White Sox Interactive Forums
Talking Baseball

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Talking Baseball
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 10-06-2012, 12:58 AM
Nellie_Fox's Avatar
Nellie_Fox Nellie_Fox is offline
Official Professor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: North Mankato, MN
Posts: 16,285
Default

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.
__________________

"Nellie Fox, that little son of a gun, was always on base and was a great hit-and-run man. He sprayed hits all over."
Yogi Berra in the New York Sunday News (July 12, 1970)
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 10-06-2012, 01:23 AM
DSpivack DSpivack is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Evanston
Posts: 29,096
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nellie_Fox View Post
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?
__________________
Attendance records:
09 : 3-2.
10 : 2-3.
11: 0-1.
12: 2-1.
14: 2-3.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 10-06-2012, 01:57 AM
Nellie_Fox's Avatar
Nellie_Fox Nellie_Fox is offline
Official Professor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: North Mankato, MN
Posts: 16,285
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSpivack View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 10-06-2012, 02:06 AM
DSpivack DSpivack is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Evanston
Posts: 29,096
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nellie_Fox View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 10-06-2012, 08:54 AM
Frater Perdurabo Frater Perdurabo is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 18,253
Blog Entries: 1
Default

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.
__________________
The universe is the practical joke of the General at the expense of the Particular, quoth Frater Perdurabo, and laughed. The disciples nearest him wept, seeing the Universal Sorrow. Others laughed, seeing the Universal Joke. Others wept. Others laughed. Others wept because they couldn't see the Joke, and others laughed lest they should be thought not to see the Joke. But though FRATER laughed openly, he wept secretly; and really he neither laughed nor wept. Nor did he mean what he said.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 10-06-2012, 10:28 PM
pythons007 pythons007 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Cedar Lake IN
Posts: 2,375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSpivack View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSpivack View Post
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.
__________________


YOUR 2005 WORLD CHAMPION CHICAGO WHITE SOX
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 10-07-2012, 12:10 AM
DSpivack DSpivack is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Evanston
Posts: 29,096
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pythons007 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 10-07-2012, 01:23 AM
Nellie_Fox's Avatar
Nellie_Fox Nellie_Fox is offline
Official Professor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: North Mankato, MN
Posts: 16,285
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSpivack View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 10-07-2012, 01:39 AM
DSpivack DSpivack is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Evanston
Posts: 29,096
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nellie_Fox View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 10-07-2012, 02:09 AM
Nellie_Fox's Avatar
Nellie_Fox Nellie_Fox is offline
Official Professor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: North Mankato, MN
Posts: 16,285
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSpivack View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 10-07-2012, 04:44 PM
Bob Roarman Bob Roarman is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,343
Default

You still have to contain it to this season though.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:32 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.