[Fangraphs] The actual difference between Trout and Betts

[Angelsjunky]

A good, straight-forward read on why Trout has been significantly better: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-actual-difference-between-mike-trout-and-mookie-betts/

The bottom line: Betts has made 86 more outs this year. That's a lot.

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

52 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

A good, straight-forward read on why Trout has been significantly better: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-actual-difference-between-mike-trout-and-mookie-betts/

The bottom line: Betts has made 86 more outs this year. That's a lot.

If Trout played for the Red Sox or any AL East team, he would have Babe Ruth type seasons.

[Angelsjunky]

I don't know about that. First of all, no one will ever have Babe Ruth like seasons (.370, 55 HR, .500 OBP, .800 SLG) because the game is just so different today. Oh wait, Barry Bonds DID have Ruthian seasons but...

 

[Glen]

The main difference between Trout and Betts is that Trout is on a last-place, west coast team and Betts is on the playoff-bound Red Sox.  That's bound to factor into the decision for some writers.

[Oz27]

4 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

A good, straight-forward read on why Trout has been significantly better: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-actual-difference-between-mike-trout-and-mookie-betts/

The bottom line: Betts has made 86 more outs this year. That's a lot.

I'm trying to be one of those guys who is at ease with the MVP voting, who learned from the Trout/Cabera experience that the decisions aren't backed by logic and just to be okay with it. But Trout should so clearly be the winner and the arguments against him are just so irrational that it is hard.

Pedro Moura from the LA Times tweeted this not long ago...

Pedro Moura

@pedromoura

Mookie Betts over Mike Trout for MVP is an affront to logic. Trout is 20% better at not making outs. Betts only leads in team-driven stats.

[Troll Daddy]

It's not a best player award.

[maximus p]

2 hours ago, Troll Daddy said:

It's not a best player award.

If it is not the best player award does Trout "deserve" any MVP votes? If he is not the MVP because he doesn't play on a contender, then only contending teams can logically have players worthy of the award. Trout doesn't play on a contender so is not deserving of an MVP vote, even for 2nd place. Did I get that right?

[Troll Daddy]

19 minutes ago, maximus p said:

If it is not the best player award does Trout "deserve" any MVP votes? If he is not the MVP because he doesn't play on a contender, then only contending teams can logically have players worthy of the award. Trout doesn't play on a contender so is not deserving of an MVP vote, even for 2nd place. Did I get that right?

Sometimes the best player does win. I think he wins this year. 

[Angelsjunky]

I think this can be easily solved by splitting it into two: a Kirk Gibson Award--best/grittiest player on a contender--and a Babe Ruth Award, or the best position player in the league. That way the Kirk Gibson Award opens up to pitchers and hitters, but the Babe Ruth and Cy Young Awards are hitters and pitchers only, respectively.

[Oz27]

46 minutes ago, maximus p said:

If it is not the best player award does Trout "deserve" any MVP votes? If he is not the MVP because he doesn't play on a contender, then only contending teams can logically have players worthy of the award. Trout doesn't play on a contender so is not deserving of an MVP vote, even for 2nd place. Did I get that right?

I actually agree with this. The second/third place votes make the least sense to me. For me, he is either first (which he should be) or nowhere near the top. If you're justifying bumping him from first, how do those same reasons not disqualify you from putting him second. Dave Cameron from Fangraphs made that argument last week and I strongly agree with it.

[Jeff Fletcher]

1 hour ago, Oz27 said:

I actually agree with this. The second/third place votes make the least sense to me. For me, he is either first (which he should be) or nowhere near the top. If you're justifying bumping him from first, how do those same reasons not disqualify you from putting him second. Dave Cameron from Fangraphs made that argument last week and I strongly agree with it.

Yes.

I expect to see some ballot that goes Betts, Trout, Donaldson. 

If Betts is more valuable than Trout because his team is better, how is Trout more valuable than Donaldson?

[Oz27]

13 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Yes.

I expect to see some ballot that goes Betts, Trout, Donaldson. 

If Betts is more valuable than Trout because his team is better, how is Trout more valuable than Donaldson?

The funny thing is, I am very confident he will finish second and also be second on the majority of the ballots ... even though it makes so little sense.

[Docwaukee]

the amount of emphasis on any given single criteria for an given player changes from year to year.  Or even among different players in the same year.  Then you factor in momentum and/or late season performance and it becomes even more muddled.  

Last year Donaldson won pretty handily even though Trout had a better season overall.  Granted, he wasn't head a shoulders better, but still better.  But in the NL Harper was a unanimous pick for a team that didn't make the playoffs.  Yet Goldy was only 1.1 wins less.  Trout was 0.6 wins better.  Donaldson was a beast the last couple months of the season and Toronto won a ton of games late in the season to solidify their playoff spot.  The Angels were playing meaningful baseball yet the team faded in August while Trout slumped.  

The year before, Kershaw pitched about 200 innings with a 1.77 era and he won the mvp.  Last year, Arrieta pitched 229 innings, had almost the exact same peripherals, a 1.77 era and his team won 98 games and he was unhittable in the second half.  He finished 6th.  

Every season, something matters differently than in the previous year.  

[AngelsFanSince86]

I just do not understand the whole, "its not a best player award, its the most valuable player award" argument.  I hear it all the time from writers and fans.  Isn't the best player by definition also the most valuable? How can anyone be more valuable than the best player?

[ScottT]

But... what about value to his TEAM?

[Angels#1Fan]

IMHO a DH should never win the MVP and I don't care what his numbers are.

Playing only half the game is NOT valuable!

[Oz27]

1 hour ago, Vladdylonglegs said:

The race is between Betts and Papi. Papi is retiring, on one of the best teams and hit 38 HRs and had 127 RBI. Those numbers are sure to give the voters hard ons.

I just don't see the writers saying Trout was more valuable than Ortiz as all the games he played in were meaningles and wasn't even in the same ballpark where RBI and HR are concerned.

Is Trout the better player? By far. Should Trout be the MVP? Of course. Will he be? Probably not. Papi has all the elements to give the voters the biggest hard ons of their lives.

I would be surprised if Ortiz gets a single first place vote. The voters have shown themselves capable of making some really dumb decisions but that would be up there with that time Michael Young got a first place vote. Betts and Trout could get all of the first place votes, if anyone else does it would probably be Machado.

[Jeff Fletcher]

I voted Donaldson ahead of Betts and both ahead of Ortiz. 

[Stradling]

5 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I voted Donaldson ahead of Betts and both ahead of Ortiz. 

Where was Trout on your ballot?  First or fifth?

[Jeff Fletcher]

3 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Where was Trout on your ballot?  First or fifth?

I can't tell you that

And dont assume Donaldson, Betts and Ortiz were consecutive either. 

[Stradling]

4 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I can't tell you that

And dont assume Donaldson, Betts and Ortiz were consecutive either. 

 I'll throw out a guess and say, Machado, Donaldson then Trout.  Or Trout, Machado and Donaldson. 

[tdawg87]

I don't think Machado is even in the conversation. But I'm not voting so who knows.

[mulwin444]

Both Machado and Donaldson are 3 WAR less than Trout.  What an absolute kick in the balls it would be for Trout to lose to one of those two...even Betts is more deserving.

[Oz27]

15 minutes ago, mulwin444 said:

Both Machado and Donaldson are 3 WAR less than Trout.  What an absolute kick in the balls it would be for Trout to lose to one of those two...even Betts is more deserving.

Cabrera was worth 3.6 fewer WAR than Trout in 2012 and he won because people are infatuated with a couple of outdated stats so who bloody knows. But surely if Trout doesn't win, it is Betts who does.

[Docwaukee]

Jeff - do you take into consideration the buzz among the players or who you think the fan would want?