Superb.

Succinctly put. He did an excellent job of dispelling the whole notion of "leading one's team to the playoffs."

Succinctly put. He did an excellent job of dispelling the whole notion of "leading one's team to the playoffs."

Agreed. I know this video won't change a lot of minds, but I think it does a marvelous job of poking holes in a lot of the rhetoric we've heard backing Cabrera's MVP victory without resorting to insults or exaggerations.

That was really well done. Balanced and strong, without seeming strident or negative.

And he does it by turning the stats geel argument around 180! :)


It amazes me the logical inconsistency of many otherwise seemingly intelligent people.

If you really believe that a person whose team did not make the playoffs cannot be the most valuable player, then you have to also believe he cannot be the 2nd, 3rd, or 10th most valuable player. But I know of ZERO voters EVER who insisted on filling out a complete 10-man MVP ballot with only players from 'winners'.

If it ever DID happen, the ridicule that followed would only serve to accentuate the silly notion to begin with that how good your teammates are influences how good an individual's year was.

If you really believe that a person whose team did not make the playoffs cannot be the most valuable player, then you have to also believe he cannot be the 2nd, 3rd, or 10th most valuable player.

Actually, you can. It depends on how much value you place on whether or not the team would have made the playoffs, given a particular player's absence from the lineup. If you believe, for example, that the Yankees make the playoffs without Cano (a position not without some logic), then you can place Trout above Cano on the theory that neither player was truly essential to his team's postseason chances. (Yes, that requires a few contortions to get to this point.)

-- MWE

Actually, you can. It depends on how much value you place on whether or not the team would have made the playoffs, given a particular player's absence from the lineup. If you believe, for example, that the Yankees make the playoffs without Cano (a position not without some logic), then you can place Trout above Cano on the theory that neither player was truly essential to his team's postseason chances. (Yes, that requires a few contortions to get to this point.)

But how can you have Trout above Josh Reddick or Adam Jones then?

But how can you have Trout above Josh Reddick or Adam Jones then?

Like I said, it requires contortions to get you there. (Josh Reddick wasn't the A's storyline guy anyway, Cespedes was.)

Seriously, anyone who's applying this argument isn't thinking below the #1 spot on the ballot, anyway. There is a body of the writing public that acts as though the #1 spot on the ballot is the only important spot.

-- MWE

Everyone on Hot Stove this morning was talking about how it's the stats camp that's being totally unreasonable about this whole thing, which I think, it's exactly a fair assessment. If Trout had won, you can bet we'd have an avalanche of vitriol-filled columns about all of these pasty slide-rule-loving geeks. Hell, Cabrera won and look how many columns we've seen about it that deride the stat geeks and their whacky formulas.

Also, it pains me that the same network that employs Brian Kenny also sends a paycheck to Billy Ripken.

Who decided that sports footage needs to be backed by never-ending guitar solos?

Was it George Michael?