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

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by MIAdragon

Trout is having an unreal season, it should be debated.

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.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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.

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.

[stevenidol]

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 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.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by stevenidol

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 and BBs. 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.

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.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

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 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.

[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).