Do you want to see Miguel Cabrera win MLBs Triple Crown?

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Carlota69

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]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

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.

[Carlota69]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

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.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Carlota69

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]

Originally Posted by Saul Badguy

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.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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...asuring-value/

[chefsos]

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.

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by Carlota69

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.

[Carlota69]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

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?

[KC_Connection]

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.

[Al Bundy]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

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.

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by Al Bundy

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.