PDA

View Full Version : Miguel Cabrera Triple Crown?


DSpivack
09-20-2012, 01:51 AM
The Tigers 1B is currently atop the leaderboards in average (.333 to Trout's .327) and RsBI (130 to Josh Hamilton's 123) and just 1 behind the Ranger (Texas, not Rongey) in HRs (42 to 41).

http://espn.go.com/mlb/statistics

Hawk will happily tell you who the last triple crown winner was.

MUsoxfan
09-20-2012, 02:20 AM
Good for him. I love that he's turned into an MVP player. I'd love it even better if he missed the playoffs

SephClone89
09-20-2012, 08:03 AM
He's a joy to watch at the plate, unless he's in a September pennant chase with the Chicago White Sox.

Hitmen77
09-20-2012, 04:56 PM
Did any of those players the Marlins got for him amount to anything?

Is it true that the Sox were on the verge of getting Cabrera before the Tigers got him?

Nellie_Fox
09-20-2012, 04:59 PM
Hawk will happily tell you who the last triple crown winner was.
http://bobsbaseballmuseum.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/Yaz197183758_std1.332193743.jpg

DSpivack
09-20-2012, 05:39 PM
Did any of those players the Marlins got for him amount to anything?

Is it true that the Sox were on the verge of getting Cabrera before the Tigers got him?

Not really, no.

As for the second question, yes, there's a very long thread here on that. I forget what the proposed deal was.

salty99
09-20-2012, 05:46 PM
Did any of those players the Marlins got for him amount to anything?

Is it true that the Sox were on the verge of getting Cabrera before the Tigers got him?

Cameron Maybin is the best of a sorry bunch at this point.

One rumor had this package: Josh Fields, Brian N. Anderson, Gio Gonzalez, Lance Broadway or Adam Russell.

pythons007
09-21-2012, 11:51 AM
Cameron Maybin is the best of a sorry bunch at this point.

One rumor had this package: Josh Fields, Brian N. Anderson, Gio Gonzalez, Lance Broadway or Adam Russell.

Drool! I would have given that up for Miggy to be a butcher at 3B in a heart beat!

doublem23
09-21-2012, 12:16 PM
Drool! I would have given that up for Miggy to be a butcher at 3B in a heart beat!

There is literally no chance the Marlins would have taken that package over what the Tigers offered. Maybin and Miller were both ranked in the BA Top 10 prospects at the time of the trade (Maybin #6, Miller #10). Trahern and Badenhop were marginal SP prospects in the same regard as a Broadway type player. And the cherry on top was the Tigers took Dontrelle Willis off Florida's hands and the $29 M he made over the final 3 years of his contract.

SoxFanCPA
09-21-2012, 01:56 PM
Will he be the MVP if he wins the Triple Crown? I think the Tigers would have to make the playoffs in order for him to win MVP.

DSpivack
09-21-2012, 02:20 PM
Will he be the MVP if he wins the Triple Crown? I think the Tigers would have to make the playoffs in order for him to win MVP.

As great a season as Trout has had, it would look really odd for a guy to win the Triple Crown and not be MVP, no matter where his team finished.

That said, Cabrera is still one HR behind Josh Hamilton.

pythons007
09-21-2012, 02:25 PM
As great a season as Trout has had, it would look really odd for a guy to win the Triple Crown and not be MVP, no matter where his team finished.

That said, Cabrera is still one HR behind Josh Hamilton.

Yeah, someone gets the triple crown will win the MVP.

doublem23
09-21-2012, 02:30 PM
As great a season as Trout has had, it would look really odd for a guy to win the Triple Crown and not be MVP, no matter where his team finished.

That said, Cabrera is still one HR behind Josh Hamilton.

Not to mention Trout and the Angels are also currently on the outside looking in of the playoff picture

Moses_Scurry
09-21-2012, 03:06 PM
I hope he does it but the Sox take the division. I've always wanted to see somebody win the triple crown. I also hope to see someone hit .400 and win 30 games. Those two are much less likely.

SoxFanCPA
09-21-2012, 03:20 PM
Not to mention Trout and the Angels are also currently on the outside looking in of the playoff picture

Right, neither team will make the playoffs so it will come down to who had the better year and Trout has had the better year. He is a beast in CF and has like 50 SB.

doublem23
09-21-2012, 03:25 PM
Right, neither team will make the playoffs so it will come down to who had the better year and Trout has had the better year. He is a beast in CF and has like 50 SB.

:dunno:

If Cabrera wins the Triple Crown, I don't think there's any question he will, deservedly so, win the AL MVP.

SoxFanCPA
09-21-2012, 03:46 PM
:dunno:

If Cabrera wins the Triple Crown, I don't think there's any question he will, deservedly so, win the AL MVP.

You don't think there is any question? Seriously? Because most baseball guys I've seen or head have said that Trout is going to win the MVP unless the Tigers make the playoffs, regardless of the Triple Crown.

Trout has a 10+ WAR. That's Ruth and Bonds stuff. I think Cabrera is around 7 and a butcher in the field.

RKMeibalane
09-21-2012, 05:33 PM
You don't think there is any question? Seriously? Because most baseball guys I've seen or head have said that Trout is going to win the MVP unless the Tigers make the playoffs, regardless of the Triple Crown.

Trout has a 10+ WAR. That's Ruth and Bonds stuff. I think Cabrera is around 7 and a butcher in the field.

It's going to be close. There hasn't been a Triple Crown winner in forty five years, but Trout's also having a historic season.

SOXSINCE'70
09-24-2012, 11:56 AM
:dunno:

If Cabrera wins the Triple Crown, I don't think there's any question he will, deservedly so, win the AL MVP.

As long as he's playing golf on October 4th,

:whocares

Cabrera's a great hitter.I knew that 9 years when he was a rookie with the Marlins.This is no surprise to me.He can have the Triple Crown as long as the Sox go to the playoffs.

harwar
09-24-2012, 12:46 PM
What i heard was that the players all think Cabrera should be mvp and the front office personnel think that Trout should win .. of course they won't be voting

doublem23
09-24-2012, 01:14 PM
You don't think there is any question? Seriously? Because most baseball guys I've seen or head have said that Trout is going to win the MVP unless the Tigers make the playoffs, regardless of the Triple Crown.

Trout has a 10+ WAR. That's Ruth and Bonds stuff. I think Cabrera is around 7 and a butcher in the field.

If Miguel Cabrera wins the Triple Crown, no, I don't think there's even a question about it. You actually think any of the guys who vote on the MVP Award care about/know what WAR is?

102605
09-24-2012, 01:27 PM
We are seriously debating whether a guy who wins the triple crown should be the MVP?

doublem23
09-24-2012, 01:35 PM
We are seriously debating whether a guy who wins the triple crown should be the MVP?

No, it's really only one guy debating that

SoxFanCPA
09-24-2012, 01:52 PM
No, it's really only one guy debating that
Me....and every baseball writer in the country

https://www.google.com/#q=trout+cabrera+mvp&hl=en&prmd=imvnsu&source=univ&tbm=nws&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=nZ1gUK3fN4PiyAH84YCoDA&sqi=2&ved=0CB0QqAI&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=650996a3649a608a&biw=1600&bih=725

guillensdisciple
09-24-2012, 01:53 PM
I also believe Trout should be MVP

doublem23
09-24-2012, 02:25 PM
Me....and every baseball writer in the country

https://www.google.com/#q=trout+cabrera+mvp&hl=en&prmd=imvnsu&source=univ&tbm=nws&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=nZ1gUK3fN4PiyAH84YCoDA&sqi=2&ved=0CB0QqAI&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=650996a3649a608a&biw=1600&bih=725

Uh, there's no possible way you could have read through the links provided and felt it endorsed your position unanimously, right?

It's very simple. If Cabrera wins the Triple Crown, he will win the MVP Award. If he doesn't, Trout will will win. I'm struggling to see what of that is unclear.

SephClone89
09-24-2012, 02:29 PM
Uh, there's no possible way you could have read through the links provided and felt it endorsed your position unanimously, right?

It's very simple. If Cabrera wins the Triple Crown, he will win the MVP Award. If he doesn't, Trout will will win. I'm struggling to see what of that is unclear.

Many baseball people are still of the belief Trout should win regardless.

balke
09-24-2012, 05:18 PM
Many baseball people are still of the belief Trout should win regardless.

Although i see the argument - 15 hrs difference between the 2 will greatly outweigh 50 SB and defense. Maybe not fair, but true. Especially with the triple crown.

DonnieDarko
09-24-2012, 05:48 PM
I'm sorry, but considering when the last time someone won the Triple Crown was, if Cabrera wins it he should get the MVP. Hell, even if he doesn't win the Triple Crown he should win the MVP.

shes
09-24-2012, 08:00 PM
Trout is the MVP at this point because he's had the best season, and I honestly don't think it's that close (taking nothing away from Cabrera).

I believe Larrupin' Lou finished 4th or 5th during a triple crown year, and Ted Williams had a couple triple crown seasons where he did not win the MVP. I understand it's a different era and it's been a long time, but M-Cab cashing in on timely injuries to Dunn and Hamilton does not mean he should vault Trout, who has truly had a historically great season.

RedRamage
09-27-2012, 04:49 PM
I know the conventional wisdom on Cabrera is that he's horrid at defense, but really after watching him a full year at 3rd, I'm not sure that I agree.

Absolutely his range is not great. But he does have a strong, accurate arm. And his much better with the glove than I think 99% of Tigers fans thought he was going to be.

Here's a whole list of defensive video of Cabby. Granted, some are more routine than others, but just wanted to show that there are plenty of good plays by the big man.

http://detroit.tigers.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=25100851&c_id=mlb
http://detroit.tigers.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=25074277&c_id=mlb
http://detroit.tigers.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=24871067&c_id=mlb
http://detroit.tigers.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=24658553&c_id=mlb
http://detroit.tigers.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=24348613&c_id=mlb
http://detroit.tigers.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=24094867&c_id=mlb
http://detroit.tigers.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=23364731&c_id=mlb
http://detroit.tigers.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=22992121&c_id=mlb
http://detroit.tigers.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=22860237&c_id=mlb
http://detroit.tigers.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=22302479&c_id=mlb

There are plenty more videos on MLB if you want to look for them too.

Now, don't get me wrong here... Trout is still a better defender. There is absolutely no question there. I'm just saying that Cabrera isn't the defensive liability that conventional wisdom says he is. I would say he's probably average... maybe slightly above average defensively.

Range: poor
Glove: average+
Arm: good

shes
09-27-2012, 06:15 PM
I think it's a stretch to even call Cabrera average defensively. His range (which at the ML level is more important than having a good glove or arm) is truly horrific and by virtually every metric you can find, he's one of the worst third basemen in the league.

Even if he was above-average, his impact on the game defensively would still be dwarfed by Trout's. We're talking about the best CF in the AL and maybe all of baseball (don't watch enough NL to know for sure. I know Stubbs and Bourn are very well-regarded).

SephClone89
09-27-2012, 06:32 PM
Trout should be MVP. Period.

RedRamage
09-27-2012, 06:55 PM
Trout should be MVP. Period.

Should be, or will be? I don't think defense, as a rule, gets all that much credit in many of the voters eyes. Heck, defense isn't always counted in voting for the Golden Glove!

amsteel
09-27-2012, 07:03 PM
Winning the Triple Crown is like hitting a Grand Slam. Do you have to be good to do it? Yes. But you are also a champion of circumstance, all you had to do was be the best THAT YEAR. Not an easy task, but the criteria is not fixed and has nothing to do with 'value'.

doublem23
09-27-2012, 07:27 PM
Trout should be MVP. Period.

Unless Cabrera wins the Triple Crown

doublem23
09-27-2012, 07:28 PM
Winning the Triple Crown is like hitting a Grand Slam. Do you have to be good to do it? Yes. But you are also a champion of circumstance, all you had to do was be the best THAT YEAR. Not an easy task, but the criteria is not fixed and has nothing to do with 'value'.

I wasn't aware no one had hit a grand slam in 45 years

SephClone89
09-27-2012, 07:36 PM
Unless Cabrera wins the Triple Crown

Are you kidding me?

How can you possibly make the argument that Trout should be the winner, UNLESS Cabrera winds up with an extra homer this week or winds up hitting one point above Mauer?

The Triple Crown is an indicator of a fantastic offensive season. But I'm really struggling to see how it can tip the scales in a situation like this, to the extent that today you would say Trout's the guy, but if Cabrera hits one more home run and maintains his lead in the others IT CHANGES EVERYTHING.

doublem23
09-27-2012, 07:38 PM
Uh, because its the Triple Crown

/duh

SephClone89
09-27-2012, 07:38 PM
Uh, because its the Triple Crown

/duh

Who the hell cares?

doublem23
09-27-2012, 07:39 PM
Who the hell cares?

The guys who vote for the MVP Award

SephClone89
09-27-2012, 07:40 PM
The guys who vote for the MVP Award

I realize this.

I'm not arguing that Trout will win the MVP. I'm arguing that he should.

RKMeibalane
09-27-2012, 07:41 PM
Who the hell cares?

There hasn't been a Triple Crown winner in 45 years. If Cabrera pulls it off, he deserves the MVP. People have won the award for less. Andre Dawson won it despite playing on a last place team.

RKMeibalane
09-27-2012, 07:42 PM
I realize this.

I'm not arguing that Trout will win the MVP. I'm arguing that he should.

Because?

SephClone89
09-27-2012, 07:43 PM
There hasn't been a Triple Crown winner in 45 years. If Cabrera pulls it off, he deserves the MVP. People have won the award for less. Andre Dawson won it despite playing on a last place team.

Just because it hasn't happened since '67 doesn't mean that the next guy to do it MUST BE the MVP. He's not playing in a vacuum. There's a guy named Mike Trout who's been doing some pretty amazing things too.

SephClone89
09-27-2012, 07:46 PM
Because?

Because Trout is a superior baseball player.

Look, Cabrera is the best hitter in baseball. He's a joy to watch at the plate.

But when you consider that Trout plays stellar defense at the premium position in the game, is an incredible baserunner, and has also compiled very impressive counting stats in one fewer month than Cabrera...come on.

RBI? Why are we including this? Trout and Cabrera have a similar "conversion rate" for RBI--the difference is Cabrera comes up with men on more often than Trout does. It isn't a fair stat to use in comparisons.

pythons007
09-27-2012, 08:16 PM
Because Trout is a superior baseball player.

Look, Cabrera is the best hitter in baseball. He's a joy to watch at the plate.

But when you consider that Trout plays stellar defense at the premium position in the game, is an incredible baserunner, and has also compiled very impressive counting stats in one fewer month than Cabrera...come on.

RBI? Why are we including this? Trout and Cabrera have a similar "conversion rate" for RBI--the difference is Cabrera comes up with men on more often than Trout does. It isn't a fair stat to use in comparisons.

Premium position is SS. Triple Crown, trumps anything Trout has done this year period. To say someone doesn't deserve the MVP for doing something that hasn't been accomplished in almost half a century is ludicrous. Baseball is the lone sport defined by it's statistics, and if a player is a top all the hitter stats he's going to win MVP. PERIOD.

I'm not going to take anything away from Trout's season, he's got the ROY gift wrapped, a silver slugger award awaiting him, and possibly a GG. He's had a fantastic year, no question. But....

Baseball has been around for 160 years and in that time, 15 players have accomplished it, the Triple Crown. To put it in perspective one for every 10 years. There have been 23 perfect games thrown. So something that doesn't happen very often in this game, is acknowledged and is rewarded. That reward being the MVP.

doublem23
09-28-2012, 12:17 PM
If you really want to look at things from a statistical standpoint, pretty much all of the seperation between Trout and Cabera in WAR comes from Trout's substantion lead in dWAR, a stat I have always been skeptical about. I'm sorry, I'm not the biggest fan of defensive metrics. If you look at dWAR, it will tell you that Gordon Beckham is a below average 2B, which my own two eyes will tell you is absolutely insane. Going by oWAR, it's much closer, with Trout holding a slight edge at 8-7.2 which, yes, I believe is a gap that can be closed by winning the 1st Triple Crown in 45 years. If you want to believe that Mike Trout should be the AL MVP regardless, that's fine, it's a respectable opinion, but if you can't see any way that Cabrera deserves the award, ESPECIALLY with a Triple Crown on his resume, I'm sorry, but you're out of you're ****ing mind. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

amsteel
09-28-2012, 01:02 PM
If Cabrera deserves it more just because of the statistical circumstance of the Triple Crown and the relatively long epoch since the last winner, you can make a similar unreasoned argument that Trout's performance just as amazing because he could win the ROY and MVP in the same season which is a rarer feat than winning the Triple Crown.

It's all objective bull****, since they're pretty much even. But saying MC should win it solely because of the Triple Crown is comically flawed and shortsighted.

doublem23
09-28-2012, 01:56 PM
If Cabrera deserves it more just because of the statistical circumstance of the Triple Crown and the relatively long epoch since the last winner, you can make a similar unreasoned argument that Trout's performance just as amazing because he could win the ROY and MVP in the same season which is a rarer feat than winning the Triple Crown.

It's all objective bull****, since they're pretty much even. But saying MC should win it solely because of the Triple Crown is comically flawed and shortsighted.

Which is also comically shortsighted, since stating something like "the Triple Crown's not that rare of an achievement" relies heavily on pre-WWII results, which nobody in their right mind would argue has any relevance on today's game (If Tip O'Neill can do it in 1887, ANY OLD BASTARD CAN, TOO).

This is why people hate sabremetrics, god damn it. The Triple Crown is something special, no matter how you want to argue it. If you can't accept that, well, then I guess we have to agree to disagree.

all*star quentin
10-03-2012, 10:32 PM
On twitter, MLB - 45 YEARS IN THE MAKING: @MiguelCabrera (https://twitter.com/MiguelCabrera) wins @MLB (https://twitter.com/MLB)'s first #TripleCrown (https://twitter.com/search/?q=%23TripleCrown&src=hash) since 1967 with .330 AVG, 44 HR, 139 RBI.

russ99
10-03-2012, 10:45 PM
Fantastic achievement.

Kinda sucks that Kenny couldn't put in a similar bid to the Marlins to get him, would have solved a lot of problems, then and now.

This rumor (http://www.faketeams.com/2007/11/16/14338/280) especially makes me ill...

Frontman
10-03-2012, 10:53 PM
Truly something awesome. Well done!!!

No get swept in the playoffs, will you? (Nah, I'm not a bitter White Sox fan!!!)

harwar
10-03-2012, 11:06 PM
I heard it's been 45 years since the last one .. not to sound like Hawk, but i remember Yastrzemski's year well .. i was 12 that year and that was one hell of a season .. Cabrera is one of the best pure natural hitters i've ever seen ..

DSpivack
10-03-2012, 11:12 PM
Truly something awesome. Well done!!!

No get swept in the playoffs, will you? (Nah, I'm not a bitter White Sox fan!!!)

Go A's, in that case.

thomas35forever
10-03-2012, 11:12 PM
Amazing. I just wish he wasn't a divisional rival so I could be more happy for him.

doublem23
10-03-2012, 11:27 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f0/AL_MVP_award.JPG

happydude
10-03-2012, 11:28 PM
Its a real big deal. What a season; I hope he gets the MVP.

RKMeibalane
10-03-2012, 11:39 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f0/AL_MVP_award.JPG

But... but... but... Mike Trout's glove! Mike... Trout!

DSpivack
10-03-2012, 11:41 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f0/AL_MVP_award.JPG

They named an award after that *******?

RKMeibalane
10-03-2012, 11:44 PM
They named an award after that *******?

They did.

doublem23
10-03-2012, 11:45 PM
They named an award after that *******?

Yeah, right after he passed away in 1944

DSpivack
10-03-2012, 11:46 PM
They did.

Yeah, right after he passed away in 1944

They should change it by now, like after, I don't know, any of the vast majority of human beings alive on the planet since.

RKMeibalane
10-03-2012, 11:47 PM
They should change it by now, like after, I don't know, any of the vast majority of human beings alive on the planet since.

:hitless

DSpivack
10-03-2012, 11:52 PM
:hitless

I think Paulie would be perfectly content with that.

Railsplitter
10-04-2012, 09:32 AM
Although this isn't the first time it has happened in my lifetime, in 1966 and 1967, I didn't know what baseball was, let alone a triple crown :redneck

In fact, I heard "Triple Crown" as it relates to horse racing before I ever heard it apllied to baseball.

amsteel
10-04-2012, 10:24 AM
best ≠ most valuble

asindc
10-04-2012, 10:34 AM
They should change it by now, like after, I don't know, any of the vast majority of human beings alive on the planet since.

Agreed.

mantis1212
10-04-2012, 11:24 AM
We are seriously debating whether a guy who wins the triple crown should be the MVP?


No kidding, I can't even believe it's a debate. On top of that, Cabrera's team went to the playoffs and Trout's team did not, alomst always a factor in MYP voting.

Triple crown = MYP, period. Unless a pitcher wins 30 games or something.

pythons007
10-04-2012, 11:56 AM
No kidding, I can't even believe it's a debate. On top of that, Cabrera's team went to the playoffs and Trout's team did not, alomst always a factor in MYP voting.

Triple crown = MYP, period. Unless a pitcher wins 30 games or something.

I have a question about the stat of WAR. Wins Above Replacement, commonly known as WAR, is a non-standardized sabermetric baseball statistic that is used to show how many more wins a player would give a team as opposed to a "replacement level", or minor league/bench player at that position (As quoted from Wikipedia).


My question is what if a team went on a tear when that player was replaced? Because it happened, it happened this year. When Joey Votto went on the DL. The team actually got better.

"Although he was playing at an MVP level before the injury, the Reds didnít a miss a beat during his absence. They went 33-16 without him and padded their NL Central lead from one game to 8 Ĺ games." (Quoted from Sporting News).

This stat is so relative on so many factors. Again, I'm not trying to take away anything Mike Trout did this year. He had a great year, but all arguments for him winning the MVP, that I've heard are coming back to that he leads all MLB players in WAR. That stat in my mind has no merit to anything factual. Just for the fact of my example of what happened with Joy Votto, a previous MVP candidate, who prior to his injury was having a MVP type season.

I also think for WAR to have any merit in the conversation of MVP, that player's team should be in the playoffs. Don't you think? Because WAR is all about winning games.

Am I understand this stat wrong? Or do I have a good argument?:?:

soxnut1018
10-04-2012, 12:37 PM
I'm not sure why people keep saying Miguel Cabrera should win the MVP because his team made the playoffs. Trout's team won MORE games. Also, sure the triple crown has been rarely been done before, but you know what's never been done before? 125 runs, 30 homeruns, and 40 steals. Mike Trout did that this year. Trout and Cabrera are similar offensive players (slight edge to Cabrera), but Trout is VASTLY superior in the field and on the basepaths (and you don't need sabermetrics to tell you that).

doublem23
10-04-2012, 12:38 PM
Trout's team won 1 more game, let's not make it sound like the Angels buried Detroit in the standings.

ron_j_galt
10-04-2012, 01:18 PM
WAR is a needless complication in the case for Trout, which can easily be made in plain language.

Mike Trout hit .329/.399/.564 in 639 PA. Miguel Cabrera hit .330/.393/.606 in 697 PA. These lines are not all that different, though Cabrera had more power and more PA. Cabrera was the better hitter, but not by a large margin.

On to the non-hitting aspects of the game. Sometimes the difference between Trout and Cabrera is presented in a manner that suggests "Cabrera is a slow, large guy, so just about any player will be better than him." This is probably true, but that sells Trout short. Trout was easily the best baserunner in the majors this year, stealing 49 bases at a 90% success rate. I'm fairly certain that the last time anyone stole 40+ bases at 90% success was Willy Taveras in 2008. This helped Trout lead the majors in runs scored, with 129. That's the second-highest total since 2007 (Granderson in 2009). Remember that Trout only played in 139 games due to the Angels gaming his service time or whatever was going on in April.

Defensively, just for the hell of it, grant that Miguel Cabrera is at best an average 3B. Trout is easily one of the top CFs in the game. Everyone's seen the highlights; this isn't a case where one would need to reference any defensive metrics, so it doesn't matter if one trusts those or not. Trout is clearly superior by a wide margin.

Personally, I have a very hard time taking the playoff argument seriously. The Tigers were not better than the Angels. Their record was worse, their run differential was worse, their schedule was easier. The Tigers made the playoffs because they played in a division with Kansas City, Minnesota, and Cleveland as opposed to Oakland and Texas. Cabrera didn't have anything to do with that.

I guess one could give Cabrera a slight bonus for AVG/HR/RBI. I personally don't care, especially in the MVP discussion, because this depends on how the rest of the league performed. Cabrera hit better in 2011 than he did in 2012.

In sum: if you have a great CF with elite baserunning skills, would you ever want to transform him into a lumbering 3B just to gain a little power? For the last ten years, all we hear is that statistically-oriented folks are fixated on OBP and don't account for all the things that don't show up in the top of the box score (or anywhere in the box score at all). Trout and Cabrera were just about the same hitter. One stole bases with ease, one went first-to-third on singles, one played superior defense at a premium position. One of these players did the little things better than almost anyone else in the game. The other did no little things whatsoever.

doublem23
10-04-2012, 01:26 PM
This stat is so relative on so many factors. Again, I'm not trying to take away anything Mike Trout did this year. He had a great year, but all arguments for him winning the MVP, that I've heard are coming back to that he leads all MLB players in WAR. That stat in my mind has no merit to anything factual. Just for the fact of my example of what happened with Joy Votto, a previous MVP candidate, who prior to his injury was having a MVP type season.

I also think for WAR to have any merit in the conversation of MVP, that player's team should be in the playoffs. Don't you think? Because WAR is all about winning games.

Am I understand this stat wrong? Or do I have a good argument?:?:

WAR is not relative at all, it's completely baselined for every player, the fact that the Reds went on a run without Votto doesn't mean WAR is invalidated or anything, it simply means with Votto out of the lineup, the Reds were able to pick up his production by either A) having other players play well or B) having competent back-up for him.

WAR is also not about "winning games," even though it is expressed as "wins." The Wins Over Replacement is only used to make the stat easier to digest and contextable for most people. Before, when VORP was all the rage, it was a much more vague number, how do you define "value?" At least this way the number you are looking at has some immediate context.

pythons007
10-04-2012, 02:37 PM
I'm not sure why people keep saying Miguel Cabrera should win the MVP because his team made the playoffs. Trout's team won MORE games. Also, sure the triple crown has been rarely been done before, but you know what's never been done before? 125 runs, 30 homeruns, and 40 steals. Mike Trout did that this year. Trout and Cabrera are similar offensive players (slight edge to Cabrera), but Trout is VASTLY superior in the field and on the basepaths (and you don't need sabermetrics to tell you that).

Alfonso Soriano 2002

I understand the defensive side. MVP to me means helped/carried the team to the post season or close to it. Cabrera was the player of the month for the past 2 months when his team needed him to get into the playoffs. I mean that's what the whole baseball season is about right? Getting to the playoffs, to compete for the World Series.

pythons007
10-04-2012, 02:45 PM
WAR is a needless complication in the case for Trout, which can easily be made in plain language.

Mike Trout hit .329/.399/.564 in 639 PA. Miguel Cabrera hit .330/.393/.606 in 697 PA. These lines are not all that different, though Cabrera had more power and more PA. Cabrera was the better hitter, but not by a large margin.

On to the non-hitting aspects of the game. Sometimes the difference between Trout and Cabrera is presented in a manner that suggests "Cabrera is a slow, large guy, so just about any player will be better than him." This is probably true, but that sells Trout short. Trout was easily the best baserunner in the majors this year, stealing 49 bases at a 90% success rate. I'm fairly certain that the last time anyone stole 40+ bases at 90% success was Willy Taveras in 2008. This helped Trout lead the majors in runs scored, with 129. That's the second-highest total since 2007 (Granderson in 2009). Remember that Trout only played in 139 games due to the Angels gaming his service time or whatever was going on in April.

Defensively, just for the hell of it, grant that Miguel Cabrera is at best an average 3B. Trout is easily one of the top CFs in the game. Everyone's seen the highlights; this isn't a case where one would need to reference any defensive metrics, so it doesn't matter if one trusts those or not. Trout is clearly superior by a wide margin.

Personally, I have a very hard time taking the playoff argument seriously. The Tigers were not better than the Angels. Their record was worse, their run differential was worse, their schedule was easier. The Tigers made the playoffs because they played in a division with Kansas City, Minnesota, and Cleveland as opposed to Oakland and Texas. Cabrera didn't have anything to do with that.

I guess one could give Cabrera a slight bonus for AVG/HR/RBI. I personally don't care, especially in the MVP discussion, because this depends on how the rest of the league performed. Cabrera hit better in 2011 than he did in 2012.

In sum: if you have a great CF with elite baserunning skills, would you ever want to transform him into a lumbering 3B just to gain a little power? For the last ten years, all we hear is that statistically-oriented folks are fixated on OBP and don't account for all the things that don't show up in the top of the box score (or anywhere in the box score at all). Trout and Cabrera were just about the same hitter. One stole bases with ease, one went first-to-third on singles, one played superior defense at a premium position. One of these players did the little things better than almost anyone else in the game. The other did no little things whatsoever.

Each team plays 162 games, they don't create the schedules and you really can't come up with the strength of schedule until after the season is over. There are always surprise teams that either suck that should have been good (Boston) or team that had Cinderella stories (Oakland and Baltimore).

To argue strength of schedule is laughable. Any team can beat any team any day or series. Also for the argument for the playoffs, read my last post above.

To say Cabrera had nothing to do with the Tigers getting in the playoffs is ludicrous! I don't care who is in your division, he was the player of the month in August and September. You know the stretch run...when a team was down 3 games with 12 to go, and squeaked into the playoffs? Give me a break.

soxfan2504
10-05-2012, 01:12 AM
Trout's team won 1 more game, let's not make it sound like the Angels buried Detroit in the standings.

Trout's team won 1 more game in a far superior division (well, at least it WAS far superior, now that they're getting the Astros). They would have blown away the Tigers (and Sox, for that matter) were they an AL Central team.

MUsoxfan
10-05-2012, 01:28 AM
I'm typically the guy that roots for the MVP to be the best offensive player on a team that makes the playoffs. I'll say that Cabrera should win the MVP even if Detroit lost 100. The Triple Crown is truly something special

Bob Roarman
10-05-2012, 01:30 AM
I think there are two different arguments going on here: who was the best player in baseball and who was the MVP. They aren't always the same, at least not to me.

DSpivack
10-05-2012, 01:39 AM
I think there are two different arguments going on here: who was the best player in baseball and who was the MVP. They aren't always the same, at least not to me.

I really fail to see the difference there.

And I think I've come around on this argument overall, I think Trout should get it.

soxfan2504
10-05-2012, 02:12 AM
But... but... but... Mike Trout's glove! Mike... Trout!

Defense is half the game of baseball. And baserunning is a significant part of playing offense. Miguel Cabrera sucks at both of these, whereas Trout is one of the very best at each of them. And Cabrera does not have a significant edge over Trout as an offensive player, though it is a definite edge. See ron_j_galt's post for more information.

Miguel Cabrera = Offensive Player of the Year
Mike Trout = MVP

Oblong
10-05-2012, 08:19 AM
I admit to being totally biased in that I want Miggy to win it. If it were some other player with the triple crown I'd probably go with Trout. But there it is.

I also have to admit I didn't expect this to get as much attention as it did. It caught me by surprise.

check out the class move by the Royals the other night.

http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k482/rjlong37/royals_board.jpg

MLB took out full page ads in the local papers congratulating him. Cabrera is a joy to watch, not just because he mashes. He's always in the game. Talks to everybody in between pitches, coaches, umps, other players. He's notorious for calling appeals down to 1B on himself. I remember a game where the ump or C called time while the P was in his windup and Miggy made sure the P knew it wasn't him that called it, he didn't want to get beamed. It's the little things like that which I like so much about him.

He's like Manny without all the drama and BS. (other than his 2 arrests, but let's not go there :redneck)

happydude
10-05-2012, 09:00 AM
I think there are two different arguments going on here: who was the best player in baseball and who was the MVP. They aren't always the same, at least not to me.

Agreed. If a player has a monster year and his club still performs poorly then how much "value" did said player ultimately have in a team sport where team accomplishments have the greater focus? Trout's team could not have been said to have performed poorly but they aren't still playing while Cabrera's team is.

Additionally, both teams had an opportunity to make the playoffs going into the final month and Cabrera put that Tigers team on his back and carried them the whole month with his bat while Trout continued to play well but nowhere near as well as Cabrera, at least offensively. That's the kind of late push that comes to my mind when I consider what the MVP Award should mean.

All things being equal, and it can be argued they are since both players had otherworldly years, my vote would go to the guy whose team gets in the playoffs. The "x player is in a tougher division" argument is not persuasive to me; it essentially suggests that a particular team would have done better or worse under a separate circumstance which is just speculation.

Dibbs
10-05-2012, 09:55 AM
Cabrera is MVP hands down in my opinion. Triple Crown is a huge deal, even with all of these new statistics.

I love me some Mike Trout, but Cabrera led his team to the division win. Without Cabrera, Tigers wouldn't have a chance. Without Trout, I think the Angels would have competed similarly.

soxnut1018
10-05-2012, 03:16 PM
Cabrera is MVP hands down in my opinion. Triple Crown is a huge deal, even with all of these new statistics.

I love me some Mike Trout, but Cabrera led his team to the division win. Without Cabrera, Tigers wouldn't have a chance. Without Trout, I think the Angels would have competed similarly.

Angels before Mike Trout: 6-14
Angels after Mike Trout: 83-59

DSpivack
10-05-2012, 03:28 PM
Cabrera is MVP hands down in my opinion. Triple Crown is a huge deal, even with all of these new statistics.

I love me some Mike Trout, but Cabrera led his team to the division win. Without Cabrera, Tigers wouldn't have a chance. Without Trout, I think the Angels would have competed similarly.

I disagree. I think Mike Trout contributed more to his team than Miguel Cabrera did to his. I think if you swapped the two, the Angels would have been ever so slightly worse and the Tigers just a tad better. Their bats were nearly identical, while Trout was the most dangerous man on the base paths in baseball this season in addition to being a gold-glove caliber CF; Cabrera is a base-clogger and a butcher at 3B.

Angels before Mike Trout: 6-14
Angels after Mike Trout: 83-59

Yep.

Marqhead
10-05-2012, 04:27 PM
Angels before Mike Trout: 6-14
Angels after Mike Trout: 83-59

Albert Pujols hit .217 with 0 HRs and 4 RBI in his first 23 games this year.

He finished with 30 HRs, 105 RBI and batted .285.

DSpivack
10-05-2012, 04:50 PM
Albert Pujols hit .217 with 0 HRs and 4 RBI in his first 23 games this year.

He finished with 30 HRs, 105 RBI and batted .285.

So, the W-L thing is imperfect, then, as like RBIs they depend on more than just one player. That said, the post he was responding to said that the Tigers would have no chance without Cabrera and the Angels would have been fine without Trout. I really fail to see why that is the case, or the evidence supporting that argument.

Bob Roarman
10-05-2012, 05:30 PM
Cabrera is MVP hands down in my opinion. Triple Crown is a huge deal, even with all of these new statistics.

I love me some Mike Trout, but Cabrera led his team to the division win. Without Cabrera, Tigers wouldn't have a chance. Without Trout, I think the Angels would have competed similarly.

I don't think it's hands down Cabrera's at all. I go back and forth myself. Yeah the Triple Crown is a great achievement, but there's other phases of the game that Trout is miles ahead of Cabrera in. Even the hitting aspect of it can be argued that it's in favor of Trout.

SOXSINCE'70
10-05-2012, 06:13 PM
Albert Pujols hit .217 with 0 HRs and 4 RBI in his first 23 games this year.

He finished with 30 HRs, 105 RBI and batted .285.

For him,that's a bad year.:D:

Nellie_Fox
10-06-2012, 12:58 AM
Let me stir the pot further. Can an argument be made that you should have to show that you're not a "one-year wonder" before you can be an MVP as opposed to a Player of the Year? Cabrera has put up year after year of big numbers.

DSpivack
10-06-2012, 01:23 AM
Let me stir the pot further. Can an argument be made that you should have to show that you're not a "one-year wonder" before you can be an MVP as opposed to a Player of the Year? Cabrera has put up year after year of big numbers.

Interesting question, but I don't see why that would be the case. The MVP award is for the MVP of that particular season, and I think each award is separate from the other. Also, if that were true, should no rookie ever win the award?

Nellie_Fox
10-06-2012, 01:57 AM
Interesting question, but I don't see why that would be the case. The MVP award is for the MVP of that particular season, and I think each award is separate from the other. Also, if that were true, should no rookie ever win the award?I didn't say that I was taking that position, just throwing it out for consideration. Of course it's most valuable for that season, but the question could be is there more value in a player who's proven himself to be reliably that good, as opposed to someone who might be "exposed" in subsequent seasons.

The landscape is littered with rookie phenoms who faded into oblivion. To answer your question, I'd be very hesitant to vote for a rookie as "Most Valuable." It's the Most Valuable, not the Player of the Year.

DSpivack
10-06-2012, 02:06 AM
I didn't say that I was taking that position, just throwing it out for consideration. Of course it's most valuable for that season, but the question could be is there more value in a player who's proven himself to be reliably that good, as opposed to someone who might be "exposed" in subsequent seasons.

The landscape is littered with rookie phenoms who faded into oblivion. To answer your question, I'd be very hesitant to vote for a rookie as "Most Valuable." It's the Most Valuable, not the Player of the Year.

Oh, I didn't take it that way, just responding to that particular thought experiment. To me, I take the MVP as who contributed the most to his team. Riffing off of that (and obviously it's an imperfect comparison, as there are park factors involved, and teams are built differently, and there are other players present at the positions to begin with), if you swapped the two players, what would be the better team? In this case, the Tigers with Cabrera, or the Tigers with Mike Trout? The Angels with Mike Trout, or the Angels with Miguel Cabrera? Obviously that's completely hypothetical as Trout and Austin Jackson would have to fit somewhere, as well as Miguel Cabrera with Albert Pujols (not to mention Trumbo and Morales, as well), but it's an interesting thought in my head.

What's the difference between MVP and Player of the Year? As for rookies, were Fred Lynn and Ichiro not as valuable to their teams in their rookie years than in subsequent ones?

Frater Perdurabo
10-06-2012, 08:54 AM
Separate from the MVP, MLB ought to have a "Hank Aaron Award" for the best offensive player in each league in each year, just like there is a Cy Young award for the best pitcher.

pythons007
10-06-2012, 10:28 PM
I disagree. I think Mike Trout contributed more to his team than Miguel Cabrera did to his. I think if you swapped the two, the Angels would have been ever so slightly worse and the Tigers just a tad better. Their bats were nearly identical, while Trout was the most dangerous man on the base paths in baseball this season in addition to being a gold-glove caliber CF; Cabrera is a base-clogger and a butcher at 3B.

He scored over 100 runs with players that didn't do much behind him. I don't have the statistics but I heard that the players after him and Fielder were awful. To call him a base clogger, is not correct. Paulie and Dunn, are base cloggers, station to station guys.



Yep.

So, the W-L thing is imperfect, then, as like RBIs they depend on more than just one player. That said, the post he was responding to said that the Tigers would have no chance without Cabrera and the Angels would have been fine without Trout. I really fail to see why that is the case, or the evidence supporting that argument.

So do scoring runs. He hit at the top of the lineup where he's going to get the opportunity to score more runs with big hitters behind him.


For as much argument on who should win the MVP and as close as these two players are, I think it would have to come down to how the two helped their teams down the stretch. One team got into the playoffs and the other did not. One was the player of the month in August and September and the other was not.

DSpivack
10-07-2012, 12:10 AM
So do scoring runs. He hit at the top of the lineup where he's going to get the opportunity to score more runs with big hitters behind him.

For as much argument on who should win the MVP and as close as these two players are, I think it would have to come down to how the two helped their teams down the stretch. One team got into the playoffs and the other did not. One was the player of the month in August and September and the other was not.

Runs are, yes, but Cabrera did not help the team on base paths, whereas Trout was perhaps the best base runner in baseball. How you run on the base paths is not dependent on the rest of the team. And is it not MVP of the whole season, instead of August and September? A win is just as good in May as it is in August. And Trout was no slouch in these months. If you're cooling down to .284/.366/.500 and .289/.400/.500 (his August and September/October, respectively), then you're having a pretty damn good season.

And if runs and RBIs are dependent on your teammates, then whether or not your team makes the playoffs is even moreso dependent on it. Besides, the Angels finished with a better record in a much tougher division.

Nellie_Fox
10-07-2012, 01:23 AM
As for rookies, were Fred Lynn and Ichiro not as valuable to their teams in their rookie years than in subsequent ones?Ichiro is a whole different argument. I don't think guys who have played Japanese Major League baseball for nine years should qualify as rookies at all. Yes, Lynn went on to a solid major league career. But nobody knew that at the time, just as nobody has any guarantees that Trout won't be a flash-in-the-pan as many phenoms before him have been.

Either I'm not making my point clear or you're missing it. This year was really just a little better than what Cabrera has done for many years. Trout has absolutely no track record. To be "most valuable," I think it can be argued that a guy who has shown he can do it over and over again is more valuable than a rookie.

DSpivack
10-07-2012, 01:39 AM
Ichiro is a whole different argument. I don't think guys who have played Japanese Major League baseball for nine years should qualify as rookies at all. Yes, Lynn went on to a solid major league career. But nobody knew that at the time, just as nobody has any guarantees that Trout won't be a flash-in-the-pan as many phenoms before him have been.

Either I'm not making my point clear or you're missing it. This year was really just a little better than what Cabrera has done for many years. Trout has absolutely no track record. To be "most valuable," I think it can be argued that a guy who has shown he can do it over and over again is more valuable than a rookie.

I get your point, but I'm not seeing what affect that has, or should have, on an MVP award in any one given season. If Trout hits .280 the rest of his career, or hits .320, I don't see how that retroactively changes what he did in 2012. As for Cabrera, you could argue that 2012 was his worst season of the past 3; I don't think that's an argument for or against him deserving the MVP award in 2012, it just shows what a great hitter he is and what a great career he has had thus far. I just don't see how Trout is any more or less valuable for the 2012 Angels based on what he does in seasons that have yet to occur.

Nellie_Fox
10-07-2012, 02:09 AM
I get your point, but I'm not seeing what affect that has, or should have, on an MVP award in any one given season. If Trout hits .280 the rest of his career, or hits .320, I don't see how that retroactively changes what he did in 2012. As for Cabrera, you could argue that 2012 was his worst season of the past 3; I don't think that's an argument for or against him deserving the MVP award in 2012, it just shows what a great hitter he is and what a great career he has had thus far. I just don't see how Trout is any more or less valuable for the 2012 Angels based on what he does in seasons that have yet to occur.And there we're back to the vague definition. Is it most valuable to his team, or most valuable as viewed by baseball? In other words, if you were to throw all the players into a giant draft, do you think Trout or Cabrera would be the #1 draft choice? That's how I view "most valuable," and why I don't think you have to have been on a winning team to be considered. And if Trout simply disappears, then in retrospect, he won't have been very valuable at all.

Bob Roarman
10-07-2012, 04:44 PM
You still have to contain it to this season though.