Miguel Cabrera easily beat out Mike Trout for the hardware, getting 22 of the 28 available first-place votes, and becoming the first player ever from Venezuela to win the award. Of course, Cabrera won on the back of his Triple Crown season, the first person in 45 years to match that feat with a .330 batting average, 44 home runs and 139 RBIs.
Although the vote wasn’t as close as some expected, the debate will likely continue to range on. In that respect, it’s one of the best MVP arguments ever — trumping last year’s “should a pitcher win the MVP?” question — as it pits the new school versus the old school.
In the actual voting the old-school paradigm proved triumphant, but the mathematicians will point to a litany of numbers to prove that Trout was actually the more valuable player. And, although most will concede that Cabrera was the more dangerous hitter, others will rely on Trout’s speed and defensive game to make a more holistic argument.
Even some of our very own NESN scribes have weighed in on the matter in the past.
So does WAR matter? Are sabermetrics irrelevant? Does the Triple Crown trump every other consideration?