slightly off topic, but it's absurd to think that Trout should have won the MVP, when Cabrera was the first Triple Crown winner in 45 years. I don't care what his WAR was.
The new school argument is something like: the Triple Crown is an overvalued and superficial accomplishment and giving a player the MVP based solely on that is making a similar error to the scenes in Moneyball where the scouts cared about irrelevant things like whether a player has an attractive girlfriend or how he gets on base (walks vs hits).
I have no problem with using WAR as something to include in the discussion, but it should not be the complete deciding factor.
Interesting side note, apparently Oakland's (famous for using sabermetrics) model for WAR had Cabrera on top - http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1570961-mike-trout-vs-mig...