Wow. That's a lot of words. I'll break it down piece by piece.
WAR, by the mere definition, is a replacement player that is a Triple-A caliber player, i.e. minor league player, according to Kurkjian or Olney (as stated during a Mike and Mike segment), cannot recall which (an ESPN analyst in the link below further dives into it). So Trout's explosion disproves the notion that a replacement player cannot be a solid hitter or an outright great player in all facets of the game, and thus can be argued to render a player's "wins above replacement" false. Same could happen with Trout - the Angels could have another phenom in the minors who is called up and excels if Trout were injured (or goes the Joe Charboneau route). Technically, there is no suggestion that a Triple-A player is even quality enough to be a backup in the Majors. The rate of minor leaguers making the majors are something like 1 in 100. Therefore I find the replacement player definition a bit of a fallacy as it's a fictional player. You can't divide zero into any number and not get zero. We might as well rename it WARH (Wins Against Roy Hobbs).
You have totally misunderstood the concept of WAR.
Here is a good definition. The concept is that every team has journeyman players in their minor league system who can be called up and provide a certain level of performance. That level of performance is bad. (There is a reason that every franchise has these guys in the minors, they aren't good) A team full of replacement level players would win about 40 games per year. Another way to think of replacement players is someone with a minor league contract that can be acquired for a PTBNL.
WAR does not take into account that Cabrera 1A) switched positions so 1B) the club could sign Fielder, and 2) lost 20lbs to play 3B. This metric also cannot begin to compare the two defensively as they play separate positions, and OF is given more importance in the category as the possibility of saving more runs exists on balls in play in the outfield versus infield, as is base stealing which benefits the speed player and undermines the guy that through genetics does not have elite speed (1B is weighted less than SS for example). If they played the same position the defensive argument would hold far more water. I can counter steals with doubles, neither a trump card. I can counter runs scored with runs batted in, after all someone has to drive in the runners just as much as runners need to get on base to score. Back to defense, Cabrera shared the MLB lead with most putouts by a 3B (127) which saved plenty of potential runs; no one will argue Cabrera is a gold glove candidate and Trout may well win this award this year/future - he's a five tool guy but that alone doesn't win MVP. However, it's not like Cabrera is a crap fielder highlighted by his 3rd in fielding %, 3rd in assists, and 2nd in double plays in the AL. If defense is the deciding factor then Ken Griffey Jr or Brooks Robinson should have won multiple MVPs. If you're going to use defense to highlight Trout's supremacy I will use RISP with two outs - Cabrera hit .420 and OPS 1.211, Trout hit .286 and .782 OPS - that's clutch hitting.
Cabrera switched positions and moved to third base in order to sign Fielder. But he still insisted on playing the field. (Which is fine, he is a valued asset and if the Tigers want to keep him happy then they will let him) If he was concerned first and foremost with winning the most games, he would have been willing to be a DH and let Dombrowski get an actual third baseman to play third base.
Your argument that you can't compare them defensively because they played separate positions is like saying you can't say Zidane is better than Bramble because they play different positions.
Ken Griffey Jr.
should have won multiple MVPs. He was clearly the best player in 93, one of the two best in 94, 2nd best in 91, best in 97, and best in 96. Brooks Robinson won the MVP once and finished top 5 four more times.
You also misunderstand the defensive stats. Outfield is not inherently weighted more than third base when it comes to defensive calculations. Trout's centerfield defense is compared to a replacement level centerfielder. Cabrera's third base defense is compared to a replacement level third basemen.
I don't understand what genetics has to do with anything. Trout is faster and his baserunning is more valuable.
First base is weighted less than shortstop because of the
defensive spectrum, which is a different value than dWAR.
Cabrera's doubles edge is reflected in offensive war and OPS+, where Trout retains an advantage.
WAR does not take into account the late season playoff push. While Cabrera practically carried his club past the ChiSox to a division title with a ridiculous offensive onslaught from August forward ((BA-HR-RBI).344-19-54 from 1 Aug, .333-11-30 from 1 Sep), while Trout struggled (.287-12-28 from 1 Aug; .289-5-9 from 1 Sep) as his team not only failed to catch Texas but allowed Oakland to leapfrog past the club, ultimately missing the playoffs. An MVP should be far more productive down the stretch. This metric does not reflect Trout's 139 whiffs (horrible for a leadoff man) while Cabrera struck out 98 times (respectable for a middle-of-the-order hitter). Spare me the Angels better record, by a whopping one game. Had Trout continued his first three months production the Angels are probably in the postseason; if Cabrera struggles late the Tigers miss the playoffs in all probability. This metric claims Trout had the 20th greatest season in MLB history, which is outright laughable (
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/WAR_bat_season.shtml). So that's him already greater than Griffey Jr, Aaron, Williams, Foxx, Rodriguez, Clemente, etc. WAR, what is it good far? Absolutely nothing.
Funny that for Miguel Cabrera's supposed clutchness, the Tigers finally overtook the White Sox in the last week days of September. On September 22nd, the White Sox were up by 1 game. On October 1st, the Tigers were up by 3 games. The Tigers went 7-3 during this stretch but Cabrera only had a .603 OPS. Also, Cabrera's September WAR was lower than Trout's, just like it has been in every month since Trout got called up.
Strikeouts are also included in WAR, so you are wrong again. And yeah, he did have one of the greatest seasons ever. It's not like WAR is a horrible stat that puts Gary Gaetti ahead of Cal Ripken Jr. Look at the leaderboard you posted, the guys at the top are some of the all time greats.
WAR does not reflect that Billy Hatcher was fired as the hitting coach and Pujols finally started hitting by mid-May. It can be argued that Trout provided an offensive spark to an already stacked lineup but that's discounting Pujols career hitting - he was eventually going to get back to his career averages (form is temporary, class is permanent argument). This metric does not take into account that Pujols is a better hitter than Fielder (comparing each MVP candidate's best hitting teammate) or that Pujols had changed leagues and needed to adjust, nor that the Angels have a better overall offense and defense.
First of all, it is Mickey Hatcher not Billy. Second, what does Albert Pujols have to do with anything?
WAR is a great metric for scouting, contract negotiations, etc., but is not the deciding factor for an MVP award, IMVHO. And as I always argued against ARod for MVP while in his Texas years, it's most valuable player not most outstanding hitter/player. Jacoby for MVP backers used WAR to claim he was certainly the MVP, and discounted Verlander because he was a pitcher. While I'm not one of those people that votes for pitchers to win MVPs (I personally believe an MVP should be an everyday positional player but that's not to say a pitcher can't be a most valuable player to a team), the WAR argument was not the trump card for Ellsbury. I personally felt Granderson was the true definition of most valuable player in 2011 despite low batting average and "WAR" (similar to Kirk Gibson-1988 in many facets). Voters did not see it that way and placed him fifth but they did not vote Ellsbury the MVP based on his WAR stat. Now, in defense, Ellsbury's season was not as good as Trout's, nor Cabrera.
Why would it be good for one and not the other? Also, no one is saying it should be the deciding factor every year. But when the edge is this huge? Yeah, that means something. I personally wouldn't vote pitchers for MVP either but that is just personal preference. The reason there wasn't much talk about WAR last year is because it said lots of guys were pretty close.
Finally, WAR had the likes of Gordon and Zorbrist rated higher than (Adam) Jones, Pujols and Hamilton. All five are exceptional players but here reflects WAR favors the player that is multidimensional and/or better defensively/runner. Do you know many GMs that would rather sign the former duo over the latter trio if money and other factors are considered?
WAR looks at the total value of the player, why shouldn't it?
The problem with WAR is it's another statistic and we're obsessed with them in our culture. Look at MLS - they have all kinds of stats that the rest of the world scoff at (granted, it's a different sport). Baseball has been the biggest statistical sport in our culture and will always be. It has touched other sports both positively and negatively (the worst being QBR in NCAA/NFL). The bottom line is Cabrera achieved a rare feat, much rarer in the last fifty years than a rookie exploding onto the scene and putting up MVP statistics (see Fred Lynn, Mark McGwire, Ichiro, Fernando V, etc.).
Rarity is not a good argument. What if, I don't know, Robert Andino became the first player ever to hit .274, have 14 caught stealings, 88 runs and be under the age of 24? What does that mean? Furthermore, what if Cabrera hit .330-44-139 (which he did)? A great season, definitely. But what if Edwin Encarnocion hit 45 home runs? Does that make Cabrera's season any more or less valuable? No.
