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.

I think Cabrera should win unless Josh Hamilton hits two HRs tonight. Then, Trout should win.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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).

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".

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:

Don't really give a **** to be honest

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;-)

Miguel Cabrera, no you put the Tigers in the East or West the Tigers are a 4th place team.

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...

Yes. Baseball is complicated.

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.

Arte must've picked up another shiny bauble.

Angels fans both confuse and distract easily.

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.

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!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...award/1609585/

Counterpoint:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...award/1609615/

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.

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

Moving forward to game 163.

You?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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

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.

MIggy should win the MVP no doubt about it. If he doesnt, its a ****ing 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.

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 am sickened that Kansas City fans cheered for this piece of shit when he was taken out and was assured the triple crown.

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).

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...asuring-value/

It's funny how people will boo and throw shit at suspected steroid users while cheer for drunk driving buffoons like Cabrera.

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.

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.

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.

Oh, I respect his season just fine. I just also recognize that he was even better than this in both 2010 and 2011.

Barry Bonds? Really? I suppose you don't think he was using PEDs.
2006 https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...aCkSQrrDc7iRDw

2012 http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/.c...ndsbicycle.jpg

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.

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

Why?

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.

Won triple crown and team is in the playoffs...Yep, Miggy wins.

ESPN: AL EAST Champs > Triple Crown Winner = Joke

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.

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.

A geeky look at offensive numbers only. Trout VS Cabrera.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index...text-included/

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!

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?...26414&c_id=ana

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.