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

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

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.

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

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]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

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]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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).