Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Bugs & Cranks)   Catching up with Albert Belle, who should have won the 1995 AL MVP. Bonus: He says Miguel Cabrera is more valuable than Mike Trout and that rattlesnakes make great golf instructors   (bugsandcranks.com ) divider line
    More: Amusing, Albert Belle, Mike Trout, MVP, Miguel Cabrera, al mvp, Peter Angelos, Jim Thome, Jerry Reinsdorf  
•       •       •

714 clicks; posted to Sports » on 06 Mar 2014 at 1:45 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2014-03-06 12:20:27 PM  
I've got to go with Miguel Cabrera. When you look at batting average, when you look at home runs, when you look at RBIs, when you look at a guy getting on base and scoring runs, (Cabrera's) going to do some damage in the line-up. He won the Triple Crown, he should have been the MVP, though I know there's been some debate about Mike Trout. I know he hit over .300, I know he can score a lot of runs and he can save runs with his glove, but you look at Detroit as a winning team and Anaheim was a losing team. So do you go with the best player on the best team or do you go with the best on the worst, and I think you should go with Miguel Cabrera because he was the best player on the best team.

Q.E.D., Star Trek stat nerds.
 
2014-03-06 01:18:52 PM  
Oh boy, it's this thread again.
 
2014-03-06 01:49:00 PM  
Too busy to actually get into this at the moment, but I'd still love it if someone can explain why an individual award should depend on what a player's teammates do.

I'll check back later.  Thanks
 
2014-03-06 01:49:43 PM  
Now this is a fark I haven't given in a loooooooong time.
 
2014-03-06 01:51:58 PM  
Albert Belle was the dude I traded for in World Series baseball on the Sega Saturn. Yea...I was one of the only kids with a Saturn.
 
2014-03-06 01:53:37 PM  

DeWayne Mann: Too busy to actually get into this at the moment, but I'd still love it if someone can explain why an individual award should depend on what a player's teammates do.


You can't. There's no rational explanation. However, it's simply a fact of life at this point.

Anyway, this has debate been beaten to death the last couple years. Miguel Cabrera is clearly the best hitter in the game, and arguably a top 3 greatest right-handed hitter ever. Mike Trout is clearly a more all-around player. Which is truly more valuable? I've quit trying to argue it either way. But I do know this -- Albert Belle is not going to be my definitive reference on the matter, and I am not surprised that he favors the offensive numbers over defensive value.
 
2014-03-06 01:53:48 PM  
Joooooooooeeeeeeeyyyyy
 
2014-03-06 01:54:47 PM  
apparently I walked by Albert Belle in a casino in the late 90s.

my friend, "hey, do you know who that is?"

me, "who are you talking about?"

friend, "that guy you just bumped into."

me [turning around], "Who?"

friend, "you know, that big black guy with a white girl on each arm... that's Albert Belle"

me, "meh."
 
2014-03-06 01:55:33 PM  

DeWayne Mann: Too busy to actually get into this at the moment, but I'd still love it if someone can explain why an individual award should depend on what a player's teammates do.

I'll check back later.  Thanks


A great player's will to win rubs off on his teammates. You can't quantify heart or grit. Or scrappiness. That sandpaper quality that players like David Eckstein brought to the table is worth more than any rally-killing home run ever will be.
 
2014-03-06 02:05:07 PM  
So are you related to that guy Joey Belle?
 
2014-03-06 02:06:06 PM  
When he was in the minors he worked as a substitute school teacher during the off season.
 
2014-03-06 02:10:06 PM  

sigdiamond2000: I've got to go with Miguel Cabrera. When you look at batting average, when you look at home runs, when you look at RBIs, when you look at a guy getting on base and scoring runs, (Cabrera's) going to do some damage in the line-up. He won the Triple Crown, he should have been the MVP, though I know there's been some debate about Mike Trout. I know he hit over .300, I know he can score a lot of runs and he can save runs with his glove, but you look at Detroit as a winning team and Anaheim was a losing team. So do you go with the best player on the best team or do you go with the best on the worst, and I think you should go with Miguel Cabrera because he was the best player on the best team.

Q.E.D., Star Trek stat nerds.


I figure you're probably kidding, but it's funny how people talk about how Trout supporters were "stat nerds" but then nominate Cabrera because of ... his stats.

It's like DiMaggio vs Ted Williams in 1941, except through the looking glass.
 
2014-03-06 02:28:02 PM  
Opinions, opinions. What do the mathematicians say???
 
2014-03-06 02:34:28 PM  

DeWayne Mann: Too busy to actually get into this at the moment, but I'd still love it if someone can explain why an individual award should depend on what a player's teammates do.

I'll check back later.  Thanks


Not an explanation, but the "V" in "MVP" stands for "valuable." As in value to the team, via statistical contribution. Can't really have a team without other players, though. As long as that undefinable "value" aspect is included, then the team's performance is going to come into play.
 
2014-03-06 02:45:03 PM  

DeWayne Mann: Too busy to actually get into this at the moment, but I'd still love it if someone can explain why an individual award should depend on what a player's teammates do.

I'll check back later.  Thanks


No, that's OK. Really.
 
2014-03-06 02:46:32 PM  
When's the last time a World Series MVP played for the losing squad?
 
2014-03-06 02:46:36 PM  
"Trick or treat, Albert!"

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-01-06/sports/9601060085_1_bo y- jose-feliciano-halloween-incident

/Used to yell that at him when he played against the Mariners.
 
2014-03-06 02:47:36 PM  

MNguy: When's the last time a World Series MVP played for the losing squad?


Andre Dawson won it when the Cubs finished last.
 
2014-03-06 02:49:14 PM  
Well, at least someone recognizes that Albert got robbed in 95.  First player (maybe only) with 50 HR's and 50 2B's in a season and loses to Mo Vaughn (Mostly because Belle was an asshole and Vaughn was a nice media guy in Boston).  God damn that 95 teams was amazing... sigh.

/Tribe will win a Series someday
// Arguably the two best teams to not win a Series (besides that Mariners team) are the 54 and 95 Indians
///Third slash, guess I'm out.
 
2014-03-06 02:51:12 PM  

MNguy: When's the last time a World Series MVP played for the losing squad?


Wiki says 1960, Bobby Richardson for the Yankees. Mazeroski's home run beat them.
 
2014-03-06 02:55:12 PM  
In his prime Belle was considered the biggest asshole in baseball, by far.  Was that fair?  Does anyone know?
 
2014-03-06 03:01:01 PM  
So, if you're only going to be rewarded the MVP solely on individual efforts then no pitcher could ever win the award. Unless, of course he pitched to a two strike count and with no catcher had a pass ball. Then somehow got the runner out every time without the aid of other players (passed balls to every player, recovering the ball and tagging out each runner or beating the runner home on bases loaded with a recovered ball) and recorded every out for the entire season in this fashion.
Hitters would only be able to win the MVP by simply getting on base and stealing every base without a pitch being thrown to other batters. Either hit a home run or steal bases home. Also, he couldn't feasibly be a position player as he would be required to play every position 100 percent of the time. Including pitching, throwing the ball on a ground ball from the infield and catching it at first, playing all three outfield positions for pop fly's and all the while catching the pitch and running to the defensive positions in the field.THEN, only then could a player win an individual award without depending on what a player's teammates do.
 
2014-03-06 03:03:40 PM  

ongbok: MNguy: When's the last time a World Series MVP played for the losing squad?

Andre Dawson won it when the Cubs finished last.


that must've been a helluva year to win world series mvp and not even have played in it
 
2014-03-06 03:13:48 PM  

DeWayne Mann: Too busy to actually get into this at the moment, but I'd still love it if someone can explain why an individual award should depend on what a player's teammates do.

I'll check back later.  Thanks


Yep, agreed that its stupid.  I think the major problem (and there's no turning back, I understand) is that they named the award "most valuable player" rather than "player of the year".

So we've had decades of debating not only who should win it... but what the title of the award even means.

*sigh*
 
2014-03-06 03:20:32 PM  
I didn't understand the debate then, and I don't understand bringing it up now.

Cabrera was deserving (no question in my mind).  He is a very good fielder at 1B and the best hitter in baseball I will likely see in my lifetime.

Is there really a debate about this?
 
2014-03-06 03:29:40 PM  

great_tigers: So, if you're only going to be rewarded the MVP solely on individual efforts then no pitcher could ever win the award. Unless, of course he pitched to a two strike count and with no catcher had a pass ball. Then somehow got the runner out every time without the aid of other players (passed balls to every player, recovering the ball and tagging out each runner or beating the runner home on bases loaded with a recovered ball) and recorded every out for the entire season in this fashion.
Hitters would only be able to win the MVP by simply getting on base and stealing every base without a pitch being thrown to other batters. Either hit a home run or steal bases home. Also, he couldn't feasibly be a position player as he would be required to play every position 100 percent of the time. Including pitching, throwing the ball on a ground ball from the infield and catching it at first, playing all three outfield positions for pop fly's and all the while catching the pitch and running to the defensive positions in the field.THEN, only then could a player win an individual award without depending on what a player's teammates do.


I'm not even saying that team performance shouldn't be considered, but this is perhaps the dumbest argument I've seen against that stance.
 
2014-03-06 03:30:49 PM  

bglove25: Well, at least someone recognizes that Albert got robbed in 95.  First player (maybe only) with 50 HR's and 50 2B's in a season and loses to Mo Vaughn (Mostly because Belle was an asshole and Vaughn was a nice media guy in Boston).  God damn that 95 teams was amazing... sigh.


By WAR (either bWAR or fWAR), it would either have been Randy Johnson (if you "allow" pitchers), or John Valentin.

Valentin had basically the same OBP as Belle, less power (37 2B, 27 HR, .533 slugging), but that year the various metrics suggest that he was the best defensive shortstop in baseball.  Plus he could run the bases (20 SB vs 5 CS, took the extra base 53% of the time).  In the meantime, Belle played one of the easiest positions on the field (LF), and he even played that badly.

It's not "most valuable hitter", and Belle and Vaughn were one-dimensional players who hurt their team whenever they weren't in the batter's box.  If Belle has gotten hurt, the Indians could replace him with Jeromy Burnitz or whoever, and the dropoff would be bad, but not crushing.    You can't say the same for a slick-fielding shortstop with a .399 OBP, wheels, and solid power.

(If anyone mentions RBI, keep in mind that Valentin was a #2 hitter who hit behind the immortal Lee Tinsley or a 36-year-old Willie McGee that year.  Belle hit #4 behind Vizquel/Lofton/Baerga.)
 
2014-03-06 03:36:57 PM  

kukukupo: I didn't understand the debate then, and I don't understand bringing it up now.

Cabrera was deserving (no question in my mind).  He is a very good fielder at 1B and the best hitter in baseball I will likely see in my lifetime.

Is there really a debate about this?


It isn't "was he deserving" it is "was he the most deserving".

My question is always, if he does not win the Triple Crown with the exact same stats, and trout has the same stats, is he your MVP?

If not, then he shouldn't be just because a third party didn't get a couple more dingers.
 
2014-03-06 03:38:04 PM  

great_tigers: So, if you're only going to be rewarded the MVP solely on individual efforts then no pitcher could ever win the award. Unless, of course he pitched to a two strike count and with no catcher had a pass ball. Then somehow got the runner out every time without the aid of other players (passed balls to every player, recovering the ball and tagging out each runner or beating the runner home on bases loaded with a recovered ball) and recorded every out for the entire season in this fashion.


This post is dumb and you should feel dumb.

kukukupo: He is a very good fielder at 1B and the best hitter in baseball I will likely see in my lifetime.


1) Miguel Cabrera is not "a very good fielder" at any position.

2A) Miguel Cabrera's best season (2013): 1.078 OPS, best in baseball.
2B) Albert Pujols averaged a 1.075 OPS for seven seasons from 2003 to 2009.

Memories are short.
 
2014-03-06 03:46:10 PM  
You can throw WAR out (I won't), I don't love the Angels, but it is way cool to see Mike Trout on the TV whenever I want cause he is that farking good.  I mean, you get to watch a guy like Trout, you stop and watch (and I love my Dodgers).

The worst argument in the last couple of years in favor of Miggie was the playoffs thing in Trout's rookie year when Miggie won the triple crown (very cool, by the way) despite the Angels winning more games than the Tigers did that year (a side effect of divisions).  There should be little doubt that Mike Trout has been the best player in the AL the last couple of years.  He has also been the best player in both leagues as well.  Mike Trout is freaking amazingly awesome, and he is going to be the best player of his generation.
 
2014-03-06 03:51:25 PM  

chimp_ninja: 2A) Miguel Cabrera's best season (2013): 1.078 OPS, best in baseball.
2B) Albert Pujols averaged a 1.075 OPS for seven seasons from 2003 to 2009.


Not that I'm arguing necessarily for or against Mike Trout/Miguel Cabrera, but I never understand why people post this fact in every one of these threads as some kind of "proof" that Miguel Cabrera wasn't deserving of his MVPs. Pujols won the MVP three times during that span.

What does that prove? What is the argument?
 
2014-03-06 03:53:20 PM  

chimp_ninja: great_tigers: So, if you're only going to be rewarded the MVP solely on individual efforts then no pitcher could ever win the award. Unless, of course he pitched to a two strike count and with no catcher had a pass ball. Then somehow got the runner out every time without the aid of other players (passed balls to every player, recovering the ball and tagging out each runner or beating the runner home on bases loaded with a recovered ball) and recorded every out for the entire season in this fashion.

This post is dumb and you should feel dumb.

kukukupo: He is a very good fielder at 1B and the best hitter in baseball I will likely see in my lifetime.

1) Miguel Cabrera is not "a very good fielder" at any position.

2A) Miguel Cabrera's best season (2013): 1.078 OPS, best in baseball.
2B) Albert Pujols averaged a 1.075 OPS for seven seasons from 2003 to 2009.

Memories are short.


His stretch from 2001-2010 is one of the greatest in the history of the sport. But it has nothing to do with Cabrera.
 
2014-03-06 03:53:28 PM  
Ugh, forget it. I see now that you're arguing for Pujols being a better hitter in general, not against Cabrera for MVP.

Disregard. It's been a long day.
 
2014-03-06 03:54:48 PM  

ricewater_stool: His stretch from 2001-2010 is one of the greatest in the history of the sport. But it has nothing to do with Cabrera.


I think he was taking issue with the "Cabrera is the best hitter in my lifetime" argument, not his deserving an MVP.
 
2014-03-06 04:02:06 PM  

sigdiamond2000: ricewater_stool: His stretch from 2001-2010 is one of the greatest in the history of the sport. But it has nothing to do with Cabrera.

I think he was taking issue with the "Cabrera is the best hitter in my lifetime" argument, not his deserving an MVP.



Well, since Pujols moved to the AL at age 32, i.e. not terribly old, he's been pretty mediocre.
 
2014-03-06 04:14:59 PM  
Baseball writers have no interest in picking the best player. They look at counting stats until they find which player makes their dick hardest, then they invent the definition of "valuable" that year so their guy wins (note that they're not actually good at that last part, but whatever).
 
2014-03-06 04:20:23 PM  

DeWayne Mann: Too busy to actually get into this at the moment, but I'd still love it if someone can explain why an individual award should depend on what a player's teammates do.

I'll check back later.  Thanks


Because it's "Most Valuable Player", not 'Best Player'.

There is value in winning. There isn't much value in being the best player but still losing
 
2014-03-06 04:39:13 PM  

chimp_ninja: bglove25: Well, at least someone recognizes that Albert got robbed in 95.  First player (maybe only) with 50 HR's and 50 2B's in a season and loses to Mo Vaughn (Mostly because Belle was an asshole and Vaughn was a nice media guy in Boston).  God damn that 95 teams was amazing... sigh.

By WAR (either bWAR or fWAR), it would either have been Randy Johnson (if you "allow" pitchers), or John Valentin.

Valentin had basically the same OBP as Belle, less power (37 2B, 27 HR, .533 slugging), but that year the various metrics suggest that he was the best defensive shortstop in baseball.  Plus he could run the bases (20 SB vs 5 CS, took the extra base 53% of the time).  In the meantime, Belle played one of the easiest positions on the field (LF), and he even played that badly.

It's not "most valuable hitter", and Belle and Vaughn were one-dimensional players who hurt their team whenever they weren't in the batter's box.  If Belle has gotten hurt, the Indians could replace him with Jeromy Burnitz or whoever, and the dropoff would be bad, but not crushing.    You can't say the same for a slick-fielding shortstop with a .399 OBP, wheels, and solid power.

(If anyone mentions RBI, keep in mind that Valentin was a #2 hitter who hit behind the immortal Lee Tinsley or a 36-year-old Willie McGee that year.  Belle hit #4 behind Vizquel/Lofton/Baerga.)


So, being the only player in history to go 50 HR and 50 2B's (in a 144 game season no less) is less important than 20 stolen bases (and completely discounts that that Indians team had a better base stealer- kenny lofton, and a much better defensive ss -Visquel). Belle's fielding average was .001 below the league average, but yeah, we was terrible in LF.   I mean, I think WAR is useful and all, but no. Just no.  The only reason an injured Belle doesn't destroy the Indians is that line-up was stacked.  But yeah, missing league leader in runs, doubles, HR's, RBI's, Slugging and total bases is totally just like losing a good defensive shortstop that gets on base and has decent power for the position.  Good argument.
 
2014-03-06 04:43:15 PM  
If it weren't for being filthy rich, Albert Belle could use his personality for birth control.
 
2014-03-06 04:50:20 PM  

sigdiamond2000: I think he was taking issue with the "Cabrera is the best hitter in my lifetime" argument, not his deserving an MVP.


In addition to Pujols' run, Frank Thomas was every bit as good for 8 years as Cabrera has been for the last 3 or 4.  People have short memories.
 
2014-03-06 05:31:44 PM  

keypusher: In his prime Belle was considered the biggest asshole in baseball, by far.  Was that fair?  Does anyone know?


www.waitingfornextyear.com
Fernando Vina probably thinks he was.
 
2014-03-06 05:34:05 PM  
Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu:

I'm not even saying that team performance shouldn't be considered, but this is perhaps the dumbest argument I've seen against that stance.

chimp_ninja


This post is dumb and you should feel dumb


 It is dumb. But so is saying that Trout does everything by himself and doesn't rely on help from his teammates.
 
2014-03-06 06:13:59 PM  
great_tigers:  It is dumb.

Glad we agree.

But so is saying that Trout does everything by himself and doesn't rely on help from his teammates.

You're missing the point.  The point is that Mike Trout is only responsible for what Mike Trout does.  If he hits like a slugger, takes his walks like a veteran, runs like a leadoff man, and plays excellent outfield defense, he's incredibly valuable.  Worrying about what his teammates are doing is a distraction from that.
 
2014-03-06 06:19:37 PM  

great_tigers: Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu:

I'm not even saying that team performance shouldn't be considered, but this is perhaps the dumbest argument I've seen against that stance.

chimp_ninja


This post is dumb and you should feel dumb


 It is dumb. But so is saying that Trout does everything by himself and doesn't rely on help from his teammates.


Nobody makes that argument. You're trying to reduce the argument to Trout into a ridiculous straw man argument.

The argument for Trout is that he's a better overall player. He's a slightly worse hitter than Cabrera, but he *more than* makes up for it with his superior fielding and by being one of the best baserunners in the game. The argument is that Trout provides a ridiculous amount of value for his team - 10+ WAR seasons have happened less than 60 times in baseball history. In fact, Trout supporters are arguing that you *should* take into account the contributions of your teammates when talking about who provided more "value", to counter this ridiculous notion that because Cabrera's team went to the playoffs, he gets the MVP while Trout does not. Which is ridiculous for two reasons:

1. Trout's team actually finished with a better record than Cabrera's in 2012, when this debate started. His team did better in a stronger division, and missed the playoffs because they weren't fortunate enough to be in a crappy division.
2. Baseball is a game of many people contributing to the outcome. It's entirely possible that a person can produce the most value for his team, but the rest of the team won't produce enough to get them to the playoffs. In this case, the rest of the Angels combined for 16 WAR, while the non-Cabrera Tigers produced 18.9 WAR (per fangraphs)

Trout played on a worse team last year. He still provided the most value.
 
2014-03-06 06:25:20 PM  
Ok, too much to respond to, so I'm just gonna pose another question:

If a player's value depends on what his teammates did, and being on a playoff team matters, who was more valuable in 2013 (and why): James Loney or Mike Napoli.
 
2014-03-06 06:37:24 PM  

bglove25: So, being the only player in history to go 50 HR and 50 2B's (in a 144 game season no less) is less important than 20 stolen bases


You seem to be omitting that he was a top-tier defensive shortstop, which is much more important than a nice-to-have like good baserunning speed.  Ozzie Smith is a Hall of Famer, and he hit like a AAA scrub most of the time.  Shortstop is one of the two most important defensive positions, and Valentin played it very well in 1995.

(and completely discounts that that Indians team had a better base stealer- kenny lofton, and a much better defensive ss -Visquel).

I don't know what this has to do with John Valentin deserving the MVP over Albert Belle.  The point is that it's much easier to find a crappy outfielder who can hit than a slick-fielding shortstop who can hit.  If two guys put up the same numbers, and one is a SS and one is a LF, the SS is much more valuable.

Belle's fielding average was .001 below the league average, but yeah, we was terrible in LF.

Yes.  This is because fielding percentage is a horrible way to measure the quality of a defender.  You can only get charged with an error if you can get to the ball, and Albert Belle had mediocre range.

Andruw Jones never led the NL in fielding percentage.  Neither did Willie Mays.  Devon White only led his league once.  Those are probably the three greatest outfield defenders in history.

In LF, Barry Bonds never led the NL in fielding percentage, and he's a go-to pick for the best defensive left fielder of all time, even with his mediocre arm.

In RF, Roberto Clemente never led the NL in fielding percentage.  Seeing a pattern here?

I mean, I think WAR is useful and all, but no. Just no. The only reason an injured Belle doesn't destroy the Indians is that line-up was stacked. But yeah, missing league leader in runs, doubles, HR's, RBI's, Slugging and total bases is totally just like losing a good defensive shortstop that gets on base and has decent power for the position. Good argument.

It is.  It's also why Mike Trout is a better player than Miguel Cabrera, even though he's not a better hitter than Miguel Cabrera.  Because WAR rolls up more aspects of a player's game.

In 1995, the gap between Belle (.317/.401/.690) and Valentin (.298/.399/.533) didn't overcome their respective  defensive contributions.  That shouldn't even be a particularly controversial claim.
 
2014-03-06 06:45:56 PM  

DeWayne Mann: Ok, too much to respond to, so I'm just gonna pose another question:

If a player's value depends on what his teammates did, and being on a playoff team matters, who was more valuable in 2013 (and why): James Loney or Mike Napoli.


False premise is false. A players value depends on what the as a whole did.
 
2014-03-06 06:47:17 PM  

MFAWG: DeWayne Mann: Ok, too much to respond to, so I'm just gonna pose another question:

If a player's value depends on what his teammates did, and being on a playoff team matters, who was more valuable in 2013 (and why): James Loney or Mike Napoli.

False premise is false. A players value depends on what the as a whole did.


Oh, ok. I'll reword it.

"If a players value depends on what the as a whole did, who was more valuable in 2013 (and why): James Loney or Mike Napoli."
 
2014-03-06 06:54:26 PM  

DeWayne Mann: "If a players value depends on what the as a whole did, who was more valuable in 2013 (and why): James Loney or Mike Napoli."


I think it depends if he accidentally the whole thing.

(By the way, It's Loney, by one point of fielding percentage.  QED.)
 
2014-03-06 06:56:37 PM  

chimp_ninja: DeWayne Mann: "If a players value depends on what the as a whole did, who was more valuable in 2013 (and why): James Loney or Mike Napoli."

I think it depends if he accidentally the whole thing.

(By the way, It's Loney, by one point of fielding percentage.  QED.)


Two more steals, too.  That'll make those Trout fans happy.
 
2014-03-06 06:58:10 PM  

DeWayne Mann: Two more steals, too.


Dang it I should've said 3 times as many steals.
 
2014-03-06 07:55:56 PM  
Say, Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?
 
2014-03-06 08:04:43 PM  

bglove25: chimp_ninja: bglove25: Well, at least someone recognizes that Albert got robbed in 95.  First player (maybe only) with 50 HR's and 50 2B's in a season and loses to Mo Vaughn (Mostly because Belle was an asshole and Vaughn was a nice media guy in Boston).  God damn that 95 teams was amazing... sigh.

By WAR (either bWAR or fWAR), it would either have been Randy Johnson (if you "allow" pitchers), or John Valentin.

Valentin had basically the same OBP as Belle, less power (37 2B, 27 HR, .533 slugging), but that year the various metrics suggest that he was the best defensive shortstop in baseball.  Plus he could run the bases (20 SB vs 5 CS, took the extra base 53% of the time).  In the meantime, Belle played one of the easiest positions on the field (LF), and he even played that badly.

It's not "most valuable hitter", and Belle and Vaughn were one-dimensional players who hurt their team whenever they weren't in the batter's box.  If Belle has gotten hurt, the Indians could replace him with Jeromy Burnitz or whoever, and the dropoff would be bad, but not crushing.    You can't say the same for a slick-fielding shortstop with a .399 OBP, wheels, and solid power.

(If anyone mentions RBI, keep in mind that Valentin was a #2 hitter who hit behind the immortal Lee Tinsley or a 36-year-old Willie McGee that year.  Belle hit #4 behind Vizquel/Lofton/Baerga.)

So, being the only player in history to go 50 HR and 50 2B's (in a 144 game season no less) is less important than 20 stolen bases (and completely discounts that that Indians team had a better base stealer- kenny lofton, and a much better defensive ss -Visquel). Belle's fielding average was .001 below the league average, but yeah, we was terrible in LF.   I mean, I think WAR is useful and all, but no. Just no.  The only reason an injured Belle doesn't destroy the Indians is that line-up was stacked.  But yeah, missing league leader in runs, doubles, HR's, RBI's, Slugging and total bases is totally just like losing a good defensive shortstop that gets on base and has decent power for the position.  Good argument.


The fact that he hit over 50 homers and 50 doubles is irrelevant. Like the Triple Crown, it is an arbitrary milestone.

As an example, would you rather have a guy who hit 50 homers and 50 doubles or 55 homers and 49 doubles? All else being equal.
Would Cabrera have been less valuable if Hamilton or Granderson had gotten 2 more home runs?

Milestones are nice things to point out and marvel at, but you can't use them for comparing players, you have to use the actual stats.
 
2014-03-06 08:17:03 PM  

dywed88: bglove25: chimp_ninja: bglove25: Well, at least someone recognizes that Albert got robbed in 95.  First player (maybe only) with 50 HR's and 50 2B's in a season and loses to Mo Vaughn (Mostly because Belle was an asshole and Vaughn was a nice media guy in Boston).  God damn that 95 teams was amazing... sigh.

By WAR (either bWAR or fWAR), it would either have been Randy Johnson (if you "allow" pitchers), or John Valentin.

Valentin had basically the same OBP as Belle, less power (37 2B, 27 HR, .533 slugging), but that year the various metrics suggest that he was the best defensive shortstop in baseball.  Plus he could run the bases (20 SB vs 5 CS, took the extra base 53% of the time).  In the meantime, Belle played one of the easiest positions on the field (LF), and he even played that badly.

It's not "most valuable hitter", and Belle and Vaughn were one-dimensional players who hurt their team whenever they weren't in the batter's box.  If Belle has gotten hurt, the Indians could replace him with Jeromy Burnitz or whoever, and the dropoff would be bad, but not crushing.    You can't say the same for a slick-fielding shortstop with a .399 OBP, wheels, and solid power.

(If anyone mentions RBI, keep in mind that Valentin was a #2 hitter who hit behind the immortal Lee Tinsley or a 36-year-old Willie McGee that year.  Belle hit #4 behind Vizquel/Lofton/Baerga.)

So, being the only player in history to go 50 HR and 50 2B's (in a 144 game season no less) is less important than 20 stolen bases (and completely discounts that that Indians team had a better base stealer- kenny lofton, and a much better defensive ss -Visquel). Belle's fielding average was .001 below the league average, but yeah, we was terrible in LF.   I mean, I think WAR is useful and all, but no. Just no.  The only reason an injured Belle doesn't destroy the Indians is that line-up was stacked.  But yeah, missing league leader in runs, doubles, HR's, RBI's, Slugging and total bases is totally just like losing a good defensive shortstop that gets on base and has decent power for the position.  Good argument.

The fact that he hit over 50 homers and 50 doubles is irrelevant. Like the Triple Crown, it is an arbitrary milestone.

As an example, would you rather have a guy who hit 50 homers and 50 doubles or 55 homers and 49 doubles? All else being equal.
Would Cabrera have been less valuable if Hamilton or Granderson had gotten 2 more home runs?

Milestones are nice things to point out and marvel at, but you can't use them for comparing players, you have to use the actual stats.


Stats don't tell the whole story either. I've seen Mike Trout play, and the numbers just can't show how really good he is.
 
2014-03-06 08:24:13 PM  

MFAWG: Stats don't tell the whole story either. I've seen Mike Trout play, and the numbers just can't show how really good he is.


The numbers say that Mike Trout is likely the best CF since Mays.

That's not enough?
 
2014-03-06 08:40:01 PM  
People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare at my monitor and argue about who should have won the MVP two seasons ago.
 
2014-03-06 10:50:06 PM  

MNguy: When's the last time a World Series MVP played for the losing squad?


Yeah that was a great lineup wasn't it Albert? Maybe they just didn't have good pitching in the AL that year, but you faced it in the WS and got shut down.
 
2014-03-06 10:53:22 PM  

keypusher: In his prime Belle was considered the biggest asshole in baseball, by far.  Was that fair?  Does anyone know?


Yes he was, he was such a huge asshole barroid was considered tame and not an ego maniac.

Oh and he chased some kids down in his SUV who were egging peoples homes on Halloween so yeah a pretty large douchebag.
 
2014-03-06 10:53:32 PM  

DeWayne Mann: MFAWG: Stats don't tell the whole story either. I've seen Mike Trout play, and the numbers just can't show how really good he is.

The numbers say that Mike Trout is likely the best CF since Mays.

That's not enough?


No. If it turns out he can pitch he might be the best of all time, know what I mean?

And having said that, if he nevers wins a World Series his value as a player drops considerably.
 
2014-03-06 10:59:22 PM  

MFAWG: DeWayne Mann: MFAWG: Stats don't tell the whole story either. I've seen Mike Trout play, and the numbers just can't show how really good he is.

The numbers say that Mike Trout is likely the best CF since Mays.

That's not enough?

No. If it turns out he can pitch he might be the best of all time, know what I mean?

And having said that, if he nevers wins a World Series his value as a player drops considerably.


Fine, I'll bite.

How much value did Ted Williams lose by not winning a World Series.
 
2014-03-06 11:04:46 PM  

DeWayne Mann: MFAWG: DeWayne Mann: MFAWG: Stats don't tell the whole story either. I've seen Mike Trout play, and the numbers just can't show how really good he is.

The numbers say that Mike Trout is likely the best CF since Mays.

That's not enough?

No. If it turns out he can pitch he might be the best of all time, know what I mean?

And having said that, if he nevers wins a World Series his value as a player drops considerably.

Fine, I'll bite.

How much value did Ted Williams lose by not winning a World Series.


Not as much as DiMaggio or Duke Snider answer the question?
 
2014-03-06 11:06:34 PM  

MFAWG: DeWayne Mann: MFAWG: DeWayne Mann: MFAWG: Stats don't tell the whole story either. I've seen Mike Trout play, and the numbers just can't show how really good he is.

The numbers say that Mike Trout is likely the best CF since Mays.

That's not enough?

No. If it turns out he can pitch he might be the best of all time, know what I mean?

And having said that, if he nevers wins a World Series his value as a player drops considerably.

Fine, I'll bite.

How much value did Ted Williams lose by not winning a World Series.

Not as much as DiMaggio or Duke Snider answer the question?


More than is what I mean to say.
 
2014-03-06 11:08:15 PM  

MFAWG: Not as much as DiMaggio or Duke Snider answer the question?


Did you like, just recently learn English? If so, you're doing pretty well...but I still have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
 
2014-03-06 11:08:54 PM  

MFAWG: More than is what I mean to say.


Nope. Still didn't help.
 
2014-03-06 11:32:18 PM  
DeWayne Mann:

"If a players value depends on what the as a whole did, who was more valuable in 2013 (and why): James Loney or Mike Napoli."

Mike Napoli. Because of his beard.
 
2014-03-06 11:44:01 PM  

DeWayne Mann: MFAWG: More than is what I mean to say.

Nope. Still didn't help.


Williams was less valuable as a player than DiMaggio or Snider because DiMaggio and Snider played on teams that won championships.

Is that difficult to grasp?
 
2014-03-06 11:53:26 PM  

Uncle Pooky: Mike Napoli. Because of his beard.


What about his shirtless bar hopping? Does that make him more or less valuable?

MFAWG: Williams was less valuable as a player than DiMaggio or Snider because DiMaggio and Snider played on teams that won championships.

Is that difficult to grasp?


Yes, that is extremely difficult to grasp, seeing how it's the dumbest thing I've seen since that thing great_tigers posted.
 
2014-03-07 12:34:46 AM  

DeWayne Mann: Uncle Pooky: Mike Napoli. Because of his beard.

What about his shirtless bar hopping? Does that make him more or less valuable?

MFAWG: Williams was less valuable as a player than DiMaggio or Snider because DiMaggio and Snider played on teams that won championships.

Is that difficult to grasp?

Yes, that is extremely difficult to grasp, seeing how it's the dumbest thing I've seen since that thing great_tigers posted.


Really? So in your universe the only thing that matters is an individual players numbers?

Ladies and gentlemen, Barry Bonds is a Farker.
 
2014-03-07 12:46:21 AM  

Dead for Tax Reasons: ongbok: MNguy: When's the last time a World Series MVP played for the losing squad?

Andre Dawson won it when the Cubs finished last.

that must've been a helluva year to win world series mvp and not even have played in it


My fault, I missed the World Series part.
 
2014-03-07 12:48:14 AM  

DeWayne Mann: Too busy to actually get into this at the moment, but I'd still love it if someone can explain why an individual award should depend on what a player's teammates do.

I'll check back later.  Thanks


I am sympathetic to the argument that there is only one value in the league, making the playoffs, and therefore the award should go to whoever played the biggest part in that.

Fundamentally I disagree with the premise. But if there is a logical argument, it starts there.
 
2014-03-07 12:49:37 AM  

MFAWG: Really? So in your universe the only thing that matters is an individual players numbers?

Ladies and gentlemen, Barry Bonds is a Farker.


If you think Duke Snider was a more valuable player than Ted Williams, you are insane.
 
2014-03-07 12:54:33 AM  

DeWayne Mann: MFAWG: Really? So in your universe the only thing that matters is an individual players numbers?

Ladies and gentlemen, Barry Bonds is a Farker.

If you think Duke Snider was a more valuable player than Ted Williams, you are insane.


If you think the only thing that matters is Ted Williams stats you don't know shiat about sports.
 
2014-03-07 01:13:45 AM  

You're the jerk... jerk: I am sympathetic to the argument that there is only one value in the league, making the playoffs, and therefore the award should go to whoever played the biggest part in that.

Fundamentally I disagree with the premise. But if there is a logical argument, it starts there.


Ok, so this (finally) brings me to my Loney/Napoli question. This is what you get for suggesting there's a logical argument to be found somewhere, you know.

By just about any normal way of thinking, Napoli was more valuable. Loney played more games, had a higher average, and had 3 times as many steals, but Napoli beat him out, by far, in every other category. Napoli even appears better on defense. It is, to me, a no brainer.

But, if the only thing that is valuable is making the playoffs, then it seems to me that Loney is the better answer. Without Napoli, the Red Sox almost certainly still make the playoffs. This is true if we assume the hypothetical replacement player of WAR, or the actual replacement player of Mike Carp.

However, the Rays won the second wild card thanks to a 1 game playoff. Without Loney (the Rays didn't actually have anyone to replace him, so hypothetical guy it is), they don't play in that game.

(Indeed, if we really want to play this out, the MVP should be Price or Longoria, who both played massive roles in that playoff game, but...)

So I was wondering if anyone would actually make that claim. But then again, I wasn't exactly expecting someone to claim DUKE SNIDER WAS MORE VALUABLE THAN TED WILLIAMS, so I guess anything is possible.
 
2014-03-07 01:16:19 AM  

MFAWG: DeWayne Mann: MFAWG: Really? So in your universe the only thing that matters is an individual players numbers?

Ladies and gentlemen, Barry Bonds is a Farker.

If you think Duke Snider was a more valuable player than Ted Williams, you are insane.

If you think the only thing that matters is Ted Williams stats you don't know shiat about sports.


Yeah and why is Ron Santo in the Hall of Fame but not Luis Sojo? I mean, sure, Santo had better stats, BUT NO RINGS. How valuable could he have been?
 
2014-03-07 01:19:16 AM  
Oh, cool - 1995! The year we didn't absolutely choke!

i.usatoday.net
 
2014-03-07 01:19:30 AM  

MFAWG: DeWayne Mann: MFAWG: More than is what I mean to say.

Nope. Still didn't help.

Williams was less valuable as a player than DiMaggio or Snider because DiMaggio and Snider played on teams that won championships.

Is that difficult to grasp?


So you are saying that Jeff Hamilton is a more valuable player than Ted Williams? Sure his career OBP was 80 points below Ted WIlliam's Average and his OPS is less than William's Slugging percentage, but he was on a World Series winning team.
 
2014-03-07 01:23:16 AM  

DeWayne Mann: MFAWG: DeWayne Mann: MFAWG: Really? So in your universe the only thing that matters is an individual players numbers?

Ladies and gentlemen, Barry Bonds is a Farker.

If you think Duke Snider was a more valuable player than Ted Williams, you are insane.

If you think the only thing that matters is Ted Williams stats you don't know shiat about sports.

Yeah and why is Ron Santo in the Hall of Fame but not Luis Sojo? I mean, sure, Santo had better stats, BUT NO RINGS. How valuable could he have been?


Because Ron Santo was famous and Luis Sojo I barely remember.

Numbers guys always leave out the subjective.
 
2014-03-07 01:25:37 AM  

dywed88: MFAWG: DeWayne Mann: MFAWG: More than is what I mean to say.

Nope. Still didn't help.

Williams was less valuable as a player than DiMaggio or Snider because DiMaggio and Snider played on teams that won championships.

Is that difficult to grasp?

So you are saying that Jeff Hamilton is a more valuable player than Ted Williams? Sure his career OBP was 80 points below Ted WIlliam's Average and his OPS is less than William's Slugging percentage, but he was on a World Series winning team.


Jeff Hamilton is a drunken piece of shiat that may  yet turn out to be one of the saddest stories in sports.

Ted Williams was a great man and a great ballplayer.
 
2014-03-07 01:25:38 AM  

MFAWG: Because Ron Santo was famous and Luis Sojo I barely remember.

Numbers guys always leave out the subjective.


You don't remember a guy with 5 SUPER DUPER IMPORTANT rings? You really do hate numbers.

5 is more than 0, if you're still confused.
 
2014-03-07 01:27:08 AM  

MFAWG: Jeff Hamilton is a drunken piece of shiat that may yet turn out to be one of the saddest stories in sports.


God you're dumb.
 
2014-03-07 01:27:38 AM  

DeWayne Mann: MFAWG: Because Ron Santo was famous and Luis Sojo I barely remember.

Numbers guys always leave out the subjective.

You don't remember a guy with 5 SUPER DUPER IMPORTANT rings? You really do hate numbers.

5 is more than 0, if you're still confused.


I see what you're doing. I'm not buying it. Ask 10 random guys in a bar if they remember Ron Santo and half of them will. If you get 2 that remember Luis Sojo I'd be surprised.
 
2014-03-07 01:29:34 AM  

MFAWG: I see what you're doing. I'm not buying it. Ask 10 random guys in a bar if they remember Ron Santo and half of them will. If you get 2 that remember Luis Sojo I'd be surprised.


Ah yes, the random drunk guy test.

Coincidentally, all 10 random drunk guys will think JEFF Hamilton and JOSH Hamilton are the same person.
 
2014-03-07 01:29:34 AM  

DeWayne Mann: MFAWG: Jeff Hamilton is a drunken piece of shiat that may yet turn out to be one of the saddest stories in sports.

God you're dumb.


Well, I'm glad you feel better. Seriously, numbers can never, ever tell the whole story.
 
2014-03-07 01:31:58 AM  

MFAWG: Well, I'm glad you feel better. Seriously, numbers can never, ever tell the whole story.


The whole story, in this case, being "I don't know who Jeff Hamilton is despite being given a link to his baseball-reference page."
 
2014-03-07 01:36:27 AM  

DeWayne Mann: MFAWG: Well, I'm glad you feel better. Seriously, numbers can never, ever tell the whole story.

The whole story, in this case, being "I don't know who Jeff Hamilton is despite being given a link to his baseball-reference page."


Oh, FFS. Get over yourself.

If you can't see the difference between Ron Santo and Luis Sojo   I'm not going to be able to explain it to you.
 
2014-03-07 01:36:55 AM  
In the whole Trout vs. Miggy debate one thing people seem to overlook is that late in the season during the playoff drives Miggy went into beast mode, helping him win the Triple Crown, and his team win the Division while Trout crapped the bed as the Angels faded and missed the playoffs.

I truly believe that part of the definition of being the "valuable" in Most Valuable Player is coming up big when your team needs you the most.

In the interest of full disclosure I fell I should mention that am of the belief that no matter what other factors are in play, if a dude wins the Triple Crown he's MVP by default.  If David Ortiz won a Triple Crown as a DH, I'd feel the same way.
 
2014-03-07 01:41:21 AM  

MFAWG: DeWayne Mann: MFAWG: Well, I'm glad you feel better. Seriously, numbers can never, ever tell the whole story.

The whole story, in this case, being "I don't know who Jeff Hamilton is despite being given a link to his baseball-reference page."

Oh, FFS. Get over yourself.

If you can't see the difference between Ron Santo and Luis Sojo   I'm not going to be able to explain it to you.


Oh, but I was so looking forward to an explanation. I couldn't wait to learn about Johnny Jeter, Captain of the Yankees, and the game's best all-time best closer, Mariano Duncan.

As a side note, the real Mariano Duncan has two rings, making him far more valuable than Rod Carew.
 
2014-03-07 01:49:43 AM  

devioustrevor: In the whole Trout vs. Miggy debate one thing people seem to overlook is that late in the season during the playoff drives Miggy went into beast mode, helping him win the Triple Crown, and his team win the Division while Trout crapped the bed as the Angels faded and missed the playoffs.


I realize you'll almost certainly reject this argument, but I'm gonna make it anyway:

From September 1st to the end of the year in 2012, Miguel Cabrera had a 1.5 fWAR. That's quite good. They break it down, and he was worth 11.4 runs on offense (hitting + basestealing), -0.6 runs on the bases (non basestealing), and -1.5 runs on defense.

In that same time frame, Mike Trout had a 1.8 fWAR: 10.2 offense, 1.9 Baserunning, 2.8 defense.

(August was similar).

Do you think the award should only look at hitting?


Followup question: who did you like for 2013 MVP? Cabrera was terrible at the end of the year, thanks to injury. But Josh Donaldson actually hit as well in Sept 2013 as Cabrera did in August 2012 (and better than Cabrera was in Sept 2012). Can I assume he was your choice?

(Finally, just to repeat: the 2012 Angels missed the playoffs, yes...but they did have a better record than the Tigers)
 
2014-03-07 07:32:51 AM  

DeWayne Mann: You're the jerk... jerk: I am sympathetic to the argument that there is only one value in the league, making the playoffs, and therefore the award should go to whoever played the biggest part in that.

Fundamentally I disagree with the premise. But if there is a logical argument, it starts there.

Ok, so this (finally) brings me to my Loney/Napoli question. This is what you get for suggesting there's a logical argument to be found somewhere, you know.

By just about any normal way of thinking, Napoli was more valuable. Loney played more games, had a higher average, and had 3 times as many steals, but Napoli beat him out, by far, in every other category. Napoli even appears better on defense. It is, to me, a no brainer.

But, if the only thing that is valuable is making the playoffs, then it seems to me that Loney is the better answer. Without Napoli, the Red Sox almost certainly still make the playoffs. This is true if we assume the hypothetical replacement player of WAR, or the actual replacement player of Mike Carp.

However, the Rays won the second wild card thanks to a 1 game playoff. Without Loney (the Rays didn't actually have anyone to replace him, so hypothetical guy it is), they don't play in that game.

(Indeed, if we really want to play this out, the MVP should be Price or Longoria, who both played massive roles in that playoff game, but...)

So I was wondering if anyone would actually make that claim. But then again, I wasn't exactly expecting someone to claim DUKE SNIDER WAS MORE VALUABLE THAN TED WILLIAMS, so I guess anything is possible.


I think you are right, if one were to believe in an all our nothing value they would probably have to pick Loney. It is a flaw that most people will see, but I haven't seen anyone make a consistent argument for it.
 
2014-03-07 08:43:58 AM  
Ain't no argument like a baseball stat nerd argument
 
2014-03-07 10:57:09 AM  

devioustrevor: In the interest of full disclosure I fell I should mention that am of the belief that no matter what other factors are in play, if a dude wins the Triple Crown he's MVP by default.


Man, this thread sure is rough on Ted Williams, who won the Triple Crown twice without being MVP that season.

MFAWG: Williams was less valuable as a player than DiMaggio or Snider because DiMaggio and Snider played on teams that won championships.


OH LAWD.GIF

By the way, Snider, that scrub with only 2 World Series championships?  Why the hell are we even talking about him when Johnny Murphy has SEVEN RINGS, n00b?

Or Ralph Houk.  He has SIX RINGS as a player.  Sure, he was Yogi's backup, only played in 91 games in his career, and only got 2 plate appearances in those six World Series.  Blah blah blah.  SIX RINGS.

Two helpful ways to win six rings as a player:
1) Be on the New York Yankees between 1923 and 1962.
2) Be more Eddie Collins.
 
2014-03-07 10:59:08 AM  

MFAWG: Ask 10 random guys in a bar if they remember Ron Santo and half of them will.


Dude, numbers can never tell the real story.  I would have accepted "Ask my friend Cheeto from Staten Island", because that sentence has no witchcraft in it.
 
2014-03-07 11:02:08 AM  

chimp_ninja: MFAWG: Ask 10 random guys in a bar if they remember Ron Santo and half of them will.

Dude, numbers can never tell the real story.  I would have accepted "Ask my friend Cheeto from Staten Island", because that sentence has no witchcraft in it.


Cheeto moved to Jersey.

And then Florida.
 
2014-03-07 12:03:43 PM  

devioustrevor: In the whole Trout vs. Miggy debate one thing people seem to overlook is that late in the season during the playoff drives Miggy went into beast mode, helping him win the Triple Crown, and his team win the Division while Trout crapped the bed as the Angels faded and missed the playoffs.

I truly believe that part of the definition of being the "valuable" in Most Valuable Player is coming up big when your team needs you the most.

In the interest of full disclosure I fell I should mention that am of the belief that no matter what other factors are in play, if a dude wins the Triple Crown he's MVP by default.  If David Ortiz won a Triple Crown as a DH, I'd feel the same way.


Do you think Cabrera would have been the MVP if Granderson had hit 2 more home runs? Cabrera and Trout are exactly the same, so the result should be as well.

Cabrera's stats weren't that impressive in winning the Triple Crown. Only 3 times in the last decade would his home run total hold up, only once would his average.

The Triple Crown is an arbitrary use of 3 statistics that depend as much on other player performance as the winner while ignoring much or a player's contribution.
 
2014-03-07 12:06:07 PM  

dywed88: Do you think Cabrera would have been the MVP if Granderson had hit 2 more home runs? Cabrera and Trout are exactly the same, so the result should be as well.

Cabrera's stats weren't that impressive in winning the Triple Crown. Only 3 times in the last decade would his home run total hold up, only once would his average.

The Triple Crown is an arbitrary use of 3 statistics that depend as much on other player performance as the winner while ignoring much or a player's contribution.


But isnt the award based on that season alone?  So who cares what happened in the decade leading up to it.

I dont really give a shiat about the MVP but that seems like a strange thing to bring up in a discussion about a single season award.
 
2014-03-07 12:26:22 PM  

Gunny Highway: dywed88: Do you think Cabrera would have been the MVP if Granderson had hit 2 more home runs? Cabrera and Trout are exactly the same, so the result should be as well.

Cabrera's stats weren't that impressive in winning the Triple Crown. Only 3 times in the last decade would his home run total hold up, only once would his average.

The Triple Crown is an arbitrary use of 3 statistics that depend as much on other player performance as the winner while ignoring much or a player's contribution.

But isnt the award based on that season alone?  So who cares what happened in the decade leading up to it.

I dont really give a shiat about the MVP but that seems like a strange thing to bring up in a discussion about a single season award.


The point is that the Triple Crown on its own is a meaningless, arbitrary acomplishment. Granderson and Hamilton not hitting 2 more home runs has nothing to do with the value between Trout and Cabrera.
 
2014-03-07 12:53:02 PM  

devioustrevor: In the whole Trout vs. Miggy debate one thing people seem to overlook is that late in the season during the playoff drives Miggy went into beast mode, helping him win the Triple Crown, and his team win the Division while Trout crapped the bed as the Angels faded and missed the playoffs.

I truly believe that part of the definition of being the "valuable" in Most Valuable Player is coming up big when your team needs you the most.

In the interest of full disclosure I fell I should mention that am of the belief that no matter what other factors are in play, if a dude wins the Triple Crown he's MVP by default.  If David Ortiz won a Triple Crown as a DH, I'd feel the same way.


Here is the thing. The MVP is supposed to be for the player who was most valuable to his team's success. In 2012 would the Tigers have won the division without Caberra? More than likely not. Would the Angels have finished the season bellow .500 without Trout? Definitely yes. Caberra was the most valuable player in terms of the teams success. Since his team wasn't successful, Trout's performance didn't matter for the team.

Now if the Angels were contending for the division or a wildcard, and just fell short, then you could say that Trout's performance was valuable for the team's success.
 
2014-03-07 01:19:52 PM  

You're the jerk... jerk: I think you are right, if one were to believe in an all our nothing value they would probably have to pick Loney. It is a flaw that most people will see, but I haven't seen anyone make a consistent argument for it.


It's worth noting that in the article (that's right, I read the article), Albert Belle actually rejected this argument...and then partially made it anyway. He said he wanted the best player from the best team. In no way were the Tigers the best team. If that's what he truly wanted, he probably should've picked Josh Donaldson. Sure, the Red Sox won one more game, but Donaldson was far better than anyone on the Sox.

So what Belle actually wants is "one of the best players, from one of the playoff teams." Which is a very different and odd thing to argue for. But that doesn't really make for a good sound bite I guess.
 
2014-03-07 01:22:43 PM  

ongbok: Here is the thing. The MVP is supposed to be for the player who was most valuable to his team's success. In 2012 would the Tigers have won the division without Caberra? More than likely not. Would the Angels have finished the season bellow .500 without Trout? Definitely yes. Caberra was the most valuable player in terms of the teams success. Since his team wasn't successful, Trout's performance didn't matter for the team.

Now if the Angels were contending for the division or a wildcard, and just fell short, then you could say that Trout's performance was valuable for the team's success.


1. Again, in 2012, the Angels had a better record than the Tigers. The only reason they "weren't contending" for a playoff spot is that the AL Central was significantly weaker than the AL West. Is THAT a good enough reason to pick Cabrera over Trout? Shouldn't that actually make Trout MORE valuable?

2. Can I write you down as thinking James Loney was more valuable than Mike Napoli in 2013?
 
2014-03-07 01:35:14 PM  

DeWayne Mann: ongbok: Here is the thing. The MVP is supposed to be for the player who was most valuable to his team's success. In 2012 would the Tigers have won the division without Caberra? More than likely not. Would the Angels have finished the season bellow .500 without Trout? Definitely yes. Caberra was the most valuable player in terms of the teams success. Since his team wasn't successful, Trout's performance didn't matter for the team.

Now if the Angels were contending for the division or a wildcard, and just fell short, then you could say that Trout's performance was valuable for the team's success.

1. Again, in 2012, the Angels had a better record than the Tigers. The only reason they "weren't contending" for a playoff spot is that the AL Central was significantly weaker than the AL West. Is THAT a good enough reason to pick Cabrera over Trout? Shouldn't that actually make Trout MORE valuable?

2. Can I write you down as thinking James Loney was more valuable than Mike Napoli in 2013?


You are right, I grabbed the wrong season. But still, would they have finished in third that season without him? Yes. Would the Tigers have won the division without Cabrera? No. Therefore Cabrera was more valuable to the success of his team than Trout. Plus Cabrera did something that hadn't been done in how many years?
 
2014-03-07 01:47:11 PM  

ongbok: You are right, I grabbed the wrong season


Ok, well, you have a point. In 2013, the 29 HRs he let up in the 132.2 Innings he pitched really hurt the team's chances. I have no idea why they kept running him out there.

ongbok: Therefore Cabrera was more valuable to the success of his team than Trout


Come on, you know you want to say it. Repeat after me: James Loney was more valuable than Mike Napoli in 2013.

ongbok: Plus Cabrera did something that hadn't been done in how many years?


Trout did something that had NEVER been done...but since no one gave it a catchy name based on horse racing 80 years ago, who cares right?
 
2014-03-07 02:21:21 PM  
that indians team was STACKED.  how stacked??  Jim Thome and Manny Ramirez  Batted 6th and 7th.

Lofton
Vizquel
Baerga
Bell
Murry
Thome
Ramirez
Sorento
Alomar

/damn you Mesa, damn you to hell
 
Displayed 102 of 102 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report