PDA

View Full Version : Royals Do you want to see Miguel Cabrera win MLBs Triple Crown?


Deberg_1990
10-01-2012, 07:43 AM
Could be the first Triple Crown since 1967


Ironically, the Royals will have a say in the race, since he plays against them the last 3 games.

Discuss....


http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/sports/2012/09/30/miguel-cabrera-triple-crown-race-heats-up/



Miguel Cabrera is slowly inching towards achieving the first Triple Crown since 1967.

With a line drive home run in the eighth inning against Minnesota on Saturday night, Cabrera moved into a tie with Texas star Josh Hamilton for the AL lead.

Cabrera's blast in the eighth inning off Casey Fien was his 43rd home run for the year. He also leads the AL in batting average (.327) and RBIs (136) as he looks to become the first player since 1967 to lead the league in all three categories.

"It's unbelievable what he's done this year," pitcher Justin Verlander said, the reigning AL MVP who was wearing a dark blue t-shirt with the message "Keep the MVP in the D" and Cabrera's name on the front.

"It's amazing to me how he keeps getting better. He's already the best hitter in the game and he keeps taking it to another level."

While it was Cabrera and his home run that gave the Tigers the five-run cushion they would end up needing in a 6-4 victory over the Twins that gave them a two-game lead in the AL Central, the Triple Crown hopeful deferred the attention away from himself.


It's unbelievable what he's done this year.- Justin Verlander


"I want to talk about the team," Cabrera said respectfully. "There's too many distractions right now and been talking too much about triple crowns. I pull too much attention. I don't want to do that. I want to go out there and play my game."

Cabrera entered the day leading Joe Mauer by five points in the batting race, Hamilton by eight in the RBI race, but trailing Hamilton by one in homers.

So will he be watching Hamilton down the stretch?

"I'll let you guys keep Hamilton in your eyes," Cabrera said. "I'll go to the hotel and get some breakfast tomorrow and try to win tomorrow."

The bigger prize, of course, is the division title. Neither the Tigers nor the Sox will qualify for one of two wild cards in the American League, so their only way in is through the division door.

"The last couple weeks, there's too much attention right now," Cabrera said of the triple crown. "I don't like too much of that stuff. But it's always good. You've got to feel comfortable with that. You've got to feel positive and be ready to play."

La literatura
10-01-2012, 07:45 AM
Yeah, but I still want the series win. And more importantly, I want the White Sox to lose.

RedDread
10-01-2012, 07:45 AM
For sure. By all accounts Cabrera is a good guy and I'd like to see one in my lifetime.

Al Bundy
10-01-2012, 07:46 AM
Yes.. and I hope clinches it against the Royals... and I mean bomb their asses.

stonedstooge
10-01-2012, 07:57 AM
HELL NO. Bring down one of the icons in baseball that I actually got to see play once in Kansas City. Yaz was awesome

noa
10-01-2012, 08:00 AM
Definitely want to see it, and what's amazing is people are actually debating whether he'll even win the AL MVP if he gets the triple crown.
Posted via Mobile Device

MIAdragon
10-01-2012, 08:04 AM
HELL NO. Bring down one of the icons in baseball that I actually got to see play once in Kansas City. Yaz was awesome

One TC will NOT bring down Yaz.

MIAdragon
10-01-2012, 08:04 AM
Definitely want to see it, and what's amazing is people are actually debating whether he'll even win the AL MVP if he gets the triple crown.
Posted via Mobile Device

Trout is having an unreal season, it should be debated.

La literatura
10-01-2012, 08:06 AM
HELL NO. Bring down one of the icons in baseball that I actually got to see play once in Kansas City. Yaz was awesome

Yeah, there's definitely that thorny issue of history forgetting prior Triple Crown winners.

stonedstooge
10-01-2012, 08:11 AM
Yeah, there's definitely that thorny issue of history forgetting prior Triple Crown winners.

Wait till you get to be an older fart like me. You try to hang on to the icons of your youth. It keeps alive the illusion that your youth was all rainbows,chocolate chip cookies and fairy tales

Dr. Facebook Fever
10-01-2012, 08:12 AM
I'd like to see him do it. You just don't see that kind of stuff very often and Cabrera is a pretty good guy. Hope he gets the triple crown and MVP and the Royals sweep the series while the Sox get swept and miss the playoffs after 117 days in first place this year. Suck it Hawk.

noa
10-01-2012, 08:30 AM
Trout is having an unreal season, it should be debated.

Absolutely agree, iust saying what a crazy season it is.
Posted via Mobile Device

Marco Polo
10-01-2012, 08:51 AM
Yes, its history in the making. And if you get the triple crown, there should be NO discussion of any other HITTER getting the MVP over him. Yes, Trout is having a great year but not a triple crown year. Give him ROY and have him try again next year.

Reaper16
10-01-2012, 09:10 AM
I would not like to see him win it, because I don't want the OBVIOUS FUCKING MVP, Mike Trout, to get his MVP award stolen from him by a bunch of old farts (or old-hearted voters) who think RBIs are a good measure of a player's value.

Paniero
10-01-2012, 09:25 AM
Royals should troll and intentionally walk him every time.

Saul Good
10-01-2012, 09:41 AM
Gordon stole a HR from him the last time we played. That could end up being the difference.

duncan_idaho
10-01-2012, 10:02 AM
It should be Trout regardless of whether Cabrera wins the TC or not, but it probably won't, either way.

Trout is more valuable all-around, by quite a lot. But the traditional power stats swing it Cabrera's way, IMO.

It would be cool to see someone win the TC, though.

BWillie
10-01-2012, 10:03 AM
For sure. By all accounts Cabrera is a good guy and I'd like to see one in my lifetime.

He's a good guy? You mean not including his alcoholism, domestic abuse towards his wife, and threatening innocent ppl with a gun?

Reaper16
10-01-2012, 02:58 PM
Here's how we're going to do this: I know you have questions. For each, I promise an answer – a good one that relies on reality rather than perception, on the present instead of the past, on facts above conveniences. It is best to approach this from a purely stoic place; emotion is great, but it lets you fall prey to the immaterial. It's why this whole Triple Crown gambit is working so well.
I see a hand in the back. Yes, sir, you.

"What do you mean by gambit?"

The idea that Triple Crown = MVP is a strictly emotional play with no foundation in logic. It takes a mythical title given to a player based on a very important category (home runs), a marginally important one (batting average) and one that does next to nothing to denote a player's value or worth (RBIs) and merges them into a baseball Voltron.

What Miguel Cabrera has done this year is marvelous. There is no questioning that. He is the AL's best hitter. But simply because he leads the league in three categories, no matter their historical significance, does not crown him MVP. Not only is ignoring every other part of his game vis-ŕ-vis Trout's irresponsible, but also it makes the mistake of tying this award to another person's achievements in the final three games of the season.

You're telling me that if Josh Hamilton hits a home run and Miguel Cabrera doesn't, the MVP shouldn't be his? Or that if Cabrera does and Hamilton doesn't, suddenly the award is his again? This thinking is so arbitrary, so backward, so easily blown to smithereens, I can't understand how its practitioners hold up the Triple Crown like it's the Hope Diamond without noticing the underlying failures of their argument.

OK, next. Guy with the pocket protector.
"Why are they making this about WAR?"
This is so stereotypical.
"I know. Sorry."

You know why they're making this about WAR? Because they're scared. They're scared of what they don't know and they need a villain. And so the computers and their alphabet-soup metrics have become the target, even though this MVP vote has absolutely nothing to do with WAR and everything to do with the fact that Mike Trout simply has been a better player in 2012 than Miguel Cabrera.

WAR, for the uninitiated, is Wins Above Replacement. It is the sabermetricians' attempt at a catch-all metric that includes hitting, fielding and baserunning. It has its flaws. There are two versions, Baseball-Reference.com's and Fangraphs.com's, and their numbers differ. That's confusing. They also use defensive metrics whose efficacy is highly questionable and thus affect the numbers' accuracy.

Still, nobody who is arguing Mike Trout's case with any conviction uses WAR. Just because he happens to have an enormous lead over Cabrera in the metric doesn't mean it's part of the argument. The insincerity of the Cabrera Truthers reaches its nadir when they bring up WAR like it matters.

You know what matters? Mike Trout is hitting .321/.395/.557 with 30 home runs, 48 stolen bases in 52 attempts and plays center field better than anyone in the major leagues. He beats you with his bat, with his legs and with his glove. There is no exact way to measure whether that beats Cabrera's advantage with the bat. But Trout is close enough to Cabrera – .325/.390/.601 with 43 home runs – that anybody who values the havoc Trout wreaks on the basepaths (and not just stealing bases but taking extra ones) and the enormous advantage on defense (Gold Glove-caliber center fielder to below-average third baseman) surely would believe it not only makes up for it but also exceeds it.

"There's no way the Tigers would be where they are without Cabrera, you know?"

It's true. And it's even more true for Trout. He was in the minor leagues most of April because the Angels were determined to suck for the season's first three weeks. And the Angels were dreadful. Their record when he was down: 6-14. Their record since he arrived: 82-57. With Cabrera all season, the Tigers have 86 wins. Truth is, Trout packed more into his five months than Cabrera has into six.

"And what do you have to say to the people who talk about the Tigers making the playoffs?"

It's a great achievement. Congratulations. Oh, and the Angels are two games better than the Tigers in a far tougher division. Their run differential is +28 over Detroit's. Detroit gets to play 18 games against Kansas City, Minnesota and Cleveland. The Angels had Texas and Oakland for 19, plus more against Baltimore and Tampa Bay.

"Why is Miguel Cabrera totally awesome and Triple Crown and he switched positions and Tigers going to the playoffs and Triple Crown and Trout's a weird name and September stats and Triple Crown and neeeeerrrrrdsssssssss!!!"

Security! Get him out of here!

"But Miguel Cabrera switched positions! How selfless is that?"

You know who else switched positions? Mike Trout. For 28 games this season, he started in left field – and he played there even more when the Angels chose to use Peter Bourjos in center.

And of course Miguel Cabrera switched positions. What was he going to do, say no? And force Prince Fielder or himself to designated hitter?

"The New York Times said: 'History will remember Cabrera as the standout performer of 2012.' You can't argue with history."

Know what: History can be an idiot. History looks at life through a vacuum. History does not anticipate evolution, knowledge or change. History regards the Triple Crown as the apex of offensive baseball accomplishment because before the statistical revolution, nobody knew any better. For us to sit here now, with what we know, and accept that on its face is lunacy. We know runs batted in are teammate- and lineup-dependent statistics – that Mike Trout, batting leadoff, is far less likely to get RBI opportunities than Miguel Cabrera, hitting third. And that's true: Cabrera leads the AL in at-bats with runners in scoring position, with 173. Trout has 106. And their numbers are awfully close, with Cabrera's OPS at .997 and Trout's at .939.

"Fine then. Cabrera has thrived in August and September, and Trout has slumped. Don't you give points for end-of-the-season performance?"

I know some in the Trout camp are of the mind that late-season stats don't matter. I happen to disagree. I think they are important. Games in April and September count the same in the standings, but they're different because their context is different. Game No. 60 feels different than No. 160. Then, you have the rest of the season to figure something out. Now, time is done and performance is imperative.

That said, there are two very important points to make.

First: The arbitrary-endpoint game is amazingly stupid. Just because Miguel Cabrera has done X between date Y and Z means nothing. If we want to play that game, guess what he did from games 150-156: .222/.250/.296 with zero homers and two RBIs. Not very MVP-like, is it? You can cherry-pick any sort of numbers you'd like to make a point.

Second: That's what the pro-Cabrera people seem to want to forget. Even if Trout has been human since August, he's still popping homers (his 30th Sunday), still stealing bases (his 48th) and his July was better than any month of Cabrera's this year: .392/.455/.804 with 10 homers , 23 RBIs, nine steals and 32 runs in 25 games. It was a magnificent display of baseball, the best from anyone this season.

"Jeff P., do you have a vote this year?"

If I did, I wouldn't say yes or no. We're not allowed to. I'll say this: I do know a fair number of the voters. And from our discussions in the past, and the way they view baseball, I think Miguel Cabrera is going to win the AL MVP this year. I think that's sad. And I think the New York Times was wrong. The way baseball is evolving, when history looks back on this year, it's not going to celebrate Miguel Cabrera maybe or maybe not winning the Triple Crown. It's going to wonder how the voters watched an all-time historic season and screwed up, because it's evermore obvious that the AL MVP is Mike Trout.

That about sums it up.

Consistent1
10-01-2012, 03:45 PM
I'd like to see him do it. Regardless of the MVP deal, Trout and Harper should be awesome for a long time. Good for baseball IMO.

chefsos
10-01-2012, 03:57 PM
Yes. Sure, why not? It's a nice little identifier that lasts a lifetime. "Triple Crown Winner John Doe" can get a free drink anywhere, anytime.

It shouldn't mean dick to the MVP vote, though. And I think the Angels' making the playoffs or not has more bearing on Trout's chances than Cabrera's potential TC.

Demonpenz
10-01-2012, 04:47 PM
Dude can smash a baseball, but he runs and fields like like shit.

Seraphim
10-01-2012, 06:28 PM
Yes because it's never been done in my lifetime.

Bane
10-01-2012, 06:28 PM
Yes.

Sfeihc
10-01-2012, 06:34 PM
Yes.

This.

Bowser
10-01-2012, 06:37 PM
Sure. It hasn't happened in over 50 years, so it would be kind of cool to see.

chefsos
10-01-2012, 07:30 PM
Sure. It hasn't happened in over 50 years, so it would be kind of cool to see.It's only been 45!

Seems like yesterday.

Sfeihc
10-01-2012, 07:37 PM
Home Run! Cabrera! "I say I like to hit?" - Miguel Cabrera

Al Bundy
10-01-2012, 07:44 PM
Bruce Chen with the ultimate screw you to the White Sox.

Sfeihc
10-01-2012, 07:44 PM
I see you G Money.

Brainiac
10-01-2012, 08:13 PM
I've heard Jeff Passan pimping Mike Trout for the MVP a couple of times this year. I respect his knowledge as a baseball writer, but I disagree with him. Trout is certainly an exciting player, and he may just be the best player in the game. I know that if I were starting a team Trout would be my #1 pick, and it's not even close. But the fact is that Cabrera put up even better numbers than Trout did this season. Many voters base their votes upon whose team won something. Well, the fact is that the Tigers won their division,and Angels couldn't even win a wildcard spot. Passan can talk all he wants about how Trout was in the minor leagues for 3 weeks and how bad the Angels were without him. But you don't give a guy the MVP for that. By that logic, Peyton Manning would have been MVP last year.

I've also seen the argument that Trout hit 30 home runs and stole 47 bases, and that combination is even rarer than winning the Triple Crown, and therefore Trout should be MVP. OK, fine. You can combine whatever stats you want to make any argument you want. I remember late in George Brett's career when KC baseball writers were constantly combining about half a dozen different stats, and the would always wind up concluding that George Brett was right up there with Babe Ruth and Willie Mays. It was bogus.

I guess I'm a traditionalist. The Poindexters of the world can point to their nerdy stats like WAR and UZR all they want. All that shows is that they have WAY too much time on their hands, and they probably never actually played the game when they were young because they were too busy getting beat up by the cool kids.

Anybody that wins the Triple Crown should be MVP. Period. I've never really cared one way or the other about Miguel Cabrera, whereas I often turn on the Angels games just to see Mike Trout bat. But you've got to give Cabrera his due. Right now he's leading in all 3 triple crown categories. He is the MVP even if Josh Hamilton hits a couple of dingers tomorrow. He's had a historic season.

Reaper16
10-01-2012, 08:44 PM
I've heard Jeff Passan pimping Mike Trout for the MVP a couple of times this year. I respect his knowledge as a baseball writer, but I disagree with him. Trout is certainly an exciting player, and he may just be the best player in the game. I know that if I were starting a team Trout would be my #1 pick, and it's not even close. But the fact is that Cabrera put up even better numbers than Trout did this season. Many voters base their votes upon whose team won something. Well, the fact is that the Tigers won their division,and Angels couldn't even win a wildcard spot. Passan can talk all he wants about how Trout was in the minor leagues for 3 weeks and how bad the Angels were without him. But you don't give a guy the MVP for that. By that logic, Peyton Manning would have been MVP last year.

I've also seen the argument that Trout hit 30 home runs and stole 47 bases, and that combination is even rarer than winning the Triple Crown, and therefore Trout should be MVP. OK, fine. You can combine whatever stats you want to make any argument you want. I remember late in George Brett's career when KC baseball writers were constantly combining about half a dozen different stats, and the would always wind up concluding that George Brett was right up there with Babe Ruth and Willie Mays. It was bogus.

I guess I'm a traditionalist. The Poindexters of the world can point to their nerdy stats like WAR and UZR all they want. All that shows is that they have WAY too much time on their hands, and they probably never actually played the game when they were young because they were too busy getting beat up by the cool kids.

Anybody that wins the Triple Crown should be MVP. Period. I've never really cared one way or the other about Miguel Cabrera, whereas I often turn on the Angels games just to see Mike Trout bat. But you've got to give Cabrera his due. Right now he's leading in all 3 triple crown categories. He is the MVP even if Josh Hamilton hits a couple of dingers tomorrow. He's had a historic season.

You're really bad at being smart. That penultimate paragraph is atrocious, dude. Does it irritate you that whatever MLB franchise you're a fan of is run by these guys who were getting beat up or whatever juvenile shit you can imagine? The sabermetric community being talked about as if they don't understand the game is such a tired cliche, proven incorrect ten thousand times over.

The Angels are 2 games better than the Tigers, and the Angles played a much more difficult schedule to boot.

It's ridiculous to me that Cabrera is going to win this MVP award because of goddamned ribbies.

Brainiac
10-01-2012, 08:52 PM
You're really bad at being smart. That penultimate paragraph is atrocious, dude. Does it irritate you that whatever MLB franchise you're a fan of is run by these guys who were getting beat up or whatever juvenile shit you can imagine? The sabermetric community being talked about as if they don't understand the game is such a tired cliche, proven incorrect ten thousand times over.

The Angels are 2 games better than the Tigers, and the Angles played a much more difficult schedule to boot.

It's ridiculous to me that Cabrera is going to win this MVP award because of goddamned ribbies.
You're right. Stolen bases and spectacular defense are much more important than actually driving in runs.

Reaper16
10-01-2012, 08:56 PM
You're right. Stolen bases and spectacular defense are much more important than actually driving in runs.

Yes. Saving runs yourself and creating runs yourself is vastly more important than you getting credit for the work of those ahead of you in the lineup.

Al Bundy
10-01-2012, 09:05 PM
Dayton Moore should be sitting in the Royals dugout watching the Tigers celebrate

Consistent1
10-01-2012, 09:20 PM
Both with big nights, Miggy taking back the HR lead for now. Very interesting. Look at Fielder and Cabrera combined. That was a move that worked out pretty damn well.

Brainiac
10-02-2012, 07:33 AM
Yes. Saving runs yourself and creating runs yourself is vastly more important than you getting credit for the work of those ahead of you in the lineup.
I get tired of hearing people say RBIs don't count or that they're not important, or that they're just the product of being in a good lineup with runners on base in front of you. Baseball is a team game. If you're going to dismiss RBIs simply because somebody else has to get on base in front of the hitter, then you also have to dismiss runs scored because somebody had to drive the runner in. While you're at it, you have to dismiss stolen bases because by itself a stolen base doesn't lead to a run. And as long as we are arbitrarily dismissing things, we might as well dismiss the great plays in center field that rob the opposing teams of home runs, because they don't directly lead to runs for the player's team, and you can't win games without scoring runs.

See how ridiculous that is?

Now that you've dismissed all of the statistics that require help from another player in order for a run to score, the only stat you're left with is home runs.

Who's leading the league in home runs again? Oh yeah, it's Miguel Cabrera.

Hey, I get it. Mike Trout is an exciting player, and he had a historically great rookie season. He's a 5-tool player with a combination of speed and power reserved for the all-time greats like Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays. About a month ago I assumed Mike Trout would be MVP, and there was no doubt in my mind he deserved it.

However, Miguel Cabrera put on a hell of a charge at the end of the season when it mattered the most. It's just Mike Trout's bad luck that he had his great rookie season the same year somebody else won the Triple Freaking Crown. When somebody wins the Triple Crown and his team wins their division, there's no way in hell you can award the MVP to someone whose team finished out of the playoffs. Mike Trout is a close #2 choice, but he's still #2.

If Mike Trout wins the MVP award, they should change the name of the award to Most Popular Player.

Deberg_1990
10-02-2012, 07:49 AM
Jut compared their stats. Trout and Cabrera. The only thing Trout has over Cabrera is speed. Stolen bases and triples...

Cabrera leads in hits, .avg, HRs, doubles, slugging pct, OBP...

Trout has 30 HRs and only 83 RBIs? Does he hit alot of HRs with no one on base??

Brainiac
10-02-2012, 07:56 AM
Jut compared their stats. Trout and Cabrera. The only thing Trout has over Cabrera is speed. Stolen bases and triples...

Cabrera leads in hits, .avg, HRs, doubles, slugging pct, OBP...

Trout has 30 HRs and only 83 RBIs? Does he hit alot of HRs with no one on base??
Perhaps that is why the people in the Trout camp are so quick to dismiss the importance of RBIs. Because that's the one part of his game that's really not very good.

Deberg_1990
10-02-2012, 07:57 AM
Perhaps that is why the people in the Trout camp are so quick to dismiss the importance of RBIs. Because that's the one part of his game that's really not very good.

He bats leadoff? Leadoff hitters typically dont get the RBI opportunities that guys batting 3-5 get obviously....

but either way, i dont see how you cant give MVP to Cabrera? Dudes had a dream season.

MoreLemonPledge
10-02-2012, 08:00 AM
The only Triple Crown he's getting is one bourbon, one scotch, and one beer.

Carlota69
10-02-2012, 08:08 AM
Isn't the Triple Crown an offensive accomplishment? Isn't MVP an all around award? Best Player award?

Trout wold have 100 RBIs if he played all season. He'd probably be in the 35 hr area if he played all season, and imagine his stolen bases and other stats if he began the season in the Majors.

He easily has stolen 4 hrs this season. Two of them are going to make it in the top ten plays of the year, one of them more than likely the top play of the year. He has been by far the better overall player, and as far as with the bat, barely behind Miggy who is a clean up guy, not a lead off guy. So, 80+RBIs 50 SB, 30HR and killer slugging% number OBP numbers for a lead off guy means nothing because a guy who hits 3-4 has more RBIs?

I hope Miggy gets the Triple Crown too, but to say he deserves MVP because of an offensive accomplishment when he is a far weaker player than Trout in everything else, is short sighted.

Oh, and getting the triple Crown doesn't immiately make you MVP, at least not in the past.

Carlota69
10-02-2012, 08:13 AM
Perhaps that is why the people in the Trout camp are so quick to dismiss the importance of RBIs. Because that's the one part of his game that's really not very good.
LMAOLMAOLMAOLMAO
Dude, he hits n the lead off spot. You know, talesetter, run scorer?
And he has murdered in that position plus it 80+RBIs and 30HR. What a ricilous thing you just said..LMAOLMAOLMAO

MIAdragon
10-02-2012, 08:16 AM
Jut compared their stats. Trout and Cabrera. The only thing Trout has over Cabrera is speed. Stolen bases and triples...

Cabrera leads in hits, .avg, HRs, doubles, slugging pct, OBP...

Trout has 30 HRs and only 83 RBIs? Does he hit alot of HRs with no one on base??

Sure lets totally over look the other HALF of the game, defense. Trout is so far ahead of Miggy in that aspect of the game its not even close. Add in, again, how much better Trout is on the base path IMO Trout is more deserving of the MVP. To answer your RBI question, Trout has hit lead off in all but ONE AB this season so yea he's hitting with fewer people on base.

pimpchief
10-02-2012, 08:22 AM
I don't want to see it. it has never been done in my lifetime, and I want to see a royal do it first.

Deberg_1990
10-02-2012, 08:25 AM
I want to see a royal do it first.

ROFL


You will be dead before you see a Royal do it.

MIAdragon
10-02-2012, 08:28 AM
LMAOLMAOLMAOLMAO
Dude, he hits n the lead off spot. You know, talesetter, run scorer?
And he has murdered in that position plus it 80+RBIs and 30HR. What a ricilous thing you just said..LMAOLMAOLMAO

what is this talesetter you speak of?

Carlota69
10-02-2012, 09:17 AM
what is this talesetter you speak of?
LMAO..tablesetter...Talesetter is usually a typo queen.;)

Dr. Facebook Fever
10-02-2012, 09:18 AM
ROFL


You will be dead before you see a Royal do it.

Keep fucking doubting Irving Falu.

Brainiac
10-02-2012, 09:29 AM
LMAOLMAOLMAOLMAO
Dude, he hits n the lead off spot. You know, talesetter, run scorer?
And he has murdered in that position plus it 80+RBIs and 30HR. What a ricilous thing you just said..LMAOLMAOLMAO
OK, I'll take my lumps for that. That wasn't a very good post on my part.

whoman69
10-02-2012, 01:30 PM
It hasn't happened since 1967, 1937 in the National League. Of course I'm wanting to see that. I am not buying the arguments that someone that wins the triple crown can lose the MVP.

Valiant
10-02-2012, 06:01 PM
I get tired of hearing people say RBIs don't count or that they're not important, or that they're just the product of being in a good lineup with runners on base in front of you. Baseball is a team game. If you're going to dismiss RBIs simply because somebody else has to get on base in front of the hitter, then you also have to dismiss runs scored because somebody had to drive the runner in. While you're at it, you have to dismiss stolen bases because by itself a stolen base doesn't lead to a run. And as long as we are arbitrarily dismissing things, we might as well dismiss the great plays in center field that rob the opposing teams of home runs, because they don't directly lead to runs for the player's team, and you can't win games without scoring runs.

See how ridiculous that is?

Now that you've dismissed all of the statistics that require help from another player in order for a run to score, the only stat you're left with is home runs.

Who's leading the league in home runs again? Oh yeah, it's Miguel Cabrera.

Hey, I get it. Mike Trout is an exciting player, and he had a historically great rookie season. He's a 5-tool player with a combination of speed and power reserved for the all-time greats like Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays. About a month ago I assumed Mike Trout would be MVP, and there was no doubt in my mind he deserved it.

However, Miguel Cabrera put on a hell of a charge at the end of the season when it mattered the most. It's just Mike Trout's bad luck that he had his great rookie season the same year somebody else won the Triple Freaking Crown. When somebody wins the Triple Crown and his team wins their division, there's no way in hell you can award the MVP to someone whose team finished out of the playoffs. Mike Trout is a close #2 choice, but he's still #2.

If Mike Trout wins the MVP award, they should change the name of the award to Most Popular Player.

This.. I always hear in sports the MVP is for players that got their teams to excel and made the playoffs.. Cabrera took Detroit to the playoffs.. Trout did not, absolute stud though..

There should be no way Trout wins it unless the coast bias kicks in and as you say, the most popular player gets it..

NJChiefsFan
10-02-2012, 06:08 PM
It hasn't happened since 1967, 1937 in the National League. Of course I'm wanting to see that. I am not buying the arguments that someone that wins the triple crown can lose the MVP.

Ted Williams lost the MVP when he did it in 1942 and 47 per the trivia I just saw in the Yankees game. Granted, the impact of Cabrera doing it after so long is pretty powerful.

Carlota69
10-02-2012, 06:13 PM
This.. I always hear in sports the MVP is for players that got their teams to excel and made the playoffs.. Cabrera took Detroit to the playoffs.. Trout did not, absolute stud though..

There should be no way Trout wins it unless the coast bias kicks in and as you say, the most popular player gets it..

Wait...so Miggy should get it cuz Detroit is in the playoffs and the Angels aren't? Even though the Angels have a better record and play in a much tougher division?

chefsos
10-02-2012, 06:16 PM
Ted Williams lost the MVP when he did it in 1942 and 47 per the trivia I just saw in the Yankees game. Granted, the impact of Cabrera doing it after so long is pretty powerful.I was thinking of that, too. Pretty sure it was a big FU by the baseball writers, because Williams (who was, shall we say, prickly) just couldn't hide his contempt for them.

pimpchief
10-02-2012, 06:52 PM
ROFL


You will be dead before you see a Royal do it.

or at least baseball will probably be irrelevant by that time. But hey! Nobody thought wed have a cy young winner. That was fun.

Brainiac
10-02-2012, 06:58 PM
Ted Williams lost the MVP when he did it in 1942 and 47 per the trivia I just saw in the Yankees game. Granted, the impact of Cabrera doing it after so long is pretty powerful.

The baseball writers hated Ted Williams because he was such a prick whenever he was around them.

Bowser
10-02-2012, 07:03 PM
It's not a slap in the face to Trout if he doesn't win it. What Cabrerra is doing is a rare feat in MLB, and hard to not give the MVP to the guy that achieves such a lofty status. Cabrerra will be a baseball immortal after this worthy of the MVP. Trout will push for MVP awards for years to come.

Coogs
10-02-2012, 07:05 PM
2-2 (both singles) with 2 RBI's so far tonight. Average up to .331. If Hamilton doesn't go off in the last 2 days with HR's, he is looking pretty good.

Valiant
10-02-2012, 07:05 PM
Wait...so Miggy should get it cuz Detroit is in the playoffs and the Angels aren't? Even though the Angels have a better record and play in a much tougher division?

What is the point of being a MVP when your team is watching on TV?? You have a guy like Hamilton who got his team in the playoffs and raping in stats not being considered compared to those two..


All 3 are MVPs for their teams.. What do you want to look at next?? Those guys that got their team into the playoffs..

Trout did great, but he went up against a guy whose team made the playoffs because of him and pulled/pulling off a triple crown..

If Trout did what he did on the Tigers/Royals,this would not even be a headline..

Reaper16
10-02-2012, 07:09 PM
This.. I always hear in sports the MVP is for players that got their teams to excel and made the playoffs.. Cabrera took Detroit to the playoffs.. Trout did not, absolute stud though..


Trout certainly got his team to excel. Since Trout was called up the Angles have the very best record in baseball (and remember how poor the Angles were playing before he was called up), have a better record than the Tigers, and have played a much tougher schedule. That literally makes him the player with the most value to his team.

whoman69
10-02-2012, 07:36 PM
Ted Williams lost the MVP when he did it in 1942 and 47 per the trivia I just saw in the Yankees game. Granted, the impact of Cabrera doing it after so long is pretty powerful.

Ted Williams had a higher batting average the whole season than DiMaggio did during the streak. There was also Chuck Klein in the NL during the 30s. Klein was on a last place club in the best hitters park in the league. DiMaggio is from New York. Cabrera is on a division champ with not a lot of other tools offensively.

Demonpenz
10-02-2012, 07:41 PM
Throw the stats out the window. Cabrerra wins it.

Reaper16
10-02-2012, 07:45 PM
Throw the stats out the window. Cabrerra wins it.

Awesome.

Carlota69
10-02-2012, 10:37 PM
What is the point of being a MVP when your team is watching on TV?? You have a guy like Hamilton who got his team in the playoffs and raping in stats not being considered compared to those two..


All 3 are MVPs for their teams.. What do you want to look at next?? Those guys that got their team into the playoffs..

Trout did great, but he went up against a guy whose team made the playoffs because of him and pulled/pulling off a triple crown..

If Trout did what he did on the Tigers/Royals,this would not even be a headline..
Um, ok....first of all, they Angels have a better record than the Tigers and play ina much tougher division, thereby a much tougher schedule. Also, the Triple Crown is an offensive feat, and a rare one for sure, but Trout is the better overall player this year, and has been the reason the Anglels have a better record than the Tigers. Also, Trout has also achieved many feats that are rare. Add the fact that he has the offensive numbers of a clean up guy, in the lead off spot, a terror in a historic way on the base paths and will surely win the gold glove in CF, it's hard to imagine someone saying he isn't the more valuable player. Yes, Miggy has killed it at the plate and mdeserves whatever offensive award available, but overall MVP? Hes Below average at his position and sucks on the base paths...but yes, he's awesome with the bat, he'd may get the triple crown. Doesn't make him the better overall most valuable player.

Brainiac
10-03-2012, 06:47 AM
All of the Trout fans should consider this: since August 1st, Cabrera has hit .343 with 19 home runs, 52 RBI, and he's scored 42 runs. Trout has hit .284 with 12 home runs, 28 RBI, and has scored 49 runs.

Cabrera's batting average down the stretch in the pennant race was 59 points higher, he hit 7 more home runs, and his combined total for runs scored and runs batted in was 94 versus 71 for Trout.

If Trout had produced as well as Cabrera when it mattered the most, the Angels would be in the playoffs. Instead, they finished in 3rd place, which is exactly where they would have finished if Trout had never played an inning this year.

It's not even close. The vote for MVP should be unanimous.

Brainiac
10-03-2012, 06:50 AM
Oh, and if some Poindexter wants to get out his slide rule and calculate WAR since August 1st, I'm pretty sure Cabrera would come out far ahead of Trout.

duncan_idaho
10-03-2012, 08:31 AM
All of the Trout fans should consider this: since August 1st, Cabrera has hit .343 with 19 home runs, 52 RBI, and he's scored 42 runs. Trout has hit .284 with 12 home runs, 28 RBI, and has scored 49 runs.

Cabrera's batting average down the stretch in the pennant race was 59 points higher, he hit 7 more home runs, and his combined total for runs scored and runs batted in was 94 versus 71 for Trout.

If Trout had produced as well as Cabrera when it mattered the most, the Angels would be in the playoffs. Instead, they finished in 3rd place, which is exactly where they would have finished if Trout had never played an inning this year.

It's not even close. The vote for MVP should be unanimous.

And the Angels are a whole half-game worse than the Tigers over that stretch. They went 32-25 since August 1. The Tigers are 33-25. The Tigers were just fortunate to play a lot of games against the shitty AL Central. That's the only reason they're in the playoffs and the Angels are missing it. Saying "Trout slumped and that's why the Angels missed the playoffs" misses the mark, IMO. For one thing, he still produced an .860 OPS during the time period you defined. For another, it doesn't account for any contributions Trout made with the glove or his legs (contributions Cabrera can't make). Trout stole 18 bases during that period (18/19) and played Gold Glove defense in CF.

BTW, Most statisticians only count HR once when calculating runs created (Since counting them for RBI and R creates an artificial number and is not statistically sound). Looking at the numbers that way, Cabrera accounts for 74 runs (42+52-19), Trout for 65 (28+49-12). That's not a very big separation in the key stats for Cabrera's case.

And RBI and R are not definitive numbers in a small sample size, IMO, since they're entirely dependent on the team around the players.

Truth is neither player is a "clear case" over the other. They're both deserving, and I won't complain regardless of who wins. I would vote for Trout, personally, because he can help you win games in any way a baseball player can possibly help a team win games. Cabrera can win them with his bat - which is tremendous - but that's about it.

duncan_idaho
10-03-2012, 08:35 AM
Oh, and if some Poindexter wants to get out his slide rule and calculate WAR since August 1st, I'm pretty sure Cabrera would come out far ahead of Trout.

Nope.

Trout: 3.6 (1.8 in August, 1.8 in September/October)
Cabrera: 3.1 (1.5 in August, 1.6 in September/October)

Glove+Bat+Legs still put Trout over the top in WAR.

Carlota69
10-03-2012, 08:39 AM
And the Angels are a whole half-game worse than the Tigers over that stretch. They went 32-25 since August 1. The Tigers are 33-25. The Tigers were just fortunate to play a lot of games against the shitty AL Central. That's the only reason they're in the playoffs and the Angels are missing it. Saying "Trout slumped and that's why the Angels missed the playoffs" misses the mark, IMO. For one thing, he still produced an .860 OPS during the time period you defined. For another, it doesn't account for any contributions Trout made with the glove or his legs (contributions Cabrera can't make). Trout stole 18 bases during that period (18/19) and played Gold Glove defense in CF.

BTW, Most statisticians only count HR once when calculating runs created (Since counting them for RBI and R creates an artificial number and is not statistically sound). Looking at the numbers that way, Cabrera accounts for 74 runs (42+52-19), Trout for 65 (28+49-16). That's not a very big separation in the key stats for Cabrera's case.

And RBI and R are not definitive numbers in a small sample size, IMO, since they're entirely dependent on the team around the players.

Truth is neither player is a "clear case" over the other. They're both deserving, and I won't complain regardless of who wins. I would vote for Trout, personally, because he can help you win games in any way a baseball player can possibly help a team win games. Cabrera can win them with his bat - which is tremendous - but that's about it.

BINGO. And lets not forget the fact that Trout has done all of these great, historic things as a 20-21 yr old player, who hits leadoff, not clean up. And dont say well then just give him ROY. If thats the arguement, we shouldnt give pitchers MVP becasue they can win the CY young award.

Carlota69
10-03-2012, 08:43 AM
Nope.

Trout: 3.6 (1.8 in August, 1.8 in September/October)
Cabrera: 3.1 (1.5 in August, 1.6 in September/October)

Glove+Bat+Legs still put Trout over the top in WAR.

:LOL:
Owned!

WV
10-03-2012, 08:58 AM
Don't know why this is even a debate, if Cabrera wins the triple crown its game set and match. There is no argument that can trump the triple freaking crown. Trout is a great story, but I can't believe the people discounting what a HUGE accomplishment the triple crown would be.

Brainiac
10-03-2012, 09:02 AM
BINGO. And lets not forget the fact that Trout has done all of these great, historic things as a 20-21 yr old player, who hits leadoff, not clean up. And dont say well then just give him ROY. If thats the arguement, we shouldnt give pitchers MVP becasue they can win the CY young award.

What the hell does the age of the player have to do with who should be MVP?

That's just stupid.

Saul Good
10-03-2012, 09:02 AM
Cabrera should win it because 100 years ago somebody coined the term triple crown. If Cabrera was just the first player to lead the league in the three arbitrary offensive categories of BA, HRs, and RBI in decades, Trout would deserve it for being the better all-round player.

That isn't what happened, though. Cabrera will win the "triple crown", so that's more impressive than what Trout has done.

Brainiac
10-03-2012, 09:03 AM
Nope.

Trout: 3.6 (1.8 in August, 1.8 in September/October)
Cabrera: 3.1 (1.5 in August, 1.6 in September/October)

Glove+Bat+Legs still put Trout over the top in WAR.

Congratulations Poindexter. You've just shown that WAR is not the ultimate statistic.

Saul Good
10-03-2012, 09:16 AM
BA, RBI, and HRs is all you need to know when evaluating a player's value. I don't understand why people even bother looking at fielding, base-running, pitching, etc. Those are negligible facets of the game and should only be considered in the event of a tie. (And even then, that would only be if you couldn't find a coin to flip.)

Brainiac
10-03-2012, 09:19 AM
BTW, Most statisticians only count HR once when calculating runs created (Since counting them for RBI and R creates an artificial number and is not statistically sound). Looking at the numbers that way, Cabrera accounts for 74 runs (42+52-19), Trout for 65 (28+49-12). That's not a very big separation in the key stats for Cabrera's case.

The "runs produced" stat has always been the most bogus stat in baseball. It penalizes a player for hitting a home run because he scores a run and drives in a run in the same at-bat. Yet virtually every time a run is scored, SOMEBODY gets credit for scoring it, and SOMEBODY gets credit for driving in the run. That's a total credit for 2 runs produced for every run that is actually scored, EXCEPT when the run scores as a result of a home run.

Adding up RBI and runs scored is a fine indicator of runs produced. Subtracting home runs doesn't give you a better idea of a player's production. All it does is add an element of complexity to a formula that is more accurate when it's kept simple.

Brainiac
10-03-2012, 09:21 AM
BA, RBI, and HRs is all you need to know when evaluating a player's value. I don't understand why people even bother looking at fielding, base-running, pitching, etc. Those are negligible facets of the game and should only be considered in the event of a tie. (And even then, that would only be if you couldn't find a coin to flip.)
Nicely done. You built a straw man and knocked it down. Congratulations.

duncan_idaho
10-03-2012, 09:23 AM
Congratulations Poindexter. You've just shown that WAR is not the ultimate statistic.

Five minutes of work. Go to fangraphs. Go to League Leaders section. Select August as a filter. Then select September/October as a filter.

Anyway, I actually don't like the overall WAR stat very much (as the defensive statistics are just too flaky/inconsistent), but offensive WAR - especially the way Baseball America calculates it - is very reliable. Cabrera would hold the edge there, I'm sure (I haven't found a site that will split out offensive and total WAR month-by-month yet), because all of his value is derived from his bat.

I'm of the mindset that statistical analysis is a nice complement to old-fashioned scouting. When the two are worked together in a way that is sound, you get great results (See the Tampa Rays). You can't go all sabermetrics, and you can't go all old-school.

In defense of offensive WAR: Here's the top 10 all-time list at Baseball America.

Babe Ruth
Ty Cobb
Barry Bonds
Willie Mays
Hank Aaron
Ted Williams
Stan Musial
Rogers Hornsby
Honus Wagner
Tris Speaker

Factor in longevity (which is what gets a guy like Speaker on there), and I think that's a pretty accurate list. 9/10 of those guys would come up when discussing "best all-time hitter."

Saul Good
10-03-2012, 09:24 AM
Don't know why this is even a debate, if Cabrera wins the triple crown its game set and match. There is no argument that can trump the triple freaking crown. Trout is a great story, but I can't believe the people discounting what a HUGE accomplishment the triple crown would be.

Nicely done. You built a straw man and knocked it down. Congratulations.

Tell me more about this straw man I created.

duncan_idaho
10-03-2012, 09:28 AM
The "runs produced" stat has always been the most bogus stat in baseball. It penalizes a player for hitting a home run because he scores a run and drives in a run in the same at-bat. Yet virtually every time a run is scored, SOMEBODY gets credit for scoring it, and SOMEBODY gets credit for driving in the run. That's a total credit for 2 runs produced for every run that is actually scored, EXCEPT when the run scores as a result of a home run.

Adding up RBI and runs scored is a fine indicator of runs produced. Subtracting home runs doesn't give you a better idea of a player's production. All it does is add an element of complexity to a formula that is more accurate when it's kept simple.

It doesn't penalize the player. It just prevents counting the same run twice.

When you start combining counting statistics, you have to account for duplication like that.

You want to talk about runs knocked in, sure, you count the HR as an RBI.

You want to talk about runs scored, same thing.

When you want to talk about the runs that Player A contributed to his team in a given period compared to the runs that Player B contributed, though... Player A's home runs still only accounted for one run. Giving him credit for them in R and RBI (without subtracting the HR count from the total) makes it look like Player A contributed (number equal to home runs) more runs than he actually did.

Saul Good
10-03-2012, 09:29 AM
I think Cabrera should win unless Josh Hamilton hits two HRs tonight. Then, Trout should win.

Brainiac
10-03-2012, 09:29 AM
I still haven't heard anyone explain how Trout leading the Angels to a 3rd place finish makes him the MVP. Spare me the talk about the Angels' tough division and all the other crap. The fact is that he was leading the league in hitting on August 1st, and he didn't perform nearly as well down the stretch when the Angels were actually in the pennant race. He hit .284 after August 1st. That is not an MVP performance.

You don't decide the MVP on August 1st. You decide it after ALL of the games have been played.

Brainiac
10-03-2012, 09:36 AM
It doesn't penalize the player. It just prevents counting the same run twice.

When you start combining counting statistics, you have to account for duplication like that.

You want to talk about runs knocked in, sure, you count the HR as an RBI.

You want to talk about runs scored, same thing.

When you want to talk about the runs that Player A contributed to his team in a given period compared to the runs that Player B contributed, though... Player A's home runs still only accounted for one run. Giving him credit for them in R and RBI (without subtracting the HR count from the total) makes it look like Player A contributed (number equal to home runs) more runs than he actually did.
Sure it does. If Mike Trout gets a double and Albert Pujols hits a singe and Trout scores, they each get credit for a run produced. How is that worth twice as much as a run produced by a home run?

This just proves my point that when you try to make statistics too complex, they lose their validity. And regarding WAR, I'm glad you mentioned that Fangraphs and Baseball America can't even manage to agree how WAR should be calculated. That's another thing about WAR that has always made me question its usefulness.

DJ's left nut
10-03-2012, 09:36 AM
Trout is having an unreal season, it should be debated.

No it shouldn't.

His season is marginally better than the season Jacoby Elsbury had last year. A 30/30 season with a 300+ batting average and a lot of runs scored is a very very good season and worth of MVP consideration in a lot of years, but if Cabrera had won the triple crown last season and made the playoffs, there wouldn't be a discussion on this front - he'd have probably won it unanimously over Elsbury.


Trout's had arguably the greatest rookie season in baseball history and a very very good season overall. That said, his service time and rookie status are immaterial when discussing an MVP award - a single season award. Rookies are on the same field as the vets.

Ultimately, this is a hardcore battle between the SABRE dork and the crusty old baseball men where where the stats guys are going to point at stuff like WAR and claim that Trout's smoked Cabrera when in reality he hasn't. Cabrera's been a better hitter AND he's moved to 3b and played it admirably, allowing his team to go sign Prince Fielder. Trout's advantage in WAR comes from his defensive value but even the most ardent stats guys will grudgingly concede that defensive statistics are largely crap right now (at least the ones we know about, the good ones are all in-house and the teams won't release the results).

I will allow that Cabrera's defense isn't as good as Trouts, certainly, but playing a passable 3b allowed the Tigers to go get the best LH slugger on the market and that's extremely valuable in its own right.

Yes, hell yes, I want Cabrera to win the triple crown. A) It's history and I love seeing history get made. B) It's not Albert Pujols, the presumptive favorite for the crown for a decade. C) It should be sufficient to get him the MVP and make the SABRE folks absolutely lose their goddamn minds.

And that's always fun. I love me some baseball stats, but they aren't the end all, be all. To argue that a triple crown winner and the leader of a playoff team should not get the MVP because a rookie led the league in WAR is just crazy talk to me.

Saul Good
10-03-2012, 09:37 AM
Miguel Cabrera deserves the MVP because he finagled his team into a division with the White Sox, Royals, Indians, and Twins whereas Trout put his team in a division with better teams.

Also, Alabama didn't deserve to be in the NC game over Ohio. Ohio won their division, and Alabama didn't.

duncan_idaho
10-03-2012, 09:38 AM
I still haven't heard anyone explain how Trout leading the Angels to a 3rd place finish makes him the MVP. Spare me the talk about the Angels' tough division and all the other crap. The fact is that he was leading the league in hitting on August 1st, and he didn't perform nearly as well down the stretch when the Angels were actually in the pennant race. He hit .284 after August 1st. That is not an MVP performance.

You don't decide the MVP on August 1st. You decide it after ALL of the games have been played.

How a player closes the season is important in the MVP race, no doubt about it. You're fresh/hot in the mind of voters, most importantly. But the stuff that happens early counts, too. I'll point out that despite hitting .284 after August 1, Trout still posted a sterling OBP (.377).

If the award is truly "Most Valuable Player, " it should go to the player who was the best player in the league over the course of the whole season. Not just the first four months of the season, and not just the last two months.

You can make a fine case for Miguel Cabrera. Same thing with Trout. It's not a slam dunk in either direction. Neither choice is egregiously wrong.

I've long thought that the whole "Did his team make the playoffs" thing is ridiculous. Basing an individual award on team performance is about as dumb as basing a Gold Glove on offensive performance. So OF COURSE it happens all the time.

Matt Kemp was the best player in the National League last year (that WAS a slam dunk), but didn't take home the hardware.

Brainiac
10-03-2012, 09:43 AM
I think Cabrera should win unless Josh Hamilton hits two HRs tonight. Then, Trout should win.
Ask me again where you set up a straw man so that you can easily knock it down. At least Duncan Idaho is providing intelligent responses, even if I disagree with his choice for MVP.

Brainiac
10-03-2012, 09:48 AM
I've long thought that the whole "Did his team make the playoffs" thing is ridiculous. Basing an individual award on team performance is about as dumb as basing a Gold Glove on offensive performance. So OF COURSE it happens all the time.


I completely agree with you on that, and I feel a little sheepish about even using that argument.

duncan_idaho
10-03-2012, 09:53 AM
Sure it does. If Mike Trout gets a double and Albert Pujols hits a singe and Trout scores, they each get credit for a run produced. How is that worth twice as much as a run produced by a home run?

This just proves my point that when you try to make statistics too complex, they lose their validity. And regarding WAR, I'm glad you mentioned that Fangraphs and Baseball America can't even manage to agree how WAR should be calculated. That's another thing about WAR that has always made me question its usefulness.

I didn't get beyond stat 101 and am not a hardcore SABRE guy. So my explanation is not as complex as a true statistician would make it...

But there is a statistical flaw in counting the same occurrence in two lists, then adding the two lists together without accounting for the double-dip.

Think about the way accounting works. It would be like adding a sale to an individual counter for the salesman, adding it to the total company sales, and then adding the salesman's figures to the total company figures again.

DJ's left nut
10-03-2012, 09:55 AM
Five minutes of work. Go to fangraphs. Go to League Leaders section. Select August as a filter. Then select September/October as a filter.

Anyway, I actually don't like the overall WAR stat very much (as the defensive statistics are just too flaky/inconsistent), but offensive WAR - especially the way Baseball America calculates it - is very reliable. Cabrera would hold the edge there, I'm sure (I haven't found a site that will split out offensive and total WAR month-by-month yet), because all of his value is derived from his bat.

I'm of the mindset that statistical analysis is a nice complement to old-fashioned scouting. When the two are worked together in a way that is sound, you get great results (See the Tampa Rays). You can't go all sabermetrics, and you can't go all old-school.

In defense of offensive WAR: Here's the top 10 all-time list at Baseball America.

Babe Ruth
Ty Cobb
Barry Bonds
Willie Mays
Hank Aaron
Ted Williams
Stan Musial
Rogers Hornsby
Honus Wagner
Tris Speaker

Factor in longevity (which is what gets a guy like Speaker on there), and I think that's a pretty accurate list. 9/10 of those guys would come up when discussing "best all-time hitter."

Just now getting through this thread.

I agree with your post here but still disagree with your outcome. In the end, the triple crown isn't just some arbitrary set of numbers, as Saul is trying to claim. It's 3 numbers that have historically meant a ton to winning ballgames.

RBI stats do matter - it means that your team thought enough of your performance to put you in the spot most conducive to driving in runs and trusted that you would do so. Realistically, Trout should have been the 3 hole hitter in his lineup, but he wasn't. Was that because the team didn't think he'd be able to handle the pressure of the 3 spot? Possibly. It's happened to far more experienced guys than Trout.

HRs are self explanatory - they matter. A lot.

AVG is still a valuable stat for a middle of the order hitter and you'll never convince me otherwise. A guy like Dunn that bats .240 in the middle of a lineup with a .380 OBP isn't as valuable as a guy that puts up a .290 with a .360 OBP if they're batting in the 3 or 4 hole. You need those base hits to actually get runners in. And in the end, that's how you win ballgames - driving in runners. Drawing a walk there just passes that burden on to the next guy.

Cabrera's contact rates have been outstanding, his baserunning has actually been pretty good (no, he doesn't steal, but steals are wildly overrated) and his defense, by virtue of being acceptable, has yielded huge dividents for the team.

In the end, the traditional stuff does matter, IMO. And if combined with the fact that he does compare favorably in many 'new school' categories (if not outright better), Cabrera is your MVP.

Saul Good
10-03-2012, 09:55 AM
Ask me again where you set up a straw man so that you can easily knock it down. At least Duncan Idaho is providing intelligent responses, even if I disagree with his choice for MVP.

I'm pretty sure I quoted a post that said exactly what you are now claiming to be a straw man created by me.

DJ's left nut
10-03-2012, 09:58 AM
I completely agree with you on that, and I feel a little sheepish about even using that argument.

It matters if the player was a driving force behind it, IMO.

Essentially, a playoff appearance is a force multiplier for a strong finishing kick. Cabrera destroyed the world for 2 months and as a direct result of that his team is going to make the playoffs.

That carries weight, IMO. It makes the finishing kick that much more impressive, especially since the respective teams were in very similar positions at the start of that stretch.

duncan_idaho
10-03-2012, 10:01 AM
No it shouldn't.

His season is marginally better than the season Jacoby Elsbury had last year. A 30/30 season with a 300+ batting average and a lot of runs scored is a very very good season and worth of MVP consideration in a lot of years, but if Cabrera had won the triple crown last season and made the playoffs, there wouldn't be a discussion on this front - he'd have probably won it unanimously over Elsbury.


Trout's had arguably the greatest rookie season in baseball history and a very very good season overall. That said, his service time and rookie status are immaterial when discussing an MVP award - a single season award. Rookies are on the same field as the vets.

Ultimately, this is a hardcore battle between the SABRE dork and the crusty old baseball men where where the stats guys are going to point at stuff like WAR and claim that Trout's smoked Cabrera when in reality he hasn't. Cabrera's been a better hitter AND he's moved to 3b and played it admirably, allowing his team to go sign Prince Fielder. Trout's advantage in WAR comes from his defensive value but even the most ardent stats guys will grudgingly concede that defensive statistics are largely crap right now (at least the ones we know about, the good ones are all in-house and the teams won't release the results).

I will allow that Cabrera's defense isn't as good as Trouts, certainly, but playing a passable 3b allowed the Tigers to go get the best LH slugger on the market and that's extremely valuable in its own right.

Yes, hell yes, I want Cabrera to win the triple crown. A) It's history and I love seeing history get made. B) It's not Albert Pujols, the presumptive favorite for the crown for a decade. C) It should be sufficient to get him the MVP and make the SABRE folks absolutely lose their goddamn minds.

And that's always fun. I love me some baseball stats, but they aren't the end all, be all. To argue that a triple crown winner and the leader of a playoff team should not get the MVP because a rookie led the league in WAR is just crazy talk to me.

I wouldn't call what Cabrera does at 3B "admirable" defense. He's fine as long as the ball is within two steps to either side (and if it is moderately well-hit, has to dive to knock it down) and is an accurate thrower. That's about it. His range is terrible.

For me, the argument for Trout is not simply his WAR (though his offensive WAR is still a smidge higher than Cabrera's for the full year).

Comparing the two, there is not a huge separation with what they've done offensively. They are clearly 1-2 in terms of offensive production in the American League. Cabrera is the best 3 hitter in baseball. Trout is the best 1 hitter in baseball.

Defensively, you don't have to use statistics to see Trout's impact in center field. He's Gold Glove caliber out there. GG defense at a premium (second- or third-most important defensive position) is an important factor.

As for a Triple Crown winner HAVING to win the MVP... hey, there's precedent for him not.

stevenidol
10-03-2012, 10:10 AM
I wouldn't call what Cabrera does at 3B "admirable" defense. He's fine as long as the ball is within two steps to either side (and if it is moderately well-hit, has to dive to knock it down) and is an accurate thrower. That's about it. His range is terrible.

For me, the argument for Trout is not simply his WAR (though his offensive WAR is still a smidge higher than Cabrera's for the full year).

Comparing the two, there is not a huge separation with what they've done offensively. They are clearly 1-2 in terms of offensive production in the American League. Cabrera is the best 3 hitter in baseball. Trout is the best 1 hitter in baseball.

Defensively, you don't have to use statistics to see Trout's impact in center field. He's Gold Glove caliber out there. GG defense at a premium (second- or third-most important defensive position) is an important factor.

As for a Triple Crown winner HAVING to win the MVP... hey, there's precedent for him not.

I saw someone on Twitter last night claiming that Cabrera has better stats because he plays in the AL Central vs the AL West for Trout. So I created a spreadsheet where I averaged out Trout and Cabrera's stats vs the AL Central and the AL West (essentially what their stats would be with the same number of ABs against each division) and Cabrera's stats are by far better. Trout only leads in SBs, BBs and by far more Ks. Cabrera leads in every other category. MVP has never been a defensive award so I could care less about those stats, however one team is going to the playoffs and the other isn't.

duncan_idaho
10-03-2012, 10:11 AM
Just for fun: Here's Trout's line if he had Cabrera's PA (which he would if the Angels hadn't been idiots to start the season):

33 HR/92 RBI/144 R/29 2B/10 3B/58 SB
.324/.397/.561 SLG

Not trying to make any point with it. Just posting it because I had it.

duncan_idaho
10-03-2012, 10:17 AM
I saw someone on Twitter last night claiming that Cabrera has better stats because he plays in the AL Central vs the AL West for Trout. So I created a spreadsheet where I averaged out Trout and Cabrera's stats vs the AL Central and the AL West (essentially what their stats would be with the same number of ABs against each division) and Cabrera's stats are by far better. Trout only leads in SBs and BBs. Cabrera leads in every other category. MVP has never been a defensive award so I could care less about those stats, however one team is going to the playoffs and the other isn't.

It's "Most Valuable Player," though. To me, that's the player who adds the most value, total. If they are so much better than everyone else with the bat, that's just fine (examples: Bonds in his roids years, Ruth, Mantle in 56, etc). But if you're talking about two guys who are very close offensively, then defense becomes a big factor.

There are lots of guys who have won it with defense being a significant positive factor for them.

Ivan Rodriguez in 99. A-Rod in 2003. Caminiti in 96, Larkin in 95. Terry Pendleton and Cal Ripken in 91.

Offense is obviously an important factor, too. But defense can be considered as well.

DJ's left nut
10-03-2012, 10:27 AM
I wouldn't call what Cabrera does at 3B "admirable" defense. He's fine as long as the ball is within two steps to either side (and if it is moderately well-hit, has to dive to knock it down) and is an accurate thrower. That's about it. His range is terrible.

For me, the argument for Trout is not simply his WAR (though his offensive WAR is still a smidge higher than Cabrera's for the full year).

Comparing the two, there is not a huge separation with what they've done offensively. They are clearly 1-2 in terms of offensive production in the American League. Cabrera is the best 3 hitter in baseball. Trout is the best 1 hitter in baseball.

Defensively, you don't have to use statistics to see Trout's impact in center field. He's Gold Glove caliber out there. GG defense at a premium (second- or third-most important defensive position) is an important factor.

As for a Triple Crown winner HAVING to win the MVP... hey, there's precedent for him not.

I just disagree that there's not a separation between the two offensively. 56 more RBI? That's a massive gulf. And I know that Trout's a leadoff hitter, but he's a leadoff hitter in an AL lineup, don't forget. Austin Jackson's had a nice season, but he was hurt for a bit and during that time Quentin Berry was the leadoff hitter with Omar Infante or some mis-mash of cruddy ass parts ahead of Miggy. Trout's had Aybar and Ianetta in front of him. It's clearly not as strong a group of table-setters, but it's not batting leadoff ahead of the pitcher either.

Trout had 109 ABs with RISP and did a great job w/ a .330 BA. Cabrera had more opportunities to drive in runs with 174 ABs with runners in scoring position - but he also did a better job of it with a .356 BA in those spots. Cabrera, while he was given more chances, did do a better job of driving in runs.

And I don't accept the run produced state either because there's a great deal to be said for being able to both score and drive yourself in. You're doing in 1 plate appearance what would otherwise take 2, so why shouldn't you get to double count it? Those extra bombs where all situations where Cabrera did the work of 2 batters - that counts for a lot.

DJ's left nut
10-03-2012, 10:39 AM
It's "Most Valuable Player," though. To me, that's the player who adds the most value, total. If they are so much better than everyone else with the bat, that's just fine (examples: Bonds in his roids years, Ruth, Mantle in 56, etc). But if you're talking about two guys who are very close offensively, then defense becomes a big factor.

There are lots of guys who have won it with defense being a significant positive factor for them.

Ivan Rodriguez in 99. A-Rod in 2003. Caminiti in 96, Larkin in 95. Terry Pendleton and Cal Ripken in 91.

Offense is obviously an important factor, too. But defense can be considered as well.

I think defensive scarcity is more critical than actual defensive performance. We still don't have a good way of knowing exactly what value in terms of wins defense adds.

We do know that a guy that can play an elite CF while also hitting 30 bombs is pretty valuable because it allows you to get production from a 'defensive' position and therefore end up with a much deeper lineup or perhaps give up some offense at another critical defensive position like SS in favor of a superlative defender.

And that's how I think Cabrera can help close the gap on the fact that he's clearly not as good a defender as Trout. I know you say his defense is awful, but the stats don't really support it, for whatever they're worth. His RF is just a shade below average but RF is largely a product of chances and the Tigers are an extreme strikeout staff, so that's going to diminish his number of overall chances. And I know FLD% is out-dated, but for a 3b is still speaks to how soft their hands are and how accurate their throwing is - the two most critical elements of sound 3b defense. Cabrera is above average at his position. He doesn't do well in UZR, I'll grant you, but again I really do think that 3b 'range' is a little overrated. 3b is a read/react position. You talk range when discussing the elite guys that can allow a SS to shade up the middle, but for your average 3b, the differences in range are largely negligible.

From what I've seen, Cabrera has been a capable 3b and the stats seem to largely support that. His ability to make that transition gets him some significant bonus point is that it has allowed the Tigers to add another dangerous hitter to their lineup. That's massive, IMO.

Brainiac
10-03-2012, 10:50 AM
And I don't accept the run produced state either because there's a great deal to be said for being able to both score and drive yourself in. You're doing in 1 plate appearance what would otherwise take 2, so why shouldn't you get to double count it? Those extra bombs where all situations where Cabrera did the work of 2 batters - that counts for a lot.
Thank you! Duncan Idaho is obviously a smart guy. I don't know why he won't acknowledge this. It seems so obvious.

duncan_idaho
10-03-2012, 10:58 AM
Thank you! Duncan Idaho is obviously a smart guy. I don't know why he won't acknowledge this. It seems so obvious.

Just falling back on my (somewhat limited) stats experience. We talked about this a lot at Sporting News, when discussing runs created as a stat and using it as a more standard thing (especially fantasy).

RC is actually very different from the way we've been discussing it.

What I've been mentioning came from a discussion about creating a less complicated version of it. We had basically the same debate we're having here. Our SABRE guy was pretty convincing in arguing for R+RBI-HR, but he stated the case much better than I can. "One run is still one run, even if you hit a home run and are responsible both for scoring it and driving it in." was the basic argument.

I actually used to be a hardcore "eyes and scouts" guy, when I first started there. Kind of the opposite of Keith Law. Now I'm in the middle and prefer a balanced approach to scouting + statistical analysis.

DJ's left nut
10-03-2012, 11:16 AM
Just falling back on my (somewhat limited) stats experience. We talked about this a lot at Sporting News, when discussing runs created as a stat and using it as a more standard thing (especially fantasy).

RC is actually very different from the way we've been discussing it.

What I've been mentioning came from a discussion about creating a less complicated version of it. We had basically the same debate we're having here. Our SABRE guy was pretty convincing in arguing for R+RBI-HR, but he stated the case much better than I can. "One run is still one run, even if you hit a home run and are responsible both for scoring it and driving it in." was the basic argument.

I actually used to be a hardcore "eyes and scouts" guy, when I first started there. Kind of the opposite of Keith Law. Now I'm in the middle and prefer a balanced approach to scouting + statistical analysis.

I understand the argument - 1 run is absolutely 1 run and I can see why they believe you're cheat a bit by counting it twice,

But it's odd that SABRE folks, who so value the PA to the point of claiming that a bunt is always wrong and that OBP should count for twice SLG% when discussing OPS, will simply disregard the fact that the HR does in 1 PA what would ordinarily take 2.

It just seems inconsistent to me. If at-bats are so critical and all of baseball truly should center around avoiding the creation of outs, why do we suddenly not care that a batter only used 1 AB to produce a run?

duncan_idaho
10-03-2012, 11:31 AM
I understand the argument - 1 run is absolutely 1 run and I can see why they believe you're cheat a bit by counting it twice,

But it's odd that SABRE folks, who so value the PA to the point of claiming that a bunt is always wrong and that OBP should count for twice SLG% when discussing OPS, will simply disregard the fact that the HR does in 1 PA what would ordinarily take 2.

It just seems inconsistent to me. If at-bats are so critical and all of baseball truly should center around avoiding the creation of outs, why do we suddenly not care that a batter only used 1 AB to produce a run?

Yeah, the actual runs created stat accounts for at-bats/plate appearances (basically, you add all the controllable factors together and then divide that number by BA or PA).

There are some things it's just difficult to quantify in a way other than a simple counting.

I'm not a true hardcore SABRE guy, so I'm not the best one to talk to about this. I can't argue passionately for the reasoning (and am not plugged in enough to the numbers or reasoning to get down to this level of detail).

Carlota69
10-03-2012, 12:09 PM
Cabrera should win it because 100 years ago somebody coined the term triple crown. If Cabrera was just the first player to lead the league in the three arbitrary offensive categories of BA, HRs, and RBI in decades, Trout would deserve it for being the better all-round player.

That isn't what happened, though. Cabrera will win the "triple crown", so that's more impressive than what Trout has done.
If Cabrera wins the triple Corwn he will be the first player in over 40 years to win it. Impressive. Regardless, Trout is the first player ever to score over 125 runs, 50 steals and 30+ home runs. First player in history. Period. And thats just offensive numbers. His no doubt about it gold glove should factor in as well.

Saul Good
10-03-2012, 12:14 PM
If Cabrera wins the triple Corwn he will be the first player in over 40 years to win it. Impressive. Regardless, Trout is the first player ever to score over 125 runs, 50 steals and 30+ home runs. First player in history. Period. And thats just offensive numbers. His no doubt about it gold glove should factor in as well.

Yes, but there isn't a name for those arbitrary stats you cited, so it is less valuable than other arbitrary stats that have long been dubbed the "triple crown".

Carlota69
10-03-2012, 12:17 PM
Yes, but there isn't a name for those arbitrary stats you cited, so it is less valuable than other arbitrary stats that have long been dubbed the "triple crown".
Its less valuable??? Scoring runs, creating havoc in the bases and hitting HRs is less valuable just because it doesnt have a sexy name?? :thumb:

PGM
10-03-2012, 12:21 PM
Don't really give a fuck to be honest

Saul Good
10-03-2012, 01:02 PM
Its less valuable??? Scoring runs, creating havoc in the bases and hitting HRs is less valuable just because it doesnt have a sexy name?? :thumb:

Yes. If it's so valuable, why doesn't it have a name? The name "Triple Crown" just has a certain je ne sais quoi which is proof positive of its value.

Just think about it. If Josh Hamilton hadn't missed so many games, he would have hit more HRs than Cabrera, and Cabrera wouldn't have won the triple crown, and Mike Trout would deserve the MVP. But Hamilton DID miss those games, thus making Cabrera more valuable vis a vis Mike Trout. I don't understand why this doesn't make sense to you.

If Hamilton hits two bombs tonight, Trout had a better season than Cabrera. If Hamilton doesn't hit any tonight, Cabrera had a better season than Trout.

Carlota69
10-03-2012, 01:39 PM
Yes. If it's so valuable, why doesn't it have a name? The name "Triple Crown" just has a certain je ne sais quoi which is proof positive of its value.

Just think about it. If Josh Hamilton hadn't missed so many games, he would have hit more HRs than Cabrera, and Cabrera wouldn't have won the triple crown, and Mike Trout would deserve the MVP. But Hamilton DID miss those games, thus making Cabrera more valuable vis a vis Mike Trout. I don't understand why this doesn't make sense to you.

If Hamilton hits two bombs tonight, Trout had a better season than Cabrera. If Hamilton doesn't hit any tonight, Cabrera had a better season than Trout.
Ok, so if JH hits 2 bombs tonight, then Trout is better than Cabrera, but if he doesnt, then Cabrera is better than Trout? OK...

Trout just won Defensive Player of the year according to ESPN, not that has anything to do with this conversation...just happened, so I thought Id bring it up;-)

ChiefsandO'sfan
10-03-2012, 01:40 PM
Miguel Cabrera, no you put the Tigers in the East or West the Tigers are a 4th place team.

Saul Good
10-03-2012, 01:44 PM
Ok, so if JH hits 2 bombs tonight, then Trout is better than Cabrera, but if he doesnt, then Cabrera is better than Trout?

That is accurate, yes.

Carlota69
10-03-2012, 01:46 PM
That is accurate, yes.
So, its up to Josh Hamilton, another player entirely, to determine who was a better player overall between Cabrera and Trout?? whatever you say dude...

Saul Good
10-03-2012, 01:51 PM
So, its up to Josh Hamilton, another player entirely, to determine who was a better player overall between Cabrera and Trout??

Yes. Baseball is complicated.

Reaper16
10-03-2012, 02:21 PM
So, its up to Josh Hamilton, another player entirely, to determine who was a better player overall between Cabrera and Trout?? whatever you say dude...

The two of you agree here, Saul is just using sarcasm to make the same points that you have been making.

chefsos
10-03-2012, 02:29 PM
The two of you agree here, Saul is just using sarcasm to make the same points that you have been making.Shhhh...

Master at work.

DJ's left nut
10-03-2012, 02:34 PM
Arte must've picked up another shiny bauble.

Angels fans both confuse and distract easily.

Carlota69
10-03-2012, 02:34 PM
The two of you agree here, Saul is just using sarcasm to make the same points that you have been making.
Well, Regardless of sarcasm or not, I dont think Hamilton has anything to do with it, really. Yes, if he hit 2 HRs tonight and Miggy none, then no Triple Crown,and then more than likely, Trout gets MVP. But I dont think Miggy should be judged one way or the other based on lack of HR. The MVP should be based on the player, and the individual player only and another players performance should have no bearing on the subject.

Carlota69
10-03-2012, 02:35 PM
Arte must've picked up another shiny bauble.

Angels fans both confuse and distract easily.
Eat a bucket of...

DJ's left nut
10-03-2012, 02:39 PM
Eat a bucket of...

$240 million just doesn't go as far as it used to.

That's okay, Arte will get you guys another trinket in the offseason. Afterall, since the Angels are soon to be consigned back to the 2nd class citizens in their own home-town, they might as well go out with a bang, right?

Words cannot adequately explain how much I'm looking forward to Trout leaving Anaheim for a better deal in 5 years when that Pujols contract is dangling around your necks like the anchor it has been from the moment it was signed.

Hey look - shiny things!

Carlota69
10-03-2012, 02:47 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2012/10/02/mike-trout-deserves-al-mvp-award/1609585/

Counterpoint:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2012/10/02/miguel-cabrera-deserves-al-mvp-award/1609615/

Saul Good
10-03-2012, 02:47 PM
Well, Regardless of sarcasm or not, I dont think Hamilton has anything to do with it, really. Yes, if he hit 2 HRs tonight and Miggy none, then no Triple Crown,and then more than likely, Trout gets MVP. But I dont think Miggy should be judged one way or the other based on lack of HR. The MVP should be based on the player, and the individual player only and another players performance should have no bearing on the subject.

I agree. You can make a solid case for Cabrera winning the MVP. You can do so while basing your argument on his impressive BA, HRs, and RBI total. You can not, however, say that winning the triple crown automatically makes him the player with the most value and have it be an intelligent statement.

DJ's left nut
10-03-2012, 02:54 PM
I agree. You can make a solid case for Cabrera winning the MVP. You can do so while basing your argument on his impressive BA, HRs, and RBI total. You can not, however, say that winning the triple crown automatically makes him the player with the most value and have it be an intelligent statement.

Once again, I think you're just knocking down your own straw man here.

Again, I'm going to point to the season Elsbury had just last year.

We're touting the 125/50/30 thing here, yes? Well Elsbury went 119/39/32. Would you agree that's damn close? He also drove in 105 runs and did a far better job of putting the ball in play than Trout did this year.

Elsbury would've gotten steamrolled in the MVP voting by the season that Cabrera's putting up right now. He damn near got passed by Bautista who's stat line was inferior to Cabrera's almost across the board and who played in a far far better hitters environment. And whether you like it or not, Bautista's team didn't make the playoffs and he didn't finish the with absolutely torrid stretch that Cabrera had. Cabrera has a significantly stronger case this year than Bautista had last year.

This idea that Trout's having a historic season is just wrong. He's having a historic season for a rookie, but the season itself is just another in the long line of very very good power/speed seasons.

And in the end the Triple Crown does count for something. Is it dispositive? No, but it does mean that you were clearly the best at those things that season. That's a big deal and enough to ultimately give the thing to Miggy.

Carlota69
10-03-2012, 02:55 PM
$240 million just doesn't go as far as it used to.

That's okay, Arte will get you guys another trinket in the offseason. Afterall, since the Angels are soon to be consigned back to the 2nd class citizens in their own home-town, they might as well go out with a bang, right?

Words cannot adequately explain how much I'm looking forward to Trout leaving Anaheim for a better deal in 5 years when that Pujols contract is dangling around your necks like the anchor it has been from the moment it was signed.

Hey look - shiny things!

You still bitter over Pujols??? Baby, you really need to get obver it. Move forward. Move on.

DJ's left nut
10-03-2012, 02:57 PM
You still bitter over Pujols??? Baby, you really need to get obver it. Move forward. Move on.

Moving forward to game 163.

You?

Reaper16
10-03-2012, 02:57 PM
Read the thread. You may have a more nuanced argument for Cabrera, but there's a lot of posts in this thread (let alone the rest of the internet) that are placing the triple crown above anything else for MVP consideration. It isn't a strawman.

DJ's left nut
10-03-2012, 02:59 PM
Read the thread. You may have a more nuanced argument for Cabrera, but there's a lot of posts in this thread (let alone the rest of the internet) that are placing the triple crown above anything else for MVP consideration. It isn't a strawman.

Those folks have largely bailed out.

Saul's conducting an empty chair interview with the folks that did hit and run posts. I'm not sure what that accomplishes.

Saul Good
10-03-2012, 03:00 PM
Read the thread. You may have a more nuanced argument for Cabrera, but there's a lot of posts in this thread (let alone the rest of the internet) that are placing the triple crown above anything else for MVP consideration. It isn't a strawman.

It's not even a straw man as it relates to this thread in a vacuum.

chefsos
10-03-2012, 03:05 PM
Two things regarding Cabrera and MVP- one pro, one con. In your average baseball season, some slap hitter goes .340 or .350 quite often. No one did that this year. If they had, the TC would not even be in play as an argument. On the other hand, I thought he would be hilariously bad at 3B, but every time I saw him, he was making strong stops and throws. Just looked better than anticipated. I don't have a number for that.

Saul Good
10-03-2012, 03:07 PM
Definitely want to see it, and what's amazing is people are actually debating whether he'll even win the AL MVP if he gets the triple crown.
Posted via Mobile Device

Yes, its history in the making. And if you get the triple crown, there should be NO discussion of any other HITTER getting the MVP over him. Yes, Trout is having a great year but not a triple crown year. Give him ROY and have him try again next year.

It hasn't happened since 1967, 1937 in the National League. Of course I'm wanting to see that. I am not buying the arguments that someone that wins the triple crown can lose the MVP.

It's not a slap in the face to Trout if he doesn't win it. What Cabrerra is doing is a rare feat in MLB, and hard to not give the MVP to the guy that achieves such a lofty status. Cabrerra will be a baseball immortal after this worthy of the MVP. Trout will push for MVP awards for years to come.

Don't know why this is even a debate, if Cabrera wins the triple crown its game set and match. There is no argument that can trump the triple freaking crown. Trout is a great story, but I can't believe the people discounting what a HUGE accomplishment the triple crown would be.

Those folks have largely bailed out.

Saul's conducting an empty chair interview with the folks that did hit and run posts. I'm not sure what that accomplishes.

Brainiac declared my argument a straw man 23 minutes after the WV post quoted above.

Brainiac
10-03-2012, 03:21 PM
Well, Regardless of sarcasm or not, I dont think Hamilton has anything to do with it, really. Yes, if he hit 2 HRs tonight and Miggy none, then no Triple Crown,and then more than likely, Trout gets MVP. But I dont think Miggy should be judged one way or the other based on lack of HR. The MVP should be based on the player, and the individual player only and another players performance should have no bearing on the subject.
That's twice now in this thread that you've shown a complete lack of understanding regarding what the MVP is based on. First, you mentioned that Trout was only 20 years old when the season started as one of your supporting arguments for him, as if that has ANYTHING to do with qualifications for MVP. To your credit, you didn't try to stick with that after I slapped you around for it.

But now you're completely misunderstanding that MVP is a relative term, not an absolute one. Another player's performance sure as hell DOES have bearing on whether or not a specific player is the MVP. The "M" in MVP stands for MOST valuable player. A player could put up identical numbers in back to back years and be the MVP one year but not the next. What other players do ABSOLUTELY affects any player's chance to be MVP.

Hey, we get it. You're an Angels fan and a Mike Trout fan, and you'd absolutely love to see Mike Trout win the MVP award. But as DJ's Left Nut so eloquently pointed out, Mike Trout is only slightly better than Jacoby Ellsbury was last year. He just makes a few more spectacular plays, plays in a bigger media market, and gets on the Sportscenter highlights on a regular basis. That doesn't make him the MVP. Sorry.

Brainiac
10-03-2012, 03:25 PM
BA, RBI, and HRs is all you need to know when evaluating a player's value. I don't understand why people even bother looking at fielding, base-running, pitching, etc. Those are negligible facets of the game and should only be considered in the event of a tie. (And even then, that would only be if you couldn't find a coin to flip.)

Nicely done. You built a straw man and knocked it down. Congratulations.

Brainiac declared my argument a straw man 23 minutes after the WV post quoted above.
I wasn't responding to anybody else's quote when I called your quote a straw man argument. If it bothers you so much, I'll retract that and just say you were being sarcastic.

Papi
10-03-2012, 04:21 PM
My answer would be yes. But really I couldn't care less. My interest in mlb since my youth has dropped off like a cliff. I used to collect cards, love going to see the Royals play, and following the game. Maybe it's the long standing irrelevance of the Royals or I just outgrew the game, but I really don't care about baseball anymore. I'll go to a game once a year. But all things mlb... I just don't care. Kinda sad.

Brainiac
10-03-2012, 04:27 PM
My answer would be yes. But really I couldn't care less. My interest in mlb since my youth has dropped off like a cliff. I used to collect cards, love going to see the Royals play, and following the game. Maybe it's the long standing irrelevance of the Royals or I just outgrew the game, but I really don't care about baseball anymore. I'll go to a game once a year. But all things mlb... I just don't care. Kinda sad.
My guess would be that 25 years of ineptitude by the Royals is what made you lose interest. I tell my sons all the time how it used to be, and how being a Royals fan today is nothing like it was.

Saul Good
10-03-2012, 05:47 PM
I wasn't responding to anybody else's quote when I called your quote a straw man argument. If it bothers you so much, I'll retract that and just say you were being sarcastic.

I see. You don't know what "straw man" means. That makes sense.

Carlota69
10-03-2012, 06:03 PM
That's twice now in this thread that you've shown a complete lack of understanding regarding what the MVP is based on. First, you mentioned that Trout was only 20 years old when the season started as one of your supporting arguments for him, as if that has ANYTHING to do with qualifications for MVP. To your credit, you didn't try to stick with that after I slapped you around for it.

But now you're completely misunderstanding that MVP is a relative term, not an absolute one. Another player's performance sure as hell DOES have bearing on whether or not a specific player is the MVP. The "M" in MVP stands for MOST valuable player. A player could put up identical numbers in back to back years and be the MVP one year but not the next. What other players do ABSOLUTELY affects any player's chance to be MVP.

Hey, we get it. You're an Angels fan and a Mike Trout fan, and you'd absolutely love to see Mike Trout win the MVP award. But as DJ's Left Nut so eloquently pointed out, Mike Trout is only slightly better than Jacoby Ellsbury was last year. He just makes a few more spectacular plays, plays in a bigger media market, and gets on the Sportscenter highlights on a regular basis. That doesn't make him the MVP. Sorry.
You slapped me around? Lmfao. Dont slap yourself on he back so damn hard. It is pretty amazing that a kid has done the things he's done in a mans game. But, really it doesn't play into MVP. I was just pointing out his age cuz it is pretty damn amazing. But, go ahead and think you slapped me around if it makes you feel better. And just because you have a different opinion about who shod,be MVP, doesn't mean I have a complete lack of understanding of the concept of MVP. There's plenty of people within the MLB and baseball magazines, writers etc that think Trout shoe be. And there are many others who think Cabrera should be. So only the ones who Cabrera should be MVP understand?

JASONSAUTO
10-03-2012, 06:34 PM
I think djln made the best argument for his side here.

He won me as a juror over and I started in this thread totally open minded.

The ole "Jacoby Ellsbury" defense turned the tide.
Posted via Mobile Device

PGM
10-03-2012, 06:34 PM
Moving forward to game 163.

You?

At least somebody sees the game for what it is. It's cool, but playoffs don't start till they win that bad boy. :D

Brainiac
10-03-2012, 07:44 PM
I see. You don't know what "straw man" means. That makes sense.

No, I was just trying to be nice in order to keep the peace. I can see the gesture was wasted on you.

Saul Good
10-03-2012, 08:18 PM
No, I was just trying to be nice in order to keep the peace. I can see the gesture was wasted on you.

On the one hand, you accuse me of constructing a straw man (that is to say that I created a position that nobody had taken and proceeded to attack said position).

On the other hand, you say that you weren't responding to anyone else's quote when you accused me of constructing a straw man.

It's pretty difficult, nay impossible, to determine whether or not I have responded to an argument that someone else has made if you are ignoring the positions of others. It's okay, Brainiac. I realize that sometimes people use words they don't understand.

Fruit Ninja
10-03-2012, 11:25 PM
MIggy should win the MVP no doubt about it. If he doesnt, its a fucking shame. His team is in the play offs and a triple crown, solid defense. It HAS to happen.

Anyways, Gratz on the triple crown dude. Good to see someone get that in my life time. didnt think it would happen.

KC_Connection
10-04-2012, 12:39 AM
Trout is the best and most valuable player in baseball. Trout is an elite hitter, fielder, and baserunner whereas Cabrera is only one of those things. Trout should be MVP.

BWillie
10-04-2012, 12:40 AM
I am sickened that Kansas City fans cheered for this piece of shit when he was taken out and was assured the triple crown.

KC_Connection
10-04-2012, 12:48 AM
Elsbury would've gotten steamrolled in the MVP voting by the season that Cabrera's putting up right now. He damn near got passed by Bautista who's stat line was inferior to Cabrera's almost across the board and who played in a far far better hitters environment. And whether you like it or not, Bautista's team didn't make the playoffs and he didn't finish the with absolutely torrid stretch that Cabrera had. Cabrera has a significantly stronger case this year than Bautista had last year.

Bautista's 2011 offensively (.441 wOBA, 181 wRC+) actually was better than Cabrera's 2012 (.417 wOBA, 167 wRC+). So was Cabrera's 2011 (.436 wOBA, 167 wRC+) for that matter. And Cabrera's 2010 (.429 wOBA, 169 wRC+). The big difference was that he just had more RBI than in the past (which is a product of opportunity more than anything else).


This idea that Trout's having a historic season is just wrong. He's having a historic season for a rookie, but the season itself is just another in the long line of very very good power/speed seasons.

Trout is having the best season overall in baseball since the great Barry Bonds was mashing in the early 2000s. What he's done is absolutely incredible and he should most certainly be awarded for it.

Take a read: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/mike-trout-miguel-cabrera-and-measuring-value/

KC_Connection
10-04-2012, 12:49 AM
I am sickened that Kansas City fans cheered for this piece of shit when he was taken out and was assured the triple crown.
It's funny how people will boo and throw shit at suspected steroid users while cheer for drunk driving buffoons like Cabrera.

BCD
10-04-2012, 12:58 AM
It's funny how people will boo and throw shit at suspected steroid users while cheer for drunk driving buffoons like Cabrera.

Trout is the best and most valuable player in baseball. Trout is an elite hitter, fielder, and baserunner whereas Cabrera is only one of those things. Trout should be MVP.

LOL @ your hate for Cabrera

If I were there, I would have cheered.

You don't understand how huge this is.

Its a great feat.

Its been 45 years since anyone has done this

45 years.

They weren't cheering so much for Cabrera as they were what he did.

You have to respect that, if you're a baseball fan.

KC_Connection
10-04-2012, 01:12 AM
LOL @ your hate for Cabrera
I don't hate Cabrera at all. He's a fantastic hitter, he's probably the best hitter in the game. Unfortunately, as Jose Bautista is 2010 and 2011 can attest, that doesn't mean he's the MVP. That's for the best and most valuable player in the game, which was obviously Trout for anybody that watched that guy play this season. MCab should win the Hank Aaron Award, though.


You don't understand how huge this is.

Its a great feat.


Its been 45 years since anyone has done this

45 years.

45 years since anyone has done what exactly? Hit for a really high average and racked up some rather arbitrary counting stats that rely largely on opportunity? Baseball analysis has advanced to the point where there are better and more effective ways to evaluate players than this. Barry Bonds, for example, spent like 3/4 of his career with offensive seasons better than this one.


They weren't cheering so much for Cabrera as they were what he did.

You have to respect that, if you're a baseball fan.
Oh, I respect his season just fine. I just also recognize that he was even better than this in both 2010 and 2011.

BCD
10-04-2012, 02:30 AM
45 years since anyone has done what exactly? Hit for a really high average and racked up some rather arbitrary counting stats that rely largely on opportunity? Baseball analysis has advanced to the point where there are better and more effective ways to evaluate players than this. Barry Bonds, for example, spent like 3/4 of his career with offensive seasons better than this one.


.

Barry Bonds? Really? I suppose you don't think he was using PEDs.
2006 https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQNxM44_DsxckhtzqBLDzmZSKH_LVESGAKleeA3aCkSQrrDc7iRDw

2012 http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/.cLoDFKTPANeMsnrvu5C5A--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/sptusmlbexperts/bondsbicycle.jpg

KC_Connection
10-04-2012, 03:47 AM
Barry Bonds? Really? I suppose you don't think he was using PEDs.

Of course he was using PEDs (like a large percentage of the rest of the MLB players at that time were). I'm not sure how that's relevant here or how that changes the fact that he's one of the best hitters of all time and spent the bulk of his career putting up seasons better than Miggy's 2012 despite never leading the league once in the arbitrary, dated assemblage of AVG, HR, and RBI categories (or as it is most commonly referred to, the Triple Crown). The rarity of an event doesn't equate to meaning or importance and it certainly doesn't in this case. Baseball analysis and evaluation has evolved.

Al Bundy
10-04-2012, 05:08 AM
Trout is the best and most valuable player in baseball. Trout is an elite hitter, fielder, and baserunner whereas Cabrera is only one of those things. Trout should be MVP.

I have to disagree.... the at the last 2 months numbers wise... Trout has gone south, Cabrera has gone north. Cabrera is the MVP.

Al Bundy
10-04-2012, 05:08 AM
I am sickened that Kansas City fans cheered for this piece of shit when he was taken out and was assured the triple crown.

Why?

Brainiac
10-04-2012, 05:13 AM
I have to disagree.... the at the last 2 months numbers wise... Trout has gone south, Cabrera has gone north. Cabrera is the MVP.
Exactly. Trout had his chance to be the MVP, and he barely hit over .280 for the most important two months of the season. THAT is why he is not the MVP.

Cabrera was a beast the last two months of the season. That's why he IS the MVP.

oldandslow
10-04-2012, 07:09 AM
Won triple crown and team is in the playoffs...Yep, Miggy wins.

ChiefRocka
10-04-2012, 08:33 AM
ESPN: AL EAST Champs > Triple Crown Winner = Joke

BWillie
10-04-2012, 10:57 AM
Wow, have to agree with KC Connection. While Cabrera's season is impressive, it's largely impressive because it was based on opportunity. If he was in the NL he wouldn't have even won and he's counting on others to not have as good of a year as him. To me, it's kind of a goofy feat. Like hitting for the cycle or a hitting streak or something. It's cool and everything, but there are more important things to key on to define success. With that said, Cabrera had a great season no doubt, one of the best on the year. But I would still put a guy like Trout ahead of him as far as value.

Oh, Bonds never won the triple crown, but remember that year that Bonds hit .370? Had an OBP of almost .600. Hit 73 HR? Hit 33 HR and stole 53 bases? Had a 10+ oWAR year MULTIPLE times? All more impressive than Miguel Cabrera's year this year. So lets not make it out to be what it's not, it's not a year of great great historical value.

Deberg_1990
10-04-2012, 11:56 AM
heh, Dude does something no one else has done in 45 years and people immediately want to downplay and dump all over it.


:facepalm:

Dr. Facebook Fever
10-04-2012, 12:00 PM
heh, Dude does something no one else has done in 45 years and people immediately want to downplay and dump all over it.


:facepalm:

You must be talking about ChiefsPlanet. I wonder how those people would feel if Cabrera was a Royal... or a member of their favorite team (if other than the Royals). It's idiotic.

Carlota69
10-04-2012, 12:00 PM
A geeky look at offensive numbers only. Trout VS Cabrera.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/trout-versus-cabrera-offense-only-context-included/

Sfeihc
10-04-2012, 12:00 PM
I was very impressed with the Royals crowd last night in their acknowledgement of Cabrera's feat. Everyone I talked with yesterday i wished them a "Happy Triple Crown Day"! Cabrera is the Triple Crown MVP. Haters gonna hate, they always do. Go get 'em Tigers!

Carlota69
10-04-2012, 12:12 PM
heh, Dude does something no one else has done in 45 years and people immediately want to downplay and dump all over it.


:facepalm:
I dont think anyone is downplaying the Triple Crown. Its pretty awesome. What is being downplayed is Trouts season: Dude has accomplished a lot of things not done since the 20's, 30's and 40's. Names like Ty Cobb, Roger Hornsby and Joe Dimaggio are listed in his accomplishments.

FIRST MAJOR LEAGUER EVER TO…

Steal 45 bases, score 125 runs and hit 30 home runs in a single season.
Hit .320 or above with 30 HRs and 45 SBs in a single season.

ELITE COMPANY…

Trout has joined Ted Williams, Mel Ott and Alex Rodriguez as only players to hit .320 or above with 30+ HRs during their 20-year-old seasons.
He is vying to be one of only five players in the Live Ball Era (since 1920) to score at least 130 runs in less than 140 games: Al Simmons – 152 runs in 138 games in 1930, Rogers Hornsby – 133 runs in 138 games in 1925, Joe DiMaggio – 132 runs in 138 games in 1936 and Jimmie Foxx – 130 runs in 124 games in 1939.
At 21, he is the youngest player to steal 40 bases in a season since Ty Cobb in 1907.


http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20121003&content_id=39426414&c_id=ana

DJ's left nut
10-04-2012, 12:37 PM
HURRAY!!!!

I love the 'fun with selective end-points' game.

Keep on cutting your lines off just above where Elsbury was last year while cutting them just below where Elsbury exceeded him last year. That's a pretty solid way to make an 'historical' argument out of a season that was most certainly not without precedent.

Carlota69
10-04-2012, 12:56 PM
HURRAY!!!!

I love the 'fun with selective end-points' game.

Keep on cutting your lines off just above where Elsbury was last year while cutting them just below where Elsbury exceeded him last year. That's a pretty solid way to make an 'historical' argument out of a season that was most certainly not without precedent.

Oh sure, thats why when Ellsbury did what he did, everyone touted all these accomplishments..cool...

Youre kind of an angry guy huh? Well, I guess Id be angry too if I was someones left nut and had to suffocate underwear and crotch sweat all day...

Brainiac
10-04-2012, 01:26 PM
It's really pointless to argue about it any more. The season is over.

That is, it's over for Trout. Cabrera still has work to do.

Deberg_1990
10-04-2012, 01:28 PM
I dont think anyone is downplaying the Triple Crown. Its pretty awesome. What is being downplayed is Trouts season: Dude has accomplished a lot of things not done since the 20's, 30's and 40's. Names like Ty Cobb, Roger Hornsby and Joe Dimaggio are listed in his accomplishments.

FIRST MAJOR LEAGUER EVER TO…

Steal 45 bases, score 125 runs and hit 30 home runs in a single season.
Hit .320 or above with 30 HRs and 45 SBs in a single season.

ELITE COMPANY…

Trout has joined Ted Williams, Mel Ott and Alex Rodriguez as only players to hit .320 or above with 30+ HRs during their 20-year-old seasons.
He is vying to be one of only five players in the Live Ball Era (since 1920) to score at least 130 runs in less than 140 games: Al Simmons – 152 runs in 138 games in 1930, Rogers Hornsby – 133 runs in 138 games in 1925, Joe DiMaggio – 132 runs in 138 games in 1936 and Jimmie Foxx – 130 runs in 124 games in 1939.
At 21, he is the youngest player to steal 40 bases in a season since Ty Cobb in 1907.


http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20121003&content_id=39426414&c_id=ana

You can really dig throughout MLB history had pull numbers, twist them any way you want.

Jose Canseco had a 40 SBs 40 HR season once.

Trout had a great season, and will have many more. But it wasnt as special as the triple crown. Sorry.

DJ's left nut
10-04-2012, 01:35 PM
Oh sure, thats why when Ellsbury did what he did, everyone touted all these accomplishments..cool...

Youre kind of an angry guy huh? Well, I guess Id be angry too if I was someones left nut and had to suffocate underwear and crotch sweat all day...

Really, logon smack?

I mean, it's not like I accused you of being angry because you have a militant lesbian as your avatar or anything.

I've instead continued to point out that the season you continue to tout as being without precedent most assuredly isn't. I could see how that might frustrate you a little.

But please, keep on telling us how Miggy's triple crown isn't relevant because they're arbitrary stats (even though it's actually an honor based on direct relativity), whereas Mike Trout's season is remarkably special because he scored 6 more runs than Ellsbury and stole a few more bases while hitting fewer HRs, striking out more often and driving in fewer runs despite batting in the same spot in the order.

I know typing SECOND MAJOR LEAGUER IN 12 MONTHS TO...

Steal 35 bases, score 115 runs and hit 30 HRs in a single season
Hit .320 with 30 HRs and 35 SBs in a single season.

Isn't nearly as impressive...

Carlota69
10-04-2012, 01:38 PM
You can really dig throughout MLB history had pull numbers, twist them any way you want.

Jose Canseco had a 40 SBs 40 HR season once.

Trout had a great season, and will have many more. But it wasnt as special as the triple crown. Sorry.

Im not twisitng any numbers or pulling them. This is an article from today (or maybe yesterday). Nonetheless, there are many people who feel Trout deserves to win based on things like what is above. And of course, there are those in the Cabrera camp.

As someone pointed out, theres really no point in arguing the matter, one of these guys is the MVP, (And really both are--they both excelled beyond anyone else when it came to their job)and really both arguements are valid. Its just a matter of which arguement gets sold more...

DJ's left nut
10-04-2012, 01:58 PM
You can really dig throughout MLB history had pull numbers, twist them any way you want.

Jose Canseco had a 40 SBs 40 HR season once.

Trout had a great season, and will have many more. But it wasnt as special as the triple crown. Sorry.

But Jose only batted .307 when he did that. He also only scored 120 runs. I mean sure, he only drove in 40 more runs than Trout did this season, but that's nowhere near as impressive because he didn't bat over .320 or score 125 runs (lets not get into the discussion of his higher walk rate leveling out the respective OBPs though).

Same with Barry Bonds in 1996. He only batted .308 and scored 122 runs though again he drove in 45 more runs and got on base at a staggering .461 clip because anytime he wasn't driving in a run, he was probably getting walked. Oh, and he finished fifth in the MVP voting that season.

SURELY SUCH A TRAVESTY NEVER AGAIN OCCURED!!! Well, then there was that time that A-Rod hit 42 and stole 46 but only batted .310 and scored 123 runs (while again driving in 40 more runs than Trout). His reward? A ninth place finish in the MVP voting.

Oh and then there is Vladdy's 39/40 season w/ a .336 BA (4th) or Beltran's 38/42 season where he scored 120+ and only got CS 3 times in 45 attempts (incredible, really, and NR) and countless other seasons where guys just missed the quaint little endpoints that the Angels fans and the breathless Trout supporters have drawn for him.

But again, What Trout has accomplished this season is clearly unprecedented because we set the endpoint for BA at .320, a totally not arbitrary number, as opposed to the arbitrary nature of the triple crown stats.

I'm not angry - I'm just getting a kick at how incredibly awful you are at defending the positions that other people have been kind enough to put together for you.

Don't ever change, Angels fans. Please don't ever change.

DJ's left nut
10-04-2012, 02:01 PM
And for the record, Brainiac, if you ever need it, I could put together a thesis on slapping Carlota around. I pretty much have to do it any time she thinks she can talk baseball with the grown ups.

Carlota69
10-04-2012, 02:54 PM
And for the record, Brainiac, if you ever need it, I could put together a thesis on slapping Carlota around. I pretty much have to do it any time she thinks she can talk baseball with the grown ups.
Whatever makes you feel more manly darlin'...God knows you need all the help you can get.:thumb:

DJ's left nut
10-04-2012, 03:02 PM
Just offering to help out a fellow Truther, that's all.

Everyone knows that us nuts that don't think Trout just had an all-timer of a season are just closet Tigers honks.

If you're lucky, maybe fangraphs or Jeff Passan will go ahead and feed you something else to help you out with your next round of sterling baseball analysis.

"But, but, but...Peter Gammons said!!!!!"

Good ol' Angels fans. It's like the safety school for baseball fans in LA that can't pull off Dodger fandom. Don't worry, Arte will break out his checkbook and make everything better...

Brainiac
10-04-2012, 03:30 PM
Im not twisitng any numbers or pulling them. This is an article from today (or maybe yesterday). Nonetheless, there are many people who feel Trout deserves to win based on things like what is above. And of course, there are those in the Cabrera camp.

As someone pointed out, theres really no point in arguing the matter, one of these guys is the MVP, (And really both are--they both excelled beyond anyone else when it came to their job)and really both arguements are valid. Its just a matter of which arguement gets sold more...

Again, you don't seem to understand that the "M" in MVP stands for MOST valuable player. They can't BOTH be the MOST valuable player. Only one of them can.

And it isn't Mike (.284 down the stretch) Trout.

Demonpenz
10-04-2012, 05:35 PM
searched for Jeff Francour on google and this thread didn't come up

whoman69
10-04-2012, 05:53 PM
Wow, have to agree with KC Connection. While Cabrera's season is impressive, it's largely impressive because it was based on opportunity. If he was in the NL he wouldn't have even won and he's counting on others to not have as good of a year as him. To me, it's kind of a goofy feat. Like hitting for the cycle or a hitting streak or something. It's cool and everything, but there are more important things to key on to define success. With that said, Cabrera had a great season no doubt, one of the best on the year. But I would still put a guy like Trout ahead of him as far as value.

Oh, Bonds never won the triple crown, but remember that year that Bonds hit .370? Had an OBP of almost .600. Hit 73 HR? Hit 33 HR and stole 53 bases? Had a 10+ oWAR year MULTIPLE times? All more impressive than Miguel Cabrera's year this year. So lets not make it out to be what it's not, it's not a year of great great historical value.

I think your argument is a bit juiced.

Reaper16
10-04-2012, 08:18 PM
ITT, the LA Angles benefit from significant media bias, but the Boston Red Sox do not.

KC_Connection
10-05-2012, 12:49 AM
HURRAY!!!!

I love the 'fun with selective end-points' game.

Keep on cutting your lines off just above where Elsbury was last year while cutting them just below where Elsbury exceeded him last year. That's a pretty solid way to make an 'historical' argument out of a season that was most certainly not without precedent.
Trout's 2012: .422 wOBA, 175 wRC+,
Ellsbury's 2011: .402 wOBA, 150 wRC+

Bit of a difference there offensively, it seems. A major one.

KC_Connection
10-05-2012, 01:03 AM
Everyone knows that us nuts that don't think Trout just had an all-timer of a season are just closet Tigers honks.

Trout's 2012 season was actually better (in terms of both offensive rate stats and overall value) than anything Ken Griffey Jr. ever did in a single season over his entire career.

But sure, let's just keep pretending it wasn't anything special and downplaying it because TRIPLE CROWN!

KC_Connection
10-05-2012, 01:56 AM
But what about the first Triple Crown in 45 years?

Great accomplishment. But the award recognizes the most valuable player, not the most valuable hitter, and Trout's vastly superior baserunning and defense trumps Cabrera's moderate offensive advantage. Moreover, the Triple Crown only looks at three measures of offense, one of them highly team-dependent (runs batted in). It tells us nothing about Cabrera's walks, singles, doubles, triples, steals, times grounding into double plays, or any number of other stats. Yelling "Triple Crown!" and dropping a metaphorical mic is not a cogent argument.

But what about Cabrera going off in September, while Trout cooled down?

One win counts for one win in April, May, June, July, August, or September. But if you want to try to ascribe higher leverage to September at-bats the way you would ninth-inning at-bats in tie games, sure, go ahead.

But what about Cabrera leading his team to the playoffs, while Trout led his team to the golf course?

Leaving aside the Angels' superior record in a much tougher division, the teammates your general manager picks for you should have no bearing on a player's value. Trout did more this year to help his team win than did Cabrera (or anyone else, including Robinson Cano, who's had a hell of a year and could be argued to have produced about as much value as Cabrera, maybe even a little more) and Adrian Beltre (another candidate with value comparable to Cabrera's who's not coming up in the main Trout vs. Cabrera debate). He is therefore the league's most valuable player.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8456259/wading-crowded-mlb-awards-field

DJ's left nut
10-05-2012, 09:30 AM
Trout's 2012 season was actually better (in terms of both offensive rate stats and overall value) than anything Ken Griffey Jr. ever did in a single season over his entire career.

But sure, let's just keep pretending it wasn't anything special and downplaying it because TRIPLE CROWN!

And yet not as good as Matt Kemp's 2011 season - the same Matt Kemp that didn't win the MVP last year.

But that's right, he only scored 115 runs and stole 40 bases when he was hitting 1/3 more HRs and driving in 50% more runs.

It was a great season - but a season very similar to it happens every other year or so.

duncan_idaho
10-05-2012, 09:35 AM
And yet not as good as Matt Kemp's 2011 season - the same Matt Kemp that didn't win the MVP last year.

But that's right, he only scored 115 runs and stole 40 bases when he was hitting 1/3 more HRs and driving in 50% more runs.

It was a great season - but a season very similar to it happens every other year or so.

And?

Kemp was better than Braun last year. All that Kemp not winning shows is that voting for an individual award based on a team effort is stupid.

DJ's left nut
10-05-2012, 10:12 AM
And?

Kemp was better than Braun last year. All that Kemp not winning shows is that voting for an individual award based on a team effort is stupid.

My point is that the season is nowhere near unprecedented. It was bested last season by Kemp.

And I also made a mistake in taking the rest of that claim by KC Connection at face value - the idea that Trout's season was never bested by Junior.

Look at Griffey's 1997 season:

125 R, 56HR, 147 RBI, 15 steals and an OPS of 1.028 - That season crushes the season that Trout put up this year. Trout only has an appreciable edge in steals.

Yet WAR has Trout as having a better season this year than Griffey did in 1997. Why? Because WAR is not dispositive of anything and can be wrong just as easily as RBI can. WAR should be looked at as just another tool, not the tool that answers all questions.

Leave it to the super stats crowd to actually try to claim that Trouts season was better than Griffeys 96, 97, 98 or even 93. Griffey did get the MVP in 97, but not the other 3 years.

duncan_idaho
10-05-2012, 10:36 AM
My point is that the season is nowhere near unprecedented. It was bested last season by Kemp.

And I also made a mistake in taking the rest of that claim by KC Connection at face value - the idea that Trout's season was never bested by Junior.

Look at Griffey's 1997 season:

125 R, 56HR, 147 RBI, 15 steals and an OPS of 1.028 - That season crushes the season that Trout put up this year. Trout only has an appreciable edge in steals.

Yet WAR has Trout as having a better season this year than Griffey did in 1997. Why? Because WAR is not dispositive of anything and can be wrong just as easily as RBI can. WAR should be looked at as just another tool, not the tool that answers all questions.

Leave it to the super stats crowd to actually try to claim that Trouts season was better than Griffeys 96, 97, 98 or even 93. Griffey did get the MVP in 97, but not the other 3 years.

Gotcha.

As I mentioned earlier, I trust offensive WAR by itself (Total WAR, with defensive value thrown in, gets silly). Trout does lead in that category. I'm fine with either guy but would vote for Trout, personally. Not a slam dunk either way.

Here's a counter-question, though: How unprecedented is Cabrera's line?

DJ's left nut
10-05-2012, 10:46 AM
Gotcha.

As I mentioned earlier, I trust offensive WAR by itself (Total WAR, with defensive value thrown in, gets silly). Trout does lead in that category. I'm fine with either guy but would vote for Trout, personally. Not a slam dunk either way.

Here's a counter-question, though: How unprecedented is Cabrera's line?

It isn't.

So if neither of them are 'unprecedented', you just look to the raw numbers and (IMO) also give credit for the 'intangibles'. I know you don't like the playoff thing, but the fact is that for the last 2 months of the year when both teams were extremely similarly situated, Cabrera treated the AL like it was AA whereas Trout regressed. As a result, Cabrera's team is in the playoffs. Now I'm not the real crusty old guy that says you can't win the MVP if your team isn't in the playoffs, but by God it should count. It should especially count when your team is in the playoffs directly because you played so well. Had Trout played as well down the stretch as Cabrera did, the Halos would still be playing ball. To me that matters a great deal.

And I do think the triple crown is significant. I disagree that it's dispositive but it should again carry weight. When compared to his peers in 3 very important categories (yes, RBI and AVG remain important categories for a 3 or 4 hitter, stats guys can eat me on that front), he was the best the league had to offer.

tk13
10-05-2012, 11:00 AM
I think we've gotten to the point where we're trying too hard to be smart here. I 100% agree Cabrera's season is not unprecedented statistically... but he still bested all of his peers in the Triple Crown categories. Each season is it's own beast, it is still a great accomplishment. You can't take it away from him.

Although I'm not necessarily a for picking the MVP from playoff teams... Cabrera did lead his team to the playoffs, that should count for something. He hit .337 with 26 HR's, 1.074 OPS in the 2nd half of the season, great numbers... including 10 HR's in September.

duncan_idaho
10-05-2012, 11:43 AM
It isn't.

So if neither of them are 'unprecedented', you just look to the raw numbers and (IMO) also give credit for the 'intangibles'. I know you don't like the playoff thing, but the fact is that for the last 2 months of the year when both teams were extremely similarly situated, Cabrera treated the AL like it was AA whereas Trout regressed. As a result, Cabrera's team is in the playoffs. Now I'm not the real crusty old guy that says you can't win the MVP if your team isn't in the playoffs, but by God it should count. It should especially count when your team is in the playoffs directly because you played so well. Had Trout played as well down the stretch as Cabrera did, the Halos would still be playing ball. To me that matters a great deal.

And I do think the triple crown is significant. I disagree that it's dispositive but it should again carry weight. When compared to his peers in 3 very important categories (yes, RBI and AVG remain important categories for a 3 or 4 hitter, stats guys can eat me on that front), he was the best the league had to offer.

Even if I was going to bring into account the whole "they made the playoffs" factor, there's still the fact the Angels had a better record during the final two months of the season. And that though his raw offensive numbers dropped from otherworldy to merely "All-Star" level in August and September, Trout was brilliant for them over the course of the season and they had the best record in baseball with Trout on the major league roster. And that even when he's only hitting at an All-Star level, Trout is a Gold Glove-caliber defender in CF every night, which also helps his team win.

The only reason the Tigers are in the playoffs is that they're in the Central. That's it. That really takes away any impact "look how he led his team home" would have on me.

The Triple Crown is an awesome achievement. No disputing that, at all. No disputing that Cabrera is a worthy candidate.

I think all the discussion about this - and all the logical, reasoned and supported discussion on both sides - is a great indication of just how close these two guys are.

Carlota69
10-05-2012, 12:48 PM
Here is how the MVP ballot actually reads. Notice the last sentence in the first paragraph:

"Dear Voter:

There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.

2. Number of games played.

3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.

4. Former winners are eligible.

5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from 1 to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot. Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration.

Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, including pitchers and designated hitters."

JASONSAUTO
10-05-2012, 01:57 PM
i think everyone KNOWS that they need not come from a playoff team...

nothing ground breaking there

DJ's left nut
10-05-2012, 02:06 PM
i think everyone KNOWS that they need not come from a playoff team...

nothing ground breaking there

Now I'm not the real crusty old guy that says you can't win the MVP if your team isn't in the playoffs

She's really bringing the heat in this thread...

KC_Connection
10-05-2012, 02:19 PM
And yet not as good as Matt Kemp's 2011 season - the same Matt Kemp that didn't win the MVP last year.

But that's right, he only scored 115 runs and stole 40 bases when he was hitting 1/3 more HRs and driving in 50% more runs.

It was a great season - but a season very similar to it happens every other year or so.
Kemp may have had a fantastic offensive season in 2011, but he doesn't add anywhere close to the value that Trout does defensively in CF. They are miles apart in what they bring to the table as baseball players overall.

KC_Connection
10-05-2012, 02:34 PM
My point is that the season is nowhere near unprecedented. It was bested last season by Kemp.

And I also made a mistake in taking the rest of that claim by KC Connection at face value - the idea that Trout's season was never bested by Junior.

Look at Griffey's 1997 season:

125 R, 56HR, 147 RBI, 15 steals and an OPS of 1.028 - That season crushes the season that Trout put up this year. Trout only has an appreciable edge in steals.

Yet WAR has Trout as having a better season this year than Griffey did in 1997. Why? Because WAR is not dispositive of anything and can be wrong just as easily as RBI can. WAR should be looked at as just another tool, not the tool that answers all questions.

Leave it to the super stats crowd to actually try to claim that Trouts season was better than Griffeys 96, 97, 98 or even 93. Griffey did get the MVP in 97, but not the other 3 years.
So WAR is wrong in this case because Trout couldn't possibly have been worth more than Griffey in those seasons? Because Ken Griffey Jr. is some kind of legend in the game? Because it's "just another tool?" Not really seeing an argument here...just disbelief.

Trout's wRC+ in 2012 (175), which adjusts to both the league and ballpark, was better than any season Griffey ever had in his career (Ken's great 1993 came the closest at 167 wRC+). The defensive value that Trout provided (at least according to UZR) was also right up there with Griffey's best seasons.

I'm just not understanding the attempt to play this Trout season off as if it's somehow common. It isn't. This combination of super elite offense, super elite defense, and super elite baserunning over a full season is very rare. Maybe even more rare than the winning the collection of Triple Crown stats and certainly more impressive.

KC_Connection
10-05-2012, 02:40 PM
Here's a counter-question, though: How unprecedented is Cabrera's line?
Cabrera put up better offensive seasons in 2010 and 2011 than he did this season. Jose Bautista put up a significantly better season just last year. In short, it's not unprecedented at all. It's very good, but there's nothing overly remarkable about it like Trout's phenomenal season.

Carlota69
10-05-2012, 02:42 PM
i think everyone KNOWS that they need not come from a playoff team...

nothing ground breaking there
Well it seems as if thats the main sticking point to discredit Trout, other than triple Crown, which isnt an automatic MVP either, art least not historically.

Deberg_1990
11-16-2012, 07:36 AM
Wow, Cabrera won the MVP over Trout yesterday and not a peep.....Chiefsplanet is slipping....




http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20121115&content_id=40301568&vkey=news_det&c_id=mlb

duncan_idaho
11-16-2012, 07:51 AM
Wow, Cabrera won the MVP over Trout yesterday and not a peep.....Chiefsplanet is slipping....




http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20121115&content_id=40301568&vkey=news_det&c_id=mlb

I think we had pretty much all the conversation about this that was possible the first time....

But I will point out that only Cabrera's line is Triple-Crown winning only two times in the past 60 years.

Deberg_1990
11-16-2012, 07:58 AM
I think we had pretty much all the conversation about this that was possible the first time....

But I will point out that only Cabrera's line is Triple-Crown winning only two times in the past 60 years.

The Triple Crown is unique and special....but i will say this....is it overrated a little bit?

What if one guy batted .310 45HRs and 125 RBIs one season and won the Triple Crown


The next year a guy bats .320 with 46 Hrs and 130 RBIs and loses the triple crown because other players had a better average or more HRs that year.....is his season any less over all? Alot of it is just luck isnt it?

duncan_idaho
11-16-2012, 08:04 AM
The Triple Crown is unique and special....but i will say this....is it overrated a little bit?

What if one guy batted .310 45HRs and 125 RBIs one season and won the Triple Crown


The next year a guy bats .320 with 46 Hrs and 130 RBIs and loses the triple crown because other players had a better average or more HRs that year.....is his season any less over all? Alot of it is just luck isnt it?

I would agree with that.

The average and home run totals Cabrera put up this season, while studly, are not league-leading totals most seasons.

I won't really complain about Cabrera winning. It's not like he's unworthy. I just think Trout was better.