That being said, the game and it’s effect is an individual condition. So you really can’t complain what the writers determine. One can feel the system is unfair, and how the key holders are selected; but that’s another issue.

But it’s kind of funny that the crowd you are calling the “science” crowd is advocating the all-around player, with blazing speed and flash and excitement and spectacular plays. And the “art” crowd in your formulation wants the award to go to the big bat who does nothing else.

Anyway, a great debate to have during the off season.

In reference to the defensive side of the equation, you’re right it’s hard to quantify exactly how many runs Cabrera cost the Tigers at third. Inge profiles as a good fielder though (fangraphs has him a plus defender 8 years in a row, sometimes a big plus), so fielding % is probably not the way to go. Cabrera is awful according to every system and every scout. According to those measures between Inge and Cabrera, the Tigers lost anywhere from 1 to 3 wins in that exchange.

To me, MVP does not necessarily mean best overall player because then pitchers, who are in maybe 33 at best games should never ever win. I consider it to be a part scientific and part artistic award, so I do factor in intangibles. Miguel selflessly helped his team improve offensively at third while maintaining production at first. Playing well down the stretch counts, and being able to take advantage of Chicago’s gagging counts. No one took advantage of the Yankees stumble in 2000. Plus, triple crown. I give it to Cabrera.

[2] Trout’s excellence can be expressed in many ways.

let trout and cabrera votes cancel each other out and give the award to Robbie! ; )