Only knock I have against Trout is the he didnt get his team into the playoffs.
This argument has been countered successfully several times.
Trout's team had a better record, played in a tougher division, and would have averaged more wins than the Tigers if Trout played a full season (94 wins), which they still did even without Trout playing a full season (89 wins to 88 wins).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edonator
When was the last time anybody has won the Triple Crown? What Cabrera did may never be matched again.
Cabrera would have also won the Triple Crown in 2008. So, how is this a rare feat to the point you say "it may never be matched again?"
Also, you have to go all the way back to 1972 to see Cabrera's numbers this year as better in all of the three Triple Crown categories than other players (not including his 2008 season).
I think it's more fair to say, we may never see a rookie season like Trout's again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForzaZuffa
It really is. A one-game event vs a full season of dominance....
His comparison was meant to show that Cabrera was awarded MVP based on a trivial feat. For example, if Edwin hit 3 more home-runs (or whatever the number is he needed to beat Cabrera), would Cabrera still be MVP by not having a Triple Crown?
Right, because the BBWAA's voting practices and personal biases are an accurate representation of the reality of how Cabrera and Trout played.
The only thing I'm arguing is that it's a conversation worth having. I think I've sided with both at one point or another, it was a tough call IMO as both players had MVP seasons worthy of deep analysis. Saying Trout was some silent unanimous should-be-winner is just wrong, is my contention.
The fact that Cabrera won the vote in no way changes the fact that Trout demonstrably, inarguably had the better, more impactful season. It merely demonstrates that the MVP voters can do just as poor a job as the ones voting on Gold Gloves. MVP voting is a popularity exercise, not an objective exercise, and in that sense, yes, it is just like an election. That is not a blow to the cause of advanced statistical analysis, it simply demonstrates that more cranky old farts will have to retire or die before common sense is permitted to enter into the awards process.
How often does the leading home run getter also lead the league in average? Miguel is such an elite pure hitter, he combines superior contact, plate discipline, and power. He is a tremendous player.
Miguel Cabera's 2012 season was a huge accomplishment even without the Triple Crown, he just wasn't the best player.
Oh, I wasn't aware that a Triple Crown could be won in one game....if this is your only viable comeback, you should probably give up at this point, and come back another day...
your're arguing hte wrong thing. Scion's retort was entirely toward an argument based on the rarity of the event. The time frame involved was never a factor in the argument.
The argument was that the triple crown is a rarity in baseball, therefore deserving of MVP.
the retort was that if rarity of the feat was a significant and deciding factor, then should we not consider Josh Hamilton's 4-HR game given its similar rarity?
The whole point was that it was a ridiculous statement to make, for the purposes of pointing out how ridiculous it is to say that the rarity of an event informs its importance or value.
And since those of you who dislike sabr stats tend to just mock/ignore/dismiss anything resembling a number that's not traditionally on the back of a baseball card, let's look at it this way:
Mike Trout's team won more games. He put up a historically incredible season without playing the entire season's worth of games, did it at a position where offence of that caliber is not the norm, did it as a young player in his first year in the league, and while providing outstanding defence and an additional dimension of speed, neither of which Cabrera provided. His season is equally historically rare and incredible as the triple crown. The only differentiators are that a) the Angels were in a tougher division with two other good teams that Trout and the Angels have no control over the # of wins accumulated by, whereas the Tigers played in a division that was much weaker and which they only won (and made the playoffs) because Kansas City fell apart in the latter portion of hte season) and b) What trout did doesn't have a fancy label applied to it like "triple crown" to inflate its importance or glamour.
There. No mention of UZR or wrc+ or any of those other scary acronyms and numbers that only nerds who live in their parents' basement understand.
__________________ "Do you know what "nemesis" means? A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent." '13 Shark CI Tracker: 48 gms, 19-23-6 (SJ-Opponent-National/Market feed)19 SJ feeds in HD Sorry, I am not taking signature requests at this time.
Last edited by The Nemesis: 11-15-2012 at 09:26 PM.
I would love to see you try and present an adequate rebuttal to his point.
Fair warning, you won't be able to. Scion is 100% right.
You're really saying that it's not worth debating who had a better year? How am I supposed to rebut that...an argument about it being worth having an argument? That's like dividing by zero. Just needing to ask anyone to argue in favor of Cabrera means that it's worth discussing, rendering Scion's point invalid.
His comparison was meant to show that Cabrera was awarded MVP based on a trivial feat. For example, if Edwin hit 3 more home-runs (or whatever the number is he needed to beat Cabrera), would Cabrera still be MVP by not having a Triple Crown?
This point actually gives me an interesting idea for a thought experiment. If we were to take away 2 HR from Miguel Cabrera and Mike Trout (thus preventing Cabrera from winning the Triple Crown), would Cabrera still win MVP?
You mean like using a single game accomplishment when talking about full season accomplishments?
You completely missed the point of the analogy then, it was not to equate a single day accomplishment to a season long accomplishment, but rather to emphasize the stupidity of awarding Miguel Cabrera MVP on the basis of winning the Triple Crown, an accomplishment that occurs infrequently.
If you prefer, I can compare the Triple-Crown to stealing 100 bases, a similarly infrequent achievement over a full season, and like the Triple-Crown is not sufficient grounds to warrant winning the MVP (in isolation).
The Blue Jays have signed right-hander Neil Wagner to a minor league contract with an invite to Spring Training, MLBTR has learned. Wagner has a 3.77 ERA, 2.95 K:BB ratio and 10.2 K/9 rate in 312 career minor league relief appearances in the Padres, A's, and Indians' systems, plus pitched five Major League innings with Oakland in 2011.
Read more at http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/#scxEbm12RMQcDihz.99
You mean like using a single game accomplishment when talking about full season accomplishments? You are aware what apples and oranges are, correct?
You're still misunderstanding the point of the comparison. It was not meant to factor time in. It was meant to show that someone saying that the rarity of the triple crown was an overriding factor in why his season was MVP worthy. Not the rarity of it as a season-long event, just the rarity, period. So the point was to make a completely ridiculous comparison to show how ludicrous it is to say that the rarity of the triple crown should have any impact on how much Cabrera deserves the MVP.
Why? The reason's being presented for the importance of the triple crown are exactly the same, that it is a rare and infrequent event.
No they weren't. I certainly understand arguments being made for Trout being MVP, but saying it's the same because of it's frequency (which is even a stretch) is absurd. Don't result to that. Mike Cameron did it for eff sakes.
Heres some news jays signed Neil forgot his last name to a minor league deal and an yinvite to training camp.
Neil Wagner. Minor league depth move but a decent candidate for injury replacement for the pen. I think he only has 5 major league innings but has great numbers in the minors.
Ok, why do you think Cabrera had a better season? I've seen the arguments for Trout, I'd like to also see the arguments for Cabrera.
Would Cabrera having a way better OBP than Trout with RISP not mean something? Or RBIs? Or that Cabrera crushed Trout with men on base? How about 2-our-RISP? (it's not even remotely close for this one)
These, I think, are very important in determining who was more valuable to their team when at the plate.
Also, if Trout had won a gold glove then that surely would work in his favor, but he didn't.
No they weren't. I certainly understand arguments being made for Trout being MVP, but saying it's the same because of it's frequency (which is even a stretch) is absurd. Don't result to that. Mike Cameron did it for eff sakes.
That's entirely the point! The point wasn't to say that Josh Hamilton is every bit the deserving MVP candidate as Miguel Cabrera. The point was to show that calling Cabrera the MVP just because the triple crown is a rare thing (which someone here, and numerous sports writers have actually said) is just as absurd as saying Hamilton should be in the conversation because he hit 4 homers in a game last year.
Would Cabrera having a way better OBP than Trout with RISP not mean something? Or RBIs? Or that Cabrera crushed Trout with men on base? How about 2-our-RISP? (it's not even remotely close for this one)
These, I think, are very important in determining who was more valuable to their team when at the plate.
Also, if Trout had won a gold glove then that surely would work in his favor, but he didn't.
RBIs are more a measure of the team than they are the individual player. It's not Mike Trout's fault that people wren't on base for him to drive in as often as they were for Cabrera.
and gold gloves are a sham of bone-headed voting most of the time, where people win on rep or on popularity or even if they don't deserve to get it for a specific position rather than any sort of objectivity regarding their defence.
