Craig Calcaterra reads a lot into the Miguel Cabrera/Mike Trout MVP vote:

But I think the political overtones of all of this are far more interesting and far more decisive. More than just a preference for certain stats over others, the Trout vs. Cabrera debate has come to serve as a proxy war between baseball’s old guard, represented by established baseball writers with BBWAA credentials and attendant awards votes on the one hand and a newer guard, consisting of baseball fans and, increasingly, writers, whose voice and opinion has come to flourish on the Internet. There is some crossover here, of course. Many Cabrera backers can be found on Twitter and in online message boards and some of baseball writing’s most recognizable and established names such as Ken Rosenthal and Joe Posnanski cast first place votes for Trout this year. But, those exceptions notwithstanding, the contours of this battle are pretty familiar by now.

And it’s clearly about more than baseball. If one, as I do, reads just about everything written on the Trout vs. Cabrera debate, one quickly realizes that baseball has become secondary to the discourse. There’s more written about the very debate itself than these two players’ baseball bonafides, which are usually assumed. There’s talk about the allegedly strident tone of the Trout backers, who are claimed to be dogmatic in their adherence to sabermetrics (never mind that one can and many do make great cases for Trout without a single reference to a stat less than 100 years old). There’s talk about the hidebound and luddite disposition of the Cabrera backers, who are claimed to be stuck in the past and unable to follow basic logic (never mind that the intelligence and baseball acumen of the overwhelming number of Cabrera voters is beyond question).

In my view it’s a debate about a debate. And it’s an argument an altogether different thing than which player is most valuable. It’s about the future of media and baseball coverage. The evidence for this is the tone the debate has taken.

As Craig goes on to point out, the debate heated but not nasty. In that regard, the debate is excellent for the game. Let me point out that like the game, the way the news media covers the sport evolved over time as well. Before widespread radio and television, the newspaper articles were story telling, often heroic narratives. Once everyone could see and or hear the game in real time, coverage had to change. That requires more analysis, less storytelling, since everyone knows the story.

The MVP Award remains a throwback to the heroic narrative. Mike Trout stands as the best player in the game over the last two seasons. His combination of skills simply cannot be matched. Cabrera, however, is an amazing hitter, who led his team to two division titles. Injured most of the last month of the season, he still came through in the clutch as the Tigers limped to the finish line. He put the team on his shoulders, etc., etc.

Sports writers are primarily writers, not analysts. They look for a story line that inspires. The player who overcomes an alcohol problem, turns himself around to win the triple crown, plays hurt and delivers is simply a much better story. It has nothing to do with politics or old guard/new guard. Given an heroic narrative, writers will vote for the hero.