pick Cabrera. And all but a very small handful of front-office types -- as in, one -- have told me they would pick Trout. More than what it says about Cabrera and Trout, this phenomenon tells us that a massive gap of perspective between the on-field and off-field baseball folks remains, at a time when the use of advanced statistical metrics has become more pervasive than ever. "Ten years ago, you'd never see a general manager in the clubhouse," one longtime coach said this week. "Now you see all these stat guys running around, and they're always bringing you theories." No endorsement of Cabrera or Trout for MVP should be confused for criticism of the player not picked; both players have engendered extraordinary respect within the game. When I've asked, I've done so with the promise of anonymity to encourage complete honesty of opinion. The on-field personnel see Cabrera as an incredibly reliable, consistent and irreplaceable source of run production, someone who wrecks bad pitching but also hits good pitching. "I've seen him fight off bastard pitches with two strikes, a slider on the black -- he'll foul it off," one player said. "Then, when you're thinking he's leaning over the plate, you try to bust him inside, and he crushes it. He's the best, and he's out there every day. He's really tough, and I don't think you can put into numbers what he means to that team." A prominent veteran player: "I would be really, really disappointed if Cabrera didn't win." Players and coaches also mentioned the impact of Cabrera on his teammates, on how they see him provide confidence for the others merely with his presence. "He's a leader, in a way that Trout hasn't had a chance to be yet," one coach said. "You take Trout away from the Angels and it hurts, but they've got other guys. You take Cabrera away from the Tigers and they are a completely different team." A response from an executive, which is typical of many responses I've heard: "Why is there even a conversation?" In other words, this executive views Trout as so much the superior player overall -- with his peerless baserunning, extraordinary defense and exceptional offensive skills -- that he doesn't view them as close. "We're seeing a combination of talents we've never seen before," said one highly ranked NL official. "He does everything. He's among the best hitters in the game right now; he is the best baserunner; and he might be the best defender [in the outfield]. It's actually hard to put into words how good he is." The advanced metrics do it for them. Some executives don't use WAR, viewing it as something of a junk stat, but virtually every team uses some form of metrics to provide a summary of a player's overall value, and Trout has dominated those, in that way that Tiger Woods once dominated in golf. Those advanced metrics are used now more than ever to pick players, to build teams, to structure decisions made in games every day. The Cabrera-Trout debate is falling along the lines of red states and blue states, and it is just the latest clue about how much players, coaches and managers remain skeptical about the numbers that are crunched all around them. http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/blog.../8438137/the-split-baseball-al-mvp-debate-mlb
The Braves? That doesn't even make any sense? Fuckin' phone. I had to have clicked in the wrong box. I meant the Cardinals. Oh well. That is okay. When asked in work about the WS while the regular season was winding down I told people it would be the Tigers vs the Reds, Giants or Cardinals. I was certain about the Tigers. Thought they were head and shoulders better than the other AL teams. They have the hitting, pitching, manager, and like Ron Burgundy they have The Balls. I liked the Reds, Giants and Cardinals but had trouble discerning which one of the three would do best in the NL playoffs.
I actually had the AL pretty close, but I got nothing right in the NL AL I had: Yankees over Texas Tigers over Oakland Tigers over Yankees Texas and the Angels were the two best AL teams, IMO, but that's how it goes. They didn't play well enough at the end.
