You know what we should be turning our attention to right now? The greatness of Miguel Cabrera. That's what.

This should be a time, on the night we learned that Cabrera and Andrew McCutchen had won the 2013 MVP awards, to celebrate one of the most remarkable right-handed hitters most of us have ever laid eyes on.

A man who just became the second player in the past 50 years -- and the first since Frank Thomas in 1993-94 -- to win back-to-back AL MVP awards.

A man who just joined Mickey Mantle (in 1956-57) as the only players ever to win a Triple Crown one year and follow that act by winning an MVP trophy the next.

A man who can say he's the first right-handed hitter to win three straight batting titles in any league since Rogers Hornsby did it -- nearly 90 years ago (1920 to 1925).

That's what the MVP conversation ought to be about at this historic moment in Miguel Cabrera's time. But it's not, of course.

Instead, we're right back where we were last year at this time -- back to a debate about Cabrera versus Mike Trout, back to a debate about new school/old school, back to a debate over the true meaning of the most confusing word in modern award terminology: valuable.

Well, we'll get to that debate in a moment. But first …

Here's what we shouldn't be debating:

1) Whether Mike Trout is the best, most complete baseball player on this continent. If you're one of the holdouts who is keeping that sentiment from being unanimous, you need to get out of your cocoon and watch this guy play a little more closely.

2) Whether wins above replacement (WAR) is the most useful, all-encompassing baseball statistic ever invented. If you're still in that crowd that thinks this is some sort of gimmicky numerical concoction, conceived by a bunch of mad-scientist stat nerds, that bears no relation to reality, get a grip. It may not be perfect. But there has never, ever, been a better tool for measuring everything that takes place on a baseball field than WAR. Period.

So if Trout or WAR are what you want to argue about right now, go right ahead. Just don't drag me into it. For me, the discussion of valuable in this context won't be heading in either of those directions.

For me, what wins above replacement tells us about Mike Trout is more accurate than a W-2 form. He's a player who does more things well, and can beat you in more ways, than any other guy in this sport. That part is simple.

So here's what isn't:

Does that make him the Most Valuable Player in the American League? Discuss.

OK, we will.

Can we all agree on something first? That this is a personal judgment?

There's a thunderous chorus, on the Trout side of this debate, that doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that. But not every voter, or every baseball fan, has to believe what that side believes. That's what makes this fun. That's what makes this America.

Not everyone has to believe that the definition of "most valuable" is "most value compared to an average replacement player."

And not everyone has to believe, as so many of Trout's campaign managers seem to, that his teammates (and Cabrera's) are irrelevant in this debate.

Hmmm. Are they? Do they have to be? I know a lot of really bright people feel that way. And have a right to feel that way. And aren't wrong if they feel that way.

But here's just one reason that I disagree (and I'm allowed to disagree):

I also hear the Trout proponents make the point that the Cabrera supporters are ignoring Cabrera's mediocre September (when his batting average was just .278, with only two extra-base hits all month).