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...

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.

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.

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...

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...

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.

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:

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...

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.

searched for Jeff Francour on google and this thread didn't come up

I think your argument is a bit juiced.

ITT, the LA Angles benefit from significant media bias, but the Boston Red Sox do not.

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.

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!

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/...b-awards-field

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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."

i think everyone KNOWS that they need not come from a playoff team...

nothing ground breaking there

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Wow, Cabrera won the MVP over Trout yesterday and not a peep.....Chiefsplanet is slipping....




http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?...s_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.

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.