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 102
    More: Amusing, Albert Belle, Mike Trout, MVP, Miguel Cabrera, al mvp, Peter Angelos, Jim Thome, Jerry Reinsdorf  
•       •       •

709 clicks; posted to Sports » on 06 Mar 2014 at 1:45 PM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 102 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report