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.

(ESPN)   Miguel Cabrera joins Secretariat, Affirmed and Seattle Slew   (espn.go.com) divider line 203
    More: Spiffy, Miguel Cabrera, Seattle Slew, Affirmed, Triple Crowns, Nomar Garciaparra, Omar Infante, Carl Yastrzemski, Triple Crown winners  
•       •       •

1244 clicks; posted to Sports » on 04 Oct 2012 at 3:08 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-10-03 11:46:46 PM  
First Triple Crown since 1967 - 10th player in modern history.

Even more difficult if you are a right handed hitter ... less chance of beating out infield hits.
 
2012-10-03 11:49:25 PM  
He's been put out to pasture?
 
2012-10-03 11:50:31 PM  
I submitted this with a worse headline.
 
2012-10-03 11:57:42 PM  
I really like Mike Trout and was hoping he'd snag MVP, but goddamn, a Triple Crown.  Impressive.
 
2012-10-03 11:58:17 PM  
He's been retired to stud?
 
2012-10-04 12:32:06 AM  
Great achievement. He should be the MVP. If he doesn't win, it will be a travesty. First Triple Crown in 45 years!
 
2012-10-04 12:46:19 AM  
He's been gelded?
 
2012-10-04 01:20:09 AM  

slayer199: Great achievement. He should be the MVP. If he doesn't win, it will be a travesty. First Triple Crown in 45 years!


I agree he deserves MVP, and I feel confident he will get it. I am amused that this will be day 4(?) of those MVP bickering threads.
 
2012-10-04 03:21:15 AM  
This Red Sox fans' hat is off to Miguel Cabrera. Hell of a job.

Now got get that crown from Yaz, wouldja? His neck is really tired from wearing for 45 years.

/Veal. Waitress. All week.
 
2012-10-04 03:22:07 AM  
is that balco guy already out of prison and has he moved to detroit?
 
2012-10-04 03:44:09 AM  
MLB's post season bracket thingee is up. Deadline is 5 minutes before the WC games on Friday. A lot less detailed this year, only have to pick the winners, not in how many games.

Also, grats to Cabby. He's earned it.
 
2012-10-04 04:04:17 AM  

FiendishFellow05: This Red Sox fans' hat is off to Miguel Cabrera. Hell of a job.

Now got get that crown from Yaz, wouldja? His neck is really tired from wearing for 45 years.

/Veal. Waitress. All week.


You got your World Series since then, we got our Triple Crown. Seems a fair trade.
 
2012-10-04 04:08:32 AM  
Trout's had a hell of a year.

But honestly now. You don't go winning the goddamned Triple Crown and then lose the MVP. It's Miguel's.
 
182
2012-10-04 04:21:36 AM  

animesucks: is that balco guy already out of prison and has he moved to detroit?


booooooo!
 
2012-10-04 04:36:22 AM  
What the fark, no news flash?!??!!

I mean shiat, I don't give a fark about baseball AT ALL, I can rarely be bothered to watch the world series, if that, because baseball plays too many games in a year, but seriously, even I am pumped about this.

This is American history. This shiat hasn't been done in decades. With the way shiat is going now (as far as I've read) it's a near impossible feat.

GIVE THIS MAN A FARKING NEWS FLASH TAG.
 
2012-10-04 04:41:57 AM  
Not taking aything away from Cabrera, but Trout does play in a pitcher-friendly park.
 
2012-10-04 04:55:09 AM  

king of vegas: Not taking aything away from Cabrera, but Trout does play in a pitcher-friendly park.


so does Miguel
www.ballparktour.com
www.baseballfielddimensions.net
 
2012-10-04 05:22:44 AM  
It's really awesome to see a triple crown. I'm really glad that I got to see it.
 
2012-10-04 05:24:05 AM  

TigersorHawksorBoth: king of vegas: Not taking aything away from Cabrera, but Trout does play in a pitcher-friendly park.

so does Miguel
[www.ballparktour.com image 305x296]
[www.baseballfielddimensions.net image 370x365]


Fences aren't the only factor here. Angels Stadium does play more pitcher friendly than Comerica
 
2012-10-04 05:33:38 AM  

Rex_Banner: It's really awesome to see a triple crown. I'm really glad that I got to see it.


This. It's been a crazy year. A Triple Crown, seven no-hitters, two perfect games, Aaron Hill hit for the cycle twice in eleven days and my team turned a triple play. I imagine some other weird things happened along the way.
 
2012-10-04 05:38:30 AM  
three perfect games, rather.
 
2012-10-04 05:44:07 AM  

suicide: Rex_Banner: It's really awesome to see a triple crown. I'm really glad that I got to see it.

This. It's been a crazy year. A Triple Crown, seven no-hitters, two perfect games, Aaron Hill hit for the cycle twice in eleven days and my team turned a triple play. I imagine some other weird things happened along the way.


The Washington Nationals finished with the best record in baseball.
/Congratulations, Miggy!
//Rod Allen sees you, big fella
///Go Tigers!
 
2012-10-04 05:51:10 AM  

suicide: Rex_Banner: It's really awesome to see a triple crown. I'm really glad that I got to see it.

This. It's been a crazy year. A Triple Crown, seven no-hitters, two perfect games, Aaron Hill hit for the cycle twice in eleven days and my team turned a triple play. I imagine some other weird things happened along the way.



The Orioles won 93 games and made the playoffs.
 
2012-10-04 05:51:38 AM  
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Cabrera the MVP? Given Trout's baserunning and defense? The triple crown might sound cool, but we shouldn't take RBIs into account when picking the MVP, as they are so dependent on whether the guys hitting in front of you can get on base. This is like saying someone who hit for the cycle was more valuable than a guy who had a two HR two double game (all else being equal) because, hey, it'shiatting for the cycle! Or it's like giving the Cy Young to the guy who won the most games. We all figured out why wins are a terrible stat for evaluating pitchers, so let's not screw Mike Trout out of the MVP he's earned because we're too lazy to properly evaluate position players.
 
2012-10-04 06:06:21 AM  

Rex_Banner: TigersorHawksorBoth: king of vegas: Not taking aything away from Cabrera, but Trout does play in a pitcher-friendly park.

so does Miguel
[www.ballparktour.com image 305x296]
[www.baseballfielddimensions.net image 370x365]

Fences aren't the only factor here. Angels Stadium does play more pitcher friendly than Comerica


What is the other factor?
 
2012-10-04 06:08:24 AM  

Palmer Eldritch: I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Cabrera the MVP? Given Trout's baserunning and defense? The triple crown might sound cool, but we shouldn't take RBIs into account when picking the MVP, as they are so dependent on whether the guys hitting in front of you can get on base. This is like saying someone who hit for the cycle was more valuable than a guy who had a two HR two double game (all else being equal) because, hey, it'shiatting for the cycle! Or it's like giving the Cy Young to the guy who won the most games. We all figured out why wins are a terrible stat for evaluating pitchers, so let's not screw Mike Trout out of the MVP he's earned because we're too lazy to properly evaluate position players.


There are three days worth of discussion in this topic.
 
2012-10-04 06:12:30 AM  

meanmutton: Rex_Banner: TigersorHawksorBoth: king of vegas: Not taking aything away from Cabrera, but Trout does play in a pitcher-friendly park.

so does Miguel
[www.ballparktour.com image 305x296]
[www.baseballfielddimensions.net image 370x365]

Fences aren't the only factor here. Angels Stadium does play more pitcher friendly than Comerica

What is the other factor?


Heat, humidity, and wind all effect how well he ball carries. Plus, it is easier to pick up the ball out of the pitcher's hand in some parks
 
2012-10-04 06:14:32 AM  
He's dead and turned to glue?
 
2012-10-04 06:37:37 AM  

Principal Clarinet: First Triple Crown since 1967 - 10th player in modern history.

Even more difficult if you are a right handed hitter ... less chance of beating out infield hits.


And a rather slow runner, too.

From today's Freep:

(Frank) Robinson won his Triple Crown in 1966 with Baltimore. He thought Cabrera's achievement was more challenging than those five decades ago because of the more specialized relieving in baseball.
 
2012-10-04 06:59:01 AM  
Of course ESPN has the Yankees on the main page and doesn't even have Cabby as the lead story on the baseball tab. MLB.com has their priorities straight at least.
 
2012-10-04 07:00:54 AM  
An interesting fact: Curtis Granderson started coming on real strong in the HR race, finishing tied for second with Hamilton. IF the Yankees had to play that extra game in Baltimore, Grandy would have had the chance to actually BEAT Cabrera, with no way of him being able to do anything about it - play in games like that are considered part of the regular season statistically.
 
2012-10-04 07:01:45 AM  
It's funny how people keep comparing numbers between Trout and Cabrera for MVP. It's most valuable player to his team. Would the Tigers have made the playoffs without Cabrera? Hell no. The Angels didn't make the playoffs with Trout. Remove each player from each team and what happens? I daresay the Tigers go below .500. I don't think there is quite the dropoff for the Angels.
 
2012-10-04 07:05:32 AM  

suicide: It's been a crazy year. A Triple Crown, seven no-hitters, two perfect games, Aaron Hill hit for the cycle twice in eleven days and my team turned a triple play. I imagine some other weird things happened along the way.


Polish Hussar: The Washington Nationals finished with the best record in baseball.


Principal Clarinet: The Orioles won 93 games and made the playoffs.


A hard knuckleballer won 20 games. First time it's happened since. . . uh. Well, we can go back to Joe Niekro in 1980 when a knuckleballer won 20, but didn't Joe throw a flutterball?

I mean, when the A's go 32-13 over their last 45 games to win the division and that doesn't crack the top 5 headlines, it's a crazy year.
 
2012-10-04 07:21:01 AM  
No bugs on him if he doesn't get the MVP. He already has the Triple Crown. He doesn't need it validated.
 
2012-10-04 07:49:51 AM  

zeppo: An interesting fact: Curtis Granderson started coming on real strong in the HR race, finishing tied for second with Hamilton. IF the Yankees had to play that extra game in Baltimore, Grandy would have had the chance to actually BEAT Cabrera, with no way of him being able to do anything about it - play in games like that are considered part of the regular season statistically.


Heck, Granderson could have tied him last night if they hadn't pinch hit for him.
 
2012-10-04 07:50:02 AM  
9 Comerica Park (Detroit, Michigan) 1.071
27 Angel Stadium of Anaheim (Anaheim, California) 0.812

Park factors, for anyone trying to make the argument that Cabrera doesn't play in a hitters park.
Also, can't we all just get along? Both seasons were historic.
 
2012-10-04 07:55:02 AM  

You Are All Sheep: It's funny how people keep comparing numbers between Trout and Cabrera for MVP. It's most valuable player to his team. Would the Tigers have made the playoffs without Cabrera? Hell no. The Angels didn't make the playoffs with Trout. Remove each player from each team and what happens? I daresay the Tigers go below .500. I don't think there is quite the dropoff for the Angels.


Well stated. Case closed.
 
2012-10-04 07:55:46 AM  

You Are All Sheep: It's funny how people keep comparing numbers between Trout and Cabrera for MVP. It's most valuable player to his team. Would the Tigers have made the playoffs without Cabrera? Hell no. The Angels didn't make the playoffs with Trout. Remove each player from each team and what happens? I daresay the Tigers go below .500. I don't think there is quite the dropoff for the Angels.


Cabrera is the reason that the Tigers are in the worst division in baseball while the Angels are in the best? Interesting, I didn't know that
 
2012-10-04 08:01:50 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: Of course ESPN has the Yankees on the main page and doesn't even have Cabby as the lead story on the baseball tab. MLB.com has their priorities straight at least.


And no one is talking about the NL MVP either, which is a REALLY close race. And since we've had 45 AL MVP threads, let's make make this about the NL race

/Posey FTW
 
2012-10-04 08:02:45 AM  

Rex_Banner: And no one is talking about the NL MVP either, which is a REALLY close race


I don't think it is close. Posey will win in a runaway.

Now, the NL CY Young race.....
 
2012-10-04 08:07:03 AM  

bulldg4life: Rex_Banner: And no one is talking about the NL MVP either, which is a REALLY close race

I don't think it is close. Posey will win in a runaway.

Now, the NL CY Young race.....


Molina's easily in the discussion. Braun would be if not for.... well..... things. Meanwhile, Wright, Headley, and McCutchen all share the "Your Numbers are Awesome and You Could be the MVP but Your Team Sucks So Fark You" Award
 
2012-10-04 08:26:10 AM  
Tip o' the hat to Miggy--well done, and done with class. Never once has he said anything about wanting to win anything other than the World Series.

Another hat tip to the Royals' fans for the standing O they gave Miggy last night. A lot of fans should learn something.
 
2012-10-04 08:26:16 AM  

Rex_Banner: Popcorn Johnny: Of course ESPN has the Yankees on the main page and doesn't even have Cabby as the lead story on the baseball tab. MLB.com has their priorities straight at least.

And no one is talking about the NL MVP either, which is a REALLY close race. And since we've had 45 AL MVP threads, let's make make this about the NL race

/Posey FTW


Everyone knows that National League baseball isn't real baseball.
 
2012-10-04 08:31:01 AM  
Miguel Cabrera joins Secretariat, Affirmed and Seattle Slew

He gets to have someone jerk him off once a week for the rest of his life? Not bad, Miguel...not bad at all.
 
2012-10-04 08:45:34 AM  

Principal Clarinet: First Triple Crown since 1967 - 10th player in modern history.

Even more difficult if you are a right handed hitter ... less chance of beating out infield hits.


I would have bet dollars to donuts the next triple crown winner would be a lefty - Hamilton or Cano. But there are some damn good right-handed hitters now. Braun, Trout, McCutchen, Kemp.
 
2012-10-04 08:53:33 AM  
miguel cabrera is taking horse steroids?
 
2012-10-04 09:02:50 AM  

animesucks: miguel cabrera is taking horse steroids?


I wouldn't be shocked if any MLB player were doing that.
 
2012-10-04 09:06:51 AM  

animesucks: miguel cabrera is taking horse steroids?


Mane & tail shampoo. Wash, rinse, repeat.
 
2012-10-04 09:10:35 AM  

meanmutton: Rex_Banner: Popcorn Johnny: Of course ESPN has the Yankees on the main page and doesn't even have Cabby as the lead story on the baseball tab. MLB.com has their priorities straight at least.

And no one is talking about the NL MVP either, which is a REALLY close race. And since we've had 45 AL MVP threads, let's make make this about the NL race

/Posey FTW

Everyone knows that National League baseball isn't real baseball.


DH baseball is best baseball
 
2012-10-04 09:11:08 AM  
get that man a sponser with david sunflower seeds.

that an easy couple of million dollars for his seeds.
 
2012-10-04 09:24:09 AM  

Rex_Banner: DH baseball is best baseball


As long as the NFL employs long snappers without a whiff of controversy, I think baseball's traditionalist crusade against the DH is silly.
 
2012-10-04 09:27:41 AM  

Gosling: Trout's had a hell of a year.

But honestly now. You don't go winning the goddamned Triple Crown and then lose the MVP. It's Miguel's.


3 out of the last 9 Triple Crowns did not get the MVP that year. Ted Williams (twice) and Lou Gehrig.
 
2012-10-04 09:30:31 AM  

larkmaj: 3 out of the last 9 Triple Crowns did not get the MVP that year. Ted Williams (twice) and Lou Gehrig.


Sounds impressive until you realize it has been 45 years since someone accomplished the feat.
 
2012-10-04 09:34:29 AM  

dragonchild: Rex_Banner: DH baseball is best baseball

As long as the NFL employs long snappers without a whiff of controversy, I think baseball's traditionalist crusade against the DH is silly.


"Long snappers"? You mean "the tallest, widest guy on our team who can reliably(ish) snap a ball 10 yards backwards - which should be easy, since he doesn't need to practice with the 1st team offense*"? Not to take anything away from them; they still have to play center and protect the punt and all, but football is a game with 20 or more specialized positions.

Baseball has, to my mind, 4 - DH, middle relief, closers and everyone else (yes, playing RF is different from playing 1B, but both still hit and fielding is the same).

* there are exceptions. I think Jon Ogden was the Ravens long snapper for a while, but most of the time, it's some 3rd string O-lineman who can't crack the rotation.
 
2012-10-04 09:37:46 AM  

larkmaj: Gosling: Trout's had a hell of a year.

But honestly now. You don't go winning the goddamned Triple Crown and then lose the MVP. It's Miguel's.

3 out of the last 9 Triple Crowns did not get the MVP that year. Ted Williams (twice) and Lou Gehrig.


None of their teams made the playoffs, either. Of course, only one team did in each league. But that's always been a part of the equation, even more so back then.
 
2012-10-04 09:47:24 AM  

ghall3: 9 Comerica Park (Detroit, Michigan) 1.071
27 Angel Stadium of Anaheim (Anaheim, California) 0.812

Park factors, for anyone trying to make the argument that Cabrera doesn't play in a hitters park.
Also, can't we all just get along? Both seasons were historic.


Could it be the fact that Miggy and Prince play there too make any park look smaller than it actually is?

And could the angels be lower because their number 4 starter has a Cy Young?

Look I'm not saying the Angels don't have a pitcher friendly park, but anyone who has been to Comerica would call it anything other than hitter friendly.
 
2012-10-04 09:47:34 AM  

Gosling: Trout's had a hell of a year.

But honestly now. You don't go winning the goddamned Triple Crown and then lose the MVP. It's Miguel's.


I've been told that Cabrera is simply not allowed to win the MVP because Trout can run faster on the field.
 
2012-10-04 09:47:36 AM  

ChrisDe: larkmaj: Gosling: Trout's had a hell of a year.

But honestly now. You don't go winning the goddamned Triple Crown and then lose the MVP. It's Miguel's.

3 out of the last 9 Triple Crowns did not get the MVP that year. Ted Williams (twice) and Lou Gehrig.

None of their teams made the playoffs, either. Of course, only one team did in each league. But that's always been a part of the equation, even more so back then.


Tigers: 88-74
Angels: 89-73
 
2012-10-04 09:48:45 AM  

ignatius_crumbcake: Gosling: Trout's had a hell of a year.

But honestly now. You don't go winning the goddamned Triple Crown and then lose the MVP. It's Miguel's.

I've been told that Cabrera is simply not allowed to win the MVP because Trout can run faster on the field.


Cabrera is allowed to win the MVP. he just shouldn't because Trout had a better year. It's complicated, I know
 
2012-10-04 09:51:07 AM  

Dr Dreidel: dragonchild: Rex_Banner: DH baseball is best baseball

As long as the NFL employs long snappers without a whiff of controversy, I think baseball's traditionalist crusade against the DH is silly.

"Long snappers"? You mean "the tallest, widest guy on our team who can reliably(ish) snap a ball 10 yards backwards - which should be easy, since he doesn't need to practice with the 1st team offense*"? Not to take anything away from them; they still have to play center and protect the punt and all, but football is a game with 20 or more specialized positions.

Baseball has, to my mind, 4 - DH, middle relief, closers and everyone else (yes, playing RF is different from playing 1B, but both still hit and fielding is the same).

* there are exceptions. I think Jon Ogden was the Ravens long snapper for a while, but most of the time, it's some 3rd string O-lineman who can't crack the rotation.


The DH is a rule, not a position. It's just that many AL teams -choose- to treat it like an actual position. There are teams, like the Yankees, that use it properly. There are others, however, that employ a player solely to waddle to the plate for an appearance a few times a game with nothing otherwise expected of him.
 
2012-10-04 09:53:19 AM  

Rex_Banner: he just shouldn't because Trout had a better year.


He definitely ran better. But hey, running is what's most important! Good thing Babe Ruth was fast!
 
2012-10-04 09:56:41 AM  

Rex_Banner: You Are All Sheep: It's funny how people keep comparing numbers between Trout and Cabrera for MVP. It's most valuable player to his team. Would the Tigers have made the playoffs without Cabrera? Hell no. The Angels didn't make the playoffs with Trout. Remove each player from each team and what happens? I daresay the Tigers go below .500. I don't think there is quite the dropoff for the Angels.

Cabrera is the reason that the Tigers are in the worst division in baseball while the Angels are in the best? Interesting, I didn't know that


Doesn't matter. By not making the playoffs, the Angels most valuable player is as important as the other 19 teams that are cuing up tee times right now. Is Trout even the most valuable player...and I mean most important to the team...on the Angels this year?

/MC with the TC for MVP
 
2012-10-04 09:57:27 AM  

Rex_Banner: ChrisDe: larkmaj: Gosling: Trout's had a hell of a year.

But honestly now. You don't go winning the goddamned Triple Crown and then lose the MVP. It's Miguel's.

3 out of the last 9 Triple Crowns did not get the MVP that year. Ted Williams (twice) and Lou Gehrig.

None of their teams made the playoffs, either. Of course, only one team did in each league. But that's always been a part of the equation, even more so back then.

Tigers: 88-74
Angels: 89-73


Beat me to it. Anybody who uses the fact that the Tigers made the playoffs as an argument against Trout should be drug into the street and shot. Give the Angels 20 games each against the Indians and Royals and the Tigers 20 games each against the Rangers and A's and let's see who's making the playoffs.

I won't get terribly upset about Cabrera winning MVP because he had a really good year, but any voter who picks him over Trout can never, ever write about defense or speed ever again because they clearly either don't pay attention to it or don't care about it.
 
2012-10-04 09:58:30 AM  

ignatius_crumbcake: Rex_Banner: he just shouldn't because Trout had a better year.

He definitely ran better. But hey, running is what's most important! Good thing Babe Ruth was fast!


Fielded better too.
You can certainly say Miggy was better offensively and got that mystical, magical Holy Grail, but can you, with a straight face, argue that he was a better overall player this year than Trout?
 
2012-10-04 10:01:09 AM  

The Bestest: but can you, with a straight face, argue that he was a better overall player this year than Trout?


Nope, but the award is not called the Best Overall Player Award. It's not even called the Statistically Best Player Award. Quite often, the best overall player has not won.

Subjective criteria has been part of the MVP for 100 years.
 
2012-10-04 10:01:09 AM  
Congrats to MC. Most impressive thing in baseball in a while.

I wonder how long it will be before the physically disabled guy with the inferiority complex stops by to tell everyone they are enjoying baseball the wrong way?

I see a few of his flunkies and sidekicks are already here priming the crowd.

And could the angels be lower because their number 4 starter has a Cy Young?

That doesn't count. It's only the park that matters because math said so. Pitchers have no affect on hitters because there isn't a big enough sample size to prove it.

Don't worry...Einsteinbrenner will be here soon enough to explain it to everyone ad nauseum...then be a douchebag to everyone....then complain because everyone is a douchebag to him.
 
2012-10-04 10:02:04 AM  

Rex_Banner: Cabrera is allowed to win the MVP. he just shouldn't because Trout had a better year. It's complicated, I know


Wait, Trout also won a Triple Crown? Someone should tell ESPN - they'd save themselves a lot of airtime (that they could devote to...Hope Solo's boobs? I don't know, but they'd probably pick something lamer).

// Cabrera has a better AVG, more RBI, more HR, a higher OPS, more hits in more ABs, better SLG, fewer SO, and more doubles than Trout, and played in 22 more games
// but Cabby's OBP is .006 lower, and Trout had 8 triples (Cabrera: 0) so clearly Trout is better
 
2012-10-04 10:03:44 AM  

The Bestest: ignatius_crumbcake: Rex_Banner: he just shouldn't because Trout had a better year.

He definitely ran better. But hey, running is what's most important! Good thing Babe Ruth was fast!

Fielded better too.
You can certainly say Miggy was better offensively and got that mystical, magical Holy Grail, but can you, with a straight face, argue that he was a better overall player this year than Trout?


Remember the last three threads on this? Good times.

Where do these people come from? At least we haven't been called racist, basement dwelling stat androids yet.
 
2012-10-04 10:03:59 AM  
"Cabrera is allowed to win the MVP. he just shouldn't because Trout had a better year. It's complicated, I know"

Trout faded down the stretch after he was either figured out by opposing pitchers, caved under the pressure of a playoff race or simply came back to earth.

Trout
August .284 BA, .500 SLG .866 OPS
September .257 BA, .455 SLG .836 OPS

Cabrera
August .357 BA., 663 SLG 1.092 OPS
September .308 ba, .654 SLG, 1.032 OPS
 
2012-10-04 10:05:35 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Rex_Banner: Cabrera is allowed to win the MVP. he just shouldn't because Trout had a better year. It's complicated, I know

Wait, Trout also won a Triple Crown? Someone should tell ESPN - they'd save themselves a lot of airtime (that they could devote to...Hope Solo's boobs? I don't know, but they'd probably pick something lamer).

// Cabrera has a better AVG, more RBI, more HR, a higher OPS, more hits in more ABs, better SLG, fewer SO, and more doubles than Trout, and played in 22 more games
// but Cabby's OBP is .006 lower, and Trout had 8 triples (Cabrera: 0) so clearly Trout is better


I guess you missed the other 4 threads. Those things don't matter. Neither does the fact that Cabrera hit way better in high pressure (leverage) situations. Or that Cabrera's offensive numbers increased in the stretch while Trout's went down. Or that Cabrera played a full season while Trout did not. None of that matters because Trout can run faster.
 
2012-10-04 10:13:32 AM  
RBI's are irrelevant right? Runs don;'t win games. Plating the guys in scoring position is no big deal.

Trout Pretty good for a rookie, props to him
RISP .324 BA, .951 OPS
RISP w/2 Outs .286, .782 OPS

Cabrera MVP numbers
RISP .356 BA, 1.005 OPS
RISP w/2 Outs .420, BA 1.211 OPS
 
2012-10-04 10:21:14 AM  

You Are All Sheep: It's funny how people keep comparing numbers between Trout and Cabrera for MVP. It's most valuable player to his team. Would the Tigers have made the playoffs without Cabrera? Hell no. The Angels didn't make the playoffs with Trout. Remove each player from each team and what happens? I daresay the Tigers go below .500. I don't think there is quite the dropoff for the Angels.


You may be right, but the playoff argument doesn't hold water...the Angels won more games than the Tigers did, even without the advantage of playing so many games against the Twins, Royals and Indians.

Speaking of the Royals, I was at the game in KC last night, and the TWO standing ovations given to Cabrera were awesome. Suck it, everyone who said we don't appreciate good baseball when we booed Robinson Cano for not being a man of his word.
 
2012-10-04 10:25:57 AM  
Just because I still think that Trout should win MVP doesn't mean I can't appreciate this. I mean, holy fark. Triple Crown. Congrats Miguel.
 
2012-10-04 10:26:57 AM  

TigersorHawksorBoth: king of vegas: Not taking aything away from Cabrera, but Trout does play in a pitcher-friendly park.

so does Miguel
[www.ballparktour.com image 305x296]
[www.baseballfielddimensions.net image 370x365]


Let's all remember here, tough to hit home runs does not equal pitcher friendly. Detroit has some awfully big gaps, perfect for runners to score from first on Cabrera's doubles when they would have to stop at third in many other parks. It also means the outfielders often play deeper and balls drop in front or in between that would be caught in other parks. So, Detroit's field for Cabrera = tougher to hit home runs, easier to rack up RBIs, easier to hit for average.
 
2012-10-04 10:28:11 AM  

ignatius_crumbcake: Rex_Banner: he just shouldn't because Trout had a better year.

He definitely ran better. But hey, running is what's most important! Good thing Babe Ruth was fast!


Well the difference is that Babe Ruth hit better than everyone else by a whole lot. Cabrera hit better than Trout by a little bit.

Dr Dreidel: Wait, Trout also won a Triple Crown? Someone should tell ESPN - they'd save themselves a lot of airtime (that they could devote to...Hope Solo's boobs? I don't know, but they'd probably pick something lamer).


Defense counts. So does base running.

Cup Check: Doesn't matter. By not making the playoffs, the Angels most valuable player is as important as the other 19 teams that are cuing up tee times right now. Is Trout even the most valuable player...and I mean most important to the team...on the Angels this year?


So Cabby is the MVP because the White Sox choked. That makes sense.

TigersorHawksorBoth: Could it be the fact that Miggy and Prince play there too make any park look smaller than it actually is?

And could the angels be lower because their number 4 starter has a Cy Young?

Look I'm not saying the Angels don't have a pitcher friendly park, but anyone who has been to Comerica would call it anything other than hitter friendly.



Park factors take into account how all teams do in that park vs how they do in other parks. It's not just the Tigers at home vs the Tigers on the road.
 
2012-10-04 10:28:15 AM  

ignatius_crumbcake: None of that matters because Trout can run faster


Don't be disingenuous. You were in those threads and you know there's more going on than that.

But that's all I'm going to say about that in this thread. This is Miguel's thread.
 
2012-10-04 10:29:20 AM  

Dr Dreidel: "Long snappers"? You mean "the tallest, widest guy on our team who can reliably(ish) snap a ball 10 yards backwards - which should be easy, since he doesn't need to practice with the 1st team offense*"? Not to take anything away from them; they still have to play center and protect the punt and all, but football is a game with 20 or more specialized positions.


I'm not quite sure what your point is; frankly I don't even know if you agree or disagree with me. You do seem to fundamentally misunderstand the career of the long snapper, though.

The long snapper is a hyper-specialist -- an otherwise marginal center, as you suspect, but really a guy who makes NFL rosters by practicing the shiat out of getting the long snap perfect. Speed, rotation, location, in any situation, in any condition. Field goals win Super Bowls these days, so NFL teams do NOT just hand the job to their 3rd-string center. The long snapper is such a specialist that despite stepping onto the field a dozen times a game or less, he has absolutely no trouble finding work. And you know what? More power to them. Long snappers are among the most unassuming players in an increasingly flashy sport. The way they carved a niche in a hypercompetitive sport is almost entrepreneurial.

But all that said, when baseball decided to take away half the job of a regular who barely bothers to practice it and hand it to a specialist who would, it wasn't the end of the world.
 
2012-10-04 10:29:36 AM  

ignatius_crumbcake: I guess you missed the other 4 threads. Those things don't matter. Neither does the fact that Cabrera hit way better in high pressure (leverage) situations. Or that Cabrera's offensive numbers increased in the stretch while Trout's went down. Or that Cabrera played a full season while Trout did not. None of that matters because Trout can run faster.


Yeah, I tend to avoid large threads.

The "broken-down" statistics don't mean much to me - after a while, it devolves as both sides try to out-maneuver each other on "what is a 'pressure' situation". As long as Cabrera wasn't a defensive liability (he wasn't), his numbers should be enough. Add to that he's done what Tony Gwynn, Kirby Puckett, Ichiro, and thousands of others couldn't do - had the highest AVG and most RBI/HR for a season. If that doesn't win a non-DH the MVP, the award becomes a contrarian award ("Who is the second-best player we can give this to - to piss off the fans enough to spark 6 weeks of discussion, but is still technically a good player?").
 
2012-10-04 10:32:41 AM  

Gosling: Trout's had a hell of a year.

But honestly now. You don't go winning the goddamned Triple Crown and then lose the MVP. It's Miguel's.


Kind of like how you don't go being in first place since April 9th and having a 5 game lead with 9 to play and then end up not even winning your division... right?
 
2012-10-04 10:34:51 AM  

dragonchild: The long snapper is a hyper-specialist -- an otherwise marginal center, as you suspect, but really a guy who makes NFL rosters by practicing the shiat out of getting the long snap perfect. Speed, rotation, location, in any situation, in any condition. Field goals win Super Bowls these days, so NFL teams do NOT just hand the job to their 3rd-string center. The long snapper is such a specialist that despite stepping onto the field a dozen times a game or less, he has absolutely no trouble finding work. And you know what? More power to them. Long snappers are among the most unassuming players in an increasingly flashy sport. The way they carved a niche in a hypercompetitive sport is almost entrepreneurial.


I hate to point at one instance in sports when proving a point, but what happened to the Raiders this year when their long snapper was out? They were dismantled on special teams.
 
2012-10-04 10:36:37 AM  

Rex_Banner: Dr Dreidel: Wait, Trout also won a Triple Crown? Someone should tell ESPN - they'd save themselves a lot of airtime (that they could devote to...Hope Solo's boobs? I don't know, but they'd probably pick something lamer).

Defense counts. So does base running.


Read up on that. A good hitter is better for wins than a good defender. A bad baserunner who can hit for power will compensate for any errors (how many are likely in a season, anyway? 5 in a bad year? 10? Even a shiatty power hitter can hit more HRs than that), and fast guys can be shiatty baserunners, too.

They count, but not more than .330/135/40. That's a good year for anyone unless they've also got 150 SOs (not likely with a high AVG and OBP) and 20+ errors.

dragonchild: I'm not quite sure what your point is; frankly I don't even know if you agree or disagree with me. You do seem to fundamentally misunderstand the career of the long snapper, though.


Football is a much more specialized game, that's all - O-linemen don't have to run the ball at least once every quarter, and LBs don't have to scramble to find an open WR on 3rd-and-longs. The long-snapper is one of the more specialized positions in a game full of them.
 
2012-10-04 10:39:19 AM  

kstofer: TigersorHawksorBoth: king of vegas: Not taking aything away from Cabrera, but Trout does play in a pitcher-friendly park.

so does Miguel
[www.ballparktour.com image 305x296]
[www.baseballfielddimensions.net image 370x365]

Let's all remember here, tough to hit home runs does not equal pitcher friendly. Detroit has some awfully big gaps, perfect for runners to score from first on Cabrera's doubles when they would have to stop at third in many other parks. It also means the outfielders often play deeper and balls drop in front or in between that would be caught in other parks. So, Detroit's field for Cabrera = tougher to hit home runs, easier to rack up RBIs, easier to hit for average.


Detroit's Park Factor for batters is 103, meaning it's a slightly above-average park for hitters. Anaheim's Park Factor for batters is 92, meaning it's a significantly below-average park for hitters. By comparison, notorious pitcher's park Petco Park is also a 92.

That's the reason why Cabrera leads the league in OPS, but Trout leads it in OPS+.
 
2012-10-04 10:41:32 AM  
tuesdayshorse.files.wordpress.com

/sorry
 
2012-10-04 10:44:32 AM  

The Bestest: ignatius_crumbcake: Rex_Banner: he just shouldn't because Trout had a better year.

He definitely ran better. But hey, running is what's most important! Good thing Babe Ruth was fast!

Fielded better too.
You can certainly say Miggy was better offensively and got that mystical, magical Holy Grail, but can you, with a straight face, argue that he was a better overall player this year than Trout?


Yes, because I value production in "clutch" situations more highly then I do production in stress-free situations. Also, speed and defense are nice but they're nowhere near as valuable as hiting.
 
2012-10-04 10:45:06 AM  

rugman11: kstofer: TigersorHawksorBoth: king of vegas: Not taking aything away from Cabrera, but Trout does play in a pitcher-friendly park.

so does Miguel
[www.ballparktour.com image 305x296]
[www.baseballfielddimensions.net image 370x365]

Let's all remember here, tough to hit home runs does not equal pitcher friendly. Detroit has some awfully big gaps, perfect for runners to score from first on Cabrera's doubles when they would have to stop at third in many other parks. It also means the outfielders often play deeper and balls drop in front or in between that would be caught in other parks. So, Detroit's field for Cabrera = tougher to hit home runs, easier to rack up RBIs, easier to hit for average.

Detroit's Park Factor for batters is 103, meaning it's a slightly above-average park for hitters. Anaheim's Park Factor for batters is 92, meaning it's a significantly below-average park for hitters. By comparison, notorious pitcher's park Petco Park is also a 92.

That's the reason why Cabrera leads the league in OPS, but Trout leads it in OPS+.


So in other words...if your team has a solid pitching staff who know how to pitch for groundballs when they need one...and get a K when they need one....then that automatically makes the hitters on your team better?!?
 
2012-10-04 10:45:17 AM  

BeerLion: "Cabrera is allowed to win the MVP. he just shouldn't because Trout had a better year. It's complicated, I know"

Trout faded down the stretch after he was either figured out by opposing pitchers, caved under the pressure of a playoff race or simply came back to earth.

Trout
August .284 BA, .500 SLG .866 OPS
September .257 BA, .455 SLG .836 OPS

Cabrera
August .357 BA., 663 SLG 1.092 OPS
September .308 ba, .654 SLG, 1.032 OPS


Those numbers don't count though since they don't bolster Trout's MVP credentials. If you replaced Trout with a hypothetical AAA CF, the Angels would be more worser than if you replaced Cabrera with a hypothetical AAA 3B. Detroit wouldn't be worster than the Angels in those situations. Very detailed math you probably wouldn't get. And Comerica Park is a hitters park, what with the biggest fair territory in the majors. And triple crown winners are a dime a dozen, what's really rare is a good defensive CF, only 28 MLB teams have decent CFs. Cabrera's SB numbers are weak too, most power hitters have way more. He is also lacking in saves, K's and put outs from RF
 
2012-10-04 10:50:43 AM  

rugman11: Rex_Banner: ChrisDe: larkmaj: Gosling: Trout's had a hell of a year.

But honestly now. You don't go winning the goddamned Triple Crown and then lose the MVP. It's Miguel's.

3 out of the last 9 Triple Crowns did not get the MVP that year. Ted Williams (twice) and Lou Gehrig.

None of their teams made the playoffs, either. Of course, only one team did in each league. But that's always been a part of the equation, even more so back then.

Tigers: 88-74
Angels: 89-73

Beat me to it. Anybody who uses the fact that the Tigers made the playoffs as an argument against Trout should be drug into the street and shot. Give the Angels 20 games each against the Indians and Royals and the Tigers 20 games each against the Rangers and A's and let's see who's making the playoffs.

I won't get terribly upset about Cabrera winning MVP because he had a really good year, but any voter who picks him over Trout can never, ever write about defense or speed ever again because they clearly either don't pay attention to it or don't care about it.


You can care about it, but not weight it so heavily that it overshadows batting accomplishments. Speed is great when you need a steal of second to put a runner in scoring position to tie the game. But you don't want Herb Washington at the plate when you need a 3-run homer to win the game.
 
2012-10-04 10:51:05 AM  

ignatius_crumbcake: Rex_Banner: he just shouldn't because Trout had a better year.

He definitely ran better. But hey, running is what's most important! Good thing Babe Ruth was fast!


If you caricature your opponents' arguments that way, it gives the impression that you have no confidence in your own view (or your ability to articulate it).

Dr Dreidel: Rex_Banner: Dr Dreidel: Wait, Trout also won a Triple Crown? Someone should tell ESPN - they'd save themselves a lot of airtime (that they could devote to...Hope Solo's boobs? I don't know, but they'd probably pick something lamer).

Defense counts. So does base running.

Read up on that. A good hitter is better for wins than a good defender. A bad baserunner who can hit for power will compensate for any errors (how many are likely in a season, anyway? 5 in a bad year? 10? Even a shiatty power hitter can hit more HRs than that), and fast guys can be shiatty baserunners, too.

They count, but not more than .330/135/40. That's a good year for anyone unless they've also got 150 SOs (not likely with a high AVG and OBP) and 20+ errors.


No one is suggesting that the MVP be given to some no-bat glove ace. They're saying that if you have two really good hitters, and one is far, far superior on defense and base stealing, it might make sense to give that guy the MVP.

This isn't hard.
 
2012-10-04 10:59:00 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Read up on that. A good hitter is better for wins than a good defender. A bad baserunner who can hit for power will compensate for any errors (how many are likely in a season, anyway? 5 in a bad year? 10? Even a shiatty power hitter can hit more HRs than that), and fast guys can be shiatty baserunners, too.

They count, but not more than .330/135/40. That's a good year for anyone unless they've also got 150 SOs (not likely with a high AVG and OBP) and 20+ errors.


I don't think anybody's arguing that. What we're arguing (or at least I am anyway), is that the two hitters were really close offensively. Cabrera had a .004 advantage in BA but Trout had a .006 advantage in OBP. Cabrera had a higher OPS, but once you factor in the parks they played in, Trout had a higher OPS+. If you believe in the value stats, Trout's batting (adjusted for park) was worth 54 runs and Cabrera's 53. They were really close in terms of hitting, though Cabrera was better (not including park adjustments).

But then, we also look at the other factors:

Baserunning - Trout was amazing. 49 steals to only 5 CS. His baserunning was worth 10 runs. Cabrera was not a good baserunner, though he at least didn't hurt his team in terms of value.
Defense - Trout was amazing. 21 runs above average. Cabrera was a slightly below-average fielder.

Add that all up and you find that Trout was the better all-around player. Could you make an argument for Cabrera as the best hitter? Certainly. I might make an argument for Trout, but I wouldn't make a deal of it. But if you're saying most valuable then you have to look beyond just the bat. And when you factor in baserunning, defense, and where they play, the answer is clear: Trout.
 
2012-10-04 11:05:34 AM  

Dr Dreidel: As long as Cabrera wasn't a defensive liability (he wasn't), his numbers should be enough


Cabrera's UZR/150 -10.6. That's...... not good at all.

Dr Dreidel: Read up on that. A good hitter is better for wins than a good defender. A bad baserunner who can hit for power will compensate for any errors (how many are likely in a season, anyway? 5 in a bad year? 10? Even a shiatty power hitter can hit more HRs than that), and fast guys can be shiatty baserunners, too.

They count, but not more than .330/135/40. That's a good year for anyone unless they've also got 150 SOs (not likely with a high AVG and OBP) and 20+ errors.


A good hitter is worth more than a good defender, yes. And we wouldn't be having this discussion if Trout was a bad hitter. But he led the league in OPS+ . He was very, very close to Cabrera as a hitter AND he was a much better base runner and defender.
 
2012-10-04 11:07:08 AM  

FreakinB: Just because I still think that Trout should win MVP doesn't mean I can't appreciate this. I mean, holy fark. Triple Crown. Congrats Miguel.


I agree completely, and even said something similar last night. It's very, very happy that I got to see a Triple Crown - it's a great accomplishment.
 
2012-10-04 11:08:13 AM  
If there was a "most outstanding player", I'm sure Trout would win that in a landslide.
 
2012-10-04 11:13:40 AM  

JohnnyCanuck:

So in other words...if your team has a solid pitching staff who know how to pitch for groundballs when they need one...and get a K when they need one....then that automatically makes the hitters on your team better?!?


I don't think you understand Park Factor. Park adjustments compare how a team plays at home and on the road and also looks at how the league plays on average. The math is complicated and I don't entirely understand it, but I can give you a general (if exaggerated) example.

Let's say the league average for runs scored is 600 with the average team scoring and allowing 300 runs at home and 300 runs on the road. Let's further say that there is a team who has scored and allowed 600 runs this year: a perfectly average team. But now let's say that team scored and allowed 350 runs at home and only scored and allowed 250 runs on the road. It stands to reason that that team's home park is a really good offensive park, otherwise they'd be scoring a bunch of runs (and allowing a bunch of runs) on the road as well.

That's just the logic behind Park Factor, the math considers other variables (such as the fact that teams don't face their own pitchers). The point is that we have a pretty reliable way of determining how much of an effect a park has on helping or hurting hitters and pitchers.
 
2012-10-04 11:26:40 AM  

bulldg4life: If there was a "most outstanding player", I'm sure Trout would win that in a landslide.


There is... it's called the MVP award.

Miggy, though, should win the Hank Aaron award, which is given to (wait for it) THE MOST OUTSTANDING HITTER. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite have the notice of the MVP and Cy Young yet, since it's only been around since 1999 - but it exists for precisely this particular situation.
 
2012-10-04 11:28:12 AM  
"Those numbers don't count though since they don't bolster Trout's MVP credentials. If you replaced Trout with a hypothetical AAA CF, the Angels would be more worser than if you replaced Cabrera with a hypothetical AAA 3B. Detroit wouldn't be worster than the Angels in those situations. Very detailed math you probably wouldn't get. And Comerica Park is a hitters park, what with the biggest fair territory in the majors. And triple crown winners are a dime a dozen, what's really rare is a good defensive CF, only 28 MLB teams have decent CFs. Cabrera's SB numbers are weak too, most power hitters have way more. He is also lacking in saves, K's and put outs from RF"


what the hell did you just say?

i think this applies
Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your so
 
2012-10-04 11:28:47 AM  

rugman11: JohnnyCanuck:

So in other words...if your team has a solid pitching staff who know how to pitch for groundballs when they need one...and get a K when they need one....then that automatically makes the hitters on your team better?!?

I don't think you understand Park Factor. Park adjustments compare how a team plays at home and on the road and also looks at how the league plays on average. The math is complicated and I don't entirely understand it, but I can give you a general (if exaggerated) example.

Let's say the league average for runs scored is 600 with the average team scoring and allowing 300 runs at home and 300 runs on the road. Let's further say that there is a team who has scored and allowed 600 runs this year: a perfectly average team. But now let's say that team scored and allowed 350 runs at home and only scored and allowed 250 runs on the road. It stands to reason that that team's home park is a really good offensive park, otherwise they'd be scoring a bunch of runs (and allowing a bunch of runs) on the road as well.

That's just the logic behind Park Factor, the math considers other variables (such as the fact that teams don't face their own pitchers). The point is that we have a pretty reliable way of determining how much of an effect a park has on helping or hurting hitters and pitchers.


Thank you, rugman.

This is how you respond to not elicit a negative response. I don't necessarily agree with the logic but I do understand how an argument can be made for such. It is a general estimation and I can appreciate that. I just don't think estimation are worth more than actual real time, real life events. HR, Hits, etc.

I like how you weren't demeaning or belittling and you genuinely seem to like the discussion as opposed to seeing if you can just chase away someone with a different opinion.

Cudos to you.
 
2012-10-04 11:30:40 AM  

rugman11: That's just the logic behind Park Factor, the math considers other variables (such as the fact that teams don't face their own pitchers). The point is that we have a pretty reliable way of determining how much of an effect a park has on helping or hurting hitters and pitchers.


I don't think it's reliable at all. Doesn't factor in weather at all, that's gonna skew a lot of numbers. Unless there's a ton more to the formula than you stated. From domes, to seaside parks like SF or Oakland, altitude at the Rockies' stadium, and random chance. You play in wet weather when on the road just as a fluke from the schedule. Maybe you play three or four series against domed teams in April, your offense is probably gonna have better road numbers than teams playing cold and rainy series in NY or Det. What if you have two starters that both previously pitched for the same team in your division. They'll have intimate knowledge of two stadiums and the best way to pitch in those parks. There's just a million different things that can affect these numbers that they're worthless. RBI's are a bad stat all of a sudden because it relies on people getting on base before you, but park factor relies on weather, pitcher's familiarity, type of pitchers in your rotation, schedule, altitude and a bunch others.
 
2012-10-04 11:33:51 AM  

Joe_diGriz: bulldg4life: If there was a "most outstanding player", I'm sure Trout would win that in a landslide.

There is... it's called the MVP award.

Miggy, though, should win the Hank Aaron award, which is given to (wait for it) THE MOST OUTSTANDING HITTER. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite have the notice of the MVP and Cy Young yet, since it's only been around since 1999 - but it exists for precisely this particular situation.


Actually the MVP award was originally for the player that contributed most to his team's success. But that has changed since players from last placed teams have been known to win it.
 
2012-10-04 11:33:51 AM  

rorypk: rugman11: That's just the logic behind Park Factor, the math considers other variables (such as the fact that teams don't face their own pitchers). The point is that we have a pretty reliable way of determining how much of an effect a park has on helping or hurting hitters and pitchers.

I don't think it's reliable at all. Doesn't factor in weather at all, that's gonna skew a lot of numbers. Unless there's a ton more to the formula than you stated. From domes, to seaside parks like SF or Oakland, altitude at the Rockies' stadium, and random chance. You play in wet weather when on the road just as a fluke from the schedule. Maybe you play three or four series against domed teams in April, your offense is probably gonna have better road numbers than teams playing cold and rainy series in NY or Det. What if you have two starters that both previously pitched for the same team in your division. They'll have intimate knowledge of two stadiums and the best way to pitch in those parks. There's just a million different things that can affect these numbers that they're worthless. RBI's are a bad stat all of a sudden because it relies on people getting on base before you, but park factor relies on weather, pitcher's familiarity, type of pitchers in your rotation, schedule, altitude and a bunch others.


Zactly. Good job!
 
2012-10-04 11:35:39 AM  
Can we have a discussion on how badly written the article is?

TFA:Ability to hit for a high average and deliver a lot of hits
Again, not a common skill, and something even harder to possess if you're a right-handed hitter: From that '67 season, the AL and NL have had 13 right-handed batters apiece win batting titles, or 26 out of a possible 90.


This hurt my brain trying to decipher.
 
2012-10-04 11:36:19 AM  

ongbok: Actually the MVP award was originally for the player that contributed most to his team's success.


I will concede that point.

ongbok: But that has changed since players from last placed teams have been known to win it.


Yup. Or players with worse stats. (Hello, Ryan Howard.)
 
2012-10-04 11:39:00 AM  

rorypk: rugman11: That's just the logic behind Park Factor, the math considers other variables (such as the fact that teams don't face their own pitchers). The point is that we have a pretty reliable way of determining how much of an effect a park has on helping or hurting hitters and pitchers.

I don't think it's reliable at all. Doesn't factor in weather at all, that's gonna skew a lot of numbers. Unless there's a ton more to the formula than you stated. From domes, to seaside parks like SF or Oakland, altitude at the Rockies' stadium, and random chance. You play in wet weather when on the road just as a fluke from the schedule. Maybe you play three or four series against domed teams in April, your offense is probably gonna have better road numbers than teams playing cold and rainy series in NY or Det. What if you have two starters that both previously pitched for the same team in your division. They'll have intimate knowledge of two stadiums and the best way to pitch in those parks. There's just a million different things that can affect these numbers that they're worthless. RBI's are a bad stat all of a sudden because it relies on people getting on base before you, but park factor relies on weather, pitcher's familiarity, type of pitchers in your rotation, schedule, altitude and a bunch others.


Park factors take into account how your team did in the park vs how your team did away from the park, AND how all the other teams did in that park vs how all the other teams did in other parks. That balances things out a bit. There is still noise from year to year, and that's why they use multi-year averages to adjust for ballparks - it neutralizes this stuff even more by doing it that way.
 
2012-10-04 11:40:53 AM  

rorypk: I don't think it's reliable at all. Doesn't factor in weather at all, that's gonna skew a lot of numbers. Unless there's a ton more to the formula than you stated. From domes, to seaside parks like SF or Oakland, altitude at the Rockies' stadium, and random chance. You play in wet weather when on the road just as a fluke from the schedule. Maybe you play three or four series against domed teams in April, your offense is probably gonna have better road numbers than teams playing cold and rainy series in NY or Det. What if you have two starters that both previously pitched for the same team in your division. They'll have intimate knowledge of two stadiums and the best way to pitch in those parks. There's just a million different things that can affect these numbers that they're worthless. RBI's are a bad stat all of a sudden because it relies on people getting on base before you, but park factor relies on weather, pitcher's familiarity, type of pitchers in your rotation, schedule, altitude and a bunch others.


The formula is more complicated then described however, if you look at the park factors over time they are pretty consistent regardless of the team fielded. A specific example:
Citizen's Bank Park in Philadelphia. Over the last five years it has been in the middle third of parks for park factor, which if you look at their team make-up in that time would be unexpected as they began winning in 2007 and 2008 with much better hitters than pitchers and 2009-20011 the lineup was in decline but the pitchers became much much better and in 2011 was arguably one of the best rotations ever. This year the pitching regressed to be pretty average to below average and the hitting also was average to below average, yet the park factor still has them middle of the road.

I know this is anecdotal but seems to be a pretty good indicator that there is something to the park factor equations.
 
2012-10-04 11:41:35 AM  
Okay, so how about this, the bases are loaded with 2 outs in the bottom of the 9th. Who would you rather see at the plate?
 
2012-10-04 11:46:25 AM  

You Are All Sheep: Okay, so how about this, the bases are loaded with 2 outs in the bottom of the 9th. Who would you rather see at the plate?


With 2 outs? Trout, because he is less likely to make an out. OBP is basically the "not out" percentage, and Trout has a higher OBP
 
2012-10-04 11:47:29 AM  
If there's one thing that these Cabrera/Trout threads have taught me, it's that 50 years from now, people will be talking about Bill James like we now talk about Ayn Rand and L. Ron Hubbard.

www.indiewire.com

"I have unlocked, and discovered, a secret. A secret to taking the joy out of baseball."
 
2012-10-04 11:49:09 AM  

Rex_Banner: Park factors take into account how your team did in the park vs how your team did away from the park, AND how all the other teams did in that park vs how all the other teams did in other parks. That balances things out a bit. There is still noise from year to year, and that's why they use multi-year averages to adjust for ballparks - it neutralizes this stuff even more by doing it that way.


I have no problem with using park factor in a general sense, but using it as a factor in determining a MVP is crazy and shows how far stats guys have gotten from common sense. Have the same problem with UZR and WAR. They're interesting formulas in general, but using them to argue against a triple crown winner who carried his team and got better as the season progressed is crazy.

But even with a multi year average I don't think you can iron out all the inputs into the formula, the turnover of most pitching staffs year to year is enough alone to make it unreliable. Plus flukes of weather like an el nino year or an early hurricane season.
 
2012-10-04 11:49:24 AM  

sigdiamond2000: If there's one thing that these Cabrera/Trout threads have taught me, it's that 50 years from now, people will be talking about Bill James like we now talk about Ayn Rand and L. Ron Hubbard.

[www.indiewire.com image 675x404]

"I have unlocked, and discovered, a secret. A secret to taking the joy out of baseball."


Funny - sabermetrics help me enjoy baseball more. I'm sorry that new things are so scary that they ruin everything for you
 
2012-10-04 11:51:06 AM  

Rex_Banner: Dr Dreidel: As long as Cabrera wasn't a defensive liability (he wasn't), his numbers should be enough

Cabrera's UZR/150 -10.6. That's...... not good at all.

Dr Dreidel: Read up on that. A good hitter is better for wins than a good defender. A bad baserunner who can hit for power will compensate for any errors (how many are likely in a season, anyway? 5 in a bad year? 10? Even a shiatty power hitter can hit more HRs than that), and fast guys can be shiatty baserunners, too.

They count, but not more than .330/135/40. That's a good year for anyone unless they've also got 150 SOs (not likely with a high AVG and OBP) and 20+ errors.

A good hitter is worth more than a good defender, yes. And we wouldn't be having this discussion if Trout was a bad hitter. But he led the league in OPS+ . He was very, very close to Cabrera as a hitter AND he was a much better base runner and defender.


Ozzie "The Wizard" Smith, a brilliant HOF defender and speedster, won approximately ZERO MVP awards. He won the '85 NLCS MVP, though.

How about Barry Bonds' last 4 MVP awards? No defense, no speed, no cartilage in his knees...

Ichiro won the AL MVP in 2001...by breaking the single-season rookie hits record. He hasn't won one since.

Pedroia won in 2008 by having a great AVG (.326, .003 behind Mauer - well played) and over 200 hits, and 4th in the AL in total bases, as well as his great defense and 20/21 SB record.

The BBWA doesn't look as much at defense and speed when choosing an MVP, because hitting has far more of an impact on the game. A better hitter will always win, whether because baseball is a stats game or because defense and speed aren't as important to the game is up for debate.

// a debate I don't really want to have
 
2012-10-04 11:51:38 AM  

sigdiamond2000: If there's one thing that these Cabrera/Trout threads have taught me, it's that 50 years from now, people will be talking about Bill James like we now talk about Ayn Rand and L. Ron Hubbard.

[www.indiewire.com image 675x404]

"I have unlocked, and discovered, a secret. A secret to taking the joy out of baseball."


Funny. But false. Read The Historical Baseball Abstract someday. Over 1,000 pages, and you'll wish it was longer. I think Bill James got, and gave, as much joy out of baseball as anyone who ever lived.

Link
 
2012-10-04 11:51:57 AM  

rorypk: rugman11: That's just the logic behind Park Factor, the math considers other variables (such as the fact that teams don't face their own pitchers). The point is that we have a pretty reliable way of determining how much of an effect a park has on helping or hurting hitters and pitchers.

I don't think it's reliable at all. Doesn't factor in weather at all, that's gonna skew a lot of numbers. Unless there's a ton more to the formula than you stated. From domes, to seaside parks like SF or Oakland, altitude at the Rockies' stadium, and random chance. You play in wet weather when on the road just as a fluke from the schedule. Maybe you play three or four series against domed teams in April, your offense is probably gonna have better road numbers than teams playing cold and rainy series in NY or Det. What if you have two starters that both previously pitched for the same team in your division. They'll have intimate knowledge of two stadiums and the best way to pitch in those parks. There's just a million different things that can affect these numbers that they're worthless. RBI's are a bad stat all of a sudden because it relies on people getting on base before you, but park factor relies on weather, pitcher's familiarity, type of pitchers in your rotation, schedule, altitude and a bunch others.


A lot of those things are considered. There's a reason that Coors Field's park factor is 125: balls fly out of the yard due to the low altitude, inflating hitters' stats. If weather really is worse in San Francisco or Oakland (I don't know), then that will be reflected in those teams' stats as well as the teams who visit their parks.

For the other issues, they use multiple years worth of statistics in order to filter out the noise of wonky scheduling, pitchers switching teams, injuries, etc. Though you will find that the one-year Park Factors are usually pretty close to the multi-year numbers because, over a 162 game season, most of those factors filter themselves out.
 
2012-10-04 11:52:03 AM  

rorypk: I have no problem with using park factor in a general sense, but using it as a factor in determining a MVP is crazy and shows how far stats guys have gotten from common sense. Have the same problem with UZR and WAR. They're interesting formulas in general, but using them to argue against a triple crown winner who carried his team and got better as the season progressed is crazy.


Why is it crazy to use them against a Triple Crown winner? This is a serious question, not snark

rorypk: But even with a multi year average I don't think you can iron out all the inputs into the formula, the turnover of most pitching staffs year to year is enough alone to make it unreliable. Plus flukes of weather like an el nino year or an early hurricane season.


Well REALLY fluky weather would cause a park factor to jump - but that's part of the point. The park was harder to hit in that year because of the additional rain? Park factor is covering that.
 
2012-10-04 11:53:04 AM  

You Are All Sheep: Okay, so how about this, the bases are loaded with 2 outs in the bottom of the 9th. Who would you rather see at the plate?


You're the visitor, the ball is smashed; who would you rather have it hit in the general direction of?
 
2012-10-04 11:54:12 AM  
Ozzie Guillen sums up the "Cabrera for MVP" arguments:
 
img834.imageshack.us
 
2012-10-04 11:56:18 AM  

Rex_Banner: sigdiamond2000: If there's one thing that these Cabrera/Trout threads have taught me, it's that 50 years from now, people will be talking about Bill James like we now talk about Ayn Rand and L. Ron Hubbard.

[www.indiewire.com image 675x404]

"I have unlocked, and discovered, a secret. A secret to taking the joy out of baseball."

Funny - sabermetrics help me enjoy baseball more. I'm sorry that new things are so scary that they ruin everything for you


This is a thread about a baseball player who just did something that hasn't been done for 47 years, and all you Trout folks can do is continue to complain about how Cabrera doesn't deserve the MVP. What does that say?

If there is one common thread that seems to run through most of the pro-Trout elements of these threads, it's not love of the game, it's anger over the interpretation of the game, and anger over the fact that not enough people recognize your genius. The level of sheer smuggery, lack of humor, and cultish devotion to a side/cause rivals anything ever seen on the Politics tab. It's both difficult and fascinating to watch.
 
2012-10-04 11:57:05 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Rex_Banner: Dr Dreidel: As long as Cabrera wasn't a defensive liability (he wasn't), his numbers should be enough

Cabrera's UZR/150 -10.6. That's...... not good at all.

Dr Dreidel: Read up on that. A good hitter is better for wins than a good defender. A bad baserunner who can hit for power will compensate for any errors (how many are likely in a season, anyway? 5 in a bad year? 10? Even a shiatty power hitter can hit more HRs than that), and fast guys can be shiatty baserunners, too.

They count, but not more than .330/135/40. That's a good year for anyone unless they've also got 150 SOs (not likely with a high AVG and OBP) and 20+ errors.

A good hitter is worth more than a good defender, yes. And we wouldn't be having this discussion if Trout was a bad hitter. But he led the league in OPS+ . He was very, very close to Cabrera as a hitter AND he was a much better base runner and defender.

Ozzie "The Wizard" Smith, a brilliant HOF defender and speedster, won approximately ZERO MVP awards. He won the '85 NLCS MVP, though.

How about Barry Bonds' last 4 MVP awards? No defense, no speed, no cartilage in his knees...

Ichiro won the AL MVP in 2001...by breaking the single-season rookie hits record. He hasn't won one since.

Pedroia won in 2008 by having a great AVG (.326, .003 behind Mauer - well played) and over 200 hits, and 4th in the AL in total bases, as well as his great defense and 20/21 SB record.

The BBWA doesn't look as much at defense and speed when choosing an MVP, because hitting has far more of an impact on the game. A better hitter will always win, whether because baseball is a stats game or because defense and speed aren't as important to the game is up for debate.

// a debate I don't really want to have


Well, I think BBWAA is going to give it to Cabrera. But that's not the argument that I'm making. I'm saying that they SHOULDN'T give it to Cabrera because Trout was the best overall player.
 
2012-10-04 11:57:42 AM  

Rex_Banner: sigdiamond2000: If there's one thing that these Cabrera/Trout threads have taught me, it's that 50 years from now, people will be talking about Bill James like we now talk about Ayn Rand and L. Ron Hubbard.

[www.indiewire.com image 675x404]

"I have unlocked, and discovered, a secret. A secret to taking the joy out of baseball."

Funny - sabermetrics help me enjoy baseball more. I'm sorry that new things are so scary that they ruin everything for you


I don't think the guy is afraid of sabermetrics or change. It's just you guys are starting to sound like republicans talking about tax cuts. There's a little more to the game than just stats. Which is weird because it seems like all of this sabermetric stuff is designed to show the nuances of the game that the older standard statistics completely ignore.

All the joy of this triple crown year is being sucked out by stats guys. It's most valuable player, not best all around. It's neck and neck when you talk about best all around, but Cabrera is so much more valuable to the Tigers than Trout is to the Angels that this discussion is moronic. I'll even concede that Trout had a better all around year, but there's just no comparison when talking about value to the team.
 
2012-10-04 11:58:30 AM  

bacongood: You Are All Sheep: Okay, so how about this, the bases are loaded with 2 outs in the bottom of the 9th. Who would you rather see at the plate?

You're the visitor, the ball is smashed; who would you rather have it hit in the general direction of?


Cabrera, of course, because he's at third base. A CF (even Trout) doesn't have a prayer of making a play at the plate because the runner is taking off as soon as the ball is hit.
 
2012-10-04 11:58:41 AM  

rcf1105: Ozzie Guillen sums up the "Cabrera for MVP" arguments:
 
[img834.imageshack.us image 565x336]


Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
 
2012-10-04 12:02:05 PM  

Rex_Banner: Well, I think BBWAA is going to give it to Cabrera. But that's not the argument that I'm making. I'm saying that they SHOULDN'T give it to Cabrera because Trout was the best overall player.


Well if they give an award for best overall player I won't come in to that thread and talk about Cabrera.

Are you guys trolling or what? MVP, most valuable player, was Trout more valuable to his team than Cabrera was to the Tigers?
 
2012-10-04 12:02:12 PM  

sigdiamond2000: Rex_Banner: sigdiamond2000: If there's one thing that these Cabrera/Trout threads have taught me, it's that 50 years from now, people will be talking about Bill James like we now talk about Ayn Rand and L. Ron Hubbard.

[www.indiewire.com image 675x404]

"I have unlocked, and discovered, a secret. A secret to taking the joy out of baseball."

Funny - sabermetrics help me enjoy baseball more. I'm sorry that new things are so scary that they ruin everything for you

This is a thread about a baseball player who just did something that hasn't been done for 47 years, and all you Trout folks can do is continue to complain about how Cabrera doesn't deserve the MVP. What does that say?

If there is one common thread that seems to run through most of the pro-Trout elements of these threads, it's not love of the game, it's anger over the interpretation of the game, and anger over the fact that not enough people recognize your genius. The level of sheer smuggery, lack of humor, and cultish devotion to a side/cause rivals anything ever seen on the Politics tab. It's both difficult and fascinating to watch.


Like a train wreck you just can't bring yourself to look away from.
Welcome to Fark...where not everyone will call you a genius just to get you to shut the fark up already.
 
2012-10-04 12:03:43 PM  

sigdiamond2000: Rex_Banner: sigdiamond2000: If there's one thing that these Cabrera/Trout threads have taught me, it's that 50 years from now, people will be talking about Bill James like we now talk about Ayn Rand and L. Ron Hubbard.

[www.indiewire.com image 675x404]

"I have unlocked, and discovered, a secret. A secret to taking the joy out of baseball."

Funny - sabermetrics help me enjoy baseball more. I'm sorry that new things are so scary that they ruin everything for you

This is a thread about a baseball player who just did something that hasn't been done for 47 years, and all you Trout folks can do is continue to complain about how Cabrera doesn't deserve the MVP. What does that say?


Ok, check out my first po.....uhhhhhh....hmmm...... the initial thing that I said in this thread. Here it is:

Rex_Banner: It's really awesome to see a triple crown. I'm really glad that I got to see it.


Now, do a Ctrl+F for "MVP". This is what comes up:

Peaceboy: I really like Mike Trout and was hoping he'd snag MVP, but goddamn, a Triple Crown.  Impressive.


It's not like we came in here to shiat on Cabrera.

sigdiamond2000: If there is one common thread that seems to run through most of the pro-Trout elements of these threads, it's not love of the game, it's anger over the interpretation of the game, and anger over the fact that not enough people recognize your genius. The level of sheer smuggery, lack of humor, and cultish devotion to a side/cause rivals anything ever seen on the Politics tab. It's both difficult and fascinating to watch.


Funny - in my opinion, the pro-Cabrera people have been FAR more angry.
 
2012-10-04 12:05:01 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Rex_Banner: Dr Dreidel: As long as Cabrera wasn't a defensive liability (he wasn't), his numbers should be enough

Cabrera's UZR/150 -10.6. That's...... not good at all.

Dr Dreidel: Read up on that. A good hitter is better for wins than a good defender. A bad baserunner who can hit for power will compensate for any errors (how many are likely in a season, anyway? 5 in a bad year? 10? Even a shiatty power hitter can hit more HRs than that), and fast guys can be shiatty baserunners, too.

They count, but not more than .330/135/40. That's a good year for anyone unless they've also got 150 SOs (not likely with a high AVG and OBP) and 20+ errors.

A good hitter is worth more than a good defender, yes. And we wouldn't be having this discussion if Trout was a bad hitter. But he led the league in OPS+ . He was very, very close to Cabrera as a hitter AND he was a much better base runner and defender.

Ozzie "The Wizard" Smith, a brilliant HOF defender and speedster, won approximately ZERO MVP awards. He won the '85 NLCS MVP, though.

How about Barry Bonds' last 4 MVP awards? No defense, no speed, no cartilage in his knees...

Ichiro won the AL MVP in 2001...by breaking the single-season rookie hits record. He hasn't won one since.

Pedroia won in 2008 by having a great AVG (.326, .003 behind Mauer - well played) and over 200 hits, and 4th in the AL in total bases, as well as his great defense and 20/21 SB record.

The BBWA doesn't look as much at defense and speed when choosing an MVP, because hitting has far more of an impact on the game. A better hitter will always win, whether because baseball is a stats game or because defense and speed aren't as important to the game is up for debate.

// a debate I don't really want to have


Don't worry, there will be a couple guys in here soon enough to tell you that using the history of the MVP award is not a logical basis for determining the future of the MVP award.
 
2012-10-04 12:05:06 PM  

rorypk: Rex_Banner: Well, I think BBWAA is going to give it to Cabrera. But that's not the argument that I'm making. I'm saying that they SHOULDN'T give it to Cabrera because Trout was the best overall player.

Well if they give an award for best overall player I won't come in to that thread and talk about Cabrera.

Are you guys trolling or what? MVP, most valuable player, was Trout more valuable to his team than Cabrera was to the Tigers?


Yes
 
2012-10-04 12:05:24 PM  

rorypk: Rex_Banner: Park factors take into account how your team did in the park vs how your team did away from the park, AND how all the other teams did in that park vs how all the other teams did in other parks. That balances things out a bit. There is still noise from year to year, and that's why they use multi-year averages to adjust for ballparks - it neutralizes this stuff even more by doing it that way.

I have no problem with using park factor in a general sense, but using it as a factor in determining a MVP is crazy and shows how far stats guys have gotten from common sense. Have the same problem with UZR and WAR. They're interesting formulas in general, but using them to argue against a triple crown winner who carried his team and got better as the season progressed is crazy.


Todd Helton hit .320+ with 30+ HRs and 110+ RBI each year for six consecutive years and never finished higher than fifth in MVP voting. Why? Because everybody knew Coors Field was a bandbox and people could see that, while Helton was a .350/.447/.613 hitter at home, he hit only .289/.389/.475 on the road.

I'm not using Park Factor as the sole determinant of the MVP, I'm using it to point out that Trout and Cabrera are basically even in terms of batting when you consider that Cabrera plays in a more hitter-friendly park.

But even with a multi year average I don't think you can iron out all the inputs into the formula, the turnover of most pitching staffs year to year is enough alone to make it unreliable. Plus flukes of weather like an el nino year or an early hurricane season.

Year-to-year pitching staff turnover should have no impact on Park Factor because it looks at how those same players pitch during the year (and how others pitch in your park during the year). If you can find some evidence that there are pitchers who consistently pitch better at home or away and there are a bunch of them on the same team for an extended period of time, then I'll consider that. But I doubt that any such evidence exists.

And, again, flukes of weather can affect one year's Park Factor, but the multi-year average is going to diminish the impact of that blip.
 
2012-10-04 12:06:11 PM  

Rex_Banner: rorypk: Rex_Banner: Well, I think BBWAA is going to give it to Cabrera. But that's not the argument that I'm making. I'm saying that they SHOULDN'T give it to Cabrera because Trout was the best overall player.

Well if they give an award for best overall player I won't come in to that thread and talk about Cabrera.

Are you guys trolling or what? MVP, most valuable player, was Trout more valuable to his team than Cabrera was to the Tigers?

Yes


Blah - that wasn't clear. I meant: "Yes, Trout is more valuable to his team than Cabrera was to the Tigers because he was better at baseball"
 
2012-10-04 12:06:28 PM  

Rex_Banner: Funny - in my opinion, the pro-Cabrera people have been FAR more angry.


Cause you are crapping all over a historic season. Can't revel in the accomplishment without defending a god dammed triple crown winner.
 
2012-10-04 12:08:24 PM  
Funny - in my opinion, the pro-Cabrera people have been FAR more angry.

Do you have statistical evidence to back that up? Opinions are like buttholes....everyone has one.

I would like to see a break down of total posts against those post that were pro-MC & angry versus that of the SM crowd.

So you go do that while the rest of us enjoy the fun of the game. You can post your results in tomorrow's inevitable MVP thread.
 
2012-10-04 12:10:01 PM  

Rex_Banner: Blah - that wasn't clear. I meant: "Yes, Trout is more valuable to his team than Cabrera was to the Tigers because he was better at baseball"


Trout
August .284 BA, .500 SLG .866 OPS
September .257 BA, .455 SLG .836 OPS

Cabrera
August .357 BA., 663 SLG 1.092 OPS
September .308 ba, .654 SLG, 1.032 OPS

Stolen bases and fielding make up for that difference? If Trout had kept up his June-July numbers the Angels would be in the playoffs. C
 
2012-10-04 12:11:32 PM  

rorypk: Rex_Banner: Funny - in my opinion, the pro-Cabrera people have been FAR more angry.

Cause you are crapping all over a historic season. Can't revel in the accomplishment without defending a god dammed triple crown winner.


You sound angry.
 
2012-10-04 12:13:42 PM  

rorypk: I don't think the guy is afraid of sabermetrics or change. It's just you guys are starting to sound like republicans talking about tax cuts. There's a little more to the game than just stats. Which is weird because it seems like all of this sabermetric stuff is designed to show the nuances of the game that the older standard statistics completely ignore.


Sure, there can be more to the game. But no one is talking about that. Everyone is all "UZR is bad, WAR is bad Park Factors are bad, look at BA and RBI!".

rorypk: All the joy of this triple crown year is being sucked out by stats guys.


How? I don't get this at all. I'll say this again: IT IS FREAKING AWESOME THAT HE WON THE TRIPLE CROWN! It's a rare achievement that I didn't think I'd ever see - but it happened! That's really, really, really cool. I was checking in on him every single night for the past 2 weeks to see if he would get there. It. Is. AWESOME! Howvever, winning the Triple Crown does not necessarily make someone the best overall player for the season.

Think of it like a cycle: It's fun to see a cycle. When the guy steps in and he's just a double away, we're all hoping that he pulls one into the gap. But if he gets the cycle, does that mean he had a better game than his teammate who went 4-4 with 2 HR and 2 2B? Nope. Still fun. Still awesome. But not as good.

rorypk: It's most valuable player, not best all around


Those, to me, are mostly the same thing.

rorypk: It's neck and neck when you talk about best all around, but Cabrera is so much more valuable to the Tigers than Trout is to the Angels that this discussion is moronic. I'll even concede that Trout had a better all around year, but there's just no comparison when talking about value to the team.


I don't get this. it is just the playoff thing? Even though the Angels actually had a better record? Are the playoffs all the matter?
 
2012-10-04 12:14:12 PM  
Just for the record (and to be contrarian), I think if we're going to give MVP to the individual who most contributed to his team making the playoffs, clearly it should go to Justin Verlander again.
 
2012-10-04 12:15:21 PM  

rorypk: Rex_Banner: Funny - in my opinion, the pro-Cabrera people have been FAR more angry.

Cause you are crapping all over a historic season. Can't revel in the accomplishment without defending a god dammed triple crown winner.


NO ONE is crapping on the Triple Crown. Again, IT'S GREAT THAT HE GOT THE TRIPLE CROWN! it just doesn't make him the best overall player
 
2012-10-04 12:15:54 PM  

sigdiamond2000:

This is a thread about a baseball player who just did something that hasn't been done for 47 years, and all you Trout folks can do is continue to complain about how Cabrera doesn't deserve the MVP. What does that say?


What Cabrera did was awesome, and I'm not going to take that away from him. He'll be immortalized in the record books for this accomplishment. Then again, Mike Trout is the first player since 1915 to lead the league in OPS+, stolen bases, and runs. Why is his success in three arbitrarily chosen stats less admirable than Cabrera's success in three arbitrarily chosen stats?
 
2012-10-04 12:16:24 PM  

rorypk: Are you guys trolling or what? MVP, most valuable player, was Trout more valuable to his team than Cabrera was to the Tigers?


Depends-
1. The Angels may have a better record and play in a harder division, suggesting they're the better team, BUT...
2. the argument is decent that Cabrera (having played in 22 more games, having more ABs and fewer SOs, and contributing more offense) contributed more "value" to his team than Trout did to his, BUT...
3. Trout plays better defense and is a more (.6% more) reliable base-getter-on-er, meaning his downside was smaller, BUT...
4. Cabrera won the farking Triple Crown.

Depends what your definition of "value" is. Is contributing possibly a lower overall "value" to a team that is in the postseason "worth less" than a guy who contributed more to an effort that isn't rewarded with November baseball?
 
2012-10-04 12:16:46 PM  

rorypk: Rex_Banner: Blah - that wasn't clear. I meant: "Yes, Trout is more valuable to his team than Cabrera was to the Tigers because he was better at baseball"

Trout
August .284 BA, .500 SLG .866 OPS
September .257 BA, .455 SLG .836 OPS

Cabrera
August .357 BA., 663 SLG 1.092 OPS
September .308 ba, .654 SLG, 1.032 OPS

Stolen bases and fielding make up for that difference? If Trout had kept up his June-July numbers the Angels would be in the playoffs. C


If the White Sox hadn't sucked balls in September, the Tigers would not be in the playoffs.
 
2012-10-04 12:17:49 PM  
Fark you, Bill Murray. Groundhog Day was a terrible farking movie, and it shouldn't have been realistic at all.
 
2012-10-04 12:21:01 PM  

roc6783: Fark you, Bill Murray. Groundhog Day was a terrible farking movie, and it shouldn't have been realistic at all.


I've never put someone on "ignore" before, but if you don't like Groundhog Day then I might have to change that
 
2012-10-04 12:22:17 PM  
The sidekicks are starting to pile in now, folks. Shouldn't be long before all-out intellectual inferiority complex takes over.
 
2012-10-04 12:22:29 PM  

Rex_Banner: I don't get this. it is just the playoff thing? Even though the Angels actually had a better record? Are the playoffs all the matter?


Most years leading a team to the playoffs would be a deciding factor, but this year the central was pretty weak and the west was strong. Instead, we're talking about a guy who got better as the season continued, when it counted. Got better later in games, got better later in an at bat. One guy got better as the season went on and one got worse. The one who got better is in the playoffs, the other is not.

Rex_Banner: Sure, there can be more to the game. But no one is talking about that. Everyone is all "UZR is bad, WAR is bad Park Factors are bad, look at BA and RBI!".


They're bad when you use them to argue against a triple crown winner who carried his team and got better when it counted. They have near identical batting stats, then you use park factors to determine hands down that Trout is better and deserves the MVP? Park factor shouldn't determine an MVP race, arguing for it is stupid.

If you truly think a guy who got worse as the season progressed is more valuable than a guy who got better, I just don't know how to communicate with you.
 
2012-10-04 12:23:46 PM  

roc6783: Fark you, Bill Murray. Groundhog Day was a terrible farking movie, and it shouldn't have been realistic at all.


Could I hang out with a Groundhog in a truck? I'd like to think we could, and that we could do it 4 times in a row.
 
2012-10-04 12:25:03 PM  

rorypk: Rex_Banner: Blah - that wasn't clear. I meant: "Yes, Trout is more valuable to his team than Cabrera was to the Tigers because he was better at baseball"

Trout
August .284 BA, .500 SLG .866 OPS
September .257 BA, .455 SLG .836 OPS

Cabrera
August .357 BA., 663 SLG 1.092 OPS
September .308 ba, .654 SLG, 1.032 OPS

Stolen bases and fielding make up for that difference? If Trout had kept up his June-July numbers the Angels would be in the playoffs. C


And if games in August and September were worth two wins, you might have a point. But games in June and July are worth just as much, and hits and runs in June and July are worth just as much. If Trout had kept up his early season numbers, he would have had one of the greatest seasons of all time: .350+ batting average, 1.100 OPS, 35 homers, 60 steals, 150 runs. Instead, he had to settle for a merely great season. A season worthy of being named MVP.

Also, if the Angels had gottenubianmes each against three of the four worst teams in the American League (KC, Cleveland, Minnesota). They would have made the playoffs, too. But not everybody can play in the AL Central.
 
2012-10-04 12:25:15 PM  

Dr Dreidel: rorypk: Are you guys trolling or what? MVP, most valuable player, was Trout more valuable to his team than Cabrera was to the Tigers?

Depends-
1. The Angels may have a better record and play in a harder division, suggesting they're the better team, BUT...
2. the argument is decent that Cabrera (having played in 22 more games, having more ABs and fewer SOs, and contributing more offense) contributed more "value" to his team than Trout did to his, BUT...
3. Trout plays better defense and is a more (.6% more) reliable base-getter-on-er, meaning his downside was smaller, BUT...
4. Cabrera won the farking Triple Crown.


I'm gonna break what I said before about staying out of this thread and agree with this, because I think there's been a ton of misconceptions in the Groundhog Day-esque series of threads. There's perfectly valid arguments to be made for both sides here. I happen to think that the arguments for Trout are stronger than the arguments for Cabrera. But that doesn't mean that I'm shiatting on Cabrera's season and the Triple Crown, or that I'll be upset if Cabrera wins.
 
2012-10-04 12:25:33 PM  

Rex_Banner: If the White Sox hadn't sucked balls in September, the Tigers would not be in the playoffs.


Then they'd be playing golf with Trout?
 
2012-10-04 12:30:50 PM  

rugman11: And if games in August and September were worth two wins, you might have a point. But games in June and July are worth just as much, and hits and runs in June and July are worth just as much. If Trout had kept up his early season numbers, he would have had one of the greatest seasons of all time: .350+ batting average, 1.100 OPS, 35 homers, 60 steals, 150 runs. Instead, he had to settle for a merely great season. A season worthy of being named MVP.


They're simply not the same. If you were at a spring training game and someone asked you if August and September were more important than June and July you'd say yes. You're only using this argument because it fits your opinion that Trout deserves the MVP. If you get better when it matters more you're more valuable to your team than the guy who gets worse when it matters. It's a lot easier to get on base in a mid June afternoon game than an ESPN game during a pennant chase. There's a huge mental aspect to baseball, being able to stand up to the pressure when it counts needs to count for something.

Trout batted .257 in September, if you think that deserves a MVP, I just don't get it.
 
2012-10-04 12:30:52 PM  

rorypk: If you truly think a guy who got worse as the season progressed is more valuable than a guy who got better, I just don't know how to communicate with you.


I'm going to start by answering this line. If someone having a different opinion than you means that you can't communicate with them, then.... well...... that's sad. It's just sad. I have no trouble communicating with you even though I disagree with a lot of what you've said.

Now.....


rorypk: Most years leading a team to the playoffs would be a deciding factor, but this year the central was pretty weak and the west was strong. Instead, we're talking about a guy who got better as the season continued, when it counted. Got better later in games, got better later in an at bat. One guy got better as the season went on and one got worse. The one who got better is in the playoffs, the other is not.


Because of his exception defense, Trout was actually about as valuable to his team in Aug/Sept as Cabrera was to his. Cabrera absolutely HIT better, but Trout still hit well and did enough other things to keep it close.

rorypk: They're bad when you use them to argue against a triple crown winner who carried his team and got better when it counted. They have near identical batting stats, then you use park factors to determine hands down that Trout is better and deserves the MVP? Park factor shouldn't determine an MVP race, arguing for it is stupid.


So again, honest question: If Robinson Cano hit .340/.400/.610 with 45 HR and 150 RBI, while Cabrera had the exact season that he had, would you say that Cano deserved the MVP? Or would you bring up that short right field porch at Yankee Stadium?
 
2012-10-04 12:33:46 PM  

Rex_Banner: So again, honest question: If Robinson Cano hit .340/.400/.610 with 45 HR and 150 RBI, while Cabrera had the exact season that he had, would you say that Cano deserved the MVP? Or would you bring up that short right field porch at Yankee Stadium?


Is Cano the guy for the Yankees four out of every five games? Did he slump late in the season? If two players have similar stats let's look at some other factors besides the park they play in. If every conceivable variable was accounted for and exactly even, then I'd bring in park factor, but only as a dead last resort.
 
2012-10-04 12:34:33 PM  

Rex_Banner: roc6783: Fark you, Bill Murray. Groundhog Day was a terrible farking movie, and it shouldn't have been realistic at all.

I've never put someone on "ignore" before, but if you don't like Groundhog Day then I might have to change that


I'm just fake bitter right now. Murray does have many better films though.

thecpt: roc6783: Fark you, Bill Murray. Groundhog Day was a terrible farking movie, and it shouldn't have been realistic at all.

Could I hang out with a Groundhog in a truck? I'd like to think we could, and that we could do it 4 times in a row.


WTF? Why would Groundhog be in a truck? You may join him on the merry-go-round.
 
2012-10-04 12:38:08 PM  

roc6783: 'm just fake bitter right now. Murray does have many better films though.


Garfield was really good at the end so it should be considered his best movie.

roc6783: WTF? Why would Groundhog be in a truck? You may join him on the merry-go-round.


I WANTED TO BE JUST LIKE THE MOVIE AND I HATE MERRY-GO-ROUNDS
 
2012-10-04 12:38:53 PM  

keypusher: You sound angry.


This wasn't directed at me, but I don't think it's anger. It's more frustration that some people have rechristened the Most Valuable Player award to the Best Overall Player award. It's not. It never has been.

Last year Justin Verlander won the MVP despite making negligible contributions to his team with hitting, fielding, and baserunning. The only thing Verlander did last year was throw a baseball 60 feet about 4000 times. Nobody in their right mind would call Verlander the best overall baseball player in the AL last year. Ellsbury was a far better overall player. Yet, Verlander won. It's almost as if the award is given out based on criteria other than who is the Best Overall Player...
 
2012-10-04 12:38:56 PM  

rorypk: Rex_Banner: So again, honest question: If Robinson Cano hit .340/.400/.610 with 45 HR and 150 RBI, while Cabrera had the exact season that he had, would you say that Cano deserved the MVP? Or would you bring up that short right field porch at Yankee Stadium?

Is Cano the guy for the Yankees four out of every five games? Did he slump late in the season? If two players have similar stats let's look at some other factors besides the park they play in. If every conceivable variable was accounted for and exactly even, then I'd bring in park factor, but only as a dead last resort.


Ok... see, we can talk about this without jumping down each other's throats here. It's ok to disagree.

I think that you need to look at park factors first because if two guys have similar lines and one plays in (for example) Coors while the other plays in (for example) Safeco, the guy who played in Safeco was clearly the better player to me because it's much, much harder to hit in Safeco. It's like doing 10 reps with 100 lbs vs doing 10 reps with 250 lbs - one if more impressive than the other. Do you disagree?
 
2012-10-04 12:40:21 PM  

roc6783: I'm just fake bitter right now. Murray does have many better films though.


Of of course. Ghostbusters is the greatest film of all time and I will fight anyone who says otherwise.
 
2012-10-04 12:44:21 PM  

ignatius_crumbcake: negligible contributions to his team with hitting, fielding, and baserunning


He made contributions to there being less hitting and baserunning by other teams and making life easy for his fielders. So well that he didn't have to bat.
 
2012-10-04 12:46:30 PM  

Rex_Banner: rorypk: Rex_Banner: So again, honest question: If Robinson Cano hit .340/.400/.610 with 45 HR and 150 RBI, while Cabrera had the exact season that he had, would you say that Cano deserved the MVP? Or would you bring up that short right field porch at Yankee Stadium?

Is Cano the guy for the Yankees four out of every five games? Did he slump late in the season? If two players have similar stats let's look at some other factors besides the park they play in. If every conceivable variable was accounted for and exactly even, then I'd bring in park factor, but only as a dead last resort.

Ok... see, we can talk about this without jumping down each other's throats here. It's ok to disagree.

I think that you need to look at park factors first because if two guys have similar lines and one plays in (for example) Coors while the other plays in (for example) Safeco, the guy who played in Safeco was clearly the better player to me because it's much, much harder to hit in Safeco. It's like doing 10 reps with 100 lbs vs doing 10 reps with 250 lbs - one if more impressive than the other. Do you disagree?


Yeah, but they don't play in radically different stadiums, so it's moot. There's a few outliers on both sides for hitter's and pitcher's parks, but most teams are lumped right in the middle. And if you think playing in Detroit weather versus LA weather is inconsequential that's nuts. I know Trout didn't play early season, but the weather in the central versus the west is gonna make a huge difference. Oakland and Seattle can have bad weather, the entire central always has bad weather for the first and last month.
 
2012-10-04 12:48:07 PM  

thecpt: ignatius_crumbcake: negligible contributions to his team with hitting, fielding, and baserunning

He made contributions to there being less hitting and baserunning by other teams and making life easy for his fielders. So well that he didn't have to bat.


Ok, but he only did it in 34 games out of the season. Was he still a better overall player than Jacoby Ellsbury last season? Ellsbury had a 9.4 WAR while Verlander had a 7.0.
 
2012-10-04 12:49:31 PM  
I hate the Tigers and I hate Detroit and its fans, but congratulations to Miggy.
 
2012-10-04 01:01:19 PM  
This is going to be my last post for a few hours because I have actual, real life work to get done this afternoon. Which sucks, because this is so much more fun. I will be checking back into this thread later, but I make no promises about posting anything before about 5:30 or so. I'd love to continue this discussion.

But anyway....

rorypk: Yeah, but they don't play in radically different stadiums, so it's moot. There's a few outliers on both sides for hitter's and pitcher's parks, but most teams are lumped right in the middle. And if you think playing in Detroit weather versus LA weather is inconsequential that's nuts. I know Trout didn't play early season, but the weather in the central versus the west is gonna make a huge difference. Oakland and Seattle can have bad weather, the entire central always has bad weather for the first and last month.


But that bad weather would show up in park factors. It's like they they just take the data for July and August and ignore everything else. Those late and early season games in Detroit have their effect on the park factor. I'm not saying that weather is inconsequential - weather is a factor in what makes a park play more hitter friendly or pitcher friendly. That's part of the reason that you can't just use dimensions. Temperature and wind effect how the ball carries. That's why we have park factors - to see if a park played a certain way in a certain season. Is it perfect? Nope. Is it close? Yes. And it's certainly much better than just saying "Player A who raked in Coors is better than Player B who raked in Petco".
 
2012-10-04 01:02:05 PM  

ignatius_crumbcake: Ok, but he only did it in 34 games out of the season. Was he still a better overall player than Jacoby Ellsbury last season? Ellsbury had a 9.4 WAR while Verlander had a 7.0


Oh, I'm not a WAR guy. I just thought he was the most dominant aspect in the game last year and worthy of an MVP. I'm going against the idea thats we're supposedly labeling it best overall. Being able to depend on someone giving you 8 of the best pitched innings every 5-6 days is worthy of it in my eyes.
 
2012-10-04 01:06:58 PM  

Rex_Banner: rorypk: Rex_Banner: Blah - that wasn't clear. I meant: "Yes, Trout is more valuable to his team than Cabrera was to the Tigers because he was better at baseball"

Trout
August .284 BA, .500 SLG .866 OPS
September .257 BA, .455 SLG .836 OPS

Cabrera
August .357 BA., 663 SLG 1.092 OPS
September .308 ba, .654 SLG, 1.032 OPS

Stolen bases and fielding make up for that difference? If Trout had kept up his June-July numbers the Angels would be in the playoffs. C

If the White Sox hadn't sucked balls in September, the Tigers would not be in the playoffs.


If Cabrera had faded in the stretch like Trout did then the White Sox would have won the division. He carried the Tigers during the stretch run.
 
2012-10-04 01:07:41 PM  

ignatius_crumbcake: thecpt: ignatius_crumbcake: negligible contributions to his team with hitting, fielding, and baserunning

He made contributions to there being less hitting and baserunning by other teams and making life easy for his fielders. So well that he didn't have to bat.

Ok, but he only did it in 34 games out of the season. Was he still a better overall player than Jacoby Ellsbury last season? Ellsbury had a 9.4 WAR while Verlander had a 7.0.


Probably not, but I still have no problem with him getting that MVP. There was a major wow factor to Verlander last year, and that does count for something. When people in the future look back at last year, he'll be the guy people talk about and not Ellsbury.

/see, I'm not an automaton!
//and before you ask, I'd say Trout and Cabrera about split the wow factor this year, for obvious reasons on both sides
 
2012-10-04 01:09:39 PM  

rorypk:

Yeah, but they don't play in radically different stadiums, so it's moot. There's a few outliers on both sides for hitter's and pitcher's parks, but most teams are lumped right in the middle. And if you think playing in Detroit weather versus LA weather is inconsequential that's nuts. I know Trout didn't play early season, but the weather in the central versus the west is gonna make a huge difference. Oakland and Seattle can have bad weather, the entire central always has bad weather for the first and last month.


According to Park Factor, Comerica Park gets a 10% boost over Angel Stadium. It's enough to give Trout a lead in OPS+ despite Cabrera having a better OPS.

And again, weather gets factored in to Park Factor. If the crappy weather was having an impact on Detroit's numbers, we'd know. Instead, we get this:

Detroit -
Home: 4.85 Runs/Game
Away: 4.11 Runs/Game

Anaheim -
Home: 4.30 Runs/Game
Away: 5.17 Runs/Game

League Average -
Home: 4.53 Runs/Game
Away: 4.36 Runs/Game

The average team scores 4% more runs at home than away. The Tigers score 7% more runs at home than away while Anaheim scores 8% fewer runs at home than away.
 
2012-10-04 01:11:32 PM  

SlagginOff: I hate the Tigers and I hate Detroit and its fans, but congratulations to Miggy.


Why? Of most of the major sports teams cities, who the hell could 'hate' detroit? The Lions haven't been a threat since the korean war, the tigers have been on again off again good. The pistons are horrid. The red wings are decent/good and the fans can be jerks in that regard.

Really, as far as fan bases go, it's generally the large cities (chicago, new york) where the fan bases are just ridiculously over the top.
 
2012-10-04 01:11:38 PM  

Rex_Banner: This is going to be my last post for a few hours because I have actual, real life work to get done this afternoon. Which sucks, because this is so much more fun. I will be checking back into this thread later, but I make no promises about posting anything before about 5:30 or so. I'd love to continue this discussion.

But anyway....

rorypk: Yeah, but they don't play in radically different stadiums, so it's moot. There's a few outliers on both sides for hitter's and pitcher's parks, but most teams are lumped right in the middle. And if you think playing in Detroit weather versus LA weather is inconsequential that's nuts. I know Trout didn't play early season, but the weather in the central versus the west is gonna make a huge difference. Oakland and Seattle can have bad weather, the entire central always has bad weather for the first and last month.

But that bad weather would show up in park factors. It's like they they just take the data for July and August and ignore everything else. Those late and early season games in Detroit have their effect on the park factor. I'm not saying that weather is inconsequential - weather is a factor in what makes a park play more hitter friendly or pitcher friendly. That's part of the reason that you can't just use dimensions. Temperature and wind effect how the ball carries. That's why we have park factors - to see if a park played a certain way in a certain season. Is it perfect? Nope. Is it close? Yes. And it's certainly much better than just saying "Player A who raked in Coors is better than Player B who raked in Petco".


That's only for the home teams park, not all parks they play in. Playing in beautiful weather is going to affect things, you're comparing Angels stadium to Comerica. Going from winter ball to spring training to either Detroit or Anaheim is going to make a huge difference in how your season progresses. And this is why park factors shouldn't come into play for an MVP discussion unless there's a huge difference, like you pointed out between petco and safeway. And I know it's a fallacy, but I just can't believe that Comerica being larger and wetter makes it a better hitters park than Anaheim. The numbers may back that up, but it just doesn't cotton well with me.
 
2012-10-04 01:28:36 PM  
If you step away from the equations and look at what Trout did on the field, he really had a nice year. 30 home runs is impressive for a rookie. 182 hits is very good too, and he scored more runs than anybody in the league. Add the stolen bases and solid defense, and that's a solid year.

I only have two complaints about him: too many strikeouts for a leadoff hitter, and he's from Jersey.
 
2012-10-04 01:36:48 PM  
So Trout wins because he's faster and whiter? Got it
 
2012-10-04 01:43:39 PM  

You Are All Sheep: SlagginOff: I hate the Tigers and I hate Detroit and its fans, but congratulations to Miggy.

Why? Of most of the major sports teams cities, who the hell could 'hate' detroit? The Lions haven't been a threat since the korean war, the tigers have been on again off again good. The pistons are horrid. The red wings are decent/good and the fans can be jerks in that regard.

Really, as far as fan bases go, it's generally the large cities (chicago, new york) where the fan bases are just ridiculously over the top.


The Detroit fans that move to Chicago are way more hateable than even the over the top Chicago fans. That is why I hate them. As a Chicago fan I can attest to the shiattiness of many of our own fans but they do not compare to the Michiganders.

Again, not taking anything away from Cabrera or the team. Although Valverde is a top-of-the-line douchenozzle and I hope he blows the final game of the ALDS in dramatic fashion (or maybe 3 in a row as they get swept).

Despite my bitterness and hatred, I am thrilled to see a triple crown winner in my lifetime.
 
2012-10-04 01:58:18 PM  
Most.....VALUABLE....player.

Without Cabrera, the Tigers would have fallen much farther and failed much harder than the Angels would have without Trout.

Cabrera should win MVP.
 
2012-10-04 01:59:53 PM  

ChrisDe: he's from Jersey.


Assuming he keeps playing at this level, or a level close to it, the amount of money the Yankees throw at him in 2018 will be staggering.
 
2012-10-04 02:15:51 PM  
He's from Jersey? Who supplies him with his steroids?
 
2012-10-04 02:16:07 PM  

browneye: VALUABLE


How do you define value? Without Trout, a lot more hits would have landed in center, and there would have been less runs on the board. I'm not sure that team would have been competitive without Trout.

And then if we're talking about actual money value, Trout was paid league minimum. (I'm not entertaining the idea, just speaking to multitude of definitions)
 
2012-10-04 02:18:44 PM  
I think the biggest problem here is how people interpret the MVP award. I think it just needs to be changed to the "Best player" or something, because, in all sports, it starts devolving into bullshiat arguments over what "most valuable" actually means.

"His teammates were worse than the other guy's! MVP!" (essentially how Derrick Rose won the MVP in the NBA in 10-11. Well that, and to smite LeBron)
 
2012-10-04 02:34:57 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: He's from Jersey? Who supplies him with his steroids?


He's from far southern Jersey. It's not exactly Seaside Heights down there.
 
2012-10-04 02:46:47 PM  
In my mind, Trout had the MVP locked up back in early August.

Then he went into a slump/came back to earth/regressed back to the norm and his team not only continued to win, but had the best record in baseball since August 21st, I think it was.

I'm not sure how a team manages to play its best baseball when its supposed "most valuable player" is in a slump?

I'm sure the answer is "stats".
 
2012-10-04 02:57:48 PM  

Rex_Banner: roc6783: I'm just fake bitter right now. Murray does have many better films though.

Of of course. Ghostbusters is the greatest film of all time and I will fight anyone who says otherwise.


Or to rephrase my original theme, why oh why didn't I take the blue pill...
 
2012-10-04 03:15:03 PM  
MVP

During the pressure of the playoff chase Cabrera stepped up and carried his team. Trout by contrast faded hard when the Angels needed him. That is pure distilled fact.
 
2012-10-04 03:23:06 PM  
You know what? Screw it.

Give the MVP to Robinson Cano.

The guy's incredible, is damn near the only 2B in baseball that can hit nowadays, and somehow manages to go under the radar of a whole slew of people despite being a Yankee. If making the playoffs is important, Cabrara gets dinged for playing in such a crap division.

Plus, it'd be a pretty hilarious troll.
 
2012-10-04 03:39:01 PM  

Dafatone: You know what? Screw it.

Give the MVP to Robinson Cano.

The guy's incredible, is damn near the only 2B in baseball that can hit nowadays, and somehow manages to go under the radar of a whole slew of people despite being a Yankee. If making the playoffs is important, Cabrara gets dinged for playing in such a crap division.

Plus, it'd be a pretty hilarious troll.


It would be better if they announced that they were going to give it to Cano, then gave it to Trout.
 
2012-10-04 03:48:08 PM  

Slow To Return: In my mind, Trout had the MVP locked up back in early August.

Then he went into a slump/came back to earth/regressed back to the norm and his team not only continued to win, but had the best record in baseball since August 21st, I think it was.

I'm not sure how a team manages to play its best baseball when its supposed "most valuable player" is in a slump?

I'm sure the answer is "stats".


July: 4.52 ERA (14-12)
August: 5.68 ERA (13-15)
September: 3.32 ERA (19-11)

I'm not saying it's the pitching staff, but it's the pitching staff.
 
2012-10-04 03:53:46 PM  

gtfan92: I think the biggest problem here is how people interpret the MVP award. I think it just needs to be changed to the "Best player" or something, because, in all sports, it starts devolving into bullshiat arguments over what "most valuable" actually means.



The CFL does that, replacing 'Valuable' with 'Outstanding' for their award... the only side effect being that the winner is dubbed the MOP.

/If MLB did it, we'd probably still get people arguing the same thing: "Yeah, his teammates sucked, so he stood out even more!"
 
2012-10-04 03:57:17 PM  
img819.imageshack.us
 
Just a reminder that in the last 28 days of the season (aka the heart of the division race), Justin Verlander went 4-1 with a 2.12  ERA.
 
VERLANDER MVP.
 
2012-10-04 04:33:51 PM  

SlagginOff: I hate the Tigers and I hate Detroit and its fans, but congratulations to Miggy.


Um, thanks?
 
2012-10-04 04:35:26 PM  

rugman11: July: 4.52 ERA (14-12)
August: 5.68 ERA (13-15)
September: 3.32 ERA (19-11)

I'm not saying it's the pitching staff, but it's the pitching staff.


So for the entire month of September, the Angels' entire pitching staff was more valuable than their supposed "Most Valuable Player"

My point exactly.
 
2012-10-04 04:36:51 PM  

Slow To Return: So for the entire month of September, the Angels' entire pitching staff was more valuable than their supposed "Most Valuable Player"


Er... Minus Santana, obviously.
 
2012-10-04 04:49:50 PM  

Slow To Return: rugman11: July: 4.52 ERA (14-12)
August: 5.68 ERA (13-15)
September: 3.32 ERA (19-11)

I'm not saying it's the pitching staff, but it's the pitching staff.

So for the entire month of September, the Angels' entire pitching staff was12 Angel players were more valuable than their supposed "Most Valuable Player"

My point exactly.


The point, which you seem to be missing, is that there is a lot more that goes into wins and losses than just one player. You asked how the team could do so well while Trout was struggling. The answer, clearly, is that their pitching staff improved significantly from the middle of the season.

I could also point out that the Angels went 8-15 in April without Trout despite a staff ERA of 4.06. Maybe it's because the offense could only muster 3.50 runs/game. Add Trout to the equation and by June and July they were averaging 5.30 runs per game.

Individual success does not necessarily create team success. For all the talk about Cabrera "carrying the team in September," nobody talks about the Detroit pitching staff's 3.10 ERA. And even if we did accept that argument, it doesn't change the fact that the Angels finished with a better record than the Tigers.
 
2012-10-04 05:07:17 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-04 05:10:36 PM  

Bruxellensis: SlagginOff: I hate the Tigers and I hate Detroit and its fans, but congratulations to Miggy.

Um, thanks?


Not congratulating the fans. They didn't do dick.
 
2012-10-04 05:14:03 PM  
FTFA: Since Carl Yastrzemski won the last Triple Crown in in 1967, we have seen the mound lowered, amphetamines, expansion, steroids and Coors Field, and yet no one has done it. This just goes to show that the Triple Crown is no easy feat.

It's ironic that all those things contributed to higher batting averages. Still awesome though. Good job, Miggy. Hell of a year.
 
2012-10-04 05:15:59 PM  

SlagginOff: Bruxellensis: SlagginOff: I hate the Tigers and I hate Detroit and its fans, but congratulations to Miggy.

Um, thanks?

Not congratulating the fans. They didn't do dick.


No shiat you're not. But you're not talking to MC.
 
2012-10-04 05:17:37 PM  
If understand basic math and the game of baseball you vote Trout.

If you're mentally handicapped and/or from Michigan you vote Cabrera.
 
2012-10-04 05:18:55 PM  

SlagginOff: Bruxellensis: SlagginOff: I hate the Tigers and I hate Detroit and its fans, but congratulations to Miggy.

Um, thanks?

Not congratulating the fans. They didn't do dick.


You know, as in "thanks for getting over your hatred of Detroit fans to congratulate a Detroit player for his accomplishment, even though you still managed to disrespect the fans in the process."

*checked profile*

Ah, yes. Makes sense now.
 
2012-10-04 05:20:40 PM  
Trout or Cabrera for MVP is alright by me. I look at Trout, only because I saw just how BAD the Angels were without him; they ended up with a better record in a FAR more difficult division after a horrible start, so it's easy to say the Angels are a better team than the Tigers.

The Triple Crown is an automatic MVP only in a year where there's no viable competition. This year, there's a 1 and 1A.
 
2012-10-04 05:22:06 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Ichiro won the AL MVP in 2001...by breaking the single-season rookie hits record. He hasn't won one since.


They tied for the most wins in MLB history that season. He may not have won otherwise... or without the help of a steroid-using Bret Boone.
 
2012-10-04 05:25:38 PM  

rorypk: Trout batted .257 in September, if you think that deserves a MVP, I just don't get it.


DURRR SEPTEMBER IZ ONLY BASE BALL
 
2012-10-04 05:27:25 PM  
Also, per this thread, Mike Trout deserves to be punished because the As are the hottest team in baseball and Cabrera should be boosted because the White Sox collapsed.
 
2012-10-04 05:43:21 PM  

SlagginOff: Bruxellensis: SlagginOff: I hate the Tigers and I hate Detroit and its fans, but congratulations to Miggy.

Um, thanks?

Not congratulating the fans. They didn't do dick.


As teams usually play better at home, fan support ought to be part of some kind of stat, right? Players in cities with good fan support would get a small bump in their numbers. Somebody do the math and get back with me.
 
2012-10-04 06:04:03 PM  

Bruxellensis: SlagginOff: Bruxellensis: SlagginOff: I hate the Tigers and I hate Detroit and its fans, but congratulations to Miggy.

Um, thanks?

Not congratulating the fans. They didn't do dick.

No shiat you're not. But you're not talking to MC.


I said "Congratulations TO Miggy," not "Congratulations Miggy." There's a difference.

Bruxellensis: SlagginOff: Bruxellensis: SlagginOff: I hate the Tigers and I hate Detroit and its fans, but congratulations to Miggy.

Um, thanks?

Not congratulating the fans. They didn't do dick.

You know, as in "thanks for getting over your hatred of Detroit fans to congratulate a Detroit player for his accomplishment, even though you still managed to disrespect the fans in the process."

*checked profile*

Ah, yes. Makes sense now.


I haven't met many Detroit fans worthy of respect, so I don't feel bad.
 
2012-10-04 06:05:51 PM  

rorypk: Rex_Banner: This is going to be my last post for a few hours because I have actual, real life work to get done this afternoon. Which sucks, because this is so much more fun. I will be checking back into this thread later, but I make no promises about posting anything before about 5:30 or so. I'd love to continue this discussion.

But anyway....

rorypk: Yeah, but they don't play in radically different stadiums, so it's moot. There's a few outliers on both sides for hitter's and pitcher's parks, but most teams are lumped right in the middle. And if you think playing in Detroit weather versus LA weather is inconsequential that's nuts. I know Trout didn't play early season, but the weather in the central versus the west is gonna make a huge difference. Oakland and Seattle can have bad weather, the entire central always has bad weather for the first and last month.

But that bad weather would show up in park factors. It's like they they just take the data for July and August and ignore everything else. Those late and early season games in Detroit have their effect on the park factor. I'm not saying that weather is inconsequential - weather is a factor in what makes a park play more hitter friendly or pitcher friendly. That's part of the reason that you can't just use dimensions. Temperature and wind effect how the ball carries. That's why we have park factors - to see if a park played a certain way in a certain season. Is it perfect? Nope. Is it close? Yes. And it's certainly much better than just saying "Player A who raked in Coors is better than Player B who raked in Petco".

That's only for the home teams park, not all parks they play in. Playing in beautiful weather is going to affect things, you're comparing Angels stadium to Comerica. Going from winter ball to spring training to either Detroit or Anaheim is going to make a huge difference in how your season progresses. And this is why park factors shouldn't come into play for an MVP discussion unless there's a ...


So, your argument, if I understand correctly, is that park factors are ignoring that players have to hit on the road as well? Well, that's actually a reasonably valid criticism, because there is an unbalanced schedule, so they play more road games in different parks. The thing is, though, Trout plays road games in Oakland and Seattle, which are very pitcher friendly. Texas is a launching pad, though. Detroit gets Chicago, which is also a very good hitter's park, Cleveland, which favors pitchers, and two pretty neutral parks (Minnesota and KC). So again, this favors Trout.

As for Comerica, I don't know exactly WHY it is more hitter friendly than the Big A, I just know that it is. My best guess is that it's easier for a hitter to pick up the ball at Comerica. It looks like neither park lets up lot of walks, but Angel Stadium is at the very bottom of the league in that category. That COULD be a result of of hard it is to pick up the ball out of the pitcher's hand.
 
2012-10-04 06:25:40 PM  

keypusher: Cabrera, of course, because he's at third base. A CF (even Trout) doesn't have a prayer of making a play at the plate because the runner is taking off as soon as the ball is hit.


Don't forget Cabrera moved to third this year. He had been playing first base since 2007
 
2012-10-04 06:34:30 PM  

One Thousand: keypusher: Cabrera, of course, because he's at third base. A CF (even Trout) doesn't have a prayer of making a play at the plate because the runner is taking off as soon as the ball is hit.

Don't forget Cabrera moved to third this year. He had been playing first base since 2007


He had played about 390 games at third base before this season, so it wasn't new to him or anything.

But that was in Florida, and nobody knows that the Marlins play baseball.

/if they did, the Marlins would be the laughingstock of the NL this season. But nope, it's the Mets or the Cubs or the Pirates.
 
2012-10-04 09:14:00 PM  

BeerLion: "Cabrera is allowed to win the MVP. he just shouldn't because Trout had a better year. It's complicated, I know"

Trout faded down the stretch after he was either figured out by opposing pitchers, caved under the pressure of a playoff race or simply came back to earth.

Trout
August .284 BA, .500 SLG .866 OPS
September .257 BA, .455 SLG .836 OPS

Cabrera
August .357 BA., 663 SLG 1.092 OPS
September .308 ba, .654 SLG, 1.032 OPS


I think you just won the thread.
 
2012-10-04 10:34:14 PM  

Yakk: BeerLion: "Cabrera is allowed to win the MVP. he just shouldn't because Trout had a better year. It's complicated, I know"

Trout faded down the stretch after he was either figured out by opposing pitchers, caved under the pressure of a playoff race or simply came back to earth.

Trout
August .284 BA, .500 SLG .866 OPS
September .257 BA, .455 SLG .836 OPS

Cabrera
August .357 BA., 663 SLG 1.092 OPS
September .308 ba, .654 SLG, 1.032 OPS

I think you just won the thread.


Except that, you know, Trout's amazing defense and baserunning, which is really what puts him ahead (if you think he's ahead) didn't fade.
 
2012-10-05 12:47:50 AM  
puffy999 [TotalFark]: rorypk: Trout batted .257 in September, if you think that deserves a MVP, I just don't get it.

DURRR SEPTEMBER IZ ONLY BASE BALL


It's not, but it certainly counts. As does April. Which is why the guy who tore up the league for 161 games is more valuable than the guy who did it from May to August.
 
Oak
2012-10-05 12:53:09 AM  

animesucks: is that balco guy already out of prison and has he moved to detroit?


Nope. Anaheim.
 
Displayed 203 of 203 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report