(07-16-2015 02:47 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Like I said in the earlier post- this is very similar to a few years ago with Trout/Cabrera in the MVP race. Cabrera did something that hadn't been done in 45 years(win a triple crown). He won the MVP race by a 22-6 1st place margin. Even though Trout's WAR was 3.6 greater. I think it's one that would be fascinating to see end of the day.

Yeah and that still bothers me to this day. Trout was clearly the superior player and it's not like his team was garbage, as they came within one game of making the playoffs. Also, after he got called up the Angels had the best record in baseball. Sure, Cabrera led the league in categories that were deemed the most important around 100 years ago, but if Cabrera had one fewer HR he would've tied for the league lead and wouldn't have won the award. He wouldn't have been a different player and his season would've basically been the exact same, yet because the voters based their candidacy on counting stats instead of overall level of play, he unfairly won the award.

Another good example of voters focusing on popular numbers rather than just the overall level of play: In 1962 Maury Wills beat Willie Mays to win the NL MVP. Mays hit for a higher average, had 43 more HR and nearly 100 more RBI, his WAR was 4.5 better and his OPS was 280 points higher. Yet Wills won because he had 104 stolen bases and was only caught 13 times. That's quite a feat, but it's insane to give a guy the MVP because he was amazing at stealing bases and nothing else.