If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS Detroit)   If Derek Jeter won the Triple Crown this year with Miguel Cabrera's stat line, Mike Trout wouldn't even be in the MVP discussion   (detroit.cbslocal.com) divider line 321
    More: Obvious, triple crown, Miguel Cabrera, Derek Jeter, MVP, al mvp, Jayson Stark, Ken Rosenthal, Detroit Tigers  
•       •       •

1063 clicks; posted to Sports » on 03 Oct 2012 at 2:03 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



321 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-03 10:53:10 AM
{{Summoning DeWayne Mann}}
{{Summoning DeWayne Mann}}

we have a Trout-Cabrera-Jeter troll thread for you.

{{DeWayne Mann's head asplodes}}
 
2012-10-03 10:57:17 AM
If Derek Jeter had Mike Trout's stat line, Miguel Cabrera wouldn't even be in the MVP discussion, either. What's your point? Oh, you don't have one.
 
2012-10-03 11:07:05 AM
Miguel Cabrera is going to win the Triple Crown and yet Mike Trout is still in the running for MVP. There's something fishy about that.
 
2012-10-03 11:12:57 AM
And he's doing it without PEDs either. You would think baseball would be all over this, to try and wash the bad taste of the late 90's/early 00's out of everyone's mouth.
 
2012-10-03 11:13:32 AM
It's almost like when there is no clear cut winner for the MVP, other non-stat factors come into play. Factors such as service time, playing history, whether or not the team made the playoffs, writer bias due to location to other MVP candidates, size of the media markets the players play in, and historic ramifications of the stats in question.

The problem with sabermetrics people is that all those factors can't be quantified into a number they can put into a formula.
 
2012-10-03 11:18:48 AM
Since the expansion of the playoffs in 1995, only one AL MVP has been on a team that did not make the postseason. That was A-Rod with Texas in 2003.

NL MVP is a little less correlated with postseason appearances, thanks mostly to Barry Bonds.
 
2012-10-03 11:19:56 AM
Anyone think Cabrera uses PED's? His consistency year-to-year argues against that, as guys who use PEDs usually have a meteoric rise, cliff dropoff and in between seasons plagued with injury.
 
2012-10-03 11:55:54 AM

WTF Indeed: It's almost like when there is no clear cut winner for the MVP, other non-stat factors come into play. Factors such as service time, playing history, whether or not the team made the playoffs, writer bias due to location to other MVP candidates, size of the media markets the players play in, and historic ramifications of the stats in question.

The problem with sabermetrics people is that all those factors can't be quantified into a number they can put into a formula.


Forget the writer bias, I'm going to talk why Trout *should* win as opposed to whether he *will*. And here's the thing...even taking out WAR and the sabermetric stuff you can still make a pretty clear-cut case for Trout. And I'll do it while only mentioning Trout missing a month once.

First, let's take out the washes: Both have about the same BA and OBP. Cabrera leads the league in double plays grounded into, which more or less negates the fact that Trout strikes out more. Cabrera's much higher in RBI's and Trout's much higher in runs so I'd say that about cancels each other out. And both of those can be attributed to where they bat in the lineup more than anything else.

Now to where there are differences: Cabrera has a more home runs, but Trout still has 30 despite missing a month. I don't think giving Trout mid-high 30's assuming a full season is a stretch, which isn't *that* far behind. Cabrera's SLG is about 40 points higher, which is decent but not overwhelming. Then you look at steals and speed, where Trout is just ridiculously better. Now defense, which does count if Jimmy Rollins won in '07 and Ichiro won in '01: Throwing out all the stats you can come up with, I don't think that many people are going to argue with the notion that Cabrera is a below-average 3B while Trout is a far-above-average CF. Cabrera also did better down the stretch, but I don't buy into the notion that games in June count for any less than games in September. Mainly because they don't.

So basically, Trout's individual advantages are bigger than Cabrera's. Which brings us to the playoff argument. And I'll repeat myself from yesterday: Despite facing better competition in the AL West than the Tigers did in the AL Central, the Angels finished with more wins than the Tigers. It's not the Trout's fault that his team happened to be included in the wrong grouping of teams, and Cabrera similarly should not be entitled to a bonus because of it.

So there you go. I'm not going to be upset if/when Cabrera wins because he had a great year, but there's more than one reason why Trout should win.
 
2012-10-03 12:17:09 PM

FreakinB: So there you go. I'm not going to be upset if/when Cabrera wins because he had a great year, but there's more than one reason why Trout should win.



All good points, but in the end I totally agree with your last sentence.  How about hoping for co-MVP's.  Its happened before, I do believe.
 
2012-10-03 12:25:34 PM

JerseyTim: Miguel Cabrera is going to win the Triple Crown and yet Mike Trout is still in the running for MVP. There's something fishy about that.


I see what you did there.
 
2012-10-03 12:37:50 PM

downstairs: How about hoping for co-MVP's. Its happened before, I do believe.


1979. But it's not like the voters can just decide to give it to both; the number of first place votes has to come out equal for there to be a tie. Cabrera will likely win by quite a bit.
 
2012-10-03 12:56:49 PM
I often see this Fangraphs article being linked to by folks in the Trout camp. It's an otherwise interesting, well-argued piece, except for this:

Morosi makes the argument that Cabrera deserves credit for his defense because he was willing to make the move to third base to accommodate the acquisition of Prince Fielder. His hard work and selflessness in changing positions should be seen as a net positive in terms of defensive contribution, even if he is objectively bad at playing the position. However, there's a pretty serious problem with this scenario - Cabrera didn't have to move to third base for the Tigers to sign Prince Fielder. Instead, he could have simply agreed to become a designated hitter. Instead, Cabrera decided he didn't want to retire his glove and become a hitter-only, so the Tigers were instead forced to move him to third base, since neither Cabrera nor Fielder was willing to take the DH role at this point in their career.

I don't know if this is an example of someone who just doesn't follow the Tigers closely or just a bare assertion, but this statement is patently false.

The Tigers weren't "forced" to move Cabrera to 3rd base nor did Cabrera "refuse" to become a DH. The reason Cabrera was moved to 3rd base was because, for better or worse, that's where he's going to be playing as long as Victor Martinez is under contract. Following major reconstructive knee surgery at his age, there is no way Martinez is ever going to catch again. He'll DH and get some spot starts at 1st the rest of his career. Therefore, Cabrera and Fielder are going to be position players through 2014. This has nothing to do with some petulant refusal to DH by either Cabrera or Fielder. That option was never on the board in the first place.

In reality, Cabrera's switch to third base made room not for Fielder, but for Delmon Young to spend a majority of his time at DH, which freed up an outfield spot for the likes of Ryan Raburn, Don Kelly, Quinton Berry, and Andy Dirks. Had Cabrera been willing to actually take one for the team and DH, those are the guys who would have lost playing time, not Prince Fielder. Does anyone seriously want to argue that the Tigers are better off because Cabrera decided to become a bad defensive third baseman so that that group could get more playing time?  

Again, this is either deliberately misleading or just the result of someone who didn't follow the team closely this year. As stated above, the idea that Cabrera should've "taken one for the team and become DH" is ridiculous, because that was never an option in the first place.

Also, as much as I hate Delmon Young with the burning fire of 1,000 suns, the idea that it was a bad thing to move him into the DH spot is insane. He's one of the worst fielding outfielders in baseball. The option then, according to this guy's argument, was to put Cabrera at DH, Young in LF, and Brandon F*cking Inge at 3rd? How does that help the team? I guarantee you they don't make the playoffs this year with that sh*tstorm of a left side. Quintin Berry ended up getting a good portion of starts in LF, and he's an excellent defender who made probably a half dozen game-saving plays this year. 

The part about Prince Fielder "losing playing time" as a result of Cabrera not moving to DH is particularly vexing, unless I'm reading it wrong. Prince Fielder has played in all 161 games this year. How is that "losing playing time?"
 
2012-10-03 12:59:28 PM
Oh here we go again!
 
2012-10-03 01:37:25 PM

sigdiamond2000: The part about Prince Fielder "losing playing time" as a result of Cabrera not moving to DH is particularly vexing, unless I'm reading it wrong. Prince Fielder has played in all 161 games this year. How is that "losing playing time?"


I think what they're saying is that Fielder would have played whether or not Cabrera changed to 3B, so Cabrera's position switch actually opened up a spot in the lineup for one of the other guys rather than Fielder. I'm not sure if anybody's actually arguing otherwise, but they're not wrong.
 
2012-10-03 01:50:29 PM

FreakinB: sigdiamond2000: The part about Prince Fielder "losing playing time" as a result of Cabrera not moving to DH is particularly vexing, unless I'm reading it wrong. Prince Fielder has played in all 161 games this year. How is that "losing playing time?"

I think what they're saying is that Fielder would have played whether or not Cabrera changed to 3B, so Cabrera's position switch actually opened up a spot in the lineup for one of the other guys rather than Fielder. I'm not sure if anybody's actually arguing otherwise, but they're not wrong.


They are wrong, because the Tigers are on record (I believe) as saying they would not have bothered signing Fielder had Cabrera not agreed to move to 3rd.
 
2012-10-03 01:59:05 PM

wxboy: FreakinB: sigdiamond2000: The part about Prince Fielder "losing playing time" as a result of Cabrera not moving to DH is particularly vexing, unless I'm reading it wrong. Prince Fielder has played in all 161 games this year. How is that "losing playing time?"

I think what they're saying is that Fielder would have played whether or not Cabrera changed to 3B, so Cabrera's position switch actually opened up a spot in the lineup for one of the other guys rather than Fielder. I'm not sure if anybody's actually arguing otherwise, but they're not wrong.

They are wrong, because the Tigers are on record (I believe) as saying they would not have bothered signing Fielder had Cabrera not agreed to move to 3rd.


Just found this via the Googlez so you're right. My bad. That said, I don't think that should factor into an MVP vote since it has more to do with roster construction than how he actually performed on the field. YMMV.
 
2012-10-03 02:05:16 PM

SlothB77: {{Summoning DeWayne Mann}}
{{Summoning DeWayne Mann}}

we have a Trout-Cabrera-Jeter troll thread for you.

{{DeWayne Mann's head asplodes}}


Nope.

NOPE
 
2012-10-03 02:05:42 PM

IAmRight: If Derek Jeter had Mike Trout's stat line, Miguel Cabrera wouldn't even be in the MVP discussion, either. What's your point? Oh, you don't have one.


Yeah. I was gonna come in here and ask who that says more about: Cabrera, Trout, or Jeter?

That said, Cabrera should win the MVP. Talk all you want about WAR. It's the goddamn Triple Crown. This shiat doesn't happen every goddamn year.
 
2012-10-03 02:06:03 PM
we gonna have this thread every day?
 
2012-10-03 02:06:59 PM

SlothB77: Anyone think Cabrera uses PED's? His consistency year-to-year argues against that, as guys who use PEDs usually have a meteoric rise, cliff dropoff and in between seasons plagued with injury.


I would bet he has used PEDs in the past. He just looks so much different than he did when he first came up. Is he using them currently? Probably not.
 
2012-10-03 02:07:55 PM
If my grandma had balls we'd have called her grandpa.
 
2012-10-03 02:08:38 PM

FishyFred: IAmRight: If Derek Jeter had Mike Trout's stat line, Miguel Cabrera wouldn't even be in the MVP discussion, either. What's your point? Oh, you don't have one.

Yeah. I was gonna come in here and ask who that says more about: Cabrera, Trout, or Jeter?

That said, Cabrera should win the MVP. Talk all you want about WAR. It's the goddamn Triple Crown. This shiat doesn't happen every goddamn year.


True, but not every Triple Crown winner has won the MVP.
 
2012-10-03 02:08:56 PM

NutznGum: If my grandma had balls we'd have called her grandpa.


If I wasn't boycotting this thread I'd make a joke about MY grandmother here and the people in the LAST AL MVP THREAD THAT'S TECHNICALLY STILL GOING ON WOULD ALL LAUGH
 
2012-10-03 02:09:37 PM

FreakinB: FishyFred: IAmRight: If Derek Jeter had Mike Trout's stat line, Miguel Cabrera wouldn't even be in the MVP discussion, either. What's your point? Oh, you don't have one.

Yeah. I was gonna come in here and ask who that says more about: Cabrera, Trout, or Jeter?

That said, Cabrera should win the MVP. Talk all you want about WAR. It's the goddamn Triple Crown. This shiat doesn't happen every goddamn year.

True, but not every Triple Crown winner has won the MVP.


Actually, the example that comes to mind is Ted Williams not winning the MVP in 1941 despite hitting .406.
 
2012-10-03 02:10:27 PM
He had me going until: FTFA: Is it because Mike Trout is the All-American white boy phenom?

Cabrera won't win because racism. Come on.
 
2012-10-03 02:10:37 PM

FishyFred: FreakinB: FishyFred: IAmRight: If Derek Jeter had Mike Trout's stat line, Miguel Cabrera wouldn't even be in the MVP discussion, either. What's your point? Oh, you don't have one.

Yeah. I was gonna come in here and ask who that says more about: Cabrera, Trout, or Jeter?

That said, Cabrera should win the MVP. Talk all you want about WAR. It's the goddamn Triple Crown. This shiat doesn't happen every goddamn year.

True, but not every Triple Crown winner has won the MVP.

Actually, the example that comes to mind is Ted Williams not winning the MVP in 1941 despite hitting .406.


If I wasn't boycotting the thread, I'd explicitly point out the 1934 AL MVP voting.
 
2012-10-03 02:11:02 PM

DeWayne Mann: NutznGum: If my grandma had balls we'd have called her grandpa.

If I wasn't boycotting this thread I'd make a joke about MY grandmother here and the people in the LAST AL MVP THREAD THAT'S TECHNICALLY STILL GOING ON WOULD ALL LAUGH


I'm there with you, sir. Your grandma was a visionary.
 
2012-10-03 02:11:36 PM
If Derek Jeter won the triple crown year with Miguel Cabrera's stat line he would probably test positive for every steroid known to man.
 
2012-10-03 02:13:13 PM

FreakinB: but I don't buy into the notion that games in June count for any less than games in September. Mainly because they don't.


You're misunderstanding. The games don't matter more but the performance does.

In high stress situations (late in games, late in the season, 2 outs with RISP), Cabrera plays better. In high stress situations, Trout plays worse.
 
2012-10-03 02:14:26 PM

whistleridge: And he's doing it without PEDs either. You would think baseball would be all over this, to try and wash the bad taste of the late 90's/early 00's out of everyone's mouth.


Wait I thought M. Cabrera was banned for using PEDs.
 
2012-10-03 02:14:33 PM

FreakinB: DeWayne Mann: NutznGum: If my grandma had balls we'd have called her grandpa.

If I wasn't boycotting this thread I'd make a joke about MY grandmother here and the people in the LAST AL MVP THREAD THAT'S TECHNICALLY STILL GOING ON WOULD ALL LAUGH

I'm there with you, sir. Your grandma was a visionary.


That's why anyone who accuses me of racism for supporting Trout is clearly wrong. My grandmother helped break the color line in baseball!
 
2012-10-03 02:14:47 PM
Because I know most of this got said in the last thread, I'll just summarize my position.

Given the intangibles involved of being the catalyst for that Angels lineup to get their collective heads out of their asses after April and come back to be this team, I'd give it to Trout, but ONLY if the Triple Crown doesn't happen. You can say they haven't been as good as they have been and all that, but it's still Detroit.
 
2012-10-03 02:14:54 PM
Also, as far as sabermetrics vs. traditional stats concerned, here's some food for thought. Mind you, I heard this on a podcast and haven't bothered to look it up, but I'd trust that it's true:

If Cabrera wins the Triple Crown, it would be the first time in history that a Triple Crown winner didn't lead his league in WAR.

See, people?! They're not completely at odds! We can all be friends!

/Kum-ba-yaaaaaa
 
2012-10-03 02:15:41 PM

AliceBToklasLives: whistleridge: And he's doing it without PEDs either. You would think baseball would be all over this, to try and wash the bad taste of the late 90's/early 00's out of everyone's mouth.

Wait I thought M. Cabrera was banned for using PEDs.


In case you're serious, wrong M. Cabrera.
 
2012-10-03 02:16:21 PM
i.qkme.me
 
2012-10-03 02:17:06 PM

meanmutton: FreakinB: but I don't buy into the notion that games in June count for any less than games in September. Mainly because they don't.

You're misunderstanding. The games don't matter more but the performance does.

In high stress situations (late in games, late in the season, 2 outs with RISP), Cabrera plays better. In high stress situations, Trout plays worse.


Great. I hate to sound like a dick, but here it goes: I honestly don't care. Stress or no stress, it's all production.
 
2012-10-03 02:17:22 PM

FreakinB: If Cabrera wins the Triple Crown, it would be the first time in history that a Triple Crown winner didn't lead his league in WAR.

See, people?! They're not completely at odds! We can all be friends!

/Kum-ba-yaaaaaa


I believe that is true, but that there were two ties by fWAR and one by rWAR...or maybe the other way around. I don't know I'm still boycotting.

The short version of why that's true is because HR were so much rarer that if you led the league in THEM, you were probably pretty close to the top anyway. Add in leading in average (meaning you probably led in OBP as well, as walks were frowned upon), and, well...
 
2012-10-03 02:25:10 PM

WTF Indeed: It's almost like when there is no clear cut winner for the MVP, other non-stat factors come into play. Factors such as service time, playing history, whether or not the team made the playoffs, writer bias due to location to other MVP candidates, size of the media markets the players play in, and historic ramifications of the stats in question.

The problem with sabermetrics people is that all those factors can't be quantified into a number they can put into a formula.


Yeah, once you step away from the safety of your computer screen, the real world doesn't always fit into a nice little equation.
 
2012-10-03 02:27:11 PM
Really, so what who wins the MVP? There are two winners of that every year. Triple crown winners come along every 45 years or so. It's clearly the more difficult achievement.
 
2012-10-03 02:30:36 PM
Of course Jeter would, he's one of the best (if not THE best) defensive shortstops in the history of the sport. You add that to a Triple Crown and it is a no-brainer.
 
2012-10-03 02:31:03 PM
FUN FACT:

Early on, it was widely believed that the best hitter in the league was whoever led in Runs per Game. Though having a low Hands Out per Game was considered nearly as important.

It's just, later on, some people sat down and looked and said "Hey, I think maybe we can do this better."

So if you really want to be a traditionalist, well, you know what to do.
 
2012-10-03 02:31:41 PM

Moopy Mac: he's one of the best (if not THE best) defensive shortstops in the history of the sport.


....

....

.....

....


wat
 
2012-10-03 02:32:28 PM

ChrisDe: Really, so what who wins the MVP? There are two winners of that every year. Triple crown winners come along every 45 years or so. It's clearly the more difficult achievement.


As a Tigers fan, this is pretty much my opinion. Give the MVP to Trout. The Triple Crown is a once in a generation (or two) thing.
 
2012-10-03 02:33:52 PM

IAmRight: If Derek Jeter had Mike Trout's stat line, Miguel Cabrera wouldn't even be in the MVP discussion, either. What's your point? Oh, you don't have one.



Thread should have been over here.
 
2012-10-03 02:33:58 PM

DeWayne Mann: NutznGum: If my grandma had balls we'd have called her grandpa.

If I wasn't boycotting this thread I'd make a joke about MY grandmother here and the people in the LAST AL MVP THREAD THAT'S TECHNICALLY STILL GOING ON WOULD ALL LAUGH


Was about to mention this, was laughing, you know you will not stay out of this thread.
 
2012-10-03 02:34:20 PM

Moopy Mac: Of course Jeter would, he's one of the best (if not THE best) defensive shortstops in the history of the sport..


7/10

Docking you points becuase it's much easier to troll a Sports thread than it is a Politics thread.

This is a good example of why we need advanced troll statistics.
 
2012-10-03 02:34:51 PM
If Detroit didn't have a giant inferiority complex, they wouldn't have dragged New York into the discussion.
 
2012-10-03 02:35:17 PM
For the love of FSM, can someone please post the definition of "boycott".

Or maybe come up with an equation that the dwellers can understand.

The only reason there is so much discussion on this topic is because it is so clear cut in Miggy's favour that the media needs to create a story. One day left in the season and barely anything has been decided. That's the real story.
 
2012-10-03 02:36:01 PM

DeWayne Mann: If I wasn't boycotting the thread, I'd explicitly point out the 1934 AL MVP voting.


for someone boycotting this thread, you are doing quite a bad job of it.
 
2012-10-03 02:36:04 PM

roc6783: DeWayne Mann: NutznGum: If my grandma had balls we'd have called her grandpa.

If I wasn't boycotting this thread I'd make a joke about MY grandmother here and the people in the LAST AL MVP THREAD THAT'S TECHNICALLY STILL GOING ON WOULD ALL LAUGH

Was about to mention this, was laughing, you know you will not stay out of this thread.


Oh, I'm not going to stay out. But I'm not going to go and form well crafted arguments based on facts & research and things like that.

I'm mostly just gonna make a lot of stupid jokes. If anyone wants my ACTUAL input on this topic, well, there's about 300 posts about that that are easily found.
 
2012-10-03 02:36:08 PM

FreakinB: meanmutton: FreakinB: but I don't buy into the notion that games in June count for any less than games in September. Mainly because they don't.

You're misunderstanding. The games don't matter more but the performance does.

In high stress situations (late in games, late in the season, 2 outs with RISP), Cabrera plays better. In high stress situations, Trout plays worse.

Great. I hate to sound like a dick, but here it goes: I honestly don't care. Stress or no stress, it's all production.


You certainly don't sound like a dick. You do speak in words whose meanings mystify me, though. Either way, they're both amazing players.
 
2012-10-03 02:36:49 PM

SlothB77: DeWayne Mann: If I wasn't boycotting the thread, I'd explicitly point out the 1934 AL MVP voting.

for someone boycotting this thread, you are doing quite a bad job of it.


My Boycotting Above Replacement is quite low, I'll admit.
 
2012-10-03 02:38:18 PM

JohnnyCanuck: For the love of FSM, can someone please post the definition of "boycott".

Or maybe come up with an equation that the dwellers can understand.

The only reason there is so much discussion on this topic is because it is so clear cut in Miggy's favour that the media needs to create a story. One day left in the season and barely anything has been decided. That's the real story.


Yes! It's crazy how many scenarios there are with only one game left.
 
2012-10-03 02:38:40 PM
Angels play 6:40 EST

Tigers play 8:10 EST
 
2012-10-03 02:41:14 PM

DeWayne Mann: Moopy Mac: he's one of the best (if not THE best) defensive shortstops in the history of the sport.

....

....

.....

....


wat

 

And so it begins...
 
2012-10-03 02:41:35 PM
Josh Hamilton plays at 3:35 EST.

Hamilton will have completed all his at-bats before first pitch in Detroit. Trout will have at least two at bats completed before first pitch in Detroit.
 
2012-10-03 02:41:39 PM

SlothB77: Angels play 6:40 EST

Tigers play 8:10 EST


And Rangers at 3:35. Hamilton has a chance to tie or win the HR title. I'm guessing Miggy will sit if Josh doesn't hit a home run. The RBI and average are pretty much decided.
 
2012-10-03 02:42:42 PM

DeWayne Mann: roc6783: DeWayne Mann: NutznGum: If my grandma had balls we'd have called her grandpa.

If I wasn't boycotting this thread I'd make a joke about MY grandmother here and the people in the LAST AL MVP THREAD THAT'S TECHNICALLY STILL GOING ON WOULD ALL LAUGH

Was about to mention this, was laughing, you know you will not stay out of this thread.

Oh, I'm not going to stay out. But I'm not going to go and form well crafted arguments based on facts & research and things like that.

I'm mostly just gonna make a lot of stupid jokes. If anyone wants my ACTUAL input on this topic, well, there's about 300 posts about that that are easily found.


Who the hell reads that garbage?
 
2012-10-03 02:42:57 PM

ChrisDe: SlothB77: Angels play 6:40 EST

Tigers play 8:10 EST

And Rangers at 3:35. Hamilton has a chance to tie or win the HR title. I'm guessing Miggy will sit if Josh doesn't hit a home run. The RBI and average are pretty much decided.


Trout basically has to go 6-6 to catch Miggy if he doesn't play. Something like that.
 
2012-10-03 02:44:17 PM

roc6783: And so it begins...


No no no, if I wasn't boycotting, that would've been a MUCH longer reply.

roc6783: Who the hell reads


You could've stopped right there.
 
2012-10-03 02:45:10 PM

SlothB77: ChrisDe: SlothB77: Angels play 6:40 EST

Tigers play 8:10 EST

And Rangers at 3:35. Hamilton has a chance to tie or win the HR title. I'm guessing Miggy will sit if Josh doesn't hit a home run. The RBI and average are pretty much decided.

Trout basically has to go 6-6 to catch Miggy if he doesn't play. Something like that.


Copied from a Detroit Free Press article:

Cabrera is hitting .331. He has healthy leads over Trout (.324) and Mauer (.320). Here's what Trout and Mauer would need to do to pass Cabrera if he goes ...

• Cabrera 0-for-0 (.3306): Trout: 6-for-6 (.3309). Mauer: 9-for-9 (.3315).

• Cabrera 0-for-1 (.3301): Trout: 6-for-6 (.3309). Mauer: 8-for-8 (.3303).

• Cabrera 0-for-2 (.3295): Trout: 5-for-5 (.3297). Mauer: 8-for-8 (.3303).

• Cabrera 0-for-3 (.32905): Trout: 5-for-5 (.3297). Mauer: 7-for-7 (.32909).

• Cabrera 0-for-4 (.32852): Trout 4-for-4 (.32857). Mauer: 7-for-7 (.3290).

• Cabrera 0-for-5 (.3280): Trout 4-for-4 (.3285). Mauer: 7-for-7 (.3290).

• Cabrera 0-for-6 (.3274): Trout 4-for-4 (.3285). Mauer: 6-for-6 (.3278).
 
2012-10-03 02:48:19 PM
Let's say Hamilton hits a home run, but his game is over now and Trout is 1-2 in his game and it is 8:00pm. Do you start Miguel Cabrera?
 
2012-10-03 02:48:33 PM
a.espncdn.com

Do you know who I am? You don't know anything about my problems!

I'm gonna lose the MVP to some rookie!
 
2012-10-03 02:49:48 PM

wxboy: SlothB77: ChrisDe: SlothB77: ***snip***
Cabrera is hitting .331. He has healthy leads over Trout (.324) and Mauer (.320). Here's what Trout and Mauer would need to do to pass Cabrera if he goes ...

• Cabrera 0-for-0 (.3306): Trout: 6-for-6 (.3309). Mauer: 9-for-9 (.3315).

• Cabrera 0-for-1 (.3301): Trout: 6-for-6 (.3309). Mauer: 8-for-8 (.3303).

• Cabrera 0-for-2 (.3295): Trout: 5-for-5 (.3297). Mauer: 8-for-8 (.3303).

• Cabrera 0-for-3 (.32905): Trout: 5-for-5 (.3297). Mauer: 7-for-7 (.32909).

• Cabrera 0-for-4 (.32852): Trout 4-for-4 (.32857). Mauer: 7-for-7 (.3290).

• Cabrera 0-for-5 (.3280): Trout 4-for-4 (.3285). Mauer: 7-for-7 (.3290).

• Cabrera 0-for-6 (.3274): Trout 4-for-4 (.3285). Mauer: 6-for-6 (.3278).


And if that happens, should Carbrera no longer be MVP since he will no longer have the Triple Crown?

Assuming he was in the first place, which he wasn't.
 
2012-10-03 02:51:33 PM

SlothB77: Let's say Hamilton hits a home run, but his game is over now and Trout is 1-2 in his game and it is 8:00pm. Do you start Miguel Cabrera?


In that scenario, Cabrera could likely have 4 at-bats without risking the batting title, even going 0-4.
 
2012-10-03 02:53:59 PM
But isn't Jeter half black? Cuz I was over on the Politics tab and...

/I KEED!
//Runs
 
2012-10-03 02:57:26 PM
Just so we're clear:

A common argument for Cabrera is "You have to give him the MVP if he wins the Triple Crown!"

and right now y'all are discussing how sitting him would help him win the Triple Crown.

So....not playing (for personal gain) is MVP worthy?

Neat. I'll have to tell my boss that one. "No, I can't come in Thanksgiving night. If I do, someone might eat more turkey, more stuffing or watch more football than me, and then I won't be Thanksgiving MVP!"
 
2012-10-03 02:57:55 PM
Is there going to be one of these every day until November when the award is announced?
 
2012-10-03 02:58:04 PM

ChrisDe: SlothB77: Let's say Hamilton hits a home run, but his game is over now and Trout is 1-2 in his game and it is 8:00pm. Do you start Miguel Cabrera?

In that scenario, Cabrera could likely have 4 at-bats without risking the batting title, even going 0-4.


Cabrera will start and probably be pulled from the game after he makes an out. I can't see him taking a seat tonight.
 
2012-10-03 02:59:44 PM

sigdiamond2000: This is a good example of why we need advanced troll statistics.


So the tab you are on should be weighted into the troll rating.
Main (1)
Sports (.7) {sentimentallity}
Business (1.1) {theres like no traffic}
Geek (.6) {really sentimental men-children}
Entertainment (1.2) {unprovable opinion is lackluster for trolling}
Politics (.2) {doesn't belong on this website. waiting for an april fool's day where it doesn't exist}
Video...doesn't count. This isn't youtube.

Where ((troll rating)(troll weight))= Troll effectivity

and ((troll attempts)/ (responses to troll attempts- comment troll ratings))(troll avg rating)= TrollPS+
 
2012-10-03 03:03:13 PM

thecpt: Business (1.1) {theres like no traffic}


I....may have forgotten from time to time that there IS a business tab. Whenever I click on it, I just think it's either Geek or Entertainment and I get surprised that there's no articles that day.
 
2012-10-03 03:03:41 PM
And a corollary:

Let's say Hamilton hits a home run, but his game is over now and Trout is 3-3 in his game and it is 8:00pm. Do you start Miguel Cabrera?
 
2012-10-03 03:04:42 PM

thecpt: sigdiamond2000: This is a good example of why we need advanced troll statistics.

So the tab you are on should be weighted into the troll rating.
Main (1)
Sports (.7) {sentimentallity}
Business (1.1) {theres like no traffic}
Geek (.6) {really sentimental men-children}
Entertainment (1.2) {unprovable opinion is lackluster for trolling}
Politics (.2) {doesn't belong on this website. waiting for an april fool's day where it doesn't exist}
Video...doesn't count. This isn't youtube.

Where ((troll rating)(troll weight))= Troll effectivity

and ((troll attempts)/ (responses to troll attempts- comment troll ratings))(troll avg rating)= TrollPS+


But if you do it that way I may not win the troll MVP. You'll probably award it to Einsteinbrenner.
 
2012-10-03 03:04:45 PM

DeWayne Mann: and right now y'all are discussing how sitting him would help him win the Triple Crown.

So....not playing (for personal gain) is MVP worthy?


Literally no one in this thread is making that argument.
 
2012-10-03 03:05:21 PM

dlriumtrigger: IAmRight: If Derek Jeter had Mike Trout's stat line, Miguel Cabrera wouldn't even be in the MVP discussion, either. What's your point? Oh, you don't have one.


Thread should have been over here.


and either way jeter would have sent them both lovely gift baskets...
 
2012-10-03 03:06:26 PM

ChrisDe: SlothB77: Let's say Hamilton hits a home run, but his game is over now and Trout is 1-2 in his game and it is 8:00pm. Do you start Miguel Cabrera?

In that scenario, Cabrera could likely have 4 at-bats without risking the batting title, even going 0-4.


Exactly, but he can not play and still take the triple crown. He'd be tied with Hamilton for homers, but still leads the league. Just not outright.
 
2012-10-03 03:07:31 PM

DeWayne Mann: I....may have forgotten from time to time that there IS a business tab. Whenever I click on it, I just think it's either Geek or Entertainment and I get surprised that there's no articles that day.


I go there fully expecting economic impact talks and what i get are people saying libtard and fartbongo. It is by far the most disappointing tab for its name.
 
2012-10-03 03:08:02 PM

SlothB77: ChrisDe: SlothB77: Let's say Hamilton hits a home run, but his game is over now and Trout is 1-2 in his game and it is 8:00pm. Do you start Miguel Cabrera?

In that scenario, Cabrera could likely have 4 at-bats without risking the batting title, even going 0-4.

Exactly, but he can not play and still take the triple crown. He'd be tied with Hamilton for homers, but still leads the league. Just not outright.


Same as Yaz, I think.
 
2012-10-03 03:13:57 PM

SlothB77: ChrisDe: SlothB77: Let's say Hamilton hits a home run, but his game is over now and Trout is 1-2 in his game and it is 8:00pm. Do you start Miguel Cabrera?

In that scenario, Cabrera could likely have 4 at-bats without risking the batting title, even going 0-4.

Exactly, but he can not play and still take the triple crown. He'd be tied with Hamilton for homers, but still leads the league. Just not outright.


I would think he would like the chance to retake the outright HR lead in that case. 3 AB's to go for it. Trout's not going to go 5-5 today.
 
2012-10-03 03:22:10 PM

wxboy: I would think he would like the chance to retake the outright HR lead in that case. 3 AB's to go for it. Trout's not going to go 5-5 today.


I think so too. But, if Trout is 3-3 at gametime, then things gets dicey.
 
2012-10-03 03:22:58 PM
Articles like this only propel the notion that us sports fans in general are irrational mental midgets incapable of engaging in intelligent, honest discourse without being overtaken by rash emotion and blind homerism over f*cking laundry.

So, thanks a lot, I'm-only-butthurt-because-someone-on-my-team-is-being-"disrespected" guy.
 
2012-10-03 03:24:07 PM

Killer Cars: Articles like this only propel the notion that us sports fans in general are irrational mental midgets incapable of engaging in intelligent, honest discourse without being overtaken by rash emotion and blind homerism over f*cking laundry.

So, thanks a lot, I'm-only-butthurt-because-someone-on-my-team-is-being-"disrespected" guy.


I think you're trying to say

MIKE AVILES FOR MVP!
 
2012-10-03 03:25:57 PM

Killer Cars: Articles like this only propel the notion that us sports fans in general are irrational mental midgets incapable of engaging in intelligent, honest discourse without being overtaken by rash emotion and blind homerism over f*cking laundry.

So, thanks a lot, I'm-only-butthurt-because-someone-on-my-team-is-being-"disrespected" guy.


Also, this got me to actually click on the article. Let me show you how far I got.

I'm going to keep this short and sweet. Miguel Cabrera should win the American League MVP.

The game I grew up on taught me nothing mattered more to batters than average, home runs and RBIs.


Then I closed it.

Then I reopened it to copy & paste that. Then I closed it again.
 
2012-10-03 03:27:38 PM

sigdiamond2000: DeWayne Mann: and right now y'all are discussing how sitting him would help him win the Triple Crown.

So....not playing (for personal gain) is MVP worthy?

Literally no one in this thread is making that argument.


dude has played 160 out of 161 games this season.
 
2012-10-03 03:29:14 PM

DeWayne Mann: Then I reopened it to copy & paste that. Then I closed it again.


You gave him to page views. YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM
 
2012-10-03 03:29:16 PM

Killer Cars: Articles like this only propel the notion that us sports fans in general are irrational mental midgets incapable of engaging in intelligent, honest discourse without being overtaken by rash emotion and blind homerism over f*cking laundry.

So, thanks a lot, I'm-only-butthurt-because-someone-on-my-team-is-being-"disrespected" guy.


Uhh...since when isn't that true? You moron, put your cat back on, I liked him better.
 
2012-10-03 03:31:27 PM

thecpt: DeWayne Mann: Then I reopened it to copy & paste that. Then I closed it again.

You gave him to page views. YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM


No, I opened it from cache. Only gave him the one view.

That's still more than I wanted to, but....thanks a lot Killer Cars.
 
2012-10-03 03:32:31 PM
So if Trout goes 5-for-5 tonight and Hamilton hits 2 HR and Cabrera goes 0-for-3, we get to say that Cabrera deserves no part of the MVP, right? Who gives a sh*t about the RBI king without the other two?
 
2012-10-03 03:33:29 PM

sigdiamond2000: DeWayne Mann: and right now y'all are discussing how sitting him would help him win the Triple Crown.

So....not playing (for personal gain) is MVP worthy?

Literally no one in this thread is making that argument.


Are you saying that no one is making the argument that he should automatically win MVP if he gets the Triple Crown, or that no one is making the argument that it could, and likely would, benefit him in getting the Triple Crown not to play in the final game?

Both of those arguments are being made.
 
2012-10-03 03:34:35 PM

IAmRight: So if Trout goes 5-for-5 tonight and Hamilton hits 2 HR and Cabrera goes 0-for-3, we get to say that Cabrera deserves no part of the MVP, right? Who gives a sh*t about the RBI king without the other two?


No no no, I just made a stupid joke about that.

Apparently, no one is ACTUALLY saying that winning the Triple Crown means Cabrera is the MVP, they're just saying Cabrera is the MVP because he's winning the Triple Crown.

There is, supposedly, a difference there.
 
2012-10-03 03:35:38 PM

roc6783: Are you saying that no one is making the argument that he should automatically win MVP if he gets the Triple Crown, or that no one is making the argument that it could, and likely would, benefit him in getting the Triple Crown not to play in the final game?

Both of those arguments are being made.


Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. You'll hurt his thinking whatchucallit
 
2012-10-03 03:38:34 PM

DeWayne Mann: Then I closed it.


Which is what I should have done immediately after opening it. I honestly thought he would meander into some heart-felt homage to Detroit, and how much it would mean to their fan base (which, okay, I can dig it)...but no. Just half-assed HURR GEEK STATS R STUPID with a special fark you to Ken Rosenthal, of all people. I'm certain in his "original" piece, he probably included a variety of homophobic slurs directed at those evil, baby-killing baseball writers, but, they got edited out.

roc6783: You moron, put your cat back on, I liked him better.


Hell, my cat ended up creating his own account last night and got sponsored into TF-dom. F*cker.
 
2012-10-03 03:40:01 PM

roc6783: sigdiamond2000: DeWayne Mann: and right now y'all are discussing how sitting him would help him win the Triple Crown.

So....not playing (for personal gain) is MVP worthy?

Literally no one in this thread is making that argument.

Are you saying that no one is making the argument that he should automatically win MVP if he gets the Triple Crown, or that no one is making the argument that it could, and likely would, benefit him in getting the Triple Crown not to play in the final game?

Both of those arguments are being made.


No, I'm saying no one is making the argument that not playing for personal gain is MVP worthy.
 
2012-10-03 03:41:35 PM

Killer Cars: DeWayne Mann: Then I closed it.

Which is what I should have done immediately after opening it. I honestly thought he would meander into some heart-felt homage to Detroit, and how much it would mean to their fan base (which, okay, I can dig it)...but no. Just half-assed HURR GEEK STATS R STUPID with a special fark you to Ken Rosenthal, of all people. I'm certain in his "original" piece, he probably included a variety of homophobic slurs directed at those evil, baby-killing baseball writers, but, they got edited out.

roc6783: You moron, put your cat back on, I liked him better.

Hell, my cat ended up creating his own account last night and got sponsored into TF-dom. F*cker.


Those TF'ers will do anything for a shot at a little pussy, eh?
 
2012-10-03 03:43:56 PM

Killer Cars: Which is what I should have done immediately after opening it. I honestly thought he would meander into some heart-felt homage to Detroit, and how much it would mean to their fan base (which, okay, I can dig it)...but no. Just half-assed HURR GEEK STATS R STUPID with a special fark you to Ken Rosenthal, of all people. I'm certain in his "original" piece, he probably included a variety of homophobic slurs directed at those evil, baby-killing baseball writers, but, they got edited out.


Here's what I don't get about the 2 sentences I read.

The game I grew up with taught me that wins & ERA are the most important things to pitchers.

Then, when I got older and was able to think independently, I realized that the game lied to me, and it was a lot more nuanced than that.

So what's this guy's problem?

This isn't even a baseball thing. I'm sure most of us were told in elementary school that Christopher Columbus discovered America. Is that true?
 
2012-10-03 03:47:13 PM
I think the steals and defense bring Trout into the discussion of MVP, isn't that fair? If Jeter put up either of their stats he would have to be in the discussion cuz of his age and because how many injuries that line-up has sustained while still making it to the playoffs.
 
2012-10-03 03:47:36 PM

roc6783: Are you saying that no one is making the argument that he should automatically win MVP if he gets the Triple Crown, or that no one is making the argument that it could, and likely would, benefit him in getting the Triple Crown not to play in the final game?


You do see the difference in saying "X could help a player" and saying "the player should do X," right? Even it would likely help him to sit out, it's not exactly the most honorable thing to do. Acknowledging that taking a course of action is possible, and even beneficial, is not the same as advocating that the course of action should be taken.
 
2012-10-03 03:47:37 PM

sigdiamond2000: No, I'm saying no one is making the argument that not playing for personal gain is MVP worthy.


This somewhat goes against my boycott, but

Intentionally? No.

Unintentionally? Abso-freaking-lutely.
 
2012-10-03 03:51:04 PM

DeWayne Mann: roc6783: Are you saying that no one is making the argument that he should automatically win MVP if he gets the Triple Crown, or that no one is making the argument that it could, and likely would, benefit him in getting the Triple Crown not to play in the final game?

Both of those arguments are being made.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. You'll hurt his thinking whatchucallit



This is what you said:

A common argument for Cabrera is "You have to give him the MVP if he wins the Triple Crown!"

and right now y'all are discussing how sitting him would help him win the Triple Crown.

So....not playing (for personal gain) is MVP worthy?


No one on this thread is making the argument that not playing for personal gain is MVP worthy. That's a strawman. Someone puts the question out there about whether you would sit Cabrera depending on several possible scenarios and you turn that into some false narrative where people are arguing something they're not (i.e., that sitting in order to ensure the triple crown is admirable).

You pro-Trout guys are doing a good job arguing his case. No need to engage in ridiculousness.
 
2012-10-03 03:54:29 PM

DeWayne Mann: So what's this guy's problem?


Honest answer? I believe the root of this RAGE over stat-geekery is a because some people, who are otherwise perfectly rational, analytical beings in other areas of their day-to-day life, just really, really want to turn that part of their brain "off" when watching sports.

Doesn't mean they can't, or won't, think critically when watching them, or when talking about what they saw after the fact, but, something about numbers, even though they are more than capable of comprehending them when presented with them if they wanted to, choose not to.

Jokey answer? lol he mad
 
2012-10-03 03:54:47 PM

JohnnyCanuck: Killer Cars: DeWayne Mann: ***snip***

roc6783: You moron, put your cat back on, I liked him better.

Hell, my cat ended up creating his own account last night and got sponsored into TF-dom. F*cker.

Those TF'ers will do anything for a shot at a little pussy, eh?


You are a champion.
 
2012-10-03 03:56:14 PM

JohnnyCanuck: Those TF'ers will do anything for a shot at a little pussy, eh?


Oh, and this is +infinity. I will start a college foundation in your children's honor.
 
2012-10-03 03:56:42 PM

FreakinB: WTF Indeed: It's almost like when there is no clear cut winner for the MVP, other non-stat factors come into play. Factors such as service time, playing history, whether or not the team made the playoffs, writer bias due to location to other MVP candidates, size of the media markets the players play in, and historic ramifications of the stats in question.

The problem with sabermetrics people is that all those factors can't be quantified into a number they can put into a formula.

Forget the writer bias, I'm going to talk why Trout *should* win as opposed to whether he *will*. And here's the thing...even taking out WAR and the sabermetric stuff you can still make a pretty clear-cut case for Trout. And I'll do it while only mentioning Trout missing a month once.

First, let's take out the washes: Both have about the same BA and OBP. Cabrera leads the league in double plays grounded into, which more or less negates the fact that Trout strikes out more. Cabrera's much higher in RBI's and Trout's much higher in runs so I'd say that about cancels each other out. And both of those can be attributed to where they bat in the lineup more than anything else.

Now to where there are differences: Cabrera has a more home runs, but Trout still has 30 despite missing a month. I don't think giving Trout mid-high 30's assuming a full season is a stretch, which isn't *that* far behind. Cabrera's SLG is about 40 points higher, which is decent but not overwhelming. Then you look at steals and speed, where Trout is just ridiculously better. Now defense, which does count if Jimmy Rollins won in '07 and Ichiro won in '01: Throwing out all the stats you can come up with, I don't think that many people are going to argue with the notion that Cabrera is a below-average 3B while Trout is a far-above-average CF. Cabrera also did better down the stretch, but I don't buy into the notion that games in June count for any less than games in September. Mainly because they don't.

So basically, Trout ...


This is absolutely one of the worst arguments I've heard in favor of Trout. Yes, he plays an excellent CF, and yes, Cabrera is in general a below-average 3B, but guess what? He literally made himself more valuable to the team by playing an extremely important infield position he's barely played during his career so that Detroit could accommodate putting Prince Fielder at 1B. If anything, defense should be way in CABRERA's favor since he's handled the position well enough that Detroit didn't have to immediately ditch that experiment and wonder what they'd do with multiple 1B/DH types in the lineup.

Anyway, nothing Trout's done this year, as very impressive as it's been, can convince me Cabrera isn't the AL MVP. The guy made room for another big bat by switching positions, then went and flat out dominated the AL in the Triple Crown stats, especially with big hit after big hit. Trout can enjoy his well-deserved ROY and know that many other years he'd be walking home with that MVP, but it's past time that Cabrera got the recognition he deserved, and this year has to be it.
 
2012-10-03 04:03:18 PM

Killer Cars: Honest answer? I believe the root of this RAGE over stat-geekery is a because some people, who are otherwise perfectly rational, analytical beings in other areas of their day-to-day life, just really, really want to turn that part of their brain "off" when watching sports.

Doesn't mean they can't, or won't, think critically when watching them, or when talking about what they saw after the fact, but, something about numbers, even though they are more than capable of comprehending them when presented with them if they wanted to, choose not to.


And on the surface, yeah, ok.

But it can't just be "they don't like numbers." They like SOME numbers. They just can't be bothered to think about why they like them and not others. And that's what's weird to me.

Like I said in the other thread, I talk to my mom about baseball almost every day. I don't think I've ever seen her use a number, other than something really low level like "Jacoby had 4 hits last night!" And I'm totally fine talking to her like that.

But once you start using numbers a lot...why not use, you know, good ones? Ignorance of their existence IS an excuse, but once someone says "Uh, hey, maybe you should use OPS instead of batting average", shouldn't you at least look into it?

Killer Cars: Jokey answer? lol he mad


Jokey answers are the best answers.
 
2012-10-03 04:03:24 PM

Everyone Sucks But Me: This is absolutely one of the worst arguments I've heard in favor of Trout. Yes, he plays an excellent CF, and yes, Cabrera is in general a below-average 3B, but guess what? He literally made himself more valuable to the team by playing an extremely important infield position he's barely played during his career so that Detroit could accommodate putting Prince Fielder at 1B. If anything, defense should be way in CABRERA's favor since he's handled the position well enough that Detroit didn't have to immediately ditch that experiment and wonder what they'd do with multiple 1B/DH types in the lineup.


FreakinB: That said, I don't think that should factor into an MVP vote since it has more to do with roster construction than how he actually performed on the field. YMMV


Asked and answered. No doubt that Cabrera switching positions to make way for Prince was a great thing for him to do, but I don't think that should factor into an award that I see as being based purely on on-field performance. I'm not giving bonus points for selflessness, especially when Trout *was* legitimately great in the field and Cabrera was...adequate enough. Like I said, YMMV.
 
2012-10-03 04:04:13 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: roc6783: Are you saying that no one is making the argument that he should automatically win MVP if he gets the Triple Crown, or that no one is making the argument that it could, and likely would, benefit him in getting the Triple Crown not to play in the final game?

You do see the difference in saying "X could help a player" and saying "the player should do X," right? Even it would likely help him to sit out, it's not exactly the most honorable thing to do. Acknowledging that taking a course of action is possible, and even beneficial, is not the same as advocating that the course of action should be taken.



1) I was confused by what argument sigdiamond2000 was claiming no one made.
2) I described 2 separate arguments that were being made in the thread.
3) You are describing a 3rd argument that I neither mentioned nor implied.
4) I did ask previously that if Cabrera is passed in one of the Triple Crown categories, should he no longer be considered for MVP? No one really responded to that. Maybe that is where you got confused?
 
2012-10-03 04:06:29 PM

Everyone Sucks But Me: This is absolutely one of the worst arguments I've heard in favor of Trout. Yes, he plays an excellent CF, and yes, Cabrera is in general a below-average 3B, but guess what? He literally made himself more valuable to the team by playing an extremely important infield position he's barely played during his career so that Detroit could accommodate putting Prince Fielder at 1B.


So if Adam Dunn volunteered to move to SS so that the White Sox can sign David Ortiz in the offseason, then proceeded to never field a single ball at short while hitting 60 HRs, you're ok with giving Dunn MVP?

(Also, if I wasn't boyotting, I might point out that Cabrera literally never played 1B with the Marlins)
 
2012-10-03 04:06:49 PM

roc6783: I did ask previously that if Cabrera is passed in one of the Triple Crown categories, should he no longer be considered for MVP?


He'll be considered, but I don't think he should win MVP unless he wins the triple crown.
 
2012-10-03 04:07:41 PM

Everyone Sucks But Me: This is absolutely one of the worst arguments I've heard in favor of Trout. Yes, he plays an excellent CF, and yes, Cabrera is in general a below-average 3B, but guess what? He literally made himself more valuable to the team by playing an extremely important infield position he's barely played during his career so that Detroit could accommodate putting Prince Fielder at 1B. If anything, defense should be way in CABRERA's favor since he's handled the position well enough that Detroit didn't have to immediately ditch that experiment and wonder what they'd do with multiple 1B/DH types in the lineup.


Barely played? Barely played? He'd played over 390 games at third base entering this season!

Jesus Christ, people. The Marlins exist. When you play for the Marlins, you PLAY IN REAL LIFE.
 
2012-10-03 04:08:57 PM

FreakinB: Asked and answered. No doubt that Cabrera switching positions to make way for Prince was a great thing for him to do, but I don't think that should factor into an award that I see as being based purely on on-field performance. I'm not giving bonus points for selflessness, especially when Trout *was* legitimately great in the field and Cabrera was...adequate enough. Like I said, YMMV.


If I wasn't boycotting, I might point out something like "If we want to talk about off the field issues & roster construction, Mike Trout makes the league minimum salary"

But I am boycotting, remember.

[Insert stupid joke here]
 
2012-10-03 04:09:23 PM

Everyone Sucks But Me: FreakinB: WTF Indeed:***snip***


Wouldn't it be awesome if there were facts that we could use to discern who has had a better season and rely on those, rather than good feelings about a guy and the "mystique" of the game. Wow, that would be a Cool World. I'd hang out with Killer Car's cat there, chase tail.
 
2012-10-03 04:09:40 PM

DeWayne Mann: But it can't just be "they don't like numbers." They like SOME numbers.


The numbers they DO like are the ones all baseball telecasts constantly show in the little batting or pitching stats overlays on the screen.

I will bet you $5 million...uh...(insertcheapforeigncurrencyhere)...that if more sabermetric-y things started to be more prominently, and casually displayed on television broadcasts, and the like...then all the sudden they will be come more accepted. Simple.

The fact there is slight effort required (not much, and of course, the calculations are already done for you) to find those other stat things, and they aren't as readily discussed by more mainstream outlets, it's easy to say "aw, their for geeks and nerds and nerdy geeks who smell bad" and they can be dismissed as such.
 
2012-10-03 04:10:09 PM

Dafatone: Barely played? Barely played? He'd played over 390 games at third base entering this season!

Jesus Christ, people. The Marlins exist. When you play for the Marlins, you PLAY IN REAL LIFE.


Hey, not related to anything you just said, but go check out the LAST AL MVP thread. I posted a bunch of junk about Keith Hernandez & dWAR you might want to look at.
 
2012-10-03 04:10:54 PM

Killer Cars: their


BUT PROPER GRAMMAR IS GEEKY AND TOTALLY NOT COOL
 
2012-10-03 04:13:31 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: roc6783: I did ask previously that if Cabrera is passed in one of the Triple Crown categories, should he no longer be considered for MVP?

He'll be considered, but I don't think he should win MVP unless he wins the triple crown.


At least you are honest and consistent. You don't make a bit of damn sense, but honesty and consistency count.
 
2012-10-03 04:13:39 PM

Killer Cars: I will bet you $5 million...uh...(insertcheapforeigncurrencyhere)...that if more sabermetric-y things started to be more prominently, and casually displayed on television broadcasts, and the like...then all the sudden they will be come more accepted. Simple.


I've seen a few things. Root (Seattle) shows leverage index. The Astros show WPA & RE in the park itself. NESN tried that lame Bill James Temperature Gauge thingy. ESPN often mentions rWAR..

So far, at best, it's really been ignored. Sometimes, the announcers/analysts make fun of it, so that's progress maybe.

roc6783: rather than good feelings about a guy and the "mystique" of the game.


Mike Aviles, MVP?
 
2012-10-03 04:14:23 PM

roc6783: You don't make a bit of damn sense


Hey! THAT'S MY JOB.
 
2012-10-03 04:15:00 PM

DeWayne Mann: I've seen a few things. Root (Seattle) shows leverage index. The Astros show WPA & RE in the park itself. NESN tried that lame Bill James Temperature Gauge thingy. ESPN often mentions rWAR..


WAR is on ESPN's stats page. It's its own column and it's own thing on the front of the stats page and everything.
 
2012-10-03 04:17:00 PM

Killer Cars: DeWayne Mann: ***snip***
I will bet you $5 million...uh...(insertcheapforeigncurrencyhere)...that if more sabermetric-y things started to be more prominently, and casually displayed on television broadcasts, and the like...then all the sudden they will be come more accepted. Simple.

The fact there is slight effort required (not much, and of course, the calculations are already done for you) to find those other stat things, and they aren't as readily discussed by more mainstream outlets, it's easy to say "aw, their for geeks and nerds and nerdy geeks who smell bad" and they can be dismissed as such.


I was just thinking that when the Brewers broadcast team was gushing over the wins totals of the NL Cy Young contenders. Are there any broadcasts that acknowledge the existence of additional stats?
 
2012-10-03 04:17:16 PM

IAmRight: DeWayne Mann: I've seen a few things. Root (Seattle) shows leverage index. The Astros show WPA & RE in the park itself. NESN tried that lame Bill James Temperature Gauge thingy. ESPN often mentions rWAR..

WAR is on ESPN's stats page. It's its own column and it's own thing on the front of the stats page and everything.


Yeah, last I checked, they didn't even put it on that "sabermetric" page that I can never find the link to.
 
2012-10-03 04:17:37 PM
No playoffs, no MVP.

/sorry Charlie Mike
//and doesn't MLB wait until November before announcing the various awards?
///YTF would they do that? that's underpants on head retarded.
 
2012-10-03 04:21:25 PM

germ78: //and doesn't MLB wait until November before announcing the various awards?
///YTF would they do that? that's underpants on head retarded.


Most sports leagues don't announce their award winners until the playoffs are over.
 
2012-10-03 04:21:53 PM

roc6783: Are there any broadcasts that acknowledge the existence of additional stats?


...no.

germ78: //and doesn't MLB wait until November before announcing the various awards?
///YTF would they do that? that's underpants on head retarded.


Super short version: The 1925 World Series.

They announced the MVP was Roger Peckinpaugh of the Senators before the World Series started. He then proceeded to commit 8 errors during the Series, setting a record. The prevailing wisdom was that being named MVP threw him off. So they moved the awards ceremony 'til after the Series.
 
2012-10-03 04:30:21 PM

DeWayne Mann: Yeah, last I checked, they didn't even put it on that "sabermetric" page that I can never find the link to.


Oh, to clarify, the "sabermetric" page I was talking about was this:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/beanecount & the related links along the top (cy predictor, park factors, etc)

not this:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting/_/type/sabermetric

Although WAR isn't on that one either. Batting average is for some reason though.

...why the crap is batting average on a dedicated "Sabermetric batting stats" page?
 
2012-10-03 04:31:10 PM

IAmRight: WAR is on ESPN's stats page. It's its own column and it's own thing on the front of the stats page and everything.


To be fair, WAR is pretty palatable as far as advanced metrics go, and is widely quoted by a lot of people...even if it's to deride it (or advanced stats in general).

I'm impressed ESPN uses it, instead of some perverse calculation of VoRP that, somehow, has Tim Tebow just ahead of Ryan Braun, but, hey, progress.
 
2012-10-03 04:32:51 PM

sigdiamond2000: Moopy Mac: Of course Jeter would, he's one of the best (if not THE best) defensive shortstops in the history of the sport..

7/10

Docking you points becuase it's much easier to troll a Sports thread than it is a Politics thread.

This is a good example of why we need advanced troll statistics.


The parenthetical about "THE" best made it a little too obvious for my taste. Would have been a solid 7/10 or even 8/10 otherwise, but I'm going to have to say 5/10. It did get one bite (an appropriate metaphor in a Trout thread).
 
2012-10-03 04:32:54 PM

roc6783: You don't make a bit of damn sense, but honesty and consistency count.


I don't understand why 'sense' and 'logic' and 'rational argument' are all synonymous with 'based on statistics' in these threads. Maris won MVP in 1961 despite having a lower WAR than guys like Mantle, Cash, and Kaline. Sosa and McGuire finished 1-2 in voting in 1998 despite having lower WAR's than Bonds (and Sosa lower than Olerud and Chipper). Sometimes a player accomplishes something so rare and so notable in baseball that it deserves to be recognized. Everyone who won a triple crown in the 20th Century has a plaque in Cooperstown. The feat has been a big deal in baseball for over 100 years, so why do so many baseball fans totally discount it now? Isn't the tradition and history a big part of why we love the game?
 
2012-10-03 04:32:57 PM

Killer Cars: I'm impressed ESPN uses it, instead of some perverse calculation of VoRP that, somehow, has Tim Tebow just ahead of Ryan Braun, but, hey, progress.


No, they have that too.  It's called "Sportscenter"
 
2012-10-03 04:33:15 PM

DeWayne Mann: DeWayne Mann: ***snip***
...why the crap is batting average on a dedicated "Sabermetric batting stats" page?


Lulz, why is anything done ever?
 
2012-10-03 04:35:30 PM
Hamilton 1-2 single, Texas up 5-1.
 
2012-10-03 04:35:54 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: Everyone who won a triple crown in the 20th Century has a plaque in Cooperstown.


With the exception of Rose, who would be in if not banned, everyone with 8500 career outs is in Cooperstown.

That's why MY AL MVP is JJ Hardy.

(Also, seriously, you keep confusing "who will win" with "who should win" and "who did win" with "who should've won")
 
2012-10-03 04:37:07 PM
Well, I'll at least give this article credit for not playing the "mom's basement" card. You never go full Plaschke. Just a Detroit homer making the case for his guy. And frankly, although I believe Trout has the better case, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if Cabrera won the MVP.
 
2012-10-03 04:39:18 PM

DeWayne Mann: ignatius_crumbcake: Everyone who won a triple crown in the 20th Century has a plaque in Cooperstown.

With the exception of Rose, who would be in if not banned, everyone with 8500 career outs is in Cooperstown.

That's why MY AL MVP is JJ Hardy.

(Also, seriously, you keep confusing "who will win" with "who should win" and "who did win" with "who should've won")


Everyone who lives in Cooperstown and isn't perfect with their dental hygiene has their own plaque in Cooperstown. Who has the sh*ttiest teeth in MLB? They should be MVP.
 
2012-10-03 04:39:45 PM

roc6783: DeWayne Mann: DeWayne Mann: ***snip***
...why the crap is batting average on a dedicated "Sabermetric batting stats" page?

Lulz, why is anything done ever?


I really want to know which unpaid intern they put in charge of putting that page together. I hope it's not Bill Fremp.

More importantly, will anyone get the Bill Fremp reference? I hope so.
 
2012-10-03 04:40:18 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: roc6783: You don't make a bit of damn sense, but honesty and consistency count.

I don't understand why 'sense' and 'logic' and 'rational argument' are all synonymous with 'based on statistics' in these threads. Maris won MVP in 1961 despite having a lower WAR than guys like Mantle, Cash, and Kaline. Sosa and McGuire finished 1-2 in voting in 1998 despite having lower WAR's than Bonds (and Sosa lower than Olerud and Chipper). Sometimes a player accomplishes something so rare and so notable in baseball that it deserves to be recognized. Everyone who won a triple crown in the 20th Century has a plaque in Cooperstown. The feat has been a big deal in baseball for over 100 years, so why do so many baseball fans totally discount it now? Isn't the tradition and history a big part of why we love the game?


There's a lot of ground between "Despite the Triple Crown, I think Cabrera's the 2nd-best guy this year" and "totally discounting" it. The Triple Crown is amazing, but I don't think it ends all discussion. And like I said before, if he were to win the Triple Crown but lose the MVP, he wouldn't be the 1st player to have that happen to him.
 
2012-10-03 04:41:39 PM

DeWayne Mann: roc6783: DeWayne Mann: DeWayne Mann: ***snip***
...why the crap is batting average on a dedicated "Sabermetric batting stats" page?

Lulz, why is anything done ever?

I really want to know which unpaid intern they put in charge of putting that page together. I hope it's not Bill Fremp.

More importantly, will anyone get the Bill Fremp reference? I hope so.


I'd been looking up and down the thread for FJM references and finding nothing. Here we go.
 
2012-10-03 04:43:40 PM

Super Chronic: And frankly, although I believe Trout has the better case, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if Cabrera won the MVP.


It would bother me, but I'm still bothered by Pedroia winning it over Mauer (and Mauer coming in 4th!).

I get bothered easily.

It would not, however, bother me if Cabrera wins the Hank Aaron.

(Also, hey, guess what: not only does Pedroia play for my favorite team, he also had a higher WAR than Mauer that season. But I'm just a robot who only cares about the numbers)
 
2012-10-03 04:43:44 PM

DeWayne Mann: (Also, seriously, you keep confusing "who will win" with "who should win" and "who did win" with "who should've won")


No, I'm not. Cabrera should win. First triple crown in 45 years should win. If Adam Dunn hits 74 home runs next year then he should win. Using precedent to support an argument is perfectly logical.
 
2012-10-03 04:44:30 PM

Super Chronic: I'd been looking up and down the thread for FJM references and finding nothing. Here we go.


I've been trying to work one in, but didn't see any openings. Finally just had to force one.
 
2012-10-03 04:46:32 PM

DeWayne Mann: Super Chronic: I'd been looking up and down the thread for FJM references and finding nothing. Here we go.

I've been trying to work one in, but didn't see any openings. Finally just had to force one.


Well, I tried to get it started indirectly with the mom's basement/Plaschke dig.
 
2012-10-03 04:48:16 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: First triple crown in 45 years should win.


ignatius_crumbcake: Using precedent


You're not using precedent. There has never been a 45 gap between triple crowns (so no precedent there), and 40% of eligible triple crown winners DIDN'T win the MVP.

And it's not like Trout isn't setting history, either.
 
2012-10-03 04:49:22 PM

Super Chronic: DeWayne Mann: Super Chronic: I'd been looking up and down the thread for FJM references and finding nothing. Here we go.

I've been trying to work one in, but didn't see any openings. Finally just had to force one.

Well, I tried to get it started indirectly with the mom's basement/Plaschke dig.


Oh I have a stroke whenever I see Plaschke's name.

I actually dictated this post with that eye blinking thing from The Diving Bell & The Butterfly
 
2012-10-03 04:52:46 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: roc6783: You don't make a bit of damn sense, but honesty and consistency count.

I don't understand why 'sense' and 'logic' and 'rational argument' are all synonymous with 'based on statistics' in these threads. ***snip***


You do understand that using facts to come to a conclusion supported by those fact is what sense, logic, and rational arguments are based on, right? Using subjective opinions that have nothing to do with the results on the field is none of those things.


When 2 players are close enough statistically that there is almost no way to significantly separate them, then fine, use some made up, subjective rational. That is not the case in this situation. Without question, Trout is better by the numbers. There is no reason to go further.

Again, this conclusion answers the question who SHOULD win, not who WILL win.
 
2012-10-03 04:53:39 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: Everyone who won a triple crown in the 20th Century has a plaque in Cooperstown. The feat has been a big deal in baseball for over 100 years, so why do so many baseball fans totally discount it now?


To me the question isn't why people discount it vis-a-vis the MVP race. I think a perfectly legitimate case can be made that it shouldn't have any effect on MVP voting.

The question is why Cabrera's Triple Crown chase is getting so little attention (in relative terms, of course) by the media.

Look at it this way: A Triple Crown winner is rarer than a 30-win season for a pitcher (and both are based on a fair amount of luck). It's been longer since we've had a Triple Crown winner than a 30-game winner. And yet there's kind of a weird "yep, ho hum, he's going to win the Triple Crown" attitude out there.

Does anyone think that if, say, Justin Verlander or Jared Weaver were going for his 30th win today, it would would be met with the same (again, relative) disinterest? If so, why?
 
2012-10-03 04:55:54 PM

sigdiamond2000: The question is why Cabrera's Triple Crown chase is getting so little attention (in relative terms, of course) by the media.

Look at it this way: A Triple Crown winner is rarer than a 30-win season for a pitcher (and both are based on a fair amount of luck). It's been longer since we've had a Triple Crown winner than a 30-game winner. And yet there's kind of a weird "yep, ho hum, he's going to win the Triple Crown" attitude out there.

Does anyone think that if, say, Justin Verlander or Jared Weaver were going for his 30th win today, it would would be met with the same (again, relative) disinterest? If so, why?


Here's a thought: maybe people don't care about RBI as much as they used to.

God I hope so.
 
2012-10-03 04:59:17 PM

DeWayne Mann: Just so we're clear:

A common argument for Cabrera is "You have to give him the MVP if he wins the Triple Crown!"

and right now y'all are discussing how sitting him would help him win the Triple Crown.

So....not playing (for personal gain) is MVP worthy?

Neat. I'll have to tell my boss that one. "No, I can't come in Thanksgiving night. If I do, someone might eat more turkey, more stuffing or watch more football than me, and then I won't be Thanksgiving MVP!"


In an entirely meaningless game, it doesn't matter. In fact it may well benefit the team to have him sit today to avoid any risks and make sure their star is well rested for the next game (the latter not very important as they are off until Saturday). If he were on the Orioles, where today's game will affect the playoff picture, then your point would be valid as it would be an action detrimental to the team.

The problem I have with the triple crown granting him the MVP aspect is that it implies that if Hamilton hits to dingers tonight and Cabrera goes 3-4 with two doubles and a single and 3 RBIs (an excellent offensive game by any measure) he is no longer a clear MVP winner. It also means that you ignore other aspects of play (namely defence and base running).
There is no question Cabrera's performance is MVP worthy as any triple crown winner should be. At the same time, there is no question that Trout's performance was also MVP worthy. After all, there have been plenty of MVPs who haven't matched what they did this season. They both just hit the jackpot in the same year.
 
2012-10-03 04:59:36 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: DeWayne Mann: (Also, seriously, you keep confusing "who will win" with "who should win" and "who did win" with "who should've won")

No, I'm not. Cabrera should win. First triple crown in 45 years should win. If Adam Dunn hits 74 home runs next year then he should win. Using precedent to support an argument is perfectly logical.


Not when there is someone else who has offensive numbers nearly as good, and is so far beyond as a fielder that it is no longer close.

Unless there is someone who was better, sure, it is possible.

Making a subjective point based on mystique of the game isn't logical at all.
 
2012-10-03 05:00:01 PM

NutznGum: If my grandma had balls we'd have called her grandpa

Branch Rickey.
 
2012-10-03 05:00:36 PM

roc6783: You do understand that using facts to come to a conclusion supported by those fact is what sense, logic, and rational arguments are based on, right? Using subjective opinions that have nothing to do with the results on the field is none of those things.


Has the racist card been pulled in this thread yet? That one is my favorite so far.

/apparently I'm racist even though the only MLB jersey I've ever owned is Jose Bautista
 
2012-10-03 05:02:30 PM

keypusher: NutznGum: If my grandma had balls we'd have called her grandpa Branch Rickey.


OH GOD LET THIS BE A MEME NOW
 
2012-10-03 05:03:49 PM

DeWayne Mann: There has never been a 45 gap between triple crowns (so no precedent there)


Right. That's why I cited the home run chases as precedent. The precedent doesn't need to be identical to be persuasive, it just has to be analogous.

DeWayne Mann: and 40% of eligible triple crown winners DIDN'T win the MVP.


So doesn't that mean 60% of them did? And Robinson won the MVP after a 10 year gap, which was the longest since Ty Cobb.

DeWayne Mann: And it's not like Trout isn't setting history, either.


75% of the players who had 40 stolen base, 40 home run seasons did not win the MVP.
 
2012-10-03 05:04:13 PM
A's putting up a fight, it's not over yet. 5-3 Rangers.

/Go A's
 
2012-10-03 05:06:38 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: DeWayne Mann: and 40% of eligible triple crown winners DIDN'T win the MVP.

So doesn't that mean 60% of them did? And Robinson won the MVP after a 10 year gap, which was the longest since Ty Cobb.


Frank Robinson didn't have any close competition that year: Link
 
2012-10-03 05:06:47 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: So doesn't that mean 60% of them did?


Precisely! So, 60% of the time, Triple Crown winners win MVP.

Doesn't that mean winning MVP is about MORE than winning the Triple Crown?

ignatius_crumbcake: And Robinson won the MVP after a 10 year gap, which was the longest since Ty Cobb.


...what? I don't even know what you're trying to say.

ignatius_crumbcake: 75% of the players who had 40 stolen base, 40 home run seasons did not win the MVP.


That's right! Good thing I've never seen a single person argue that 40/40 meant a player ABSOLUTELY HAD TO WIN THE MVP.
 
2012-10-03 05:11:21 PM

roc6783: You do understand that using facts to come to a conclusion supported by those fact is what sense, logic, and rational arguments are based on, right? Using subjective opinions that have nothing to do with the results on the field is none of those things.


Fact: Miguel Cabrera wins the first triple crown in 45 years (assuming he does, of course).
Conclusion: He should win the MVP.

Where is the opinion?

roc6783: Without question, Trout is better by the numbers. There is no reason to go further.


Except the award is not called "Best Player by the Numbers."
 
2012-10-03 05:12:43 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: roc6783: You do understand that using facts to come to a conclusion supported by those fact is what sense, logic, and rational arguments are based on, right? Using subjective opinions that have nothing to do with the results on the field is none of those things.

Fact: Miguel Cabrera wins the first triple crown in 45 years (assuming he does, of course).
Conclusion: He should win the MVP.

Where is the opinion?


I just bolded the part that's opinion. Unless there's a rule somewhere that says "Triple Crown winners automatically win MVP," then it's an opinion.
 
2012-10-03 05:12:43 PM

FreakinB: ignatius_crumbcake: DeWayne Mann: and 40% of eligible triple crown winners DIDN'T win the MVP.

So doesn't that mean 60% of them did? And Robinson won the MVP after a 10 year gap, which was the longest since Ty Cobb.

Frank Robinson didn't have any close competition that year: Link


OH! Ok. Now i'm on board with that line.

Yes, Frank Robinson clearly ONLY won MVP that year BECAUSE he won the Triple Crown. There was actually a guy who stole 800 bases, led in both OBP & SLG and played stellar defense at SS, but the voters got together and said "Meh. Triple Crown"
 
2012-10-03 05:13:20 PM

thecpt: roc6783: You do understand that using facts to come to a conclusion supported by those fact is what sense, logic, and rational arguments are based on, right? Using subjective opinions that have nothing to do with the results on the field is none of those things.

Has the racist card been pulled in this thread yet? That one is my favorite so far.

/apparently I'm racist even though the only MLB jersey I've ever owned is Jose Bautista


Yes, it has.
 
2012-10-03 05:14:10 PM

FreakinB: ignatius_crumbcake: roc6783: You do understand that using facts to come to a conclusion supported by those fact is what sense, logic, and rational arguments are based on, right? Using subjective opinions that have nothing to do with the results on the field is none of those things.

Fact: Miguel Cabrera wins the first triple crown in 45 years (assuming he does, of course).
Conclusion: He should win the MVP.

Where is the opinion?

I just bolded the part that's opinion. Unless there's a rule somewhere that says "Triple Crown winners automatically win MVP," then it's an opinion.


No, that's the conclusion. He was saying I used opinion to support the conclusion. A conclusion is almost always an opinion.
 
2012-10-03 05:14:34 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: Fact: Miguel Cabrera wins the first triple crown in 45 years (assuming he does, of course).
Conclusion: He should win the MVP.


FACT: Mike Trout is the first player to hit 30 HR, steal 47 bases and score 121 runs in infinity years (assuming he already did last week, of course).
Conclusion: THIS IS A STUPID GAME YOU'RE PLAYING

FreakinB: Unless there's a rule somewhere that says "Triple Crown winners automatically win MVP," then it's an opinion.


Did anyone remember to double check that this isn't actually a rule?
 
2012-10-03 05:16:43 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: A conclusion is almost always an opinion.


The definition of a logical conclusion:

a. a statement that purports to follow from another or others (the premises) by means of an argument
b. a statement that does validly follow from given premises


You are still claiming you're using logic, right?
 
2012-10-03 05:16:53 PM

DeWayne Mann: ignatius_crumbcake: Fact: Miguel Cabrera wins the first triple crown in 45 years (assuming he does, of course).
Conclusion: He should win the MVP.

FACT: Mike Trout is the first player to hit 30 HR, steal 47 bases and score 121 runs in infinity years (assuming he already did last week, of course).
Conclusion: THIS IS A STUPID GAME YOU'RE PLAYING


This is a good point as well. Just because there's actually a name/award for Cabrera's rare accomplishments doesn't diminish Trout's rare accomplishments.
 
2012-10-03 05:17:23 PM

DeWayne Mann: FACT: Mike Trout is the first player to hit 30 HR, steal 47 bases and score 121 runs in infinity years (assuming he already did last week, of course).
Conclusion: THIS IS A STUPID GAME YOU'RE PLAYING


No it's not, cause I've never denied that you're using facts to support your conclusions. I disagree with them, but I admit they are supported by facts. You guys are saying that there is no factual argument for giving Cabrera the MVP, and what you really mean is that there is no statistical argument for giving Cabrera the MVP. There are other facts in the world besides statistics.
 
2012-10-03 05:18:05 PM

FreakinB: This is a good point as well. Just because there's actually a name/award for Cabrera's rare accomplishments doesn't diminish Trout's rare accomplishments.


There's actually a name for Trout's accomplishments too.

I call it the Trout Flak Helmet.
 
2012-10-03 05:18:40 PM

FreakinB: This is a good point as well. Just because there's actually a name/award for Cabrera's rare accomplishments doesn't diminish Trout's rare accomplishments.


Who is diminishing his accomplishments? I just think Cabrera's accomplishment wins. If Cabrera doesn't get the triple crown then Trout should absolutely get the MVP.
 
2012-10-03 05:19:25 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: If Cabrera doesn't get the triple crown then Trout should absolutely get the MVP.


Which (and stay with me here)

IS

NOT

LOGICAL
 
2012-10-03 05:20:09 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: FreakinB: This is a good point as well. Just because there's actually a name/award for Cabrera's rare accomplishments doesn't diminish Trout's rare accomplishments.

Who is diminishing his accomplishments? I just think Cabrera's accomplishment wins. If Cabrera doesn't get the triple crown then Trout should absolutely get the MVP.


So we're back to the "Josh Hamilton decides the MVP race" part of the argument again?
 
2012-10-03 05:20:36 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: roc6783: You do understand that using facts to come to a conclusion supported by those fact is what sense, logic, and rational arguments are based on, right? Using subjective opinions that have nothing to do with the results on the field is none of those things.

Fact: Miguel Cabrera wins the first triple crown in 45 years (assuming he does, of course).
Conclusion: He should win the MVP.

Where is the opinion? roc6783: Without question, Trout is better by the numbers. There is no reason to go further.

Except the award is not called "Best Player by the Numbers."


You know what, I screwed up. I forgot to use the word relevant before facts and I apologize. That Cabrera could win the Triple Crown, is a fact, it just is not relevant. As far as your second comment, it dovetails nicely into why the Triple Crown is irrelevant. How does Cabrera winning the Triple Crown make him more valuable to his team? Or put another way, if his BA is .001 lower and he does not win the Triple Crown, how does that no longer make him qualified to be MVP? Assuming that he is, which he isn't.
 
2012-10-03 05:22:50 PM

roc6783: That Cabrera could win the Triple Crown, is a fact, it just is not relevant


Wait, wait, wait, we're missing a major, major opportunity here.

FACT: Adam Greenberg has a strikeout this season
CONCLUSION: Chris Carpenter should win the AL MVP. Both of them. Co-MVPs.

LOGIC
 
2012-10-03 05:25:10 PM

DeWayne Mann: roc6783: That Cabrera could win the Triple Crown, is a fact, it just is not relevant

Wait, wait, wait, we're missing a major, major opportunity here.

FACT: Adam Greenberg has a strikeout this season
CONCLUSION: Chris Carpenter should win the AL MVP. Both of them. Co-MVPs.

LOGIC


Actually, I apologize. That was an absurdity, designed to make people laugh. Here's an actual logical argument:

FACT 1: Adam Greenberg appeared in a major league game for the first time since 2005
FACT 2: Chris Carpenter (the good one) won NL Cy Young in 2005.
CONCLUSION: Chris Carpenter should win the NL Cy Young this year.

That uses two facts so it's doubly logical.
 
2012-10-03 05:26:56 PM

DeWayne Mann: roc6783: That Cabrera could win the Triple Crown, is a fact, it just is not relevant

Wait, wait, wait, we're missing a major, major opportunity here.

FACT: Adam Greenberg has a strikeout this season
CONCLUSION: Chris Carpenter should win the AL MVP. Both of them. Co-MVPs.

LOGIC


Thank you for quoting the line where I made a typo. You win thread MVP because you quoted the most typos. (Despite the fact that JohnnyCanuck's contribution's to the thread greatly outweigh yours, there is a word for most typo quotes) (It's douchebag, in case you were wondering)
 
2012-10-03 05:28:09 PM

DeWayne Mann: ignatius_crumbcake: If Cabrera doesn't get the triple crown then Trout should absolutely get the MVP.

Which (and stay with me here)

IS

NOT

LOGICAL


Yeah, it is. Just because you disagree with the conclusion, doesn't make it illogical. Your local college should offer classes in logic. They are in the philosophy department. Bring highlighters for when you do Venn diagrams.

tenton: So we're back to the "Josh Hamilton decides the MVP race" part of the argument again?


Well I would argue that Cabrera decided it. It's not like Hamilton put his bat in reverse and pulled a few HR off his total.
 
2012-10-03 05:28:42 PM

roc6783: You win thread MVP because you quoted the most typos


I'm gonna need some sort of shaky precedence to back this up. Perhaps if you can demonstrate that at least 50% of the best typo quoters won thread MVP in the past?
 
2012-10-03 05:29:37 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: Yeah, it is.


dywed88: The problem I have with the triple crown granting him the MVP aspect is that it implies that if Hamilton hits to[sic] dingers tonight and Cabrera goes 3-4 with two doubles and a single and 3 RBIs (an excellent offensive game by any measure) he is no longer a clear MVP winner.


LOGIC!
 
2012-10-03 05:30:32 PM

DeWayne Mann: roc6783: You win thread MVP because you quoted the most typos

I'm gonna need some sort of shaky precedence to back this up. Perhaps if you can demonstrate that at least 50% of the best typo quoters won thread MVP in the past?


They didn't, but you do wear a monocle, so fact, logic, conclusion...game, set, match.
 
2012-10-03 05:31:42 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: DeWayne Mann: ignatius_crumbcake: If Cabrera doesn't get the triple crown then Trout should absolutely get the MVP.

Which (and stay with me here)

IS

NOT

LOGICAL

Yeah, it is. Just because you disagree with the conclusion, doesn't make it illogical. Your local college should offer classes in logic. They are in the philosophy department. Bring highlighters for when you do Venn diagrams.


See, I don't buy that. That's saying that the line between obvious MVP and obvious non-MVP can be a tiny difference in batting average, or one fewer home run, etc. That small of a change shouldn't affect a player's perceived value. It's not like we're talking 25 home runs here.

You might see that as logical, but a whole lot of people are going to argue it.
 
2012-10-03 05:32:21 PM

roc6783: They didn't, but you do wear a monocle, so fact, logic, conclusion...game, set, match.


I CANNOT GET ON BOARD WITH YOUR USE OF TWO DIFFERENT CRITERIAS FOR THREAD MVP

That requires too much thought.
 
2012-10-03 05:34:17 PM

FreakinB: See, I don't buy that. That's saying that the line between obvious MVP and obvious non-MVP can be a tiny difference in batting average, or one fewer home run, etc. That small of a change shouldn't affect a player's perceived value. It's not like we're talking 25 home runs here.

You might see that as logical, but a whole lot of people are going to argue it.


What's funny is that (and i'm gonna generalize here) a lot of the pro-Cabrera folks say stuff like "Just because a guy leads in WAR by .1, that doesn't mean he's better!"

But if a guy leads in batting average by .005? CLEARLY 100% THE BEST HITTER.

(Also, it should be obvious that you can't argue with logic. Because logic is based on opinions. Or something.)
 
2012-10-03 05:37:05 PM

FreakinB: See, I don't buy that. That's saying that the line between obvious MVP and obvious non-MVP can be a tiny difference in batting average, or one fewer home run, etc. That small of a change shouldn't affect a player's perceived value. It's not like we're talking 25 home runs here.


That's not where the difference is. The difference is the presence of the triple crown. You can disagree that winning the award is meaningful, but that's that tips the scales. Not the underlying stats.

If you want to talk about perceived value, then we can talk about Trout v Cabrera in high leverage situations, or their comparative wRC+ in the playoff chase, but I was lead to believe those things don't matter because Trout can run faster.
 
2012-10-03 05:37:34 PM
Oh, and roc6783? Are we going to have a separate list of highlights from this thread, or just continue the last one?
 
2012-10-03 05:39:52 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: The difference is the presence of the triple crown.


The difference is [A BUNCH OF CRICKET FANS 130 YEARS AGO THOUGHT THESE THREE STATS WERE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE OTHERS].

Wow, convincing. I love me some cricket fans. In fact, let's just fly to India, find a random person on the street, and ask them who should win MVP.

RINKU SINGH, AL MVP.
 
2012-10-03 05:40:35 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: Trout v Cabrera in high leverage situations, or their comparative wRC+ in the playoff chase, but I was lead to believe those things don't matter because Trout can run faster.


Also, no one said this. At all.
 
2012-10-03 05:43:10 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: DeWayne Mann: FACT: Mike Trout is the first player to hit 30 HR, steal 47 bases and score 121 runs in infinity years (assuming he already did last week, of course).
Conclusion: THIS IS A STUPID GAME YOU'RE PLAYING

No it's not, cause I've never denied that you're using facts to support your conclusions. I disagree with them, but I admit they are supported by facts. You guys are saying that there is no factual argument for giving Cabrera the MVP, and what you really mean is that there is no statistical argument for giving Cabrera the MVP. There are other facts in the world besides statistics.


But the Triple Crown is a statistic. Three statistics, in fact. Which should disqualify Cabrera as a numbers-dependent sabrmonster.
 
2012-10-03 05:43:19 PM
Killer Cars: I will bet you $5 million...uh...(insertcheapforeigncurrencyhere)...that if more sabermetric-y things started to be more prominently, and casually displayed on television broadcasts, and the like...then all the sudden they will be come more accepted. Simple.

The fact there is slight effort required (not much, and of course, the calculations are already done for you) to find those other stat things, and they aren't as readily discussed by more mainstream outlets, it's easy to say "aw, their for geeks and nerds and nerdy geeks who smell bad" and they can be dismissed as such.


Even if this occurs, the MVP voting process is never going to be "look at WAR, see highest number, vote for that guy" because very few people believe that every single thing that happens in a sporting event is quantifiable.
 
2012-10-03 05:43:44 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: roc6783: You do understand that using facts to come to a conclusion supported by those fact is what sense, logic, and rational arguments are based on, right? Using subjective opinions that have nothing to do with the results on the field is none of those things.

Fact: Miguel Cabrera wins the first triple crown in 45 years (assuming he does, of course).
Conclusion: He should win the MVP.


You forgot:
Opinion: Anyone who wins the first triple crown in 45 years automatically should win the MVP.

That is an opinion you are using as a fact.

Besides, what if a pitcher went 28-0 with 350 Ks and a 1.75 ERA? That would be an unprecedented season. Should he automatically be passed up for a triple crown winner?

Winning the triple crown has to come into consideration, but it isn't the only thing.
 
2012-10-03 05:45:01 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: FreakinB: See, I don't buy that. That's saying that the line between obvious MVP and obvious non-MVP can be a tiny difference in batting average, or one fewer home run, etc. That small of a change shouldn't affect a player's perceived value. It's not like we're talking 25 home runs here.

That's not where the difference is. The difference is the presence of the triple crown. You can disagree that winning the award is meaningful, but that's that tips the scales. Not the underlying stats.

If you want to talk about perceived value, then we can talk about Trout v Cabrera in high leverage situations, or their comparative wRC+ in the playoff chase, but I was lead to believe those things don't matter because Trout can run faster.


So you see the Triple Crown as the end-all be-all, and others don't. That's all this is. And for the record...that's an entirely stats-based position you're taking. The Triple Crown is based on nothing but stats.

As I said before, I don't care about situational leverage. I can make just as good of an argument that in a lot of games, Trout's contributions prevented there from being high-leverage situations in games in the first place. And as for the playoff chase...I've made my thoughts clear many times between yesterday and today and I'm not going to do it again.

And the arguments for Trout have been stated ad nauseum, so don't try to reduce them to "he's fast."
 
2012-10-03 05:46:09 PM

Daniels: Even if this occurs, the MVP voting process is never going to be "look at WAR, see highest number, vote for that guy"


And who, exactly, thinks that's how MVP should be determined?
 
2012-10-03 05:46:18 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: FreakinB: See, I don't buy that. That's saying that the line between obvious MVP and obvious non-MVP can be a tiny difference in batting average, or one fewer home run, etc. That small of a change shouldn't affect a player's perceived value. It's not like we're talking 25 home runs here.

That's not where the difference is. The difference is the presence of the triple crown. You can disagree that winning the award is meaningful, but that's that tips the scales. Not the underlying stats.

If you want to talk about perceived value, then we can talk about Trout v Cabrera in high leverage situations, or their comparative wRC+ in the playoff chase, but I was lead to believe those things don't matter because Trout can run faster.


So just to get this straight, when deciding who is the AL's Most VALUABLE Player

1) A .001 difference in BA is meaningless
2) Unless it is the difference between a Triple Crown or not
3) Trout is more VALUABLE to his team
4) But that doesn't matter because of an irrelevant convergence of 3 statistics for one player being the highest in the league
5) But it is relevant because logic=magic

Could you teach me to count to potato?
 
2012-10-03 05:48:04 PM

FreakinB: And the arguments for Trout have been stated ad nauseum, so don't try to reduce them to "he's fast."


Especially since the primary argument, which has been repeated time & time again, is "Even if Miguel Cabrera is a better hitter, Trout does far more on defense."

Which, you would, would be completely & totally ignored by comparing high leverage hitting.
 
2012-10-03 05:49:28 PM

roc6783: 5) But it is relevant because logic=magic


No no no, logic = opinion! Didn't I teach you anything?

But seriously Chris Carpenter NL Cy. I have precedent and everything.
 
2012-10-03 05:49:32 PM

Daniels: Killer Cars: I will bet you $5 million...uh...(insertcheapforeigncurrencyhere)...that if more sabermetric-y things started to be more prominently, and casually displayed on television broadcasts, and the like...then all the sudden they will be come more accepted. Simple.

The fact there is slight effort required (not much, and of course, the calculations are already done for you) to find those other stat things, and they aren't as readily discussed by more mainstream outlets, it's easy to say "aw, their for geeks and nerds and nerdy geeks who smell bad" and they can be dismissed as such.

Even if this occurs, the MVP voting process is never going to be "look at WAR, see highest number, vote for that guy" because very few people believe that every single thing that happens in a sporting event is quantifiable.


Nobody's advocating that. I made a post 6 hours ago (dammit, I need a life) in this very thread making Trout's case while leaving the advanced stats out entirely.

With that said, a significant difference in WAR should at least give people pause. If it's between a guy at 8.2 and a guy at 7.7? Whatever. But that's not what's happening here.
 
2012-10-03 05:49:39 PM

keypusher: ignatius_crumbcake: DeWayne Mann: FACT: Mike Trout is the first player to hit 30 HR, steal 47 bases and score 121 runs in infinity years (assuming he already did last week, of course).
Conclusion: THIS IS A STUPID GAME YOU'RE PLAYING

No it's not, cause I've never denied that you're using facts to support your conclusions. I disagree with them, but I admit they are supported by facts. You guys are saying that there is no factual argument for giving Cabrera the MVP, and what you really mean is that there is no statistical argument for giving Cabrera the MVP. There are other facts in the world besides statistics.

But the Triple Crown is a statistic. Three statistics, in fact. Which should disqualify Cabrera as a numbers-dependent sabrmonster.


No. You see, RBI are on the approved stat list because, like, my grandpa said so. And that's all that matters.

/my grandpa was not Branch Rickey
 
2012-10-03 05:50:39 PM

keypusher: NutznGum: If my grandma had balls we'd have called her grandpa Branch Rickey.

 

runningtheclassroom.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-10-03 05:51:09 PM

DeWayne Mann: Which, you would


That last word. I don't think it's right.

But logically, it must be, because I wrote it and therefore there's precedence. Sure, some people would use stats to suggest that the last word should be "know", not "would" but there are OTHER facts in the world, you know.

Yep, it's right.
 
2012-10-03 05:51:21 PM

FreakinB: Daniels: Killer Cars: I will bet you $5 million...uh...(insertcheapforeigncurrencyhere)...that if more sabermetric-y things started to be more prominently, and casually displayed on television broadcasts, and the like...then all the sudden they will be come more accepted. Simple.

The fact there is slight effort required (not much, and of course, the calculations are already done for you) to find those other stat things, and they aren't as readily discussed by more mainstream outlets, it's easy to say "aw, their for geeks and nerds and nerdy geeks who smell bad" and they can be dismissed as such.

Even if this occurs, the MVP voting process is never going to be "look at WAR, see highest number, vote for that guy" because very few people believe that every single thing that happens in a sporting event is quantifiable.

Nobody's advocating that. I made a post 6 hours ago (dammit, I need a life) in this very thread making Trout's case while leaving the advanced stats out entirely.

With that said, a significant difference in WAR should at least give people pause. If it's between a guy at 8.2 and a guy at 7.7? Whatever. But that's not what's happening here.


For evidence of this, see the 2012 NL MVP race.
 
2012-10-03 05:52:18 PM

Daniels: Killer Cars: ***snip***
Even if this occurs, the MVP voting process is never going to be "look at WAR, see highest number, vote for that guy" because very few people believe that every single thing that happens in a sporting event is quantifiable.


You're correct, that would not happen. But maybe what would happen, would be that when two guys have similar offensive seasons, but one guy is by far more valuable defensively, then people wouldn't argue that the less deserving guy would win based on the fact that the less deserving guy leads 3 arbitrary statistical categories that do not do as good of a job describing how valuable that player is to there team. How awesome would that world be to live in? I call Mannland.
 
2012-10-03 05:52:48 PM

FreakinB: I made a post 6 hours ago (dammit, I need a life)


Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Have you seen MY posting history?

Rex_Banner: /my grandpa was not Branch Rickey


Dang it I already started adding you to the family tree.
 
2012-10-03 05:53:19 PM

Rex_Banner: FreakinB: With that said, a significant difference in WAR should at least give people pause. If it's between a guy at 8.2 and a guy at 7.7? Whatever. But that's not what's happening here.

For evidence of this, see the 2012 NL MVP race.


There are about 6 guys who could win NL MVP that I couldn't argue at all. It's so close.
 
2012-10-03 05:54:15 PM

roc6783: 3) Trout is more VALUABLE to his team


He's not because without Mike Trout the Angels are still golfing tomorrow. Without Miguel Cabrera, the Tigers are joining them. But playoffs don't matter because the AL Central sucks and the Angels have a better record and team success shouldn't count but never mind that almost all recent winners except for Bonds have been on playoff teams.

Whatever. Cabrera will win and maybe next year there won't be such tradition to interfere with the stats. I'm off to watch the Rangers finish choking.
 
2012-10-03 05:54:20 PM

Rex_Banner: keypusher: ignatius_crumbcake: DeWayne Mann: ***snip***

No. You see, RBI are on the approved stat list because, like, my grandpa said so. And that's all that matters.

/my grandpa was not Branch Rickey


Well, that would be awkward if he was, since he is also DeWayne Mann's grandma.
 
2012-10-03 05:55:06 PM

DeWayne Mann: FreakinB: I made a post 6 hours ago (dammit, I need a life)

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Have you seen MY posting history?


I don't measure myself against outliers...

/I appreciate your work
 
2012-10-03 05:55:39 PM

Rex_Banner: For evidence of this, see the 2012 NL MVP race.


I almost mentioned that, but it turns out after the last few days the guy I'd vote for for MVP IS tied for the lead in fWAR now.

My second place winner is in 4th, though.

roc6783: I call Mannland.


Sorry, that reminds me way too much of Mannywood. Which seems to go against the spirit of the idea.

(Also Mannland isn't awesome. Have you SEEN my posting history?)
 
2012-10-03 05:57:09 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: roc6783: 3) Trout is more VALUABLE to his team

He's not because without Mike Trout the Angels are still golfing tomorrow. Without Miguel Cabrera, the Tigers are joining them. But playoffs don't matter because the AL Central sucks and the Angels have a better record and team success shouldn't count but never mind that almost all recent winners except for Bonds have been on playoff teams.

Whatever. Cabrera will win and maybe next year there won't be such tradition to interfere with the stats. I'm off to watch the Rangers finish choking.


Or maybe, just maybe, it's the specifics of this particular case.
 
2012-10-03 05:58:09 PM

FreakinB: There are about 6 guys who could win NL MVP that I couldn't argue at all. It's so close.


I can argue the crap out of "not David Wright", and yet he's 3rd in fWAR.

Does that count?

ignatius_crumbcake: But playoffs don't matter because the AL Central sucks and the Angels have a better record


Hey, you finally figured it out.

ignatius_crumbcake: almost all recent winners except for Bonds have been on playoff teams.


You wanna explain 2003 AL MVP to me?

roc6783: Well, that would be awkward if he was, since he is also DeWayne Mann's grandma.


I DID say it was a weird story.

FreakinB: I don't measure myself against outliers...


My goal is to actually have a NEGATIVE life, not just NO life.
 
2012-10-03 05:58:39 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: roc6783: 3) Trout is more VALUABLE to his team

He's not because without Mike Trout the Angels are still golfing tomorrow. Without Miguel Cabrera, the Tigers are joining them. But playoffs don't matter because the AL Central sucks and the Angels have a better record and team success shouldn't count but never mind that almost all recent winners except for Bonds have been on playoff teams.

Whatever. Cabrera will win and maybe next year there won't be such tradition to interfere with the stats. I'm off to watch the Rangers finish choking.


Brett Wallace is the MVP next year since he is solely responsible for the Astros no longer being the laughing stock of the NL Central. Thank Killer Car's cat, we got that cleared up.
 
2012-10-03 06:00:35 PM

FreakinB: Rex_Banner: FreakinB: With that said, a significant difference in WAR should at least give people pause. If it's between a guy at 8.2 and a guy at 7.7? Whatever. But that's not what's happening here.

For evidence of this, see the 2012 NL MVP race.

There are about 6 guys who could win NL MVP that I couldn't argue at all. It's so close.


Can we get a thread for THAT? There are a few guys that deserve it and its a legit toss up

#MVPosey
 
2012-10-03 06:01:45 PM

roc6783: Brett Wallace is the MVP next year


Ooooh, oooh!

He volunteered to move to SS in AAA!

I mean, he was terrible there, BUT HE VOLUNTEERED.

PCL MVP?
 
2012-10-03 06:02:20 PM

roc6783: Rex_Banner: keypusher: ignatius_crumbcake: DeWayne Mann: ***snip***

No. You see, RBI are on the approved stat list because, like, my grandpa said so. And that's all that matters.

/my grandpa was not Branch Rickey

Well, that would be awkward if he was, since he is also DeWayne Mann's grandma.


Wait, was Branch Rickey really Philip J Fry????
 
2012-10-03 06:02:32 PM

DeWayne Mann: Rex_Banner: For evidence of this, see the 2012 NL MVP race.

***snip***

roc6783: I call Mannland.

Sorry, that reminds me way too much of Mannywood. Which seems to go against the spirit of the idea.

(Also Mannland isn't awesome. Have you SEEN my posting history?)


You've quoted 2 of my typos now, I knew voting you thread MVP based on that stat award was a great idea.

DeWaynesville - We won't make you leave, but you'll want to.
 
2012-10-03 06:02:41 PM

Rex_Banner: Can we get a thread for THAT?


Nope.

But I bet we'll get like 5 or 6 other AL MVP ones, so I'm just if we work together we can just threadjack the crap out of one.
 
2012-10-03 06:04:51 PM

DeWayne Mann: I'm just if we work together


I mostly just quoted this because

roc6783: You've quoted 2 of my typos now, I knew voting you thread MVP based on that stat award was a great idea.


ANYWAY

Rex_Banner: Wait, was Branch Rickey really Philip J Fry????


...it's a weird story.

roc6783: DeWaynesville - We won't make you leave, but you'll want to.


But it's scary outside! There's some big circle of light that isn't a halogen lamp, and there's not a fridge packed with red bull or a freezer full of hot pockets!
 
2012-10-03 06:06:09 PM

Rex_Banner: FreakinB: Rex_Banner: FreakinB: With that said, a significant difference in WAR should at least give people pause. If it's between a guy at 8.2 and a guy at 7.7? Whatever. But that's not what's happening here.

For evidence of this, see the 2012 NL MVP race.

There are about 6 guys who could win NL MVP that I couldn't argue at all. It's so close.

Can we get a thread for THAT? There are a few guys that deserve it and its a legit toss up

#MVPosey


My bias means I'd love to see Wright but I know that nobody's going to vote for an MVP from a 74-win team unless he blew everyone else away (and rightfully so. See, ignatius_crumbcake?! Specifics of the situation!). But really they could pick Wright, Posey, McCutchen, Braun, or (I hate that I'm saying this) Yadier farking Molina and I'd just be like...yup.
 
2012-10-03 06:07:16 PM

DeWayne Mann: Rex_Banner: Can we get a thread for THAT?

Nope.

But I bet we'll get like 5 or 6 other AL MVP ones, so I'm just if we work together we can just threadjack the crap out of one.


We will get a Cabby thread tomorrow (we pretty much have to). If it is in before 11, I'll do my part. Any time after that, well, I won't be around til 5 or so.
 
2012-10-03 06:12:43 PM

FreakinB: My bias means I'd love to see Wright but I know that nobody's going to vote for an MVP


Short version:

In terms of hitting, compare Wright & Headley. Headley wins, even if we DON'T adjust for PETCO.

They play the same position, so no problem there.

Neither is a particularly great baserunner; fangraphs has Wright as like 3 runs better.

Which leaves us with defense. UZR has Wright at 15, Headley at 6. But Wright has had three straight seasons of -10 UZRs. In fact, this is his 3rd positive UZR year in his career, and it's 2 to 3 times better than the other two. His career UZR/150 including this year is -1.7. Headley bounces around a LOT, but his career UZR/150 is 6.9...right in light with this year.

If Wright's UZR is just SLIGHTLY high, Headley's the clear winner between them, yeah? And I've got Headley like, I dunno, 4? on my ballot.

Plus, Headley leads the league in RBI making him at least 33% MVP.
 
2012-10-03 06:14:17 PM

FreakinB: Rex_Banner: FreakinB: Rex_Banner: FreakinB: With that said, a significant difference in WAR should at least give people pause. If it's between a guy at 8.2 and a guy at 7.7? Whatever. But that's not what's happening here.

For evidence of this, see the 2012 NL MVP race.

There are about 6 guys who could win NL MVP that I couldn't argue at all. It's so close.

Can we get a thread for THAT? There are a few guys that deserve it and its a legit toss up

#MVPosey

My bias means I'd love to see Wright but I know that nobody's going to vote for an MVP from a 74-win team unless he blew everyone else away (and rightfully so. See, ignatius_crumbcake?! Specifics of the situation!). But really they could pick Wright, Posey, McCutchen, Braun, or (I hate that I'm saying this) Yadier farking Molina and I'd just be like...yup.


Braun? McCutchen? Wright? What are you, some kind of basement dwelling, no game watching, racist nerd?
 
2012-10-03 06:14:38 PM

Rex_Banner: If it is in before 11, I'll do my part. Any time after that, well, I won't be around til 5 or so.


Hmmm, I've generally been waking up between 11 & 1, so sounds like we might be covered.

Unless it sits around in TF for awhile. Then I can't help...and I have no desire to go back there. THAT PLACE IS TERRIFYING.

Worse than Mannland.
 
2012-10-03 06:16:52 PM

DeWayne Mann: In terms of hitting, compare Wright & Headley. Headley wins, even if we DON'T adjust for PETCO.


I should note that I was using wOBA here, which isn't park adjusted. Wright wins in OPS.
 
2012-10-03 06:28:13 PM

DeWayne Mann: Rex_Banner: If it is in before 11, I'll do my part. Any time after that, well, I won't be around til 5 or so.

Hmmm, I've generally been waking up between 11 & 1, so sounds like we might be covered.

Unless it sits around in TF for awhile. Then I can't help...and I have no desire to go back there. THAT PLACE IS TERRIFYING.

Worse than Mannland.


But.... it's got pretty colors.........
 
2012-10-03 06:29:32 PM

Rex_Banner: But.... it's got pretty colors.........


oh man it took me like half of my month to figure out what all the colors meant. COULD NOT FIGURE OUT BLUE

until i clicked on the farq. then i felt smart.
 
2012-10-03 06:32:01 PM
And btw, Hamilton won't catch Cabrera in the HR race (1-4 today). It looks like the triple crown is mostly locked up. I think it's cool - it's something that hasn't happened in most of our lifetimes. So I'm happy to see it. But it does not make him the MVP
 
2012-10-03 06:33:00 PM

Rex_Banner: And btw, Hamilton won't catch Cabrera in the HR race (1-4 today). It looks like the triple crown is mostly locked up. I think it's cool - it's something that hasn't happened in most of our lifetimes. So I'm happy to see it. But it does not make him the MVP


Pretty much.

Yep.
 
2012-10-03 06:37:48 PM

DeWayne Mann: Rex_Banner: And btw, Hamilton won't catch Cabrera in the HR race (1-4 today). It looks like the triple crown is mostly locked up. I think it's cool - it's something that hasn't happened in most of our lifetimes. So I'm happy to see it. But it does not make him the MVP

Pretty much.

Yep.


When Cabrera wins the MVP, I'm just going to repeat an argument made here to myself.

That Keith isn't in the hall, so nobody cares about defense.
 
2012-10-03 06:38:57 PM
Also, 2nd in the AL in WAR is Robinson Cano.

How the fark does Cano mash the ball for the YANKEES every year and go under the radar?
 
2012-10-03 06:39:50 PM

Dafatone: When Cabrera wins the MVP, I'm just going to repeat an argument made here to myself.

That Keith isn't in the hall, so nobody cares about defense.


Only because no one understands the Time Machine WW2 / Groundhog's Day 1983 argument.
 
2012-10-03 06:40:59 PM

Dafatone: Also, 2nd in the AL in WAR is Robinson Cano.

How the fark does Cano mash the ball for the YANKEES every year and go under the radar?


Cano is actually an UZR vampire. If he didn't exist, UZR would say that Jeter was the greatest defensive SS in the league.

But Cano steals all the UZRs from him. So he is, quite literally, the anti-Yankee.
 
2012-10-03 06:41:37 PM

Dafatone: Also, 2nd in the AL in WAR is Robinson Cano.

How the fark does Cano mash the ball for the YANKEES every year and go under the radar?


He's the new Bernie Williams
 
2012-10-03 06:43:52 PM

Rex_Banner: Dafatone: Also, 2nd in the AL in WAR is Robinson Cano.

How the fark does Cano mash the ball for the YANKEES every year and go under the radar?

He's the new Bernie Williams


When can we expect his CD full of him playing guitar while singing ballads?

FOLLOW UP QUESTION: Will Rubby de la Rosa counter with a CD full of covers of decent rock songs?
 
2012-10-03 06:45:02 PM

DeWayne Mann: Dafatone: Also, 2nd in the AL in WAR is Robinson Cano.

How the fark does Cano mash the ball for the YANKEES every year and go under the radar?

Cano is actually an UZR vampire. If he didn't exist, UZR would say that Jeter was the greatest defensive SS in the league.

But Cano steals all the UZRs from him. So he is, quite literally, the anti-Yankee.


Cano is too lazy to steal the UZRs. Brett Gardner actually steals the UZRs from everyone
 
2012-10-03 06:46:03 PM

Rex_Banner: Cano is too lazy to steal the UZRs. Brett Gardner actually steals the UZRs from everyone


Let me tell you a story about Brett Gardner.

If Brett Gardner hadn't gotten injured this year, I wouldn't've picked up Mike Trout in my keeper fantasy league.

BRETT GARDNER MVP
 
2012-10-03 06:50:07 PM

roc6783: Brett Wallace is the MVP next year since he is solely responsible for the Astros no longer being the laughing stock of the NL Central. Thank Killer Car's cat, we got that cleared up.


Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Let me explain. No, let me sum up:

The triple crown is a rare and historically significant achievement. You may disagree. You may say that the underlying stats are outdated and inaccurate and just modified cricket stats. That's fine. It doesn't change the fact that the triple crown is both rare and historically significant.

Nobody has accomplished this feat in 45 years.

Cabrera will win the triple crown. It's all but certain now.

Based on his achievement of that rare and historically significant milestone, he should win the MVP. The asinine examples like the one I quoted above are not relevant because they are not historically significant.

Based on the past voting history of the MVP, rare and historical feats like this tend to be large factors in MVP voting.

Thus, he should win. History and tradition still mean something.
 
2012-10-03 06:52:07 PM
random fun fact i found from jonah keri at grantland:

Even though he's chasing the Triple Crown, Cabrera is actually having his worst offensive season in three years. It's true, and we can measure it without using a stat nearly as intricate as WAR to do it. Check out Cabrera's last three years using the simple combination of batting average, on-base percentage, and slugging average:

2010: .328/.420/.622
2011: .344/.448/.586
2012: .325/.390/.601

Lowest batting average and lowest OBP in those three years, with a slugging average that trails 2010's mark. Even after adjusting for offensive levels coming down a bit in the past couple years, Cabrera's still been a less useful offensive player in 2012 than he was in 2010 or 2011. This is the real problem with fixating on Triple Crown stats: They ignore so many other things a player can do to help a team offensively, and that's before we even touch all the elements that have nothing to do with pure hitting.
 
2012-10-03 06:53:54 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: Let me explain. No, let me sum up:


You've said absolutely nothing new here. How do you think we'll respond?

A Fark Handle: random fun fact i found from jonah keri at grantland:

Even though he's chasing the Triple Crown, Cabrera is actually having his worst offensive season in three years. It's true, and we can measure it without using a stat nearly as intricate as WAR to do it. Check out Cabrera's last three years using the simple combination of batting average, on-base percentage, and slugging average:

2010: .328/.420/.622
2011: .344/.448/.586
2012: .325/.390/.601

Lowest batting average and lowest OBP in those three years, with a slugging average that trails 2010's mark. Even after adjusting for offensive levels coming down a bit in the past couple years, Cabrera's still been a less useful offensive player in 2012 than he was in 2010 or 2011. This is the real problem with fixating on Triple Crown stats: They ignore so many other things a player can do to help a team offensively, and that's before we even touch all the elements that have nothing to do with pure hitting.


Oh yeah, I talked about that a lot in last night's thread. There's actually a decent argument that Prince Fielder is at least partially responsible for the drop off.
 
2012-10-03 06:56:30 PM
Mike Trout got his 5th caught stealing today.

That swings it. MVP Cabrera!
 
2012-10-03 07:04:14 PM

Dafatone: Mike Trout got his 5th caught stealing today.

That swings it. MVP Cabrera!


Montero threw out Trout? Well... now I'm all upside down on the subject
 
2012-10-03 07:08:26 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: roc6783: Brett Wallace is the MVP next year since he is solely responsible for the Astros no longer being the laughing stock of the NL Central. Thank Killer Car's cat, we got that cleared up.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Let me explain. No, let me sum up:

The triple crown is a rare and historically significant achievement. You may disagree. You may say that the underlying stats are outdated and inaccurate and just modified cricket stats. That's fine. It doesn't change the fact that the triple crown is both rare and historically significant.

Nobody has accomplished this feat in 45 years.

Cabrera will win the triple crown. It's all but certain now.

Based on his achievement of that rare and historically significant milestone, he should win the MVP. The asinine examples like the one I quoted above are not relevant because they are not historically significant.

Based on the past voting history of the MVP, rare and historical feats like this tend to be large factors in MVP voting.

Thus, he should win. History and tradition still mean something.


Trout has achieved the equally rare: having a better season than the triple crown winner. Thus, Trout should be the MVP. Being better at baseball still means something
 
2012-10-03 07:09:46 PM

Rex_Banner: Being better at baseball still means something


Explain David Eckstein, then.

I'm serious. What is he? Some sort of albino Martian?
 
2012-10-03 07:10:18 PM
Again?
 
2012-10-03 07:11:07 PM

professorkowalski: Again?


Nope. It's a hallucination.
 
2012-10-03 07:13:56 PM

DeWayne Mann: FreakinB: My bias means I'd love to see Wright but I know that nobody's going to vote for an MVP

Short version:

In terms of hitting, compare Wright & Headley. Headley wins, even if we DON'T adjust for PETCO.

They play the same position, so no problem there.

Neither is a particularly great baserunner; fangraphs has Wright as like 3 runs better.

Which leaves us with defense. UZR has Wright at 15, Headley at 6. But Wright has had three straight seasons of -10 UZRs. In fact, this is his 3rd positive UZR year in his career, and it's 2 to 3 times better than the other two. His career UZR/150 including this year is -1.7. Headley bounces around a LOT, but his career UZR/150 is 6.9...right in light with this year.

If Wright's UZR is just SLIGHTLY high, Headley's the clear winner between them, yeah? And I've got Headley like, I dunno, 4? on my ballot.

Plus, Headley leads the league in RBI making him at least 33% MVP.


Wright's actually improved on defense this year. Mechanical thing. Previous coaches wanted him to worry about his arm angle when throwing to first, since his biggest issue is throwing the ball away. This year's infield coach said "screw the arm angle. Make sure your footwork is good" and he's thrown fewer balls away.

Also, last year he had a broken back. Really. His back was broken.
 
2012-10-03 07:15:13 PM
I want the Yankees to win, but I need Kuroda to fall apart for fantasy purposes.

Need > Wants. Go sox,

Ugh.
 
2012-10-03 07:16:00 PM

DeWayne Mann: Rex_Banner: Being better at baseball still means something

Explain David Eckstein, then.

I'm serious. What is he? Some sort of albino Martian?


David Eckstein is your great grandma
 
2012-10-03 07:16:51 PM

Dafatone: DeWayne Mann: FreakinB: My bias means I'd love to see Wright but I know that nobody's going to vote for an MVP

Short version:

In terms of hitting, compare Wright & Headley. Headley wins, even if we DON'T adjust for PETCO.

They play the same position, so no problem there.

Neither is a particularly great baserunner; fangraphs has Wright as like 3 runs better.

Which leaves us with defense. UZR has Wright at 15, Headley at 6. But Wright has had three straight seasons of -10 UZRs. In fact, this is his 3rd positive UZR year in his career, and it's 2 to 3 times better than the other two. His career UZR/150 including this year is -1.7. Headley bounces around a LOT, but his career UZR/150 is 6.9...right in light with this year.

If Wright's UZR is just SLIGHTLY high, Headley's the clear winner between them, yeah? And I've got Headley like, I dunno, 4? on my ballot.

Plus, Headley leads the league in RBI making him at least 33% MVP.

Wright's actually improved on defense this year. Mechanical thing. Previous coaches wanted him to worry about his arm angle when throwing to first, since his biggest issue is throwing the ball away. This year's infield coach said "screw the arm angle. Make sure your footwork is good" and he's thrown fewer balls away.

Also, last year he had a broken back. Really. His back was broken.


David Wright is Batman, isn't he......
 
2012-10-03 07:18:30 PM

Dafatone: Wright's actually improved on defense this year. Mechanical thing. Previous coaches wanted him to worry about his arm angle when throwing to first, since his biggest issue is throwing the ball away. This year's infield coach said "screw the arm angle. Make sure your footwork is good" and he's thrown fewer balls away.


Oh, I'm not saying he's definitely definitely definitely a below average fielder this year. I've seen like two Mets games; how in the world would I know?

But say his UZR was 8. Still higher than he's ever had. By my back of the envelope calculation, Headley now wins in fWAR. It is, of course, close, but that's ok. There's a lot of closeness around there.
 
2012-10-03 07:18:35 PM

DeWayne Mann: ignatius_crumbcake: Let me explain. No, let me sum up:

You've said absolutely nothing new here. How do you think we'll respond?


Well yes, summing up implies that nothing new will be said. Nice catch. I don't care how anyone responds but thus far only FreakinB has responded to points I actually made and not ones I am imagined to have made. The past voting history for MVP would seem to have some logical bearing on the factors considered for the award, and rare and historically significant events have been rewarded before. Often even over the best statistical player. Thus, I can logically conclude that winning a rare and historically significant award is a rational basis for awarding the MVP.

But by all means, keep debating who should win the Statistically Best Player Award. I hear the winner gets a Bill James autographed slide ruler.
 
2012-10-03 07:19:36 PM

Rex_Banner: David Eckstein is your great grandma


That's not even possible.

David Eckstein is a BOY. BOYS can't be grandmas.

Silly.

Rex_Banner: David Wright is Batman, isn't he......


Ok, David Wright MVP. You've convinced me.
 
2012-10-03 07:21:19 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: Well yes, summing up implies that nothing new will be said. Nice catch. I don't care how anyone responds but thus far only FreakinB has responded to points I actually made and not ones I am imagined to have made. The past voting history for MVP would seem to have some logical bearing on the factors considered for the award, and rare and historically significant events have been rewarded before. Often even over the best statistical player. Thus, I can logically conclude that winning a rare and historically significant award is a rational basis for awarding the MVP.

But by all means, keep debating who should win the Statistically Best Player Award. I hear the winner gets a Bill James autographed slide ruler.


Trust me. We all UNDERSTAND your position.

Similarly, I completely understand the homeless guy around the corner who keeps warning me about the crab people. He tells me every day. I get it.

But for some reason, I'm still not convinced. Weird.
 
2012-10-03 07:21:47 PM

Dafatone: Mike Trout got his 5th caught stealing today.

That swings it. MVP Cabrera!


Hold on now...if Mig hits a screaming one hopper to 2nd and makes a DP then it will be as tight as ever!

So Einsteinbrenner grabbed Trout on his fantasy team. That answers a few questions actually.

Don't worry fellas...i'm not here to poke holes in your "logic"...AGAIN! Just killing time before I head out to live my life. A "life" is a....never mind, you wouldn't understand that either.

I give you this one to chew on for a bit...

Trout's D gets overlooked because baseball is played to be enjoyed. There are literally thousands of people that can do what he does in CF. There is no one right now who can do what Mig does at the plate. People like hits and homers because they are things that happen..they are witnessed in "reality" (I won't go into detail on reality assuming you can google it if you get lost). SM's is nothing more than a representation of that reality. One might ask if one would rather have sex or watch porn and pretend to have sex...however, with this group...?!?

SM makes more leaps in logic than the avg fans cares for. Wins Above Replacement represents a fictitious situation...etc.

That should keep you loners busy for a while.

Ummm....YOU'RE WELCOME!!!
 
2012-10-03 07:24:31 PM

JohnnyCanuck: There are literally thousands of people that can do what he does in CF.


He's robbed like 5 HRs. I assume every other CF has at least that many this year, right?

JohnnyCanuck: There is no one right now who can do what Mig does at the plate.


Except for Mike Trout.
 
2012-10-03 07:26:52 PM
Does anyone else read Johnny's posts in the voice of that kid from "You Only Move Twice"? It makes them more comical

/"I moved here from Canada and they think I'm slow, eh"
 
2012-10-03 07:30:15 PM

Rex_Banner: Does anyone else read Johnny's posts in the voice of that kid from "You Only Move Twice"? It makes them more comical

/"I moved here from Canada and they think I'm slow, eh"


I basically just picture Trailer Park Boys.

The whole show.

DeWayne Mann: He's robbed like 5 HRs.


Turns out he only had 4 HR robs. God he's so bad at defense.
 
2012-10-03 07:30:58 PM

JohnnyCanuck: Dafatone: Mike Trout got his 5th caught stealing today.

That swings it. MVP Cabrera!

Hold on now...if Mig hits a screaming one hopper to 2nd and makes a DP then it will be as tight as ever!

So Einsteinbrenner grabbed Trout on his fantasy team. That answers a few questions actually.

Don't worry fellas...i'm not here to poke holes in your "logic"...AGAIN! Just killing time before I head out to live my life. A "life" is a....never mind, you wouldn't understand that either.

I give you this one to chew on for a bit...

Trout's D gets overlooked because baseball is played to be enjoyed. There are literally thousands of people that can do what he does in CF. There is no one right now who can do what Mig does at the plate. People like hits and homers because they are things that happen..they are witnessed in "reality" (I won't go into detail on reality assuming you can google it if you get lost). SM's is nothing more than a representation of that reality. One might ask if one would rather have sex or watch porn and pretend to have sex...however, with this group...?!?

SM makes more leaps in logic than the avg fans cares for. Wins Above Replacement represents a fictitious situation...etc.

That should keep you loners busy for a while.

Ummm....YOU'RE WELCOME!!!


I swear to god dude, you're not helping.
 
2012-10-03 07:31:13 PM

JohnnyCanuck: There is no one right now who can do what Mig does at the plate.


except miggy last year and the year before did it better, but no one was screaming for him to win the mvp then...
 
2012-10-03 07:32:36 PM

A Fark Handle: JohnnyCanuck: There is no one right now who can do what Mig does at the plate.

except miggy last year and the year before did it better, but no one was screaming for him to win the mvp then...


Personally, I blame the time traveling racists.
 
2012-10-03 07:45:54 PM

DeWayne Mann: Rex_Banner: Does anyone else read Johnny's posts in the voice of that kid from "You Only Move Twice"? It makes them more comical

/"I moved here from Canada and they think I'm slow, eh"

I basically just picture Trailer Park Boys.

The whole show.

DeWayne Mann: He's robbed like 5 HRs.

Turns out he only had 4 HR robs. God he's so bad at defense.


My grandpa told me that he saw Joe Pepitone rob 10 HR one year. So this isn't impressive
 
2012-10-03 07:46:45 PM

A Fark Handle: JohnnyCanuck: There is no one right now who can do what Mig does at the plate.

except miggy last year and the year before did it better, but no one was screaming for him to win the mvp then...


That's just not true. He finished 4th in 2009, 2nd in 2010, and 5th in 2011. He has a MVP case each year. The only reason the screams weren't louder last year is that Verlander was up for it too.
 
2012-10-03 07:47:07 PM
No, but, seriously. That guy's got some pretty logical arguments about the crab people.

Did you all know the crab people haven't invaded the surface in over 50 years? They've gotta be due. 

And when was the last time you saw Obama eat a crab on live TV? That's because he's a secret crab person. His real birth certificate says so.
 
2012-10-03 07:49:46 PM

Rex_Banner: My grandpa told me that he saw Joe Pepitone rob 10 HR one year. So this isn't impressive


My grandmother actually released a guy one year because he only robbed 7.

ignatius_crumbcake: He finished 4th in 2009, 2nd in 2010, and 5th in 2011.


So just so we're clear:

in 2012, he'shiat worse than in 2010 and 2011. His entire MVP case is based on offense.

LOGICALLY, he should get more MVP votes.

Got it.
 
2012-10-03 07:53:15 PM

DeWayne Mann: Rex_Banner: Does anyone else read Johnny's posts in the voice of that kid from "You Only Move Twice"? It makes them more comical

/"I moved here from Canada and they think I'm slow, eh"

I basically just picture Trailer Park Boys.

The whole show.

DeWayne Mann: He's robbed like 5 HRs.

Turns out he only had 4 HR robs. God he's so bad at defense.


My grandpa told me that he once saw Joe Pepitone rob 10 HR in one season. That means that Cabby is automatically the MVP and Trout is president.
 
2012-10-03 07:54:54 PM
fark what the hell happened? I hit refresh like 10 times and nothing showed up so I added the comment again and now I look like a dumbass
 
2012-10-03 07:55:06 PM

Rex_Banner: My grandpa told me that he once saw Joe Pepitone rob 10 HR in one season. That means that Cabby is automatically the MVP and Trout is president.


I ALREADY HEARD THAT STORY
 
2012-10-03 07:55:42 PM

Rex_Banner: now I look like a dumbass


HEY! That's my job.
 
2012-10-03 07:56:37 PM

DeWayne Mann: Rex_Banner: My grandpa told me that he saw Joe Pepitone rob 10 HR one year. So this isn't impressive

My grandmother actually released a guy one year because he only robbed 7.

ignatius_crumbcake: He finished 4th in 2009, 2nd in 2010, and 5th in 2011.

So just so we're clear:

in 2012, he'shiat worse than in 2010 and 2011. His entire MVP case is based on offense.

LOGICALLY, he should get more MVP votes.

Got it.


I love how you respond to not what I said, but what you think I said. Oh, and your crab people line is a great example of Aristotelian logic. You would be a true scholar in the Middle Ages. Unfortunately your logic hasn't been used in a few hundred years.
 
2012-10-03 07:57:55 PM
I swear to god dude, you're not helping.

I swear to god...i'm not tryin' to. :-)

There is no helping these people. Basically I want a Fark headline tomorrow to read "Mentally challenged IT loner goes on rampage yelling something about his grandmother and fish!"

These douchebags are just here trolling. I'm just giving them what they want.

So i'll add this...

Trout catches 4 deep fly balls?!? WOW....someone give that guy a trophy! Not to mention his historic 129 run, 30 HR, 49 SB season! We've been looking for that accomplishment!
 
2012-10-03 07:58:09 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: Unfortunately your logic hasn't been used in a few hundred years.


Your logic, on the other hand, has been used

well, by you. That's about it.
 
2012-10-03 07:58:27 PM

DeWayne Mann: Rex_Banner: My grandpa told me that he saw Joe Pepitone rob 10 HR one year. So this isn't impressive

My grandmother actually released a guy one year because he only robbed 7.

ignatius_crumbcake: He finished 4th in 2009, 2nd in 2010, and 5th in 2011.

So just so we're clear:

in 2012, he'shiat worse than in 2010 and 2011. His entire MVP case is based on offense.

LOGICALLY, he should get more MVP votes.

Got it.


What is the overall scene for all of baseball. I would bet that overwhelmingly more players are not hitting as well as they did in the past.

In fact let me show you

2008 average runs scored per team: 753
2009 average runs scored per team: 747
2010 average runs scored per team: 710
2011 average runs scored per team: 694
2012 average runs scored per team: 697

An ever so slight edge this year. You go down 56 runs per team will make the overall production of runs go down for everyone.

I will wait for you to tell me that I am wrong.
 
2012-10-03 08:01:48 PM

great_tigers: DeWayne Mann: Rex_Banner: My grandpa told me that he saw Joe Pepitone rob 10 HR one year. So this isn't impressive

My grandmother actually released a guy one year because he only robbed 7.

ignatius_crumbcake: He finished 4th in 2009, 2nd in 2010, and 5th in 2011.

So just so we're clear:

in 2012, he'shiat worse than in 2010 and 2011. His entire MVP case is based on offense.

LOGICALLY, he should get more MVP votes.

Got it.

What is the overall scene for all of baseball. I would bet that overwhelmingly more players are not hitting as well as they did in the past.

In fact let me show you

2008 average runs scored per team: 753
2009 average runs scored per team: 747
2010 average runs scored per team: 710
2011 average runs scored per team: 694
2012 average runs scored per team: 697

An ever so slight edge this year. You go down 56 runs per team will make the overall production of runs go down for everyone.

I will wait for you to tell me that I am wrong.


His OPS+ is down. OPS+ adjusts for offensive environment. So he is slightly worse than the last two years
 
2012-10-03 08:02:08 PM

DeWayne Mann: ignatius_crumbcake: Unfortunately your logic hasn't been used in a few hundred years.

Your logic, on the other hand, has been used

well, by you. That's about it.


Me and the majority of baseball writers who will write a 1 next to Miguel Cabrera's name on their MVP ballots.
 
2012-10-03 08:03:13 PM

great_tigers: . I would bet that overwhelmingly more players are not hitting as well as they did in the past.


great_tigers: I will wait for you to tell me that I am wrong.


Well, you are and you aren't.

It's true that offense has been slightly down (though as you just showed, over the last three years, not much).

This is why folks like me tend to use stats that are adjusted not just for park, but for era. OPS+ and wRC+ are both examples of this.

Cabrera's OPS+, by year

2010: 178 (led the league)
2011: 179 (Bautista led the league at 182)
2012: 167 (trout leads the league at 169)
 
2012-10-03 08:04:10 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: Me and the majority of baseball writers who will write a 1 next to Miguel Cabrera's name on their MVP ballots.


See, here's the thing:

I don't think they think they're being logical. I don't think they give a crap about logic.

You, on the other hand, think that logical conclusions are opinions.
 
2012-10-03 08:05:00 PM

Rex_Banner: great_tigers: DeWayne Mann: Rex_Banner: My grandpa told me that he saw Joe Pepitone rob 10 HR one year. So this isn't impressive

My grandmother actually released a guy one year because he only robbed 7.

ignatius_crumbcake: He finished 4th in 2009, 2nd in 2010, and 5th in 2011.

So just so we're clear:

in 2012, he'shiat worse than in 2010 and 2011. His entire MVP case is based on offense.

LOGICALLY, he should get more MVP votes.

Got it.

What is the overall scene for all of baseball. I would bet that overwhelmingly more players are not hitting as well as they did in the past.

In fact let me show you

2008 average runs scored per team: 753
2009 average runs scored per team: 747
2010 average runs scored per team: 710
2011 average runs scored per team: 694
2012 average runs scored per team: 697

An ever so slight edge this year. You go down 56 runs per team will make the overall production of runs go down for everyone.

I will wait for you to tell me that I am wrong.

His OPS+ is down. OPS+ adjusts for offensive environment. So he is slightly worse than the last two years


Isn't everyone's overall production down the last three years?
 
2012-10-03 08:06:50 PM

great_tigers: Isn't everyone's overall production down the last three years?


By OPS+, no.

The OPS+ of the majors is 100 this year. Last year, it was 100. In 1968, it was 100. In 1927, it was 100.

There's a pattern cleverly hidden there.
 
2012-10-03 08:10:19 PM

DeWayne Mann: great_tigers: Isn't everyone's overall production down the last three years?

By OPS+, no.

The OPS+ of the majors is 100 this year. Last year, it was 100. In 1968, it was 100. In 1927, it was 100.

There's a pattern cleverly hidden there.


I know you have expla

ined what OPS+ is. I apologize, I really didn't break it down. I didn't know it equated entire league as 100.

Is OPS+ the be all end all for production and value of a player?
 
2012-10-03 08:12:54 PM

great_tigers: Is OPS+ the be all end all for production and value of a player?


No. OPS, by itself, is sort of a quick estimate, and so, therefore, OPS+ is too.

wOBA, on the other hand, is essentially the best "general" offense stat we have, though. wRC+ takes wOBA and treats it like OPS+, resulting in a similar stat.

His wRC+ is down too; I just grabbed OPS+ instead because fangraphs is loading slower than b-r today.
 
2012-10-03 08:13:10 PM

JohnnyCanuck: Trout's D gets overlooked because baseball is played to be enjoyed. There are literally thousands of people that can do what he does in CF


And how many of those thousands that could do hs job in the field can put up offensive numbers comparable to Miguel Cabrera? At the moment, it appears only Mike Trout can do that.
 
2012-10-03 08:14:14 PM

DeWayne Mann: ignatius_crumbcake: Me and the majority of baseball writers who will write a 1 next to Miguel Cabrera's name on their MVP ballots.

See, here's the thing:

I don't think they think they're being logical. I don't think they give a crap about logic.

You, on the other hand, think that logical conclusions are opinions.


No, you don't think they give a crap about stats. Logic does not necessarily depend on stats, even in baseball. Since nowhere in the rules does it say that the MVP award is to be based on stats, and historically is has not been based on stats, then there must be some other criteria for awarding it. I showed you a perfectly logical rational for awarding the MVP to Cabrera. You are free to disagree, but you can't say there is no reason to give him the award.

But now the Tigers game is starting, so I'm gonna go watch Cabby lock down the MVP.
 
2012-10-03 08:14:16 PM

DeWayne Mann: great_tigers: Is OPS+ the be all end all for production and value of a player?

No. OPS, by itself, is sort of a quick estimate, and so, therefore, OPS+ is too.

wOBA, on the other hand, is essentially the best "general" offense stat we have, though. wRC+ takes wOBA and treats it like OPS+, resulting in a similar stat.

His wRC+ is down too; I just grabbed OPS+ instead because fangraphs is loading slower than b-r today.


Oops, forgot to mention something.

wRC+ includes steals & caught stealings. So if you JUST care about what someone does at the plate, you're probably better off with OPS+, even though it's slightly less good.
 
2012-10-03 08:15:18 PM

DeWayne Mann: great_tigers: Is OPS+ the be all end all for production and value of a player?

No. OPS, by itself, is sort of a quick estimate, and so, therefore, OPS+ is too.

wOBA, on the other hand, is essentially the best "general" offense stat we have, though. wRC+ takes wOBA and treats it like OPS+, resulting in a similar stat.

His wRC+ is down too; I just grabbed OPS+ instead because fangraphs is loading slower than b-r today.


So with Miggy's 1.001 OPS being higher than .961 Trouts a bad thing? Less valuable may be?
 
2012-10-03 08:16:42 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: No, you don't think they give a crap about stats.


I think both. But thanks for telling me what I think now!

ignatius_crumbcake: I showed you a perfectly logical rational


No. You didn't. This would be the issue.

You showed us a rationale dependent on subjective criteria, opinions (that you ADMIT are opinions) and ignoring other facts that don't help your cause. You just called it logic, because

I don't know why you called it logic. Either you actually think that logic includes opinions, or you just wanted to look cool, or...again, I don't know, and I'm not the guy who says what other people think.
 
2012-10-03 08:18:56 PM

great_tigers: So with Miggy's 1.001 OPS being higher than .961 Trouts a bad thing? Less valuable may be?


Comerica park is more hitter friendly than Angel Stadium. For a somewhat simplistic breakdown, if a team would score 101 runs at Marlins Stadium (which is the closest park to neutral), that same team would score 106 runs at Comerica and 81 runs at Angel Stadium.

So OPS+ & wRC+ adjust for that too. Otherwise, Todd Helton would win in OPS+ like every year, and the Padres would be screwed.
 
2012-10-03 08:19:33 PM

DeWayne Mann: DeWayne Mann: great_tigers: Is OPS+ the be all end all for production and value of a player?

No. OPS, by itself, is sort of a quick estimate, and so, therefore, OPS+ is too.

wOBA, on the other hand, is essentially the best "general" offense stat we have, though. wRC+ takes wOBA and treats it like OPS+, resulting in a similar stat.

His wRC+ is down too; I just grabbed OPS+ instead because fangraphs is loading slower than b-r today.

Oops, forgot to mention something.

wRC+ includes steals & caught stealings. So if you JUST care about what someone does at the plate, you're probably better off with OPS+, even though it's slightly less good.


OPS = On base percentage + slugging
OPS+ is OPS compared to league average (so, 110 would be 10% better than league average) with an adjustment for ballpark effect.

The big flaw in OPS is that a point of on base percentage is a bigger deal than a point of slugging. It's still a pretty solid basic stat.
 
2012-10-03 08:21:22 PM

Dafatone: OPS = On base percentage + slugging
OPS+ is OPS compared to league average (so, 110 would be 10% better than league average) with an adjustment for ballpark effect.

The big flaw in OPS is that a point of on base percentage is a bigger deal than a point of slugging. It's still a pretty solid basic stat.


It turns out that OPS+ tends to be really, really close to wRC+ when you remove the SB component.

Not bad for something that was basically slapped together with paste & duct tape.
 
2012-10-03 08:21:22 PM

DeWayne Mann: great_tigers: So with Miggy's 1.001 OPS being higher than .961 Trouts a bad thing? Less valuable may be?

Comerica park is more hitter friendly than Angel Stadium. For a somewhat simplistic breakdown, if a team would score 101 runs at Marlins Stadium (which is the closest park to neutral), that same team would score 106 runs at Comerica and 81 runs at Angel Stadium.

So OPS+ & wRC+ adjust for that too. Otherwise, Todd Helton would win in OPS+ like every year, and the Padres would be screwed.


My mind is absolutely blown that Comerica is a more hitter friendly park than ANY other stadium.

What are the park rankings? Website would be suffice.
 
2012-10-03 08:24:16 PM

great_tigers: My mind is absolutely blown that Comerica is a more hitter friendly park than ANY other stadium.


Well, in comparison, that same team from before would score 157 runs at Coors. So Comerica is really, really close to neutral.

great_tigers: What are the park rankings? Website would be suffice.


You can find them by looking up a team at baseball reference, though, right now, I'm looking at this page:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor

Mostly because I had that page open so I could make fun of Jerry Remy on twitter.
 
2012-10-03 08:26:45 PM
Also, these park values, are they based upon dimensions and external factors such wind, altitude and overall climate? Or are they based upon overall numbers of runs scored in the park?

Wouldn't a better hitting team hit good in most parks rather than having the park as a factor?

I guess I am saying, Yankees would hit good at Yankee Stadium and Wrigley. Does the park get a rating based upon the value of the team on the field?

DeWayne, I gave you plenty of snark two nights ago. I am honestly trying to pick your brain.
 
2012-10-03 08:26:51 PM

great_tigers: DeWayne Mann: great_tigers: So with Miggy's 1.001 OPS being higher than .961 Trouts a bad thing? Less valuable may be?

Comerica park is more hitter friendly than Angel Stadium. For a somewhat simplistic breakdown, if a team would score 101 runs at Marlins Stadium (which is the closest park to neutral), that same team would score 106 runs at Comerica and 81 runs at Angel Stadium.

So OPS+ & wRC+ adjust for that too. Otherwise, Todd Helton would win in OPS+ like every year, and the Padres would be screwed.

My mind is absolutely blown that Comerica is a more hitter friendly park than ANY other stadium.

What are the park rankings? Website would be suffice.


Link

Comerica's dimensions are pretty large, so it's a little surprising why it's such a hitter's park. Looking at it, I'll say the fences are pretty low, and right field is pretty short, not necessarily down the line but from right to right center.

Very deep in center (like old Tiger Stadium, but not as much) and pretty deep to left center, though straight left isn't too bad.
 
2012-10-03 08:28:01 PM

DeWayne Mann: You can find them by looking up a team at baseball reference, though, right now, I'm looking at this page:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor

Mostly because I had that page open so I could make fun of Jerry Remy on twitter.


Oh, and it's worth noting that baseball reference's park factors have the two teams much closer together, and that that's what they use to calculate OPS+ (not the ESPN ones)
 
2012-10-03 08:31:23 PM

great_tigers: DeWayne, I gave you plenty of snark two nights ago. I am honestly trying to pick your brain.


Giving me snark is fully and completely acceptable. If I couldn't take it, I wouldn't dish it out.

great_tigers: Also, these park values, are they based upon dimensions and external factors such wind, altitude and overall climate? Or are they based upon overall numbers of runs scored in the park?

Wouldn't a better hitting team hit good in most parks rather than having the park as a factor?

I guess I am saying, Yankees would hit good at Yankee Stadium and Wrigley. Does the park get a rating based upon the value of the team on the field?


There are a couple of different methodologies, which is why, for instance, bref & espn differ. Both sites explain what they do, so that's honestly a better place to check first than having me try to interpret it.

But if you want to see park factors at work, check out guys who are traded midseason. Alex Gonzalez going from the Blue Jays to the Braves a few years back was a good one.

Dafatone: Comerica's dimensions are pretty large,


I was saving this for a thread about SAFECO moving the fences in, but short version: it's really hard to tell a field's factors from dimensions, even if you know fence height.
 
2012-10-03 08:32:50 PM
Wait... espn's park factor page has park factors for WALKS? And some stadiums have a significant weighting for or against walks?

The two worst parks are Wrigley and US Cellular. Guess "windy city" is right.
 
2012-10-03 08:34:56 PM

Dafatone: Wait... espn's park factor page has park factors for WALKS? And some stadiums have a significant weighting for or against walks?

The two worst parks are Wrigley and US Cellular. Guess "windy city" is right.


Mostly related to the batter's eye.

There was an article that I want to say was on fangraphs, but maybe it was on sbnation...I dunno, my brain is fried. Anyway, it was a few weeks ago, and all about Jared Weaver & the Anaheim batter's eye. That should be enough that you can google it.

Worth a read.
 
2012-10-03 08:35:12 PM

DeWayne Mann: Dafatone: Comerica's dimensions are pretty large,

I was saving this for a thread about SAFECO moving the fences in, but short version: it's really hard to tell a field's factors from dimensions, even if you know fence height.


Very true. Everyone yelled about the Marlins' old park being cavernous, and the new park being more cavernous with hilariously large walls. Now, new park does have a very low HR factor, but it turns out the ball travels better through humid air than dry air (humidity "feels" heavy, but it's lighter) and better through hot air than cold.

The old park was a launching pad, and this one's decent to hit in.
 
2012-10-03 08:37:00 PM

DeWayne Mann: There was an article that I want to say was on fangraphs, but maybe it was on sbnation


As with most things, the correct answer is both.

http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/3/21/2889028/jered-weaver-angels-stats but then fangraphs talks about it a bit here: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/jered-weavers-favorite-rockp i le/
 
2012-10-03 08:37:58 PM

DeWayne Mann: great_tigers: DeWayne,\

great_tigers: Also, these park values, are they based upon dimensions and external factors such wind, altitude and overall climate? Or are they based upon overall numbers of runs scored in the park?

Wouldn't a better hitting team hit good in most parks rather than having the park as a factor?

I guess I am saying, Yankees would hit good at Yankee Stadium and Wrigley. Does the park get a rating based upon the value of the team on the field?

There are a couple of different methodologies, which is why, for instance, bref & espn differ. Both sites explain what they do, so that's honestly a better place to check first than having me try to interpret it.

But if you want to see park factors at work, check out guys who are traded midseason. Alex Gonzalez going from the Blue Jays to the Braves a few years back was a good one.
.


So from what I gather is that overall the park is based upon overall hitting statistics, not so much the difficulty of which to hit in the park. It does not seem to take into account the number of other factors, such as quality of pitchers. If you had the Rockies pitching staff in Safeco and vice versa I would bet that Colorado would be a lower park factor and Seattle would be higher.

I guess I have a problem with putting a value of a hitter, based partially on perception and partially on the overall production of pitchers on his own team.
 
2012-10-03 08:39:08 PM

Dafatone: Wait... espn's park factor page has park factors for WALKS? And some stadiums have a significant weighting for or against walks?

The two worst parks are Wrigley and US Cellular. Guess "windy city" is right.


Would the ability to hit foul balls weigh it some? More foul balls, more pitchs, fewer fly balls?
 
2012-10-03 08:39:15 PM

Dafatone: Very true. Everyone yelled about the Marlins' old park being cavernous, and the new park being more cavernous with hilariously large walls. Now, new park does have a very low HR factor, but it turns out the ball travels better through humid air than dry air (humidity "feels" heavy, but it's lighter) and better through hot air than cold.

The old park was a launching pad, and this one's decent to hit in.


And it's not even just that. Pretend we had a field where the dimensions were the Polo Grounds center field wall, but all around.

How many doubles & triples are going to be let up there?

Now pretend we had something like the green monster surrounding the park. A ground ball through the infield is going to be an out if it's to right.
 
2012-10-03 08:41:48 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: roc6783: Brett Wallace is the MVP next year since he is solely responsible for the Astros no longer being the laughing stock of the NL Central. Thank Killer Car's cat, we got that cleared up.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Let me explain. No, let me sum up:

The triple crown is a rare and historically significant achievement. You may disagree. You may say that the underlying stats are outdated and inaccurate and just modified cricket stats. That's fine. It doesn't change the fact that the triple crown is both rare and historically significant.

Nobody has accomplished this feat in 45 years.

Cabrera will win the triple crown. It's all but certain now.

Based on his achievement of that rare and historically significant milestone, he should win the MVP. The asinine examples like the one I quoted above are not relevant because they are not historically significant.

Based on the past voting history of the MVP, rare and historical feats like this tend to be large factors in MVP voting.

Thus, he should win. History and tradition still mean something.


Mark McGwire reached a rare and historically significant milestone with 70 homers, but didn't win the MVP. Drew Brees reached a rare and historically significant milestone by setting the all-time passing record, but didn't win the MVP. Why didn't they win the MVP? Because there were others who didn't quite reach the same level, but had other aspects of their games that were deemed superior. It happens.
 
2012-10-03 08:42:25 PM

great_tigers: So from what I gather is that overall the park is based upon overall hitting statistics, not so much the difficulty of which to hit in the park. It does not seem to take into account the number of other factors, such as quality of pitchers. If you had the Rockies pitching staff in Safeco and vice versa I would bet that Colorado would be a lower park factor and Seattle would be higher.


No, the team based here doesn't affect it like that. They compare the team at home vs away.

The assumption is that if, as a team, you hit like Ted Williams at home and Ken Williams away...probably the field is involved. Especially if other teams do the exact same thing at your field.
 
2012-10-03 08:43:28 PM

Super Chronic: It happens.


Logically, no it doesn't.
 
2012-10-03 08:43:30 PM

DeWayne Mann: great_tigers: So from what I gather is that overall the park is based upon overall hitting statistics, not so much the difficulty of which to hit in the park. It does not seem to take into account the number of other factors, such as quality of pitchers. If you had the Rockies pitching staff in Safeco and vice versa I would bet that Colorado would be a lower park factor and Seattle would be higher.

No, the team based here doesn't affect it like that. They compare the team at home vs away.

The assumption is that if, as a team, you hit like Ted Williams at home and Ken Williams away...probably the field is involved. Especially if other teams do the exact same thing at your field.


Do the park factors change year to year?
 
2012-10-03 08:45:54 PM

great_tigers: Do the park factors change year to year?


Absolutely! Generally not drastically, but yes, they usually do.

Baseball reference provides "multi-year" factors which average 3 years together. OPS+ averages the current year & the previous year together, I believe.
 
2012-10-03 09:01:50 PM
And I feel I should note:

No, these adjustments are in no way perfect, nor do I see an obvious way to make them perfect (though, if they ever get released, Hit F/X & Field F/X might shed some light on the problem). This is why, for instance, even though Trout has a slightly better OPS+, I've got absolutely no problem if Miguel Cabrera wins the Hank Aaron Award for best offense.

But these adjustments are certainly better than not doing anything at all.
 
2012-10-03 09:03:26 PM
Also, I'm not saying anything, but there's a really dumb post that just popped up in last night's thread.

In case you're wondering, apparently, I think Trout should win MVP BECAUSE he has less than 85 RBI and more K than G.  Or something like that.
 
2012-10-03 09:37:24 PM
Good lord, today is nervewracking for fantasy ball. My league has quality starts as a stat, and every pitcher is going 5.
 
2012-10-03 09:43:38 PM
IMPORTANT UPDATE:

I've completely changed my mind. That homeless guy with the crab people TOTALLY convinced me about Miguel Cabrera. Here's what he had to say:

miguel cabrera have to be the mvp no cuestion to ask hands down is not way they take that away from him

Truly, he is wise.
 
2012-10-03 09:48:46 PM
So, uh....Granderson has 2 HR today, and is at 43 on the year.

MVP?
 
2012-10-03 09:52:57 PM

DeWayne Mann: So, uh....Granderson has 2 HR today, and is at 43 on the year.

MVP?


Evan Longoria has three. He's up to like, 16 on the year?

If the Rays had him all year, they'd make the playoffs easy. Obviously, he is the mvp.
 
2012-10-03 09:56:52 PM
I guess I can read through the debate thread now. The good thing about the Orioles losing is they at least get an off day now. The bad news is no Worst to first for them. :(
 
2012-10-03 09:58:44 PM

Dafatone: DeWayne Mann: So, uh....Granderson has 2 HR today, and is at 43 on the year.

MVP?

Evan Longoria has three. He's up to like, 16 on the year?

If the Rays had him all year, they'd make the playoffs easy. Obviously, he is the mvp.


Sounds like logic to me!
 
2012-10-03 09:59:42 PM

DeWayne Mann: So, uh....Granderson has 2 HR today, and is at 43 on the year.

MVP?


Good chance he gets another PA too. He'll have a chance to tie Cabby

Dafatone: Evan Longoria has three. He's up to like, 16 on the year?

If the Rays had him all year, they'd make the playoffs easy. Obviously, he is the mvp.


The Peyton Manning argument had to be good for something.....
 
2012-10-03 10:02:48 PM

Rex_Banner: Good chance he gets another PA too. He'll have a chance to tie Cabby


Uh, I think you're forgetting that Mauro Fricken Gomez is going to hit 3 grandslams in the top of the 9th. Luckily, Grandy will tie it up with a 2 run hr. Then it's on to extras!
 
2012-10-03 10:07:36 PM
......and Melky Mesa in to PH for Grandy. That ends that
 
2012-10-03 10:08:37 PM

DeWayne Mann: Rex_Banner: Good chance he gets another PA too. He'll have a chance to tie Cabby

Uh, I think you're forgetting that Mauro Fricken Gomez is going to hit 3 grandslams in the top of the 9th. Luckily, Grandy will tie it up with a 2 run hr. Then it's on to extras!


Nova is pitching the 9th?!?!
 
2012-10-03 10:13:32 PM

Rex_Banner: ......and Melky Mesa in to PH for Grandy. That ends that


Which just goes to show: Girardi hates fun
 
2012-10-03 11:00:26 PM

DeWayne Mann: So, uh....Granderson has 2 HR today, and is at 43 on the year.


P. E. D.
 
2012-10-03 11:16:33 PM

DeWayne Mann: Dafatone: DeWayne Mann: So, uh....Granderson has 2 HR today, and is at 43 on the year.

MVP?

Evan Longoria has three. He's up to like, 16 on the year?

If the Rays had him all year, they'd make the playoffs easy. Obviously, he is the mvp.

Sounds like logic to me!


Plus, games later in the season are more important. Evan Longoria's slash line in game 162's:

.471/.588/1.467!
 
2012-10-03 11:36:25 PM

scandalrag: DeWayne Mann: Dafatone: DeWayne Mann: So, uh....Granderson has 2 HR today, and is at 43 on the year.

MVP?

Evan Longoria has three. He's up to like, 16 on the year?

If the Rays had him all year, they'd make the playoffs easy. Obviously, he is the mvp.

Sounds like logic to me!

Plus, games later in the season are more important. Evan Longoria's slash line in game 162's:

.471/.588/1.467!


OH.

MY.

GOD.


Plus, that sketchy old guy who made me call him "Uncle" when I was kid told me that third base is THE most important & difficult defensive position in the game, and Longoria is quite good at that.

I think we're building a pretty dang good case here.
 
2012-10-03 11:39:05 PM
A NOT THIS shiat AGAIN EDITION Highlights of this thread (I am treating this thread as a continuation of yesterday's because it makes sense):

1) Mystique trolls
2) DeWayne Mann's Grandma was Branch Rickey
3) Stats are the end all be all of baseball, but they leave it a soulless husk
4) Mystique troll repentance
5) Mystique troll derp double down
6) Killer Cars' cat is remarkably well spoken
7) Crazy old guys have remarkable stories and fantastic drugs, also they lie, but in an endearing way
8) Small sample size matter when they support your argument, ignore them when they don't
9) You can't count my dreams, don't count anything
10) Count ALL THE THINGS
11) Dr. King's dream has almost come true, no matter your race, religion, creed, or gender, you are all equally racist
12) Winning the Triple Crown guarantees you the MVP, except when it doesn't, but it counts more now, even though it doesn't
13) Some actual games were played and the postseason is still not decided going into the final game of the regular season
14) Games were played, things happened look it up elsewhere
15) Honestly, very little new happened in this thread versus the old one...precedent
16) DeWayneville lost to Mannland in a one game playoff series
17) Typos are worthwhile stats for traditionally and sabermetrically
18) David Eckstein, what the fark is up with that guy?
19) Knowledge was dropped, and yet mystique remains
20) We are gonna miss you baseball, come back soon
 
2012-10-03 11:43:32 PM

roc6783: (I am treating this thread as a continuation of yesterday's because it makes sense):


hooray!

roc6783: 15) Honestly, very little new happened in this thread versus the old one...precedent


What about logic apparently meaning "a random fact + a slightly related opinion"?
 
2012-10-03 11:48:40 PM

DeWayne Mann: roc6783: (I am treating this thread as a continuation of yesterday's because it makes sense):

hooray!

roc6783: 15) Honestly, very little new happened in this thread versus the old one...precedent

What about logic apparently meaning "a random fact + a slightly related opinion"?


Your FTCPP* is higher than mine, hence, you are more deserving of the MVPoster, but I am the scrappiest clutcher that ever clutched a typo filled thread highlights list full of grinding, gaming, heart, and lunch pails. Logic is what's for dinner.

//*Funny Thread Comments Per Each Post
 
2012-10-03 11:51:03 PM

roc6783: I am the scrappiest clutcher


HOLD ON A SECOND.

...were you a punter in college? THIS IS CRUCIAL.
 
2012-10-04 12:27:12 AM
By the way, I missed this when it was posted yesterday, but it's well worth a read:

http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/10/3/3436510/american-league-mvp-miguel -c abrera-mike-trout
 
2012-10-04 10:03:34 AM

DeWayne Mann: roc6783: I am the scrappiest clutcher

HOLD ON A SECOND.

...were you a punter in college? THIS IS CRUCIAL.


Uhh...ya. I also taught Tim Tebow to love.
 
Displayed 321 of 321 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report