Hunter certainlyly addresses the 2-hole situation. If he signs with Detroit, and his bat doesn't fall off, he'll be the #2 guy. He puts up a good OBP and is good on the base paths. I like Avila, and he can be a good hitter, but he's not as good as Hunter, and he's better off toward the back of the lineup. Signing Hunter to a 2-year deal would be great. The perfect cushion, as we potentially work Garcia and Castellanos in over the next few years.
His bat is likely to slide a bit. Last year his babip was a bit high, while his walkrate fell and his K rate climbed. He also hit fewer homeruns. I don't think he'll fall through the floor like Peralta did last year, but I think his career norm of a .270ish average and a .330ish OBP is more likely than what he did last year.
Still a good hitter, and I'd be fine with him in the 2hole...despite preferring Avila
Just heard it on the radio...Hunter reportedly signs a 2-year deal (the length I hoped for). $26 million over two years sounds like a lot but they're only on the hook for the two years. He was rumored to be looking for only $10 million a year...maybe the term went up with the shorter deal.
Also posted on Freep.com...
Garcia and Castellanos don't need to be rushed. They allow them to continue to develop and in the mean time, Hunter should be a great mentor for Jackson. Absolutely love the move...exactly what they needed.
A competent right fielder will do wonder's for the Tigers next year. Now just get a closer who isn't garbage and as long as Victor Martinez has a good not great year, the Tigers should easily be favorites for the AL Central and a strong favorite to go back to the WS. This of course could change if the pitching sucks next year.
He deserved to be a finalist but the right guy won it. His year last year was so insanely good, it makes a year like this seem average but it was still Cy Young-candidate worthy. His last 4 seasons have been brilliant.
As for tomorrow and the MVP...we know how great Cabrera was. I'd probably care even less about the award had they won the World Series. I want the Tigers to win it all...Cabrera getting the MVP doesn't validate his season. He won the Triple Crown...no matter what the nerds say, his season was just as historical as Trout's. It's either him or Trout...I'm tired of the debate. It's a matter of what flavor of stats you like because both guys did great things this year but in different ways.
It's ridiculous how overrated defense has become in the MVP debate. They see a couple of robbed home runs and all of a sudden he's the best Center Fielder in the league when, in reality, he's not.
It's ridiculous how overrated defense has become in the MVP debate. They see a couple of robbed home runs and all of a sudden he's the best Center Fielder in the league when, in reality, he's not.
My problem is that I don't trust the metrics being used for defense. Fan graphs has Peralta looking like one of the better defensive shortstops in baseball and, aside from when he upped his play in the playoffs, he isn't. He's got good hands, but he's slow as molasses and has no range.
My problem is that I don't trust the metrics being used for defense. Fan graphs has Peralta looking like one of the better defensive shortstops in baseball and, aside from when he upped his play in the playoffs, he isn't. He's got good hands, but he's slow as molasses and has no range.
There is indeed a significant problem with how defense is rated as a metric. There are essentially two numbers that are often cited; RF and UZR. One basically measures how many balls a fielder can get to, relative to everyone else, and the other essentially measures how sure-handed a fielder is. As stand-alone statistics, they are often inverses of one another, which is a major problem. The result is that you can make any fielder look good by citing one, or the other. Guys like Peralta, and Polanco when he was here, are guys with pretty good hands, but they have horrible range. Others in the league have great range but sub-par hands. How do you rectify this? How do you combine the two to make a meaningful statistic? As of now, there is no way. There is no stat that provides a cumulative rating.
That all said, in the case of Cabrera vs Trout, it doesn't matter. Trout is the superior fielder no matter which angle you take.... range, hands, whatever (and he was indeed the best CF in the league this year, it wasn't even close). Every comparison I've seen has shown a difference in run prevention between the two in the 15-25 runs range. And, imo, the eyeball test confirms that; every ~8 games, Trout, defensively, is worth 1 more run than Cabrera. On the basepaths, Trout is worth 10-20 runs more than Cabrera. At the plate, they are probably about even. Maybe a small advantage to Cabrera, but the baserunning and defense give Trout the easy advantage. He should be the MVP. Many people resist this conclusion, but they are almost always either Tigers fans (being homers), or archaic baseball people like Jim Leyland who shun numbers and go with their "gut." Cabrera is going to win the MVP though, mostly because of the latter factor, so those people, and the Tigers homers, will be happy
There is indeed a significant problem with how defense is rated as a metric. There are essentially two numbers that are often cited; RF and UZR. One basically measures how many balls a fielder can get to, relative to everyone else, and the other essentially measures how sure-handed a fielder is. As stand-alone statistics, they are often inverses of one another, which is a major problem. The result is that you can make any fielder look good by citing one, or the other. Guys like Peralta, and Polanco when he was here, are guys with pretty good hands, but they have horrible range. Others in the league have great range but sub-par hands. How do you rectify this? How do you combine the two to make a meaningful statistic? As of now, there is no way. There is no stat that provides a cumulative rating.
That all said, in the case of Cabrera vs Trout, it doesn't matter. Trout is the superior fielder no matter which angle you take.... range, hands, whatever (and he was indeed the best CF in the league this year, it wasn't even close). Every comparison I've seen has shown a difference in run prevention between the two in the 15-25 runs range. And, imo, the eyeball test confirms that; every ~8 games, Trout, defensively, is worth 1 more run than Cabrera. On the basepaths, Trout is worth 10-20 runs more than Cabrera. At the plate, they are probably about even. Maybe a small advantage to Cabrera, but the baserunning and defense give Trout the easy advantage. He should be the MVP. Many people resist this conclusion, but they are almost always either Tigers fans (being homers), or archaic baseball people like Jim Leyland who shun numbers and go with their "gut." Cabrera is going to win the MVP though, mostly because of the latter factor, so those people, and the Tigers homers, will be happy
Good post. I agree. Trout is the MVP, not saying Cabrera didn't have an amazing year, cause he did, it was historic as a matter a fact. But Trout also had a historic year and as a rookie no less. Trout is the MVP. The slight advantage Cabrera has over him offensively doesn't make up for defense and base running (creating runs and saving them) where Trout crushes him.
I do agree Cabrera will win because of the mystique of the Triple Crown the old timer* voters, homever. I won't be upset if Cabrera wins though. Guys like Keith Law though on the other hand....
You should come over to the baseball board this debate has been raging on for 2 months.
* For example. A lot of these guys act like taking steroids was/is the biggest form of sacrilege in the history of sports and guys whole careers from T-Ball to the majors and now proven to be a fraud because of them. When it's been proven the effect of steroids as it pertains to baseball isn't as great as people make it out to be. But that's a topic for another day.
I'll be curious to see what kind of affect (if any) Hunter had on Trout's season based on what Jackson will do the next two seasons. Jackson can be a solid on base guy but doesn't run the bases nearly as much as Trout but should have a lot of chances to score runs in front of the next 4 guys in the order.
Jackson is a "take the extra base" type baserunner on balls hit in the gap like Trout...he's the leader in triples. I doubt he'll score as many runs as Trout but I'd like to see a full season of Jackson with the Tigers lineup featuring Hunter and Martinez compared to what Trout does with a different #2 hitter behind him.
How many runs can this lineup potential score based on each player's most recent numbers...
Can any lineup put that kind production out as their first 5 hitters? Let's say just only 3 or 4 hit over .300 but still get on base no worse than .360 and slug over .450. This may be better than that powerhouse lineup they were hyping back when the first got Cabrera and they still had Granderson, Polanco, Ordonez, Pudge and Guillen.
I'm not going to do naked cartwheels down the street over this but good for Cabby...he's missed out on this honor a few different times in the past. He's had excellent years but he set career highs in HR, RBI and hits and you can't discount him winning the Triple Crown.
All I'm going to say to those debating using Sabremetrics...if can't calculate WAR, you can't use it to debate who's a better player.
As for Trout...the guy is a wonderful talent and we've not heard the last of him. I'm eager to see him for a full season.
Miggy carried his team to the playoffs down the stretch, Trout faded in September and his team missed the playoffs.
Good call.
Games in June count the same as games in September. And while Trout's team missed the playoffs, he still boosted his team more than Cabrera boosted his.
Games in June count the same as games in September. And while Trout's team missed the playoffs, he still boosted his team more than Cabrera boosted his.
Yeah they count the same, but don't pretend like there isn't something called pressure and being clutch. The reason the Tigers made the playoffs was because Cabrera dominated the last few weeks. So how can you possibly say Trout boosted his team more than Cabby?
Yeah they count the same, but don't pretend like there isn't something called pressure and being clutch. The reason the Tigers made the playoffs was because Cabrera dominated the last few weeks. So how can you possibly say Trout boosted his team more than Cabby?
To be fair, the Angels had a better record in a tougher division.
Games in June count the same as games in September. And while Trout's team missed the playoffs, he still boosted his team more than Cabrera boosted his.
By that logic, games in April count the same as games in June and September. And Trout was in the minors in April.
And games played is actually in the wording of the definition for the MVP as one of the criteria to be used in deciding the winner.
It's not that people are forgetting it, it's just that it simply doesn't matter. Actually, scratch that, it does matter. And it boosts Trout's appeal as an MVP candidate. Despite playing 22 fewer games than Cabrera, he still boosted his team more than Cabrera did his. All the more impressive.
It's not that people are forgetting it, it's just that it simply doesn't matter. Actually, scratch that, it does matter. And it boosts Trout's appeal as an MVP candidate. Despite playing 22 fewer games than Cabrera, he still boosted his team more than Cabrera did his. All the more impressive.
How does not playing in 22 more games help your team?
The MLB season is a grind and Trout's offensive game had taken a pretty significant hit as the season wore on at the MLB level. Who's to say Trout's offensive numbers don't continue to falter in those 22 more games? Would he really have been an MVP threat (although at the end of the day he really wasn't either way) if his average is hovering around .300-.310? People seem to just prorate his numbers and give him credit for games he wasn't in there helping his team.
And also keep in mind that many people are using the defensive argument in Trout's case which is obviously slightly lessened with each game you don't not participate in.
Trout had a phenominal season, but why did the majority of MLB players and managers feel that Cabrera should have been MVP and it was guys like Keith Law who were pushing Trout? Back in August Law suggested that Cabrera was only the 3rd MVP on Detroit behind JV and AJ.
How does not playing in 22 more games help your team?
It doesn't.
Quote:
The MLB season is a grind and Trout's offensive game had taken a pretty significant hit as the season wore on at the MLB level. Who's to say Trout's offensive numbers don't continue to falter in those 22 more games? Would he really have been an MVP threat (although at the end of the day he really wasn't either way) if his average is hovering around .300-.310?
What if he had played those games and put up more huge numbers? I don't see any point in playing the 'what if' game. You can only objectively judge the games that were actually played.
Quote:
People seem to just prorate his numbers and give him credit for games he wasn't in there helping his team.
No one is prorating anything, nor giving him credit for games he didn't play.
Quote:
And also keep in mind that many people are using the defensive argument in Trout's case which is obviously slightly lessened with each game you don't not participate in.
Yes, but the people are using the actual numbers. The actual impact in the games played. Even though Trout played 22 fewer games, he still had a far bigger impact than Cabrera in the field and on the basepaths overall.
Quote:
Trout had a phenominal season, but why did the majority of MLB players and managers feel that Cabrera should have been MVP and it was guys like Keith Law who were pushing Trout? Back in August Law suggested that Cabrera was only the 3rd MVP on Detroit behind JV and AJ.
I'm not here to defend Law, nor argue with appeals to authority. However, I did mention earlier why I thought Cabrera would win. And I think once he had the TC sewed up, it was a lock. Even though, while very impressive, the TC is, at its core, arbitrary. It focuses on only a few facets of the game and really isn't as statistically meaningful as the metrics that use more context in their calculations. Yet, the Cabrera supporters trumpeted the TC pretty loudly, while ignoring the more meaningful numbers. Can't have it both ways, imo.
Oh well. I really don't care as much as my number of replies to this subject indicate. I'm happy for Cabrera, he is on my favorite team and he did have a MVP-caliber season. I'm certainly not going to write my congressman over this. There have been many award decisions in MLB history that were far worse than this one.
