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

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

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]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

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.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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]

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."

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

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.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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.