Well with the MLB season having been over for three weeks now, it seems like a good time to reflect back upon this past season and prepare for what looks like it might be a wild off-season. The Boston Red Sox closed the World Series out at home in Boston in Game 6, with a fairly boring, standard victory. I did not watch games 5 and 6 after an exciting games 3 and 4 but the best team won, and congratulations to the Red Sox and to the city of Boston.
Since that time, all major awards have been handed out to deserving players and hot stove rumors have begun to swirl. I'd like to weigh in on a few of the more heavily-debated awards and then (in future posts) take a look ahead at what the off-season has in store for us.
Rookie of the Year: I was extremely relieved to hear Jose Fernandez's name called as the NL Rookie of the Year. After all the hype surrounding Yasiel Puig, the right player absolutely won the award, as Fernandez would even have gotten stronger consideration for Cy Young if it wasn't for a certain one of Puig's Dodger teammates that had an unbelievable season. Wil Myers on the American League side was a less obvious choice. The Rays had a pair of deserving teammates (Myers and pitcher Chris Archer) but Myers took it home in a very weak class of AL rookies. Would've liked to see Archer win but no major complaints here.
Cy Young: Can't make any legitimate arguments against Kershaw and Scherzer winning here except that I would've liked to see them both a little more unanimous. Both had incredible seasons.
MVP: I love Andrew McCutchen and am glad that he took home the hardware from a tough NL field, but the real deabte is on the American League side here. I won't focus much on the NL side of this, although arguments could be made, but I love McCutchen and completely agree. However, everyone seems to have an opinion on the American League side of this debate, in what is becoming the yearly "Cabrera vs. Trout" debate, which pits traditional baseball thinkers against the new-age statisical-minded analysts. By all account, sabremetrics and other advanced statistics show that Mike Trout is the most valuable player in the American League. But at what point do you draw the line between being statistically "valuable" and having intangible values in leading your team to victories (and ultimately, the playoffs). One can argue that if you traded Cabrera and Trout, would the Angels be as good as the Tigers and go to the playoffs? Probably not. Would the Tigers still go to the playoffs with either Trout or Cabrera? Probably. So how does one decide the true "value" of one player leading a team of 25 players? I don't know enough about this all yet to make a valid argument but what I do know is that I seem to be taking a more traditional position in this debate and agree that Miguel Cabrera should be the MVP. His offensive numbers are off the chart, and he has become one of the best hitters of all time. Is baseball only played on offense? Of course not. Is Trout more valuable in the field and on the basepaths? Absolutely. If Trout's team had better pitching and offense and went to the playoffs would he be the MVP? Probably. But this is all part of the debate, which I will come back to in future posts, but for now, I agree with the voters and believe that Miguel Cabrera is the American League's Most Valuable Player.
Next post: Hot Stove Report! Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment