Miguel Cabrera Triple Crown?

[RKMeibalane]

Originally Posted by DSpivack

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

They did.

[doublem23]

Originally Posted by DSpivack

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

Yeah, right after he passed away in 1944

[DSpivack]

Originally Posted by RKMeibalane

They did.

Originally Posted by doublem23

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]

Originally Posted by DSpivack

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.

[DSpivack]

Originally Posted by RKMeibalane

I think Paulie would be perfectly content with that.

[Railsplitter]

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

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

[amsteel]

best ≠ most valuble

[asindc]

Originally Posted by DSpivack

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]

Originally Posted by 102605

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]

Originally Posted by mantis1212

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 didn’t a miss a beat during his absence. They went 33-16 without him and padded their NL Central lead from one game to 8 ½ 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]

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]

Trout's team won 1 more game, let's not make it sound like the Angels buried Detroit in the standings.

[ron_j_galt]

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]

Originally Posted by pythons007

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]

Originally Posted by soxnut1018

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.