Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, October 02, 2012

Mellinger: Most valuable puzzle with Cabrera, Trout

Trout can win a game with his bat, glove or legs.

That trumps Cabrera’s bat.

But it does not diminish Cabrera’s bat.

Too often it seems, taking one side means ignoring or trashing the other. Do that here, and you’re missing greatness, no matter which side of the debate you’re on. The case for one doesn’t require making a case against the other.

CFBF Is A Golden Spider Duck Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:19 PM | 72 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: angels, mvp, tigers

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Bob Evans Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:48 PM (#4251154)
Geez, there's no need to be so reasonable about it.
   2. phredbird Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:05 PM (#4251201)
i was watching the dodger game last night, and vin scully had a trivia question. who were the only two players to win the triple crown twice?

well, its been so long since anyone won it i had forgot that there had been more than a couple of winners back in the day. it turns out rogers hornsby won it in 1922 and 1925. i guessed him. but i missed the other one. it was ted williams in '42 and '47.

but here's the thing. williams did NOT win MVP in either of those years. (i don't know about hornsby). my thinking lately has been that since the triple crown is such a bright shiny stat, there was no way the voters would deny cabrera the MVP if he makes it. but i didn't realize there was a precedent for a triple crown winner not winning MVP.

actually, i have no idea if robinson won it in 66 or if yaz won it in 67, now that i think about it.
   3. phredbird Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:15 PM (#4251227)
looking it up:

no NL MVP in 22, but hornsby won it in 1925.

robinson and yaz both won in their respective years.
   4. The District Attorney Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:18 PM (#4251235)
my thinking lately has been that since the triple crown is such a bright shiny stat, there was no way the voters would deny cabrera the MVP if he makes it. but i didn't realize there was a precedent for a triple crown winner not winning MVP.
And in terms of WAR, 2012 would be the first time that the Triple Crown winner was not also the WAR leader.
   5. phredbird Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:20 PM (#4251239)
And in terms of WAR, 2012 would be the first time that the Triple Crown winner was not also the WAR leader.


now you've done it.
   6. The District Attorney Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:24 PM (#4251251)
I'm hoping that the troglodytes would view that as saying, hey, WAR almost always agrees that the Triple Crown is awesome... this is just an unusual occasion where the TC winner is not super-duper-amazing and someone else in the league is even better.

But I suspect your point is that they would instead argue it was further evidence that WAR is getting this one wrong. Could be, I dunno.
   7. depletion Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:32 PM (#4251267)
But Trout is hitting .321 with 30 homers and 48 stolen bases and nobody’s done that since, well, ever. This is a Mays-in-his-prime type season

Perhaps Mays in his prime would be more likely to hit 40 homers and steal 25 bases. I have not looked deeply into the AL MVP issue but Cabrera has decent fielding numbers at 3B this year. Only Moustakas is appreciably better in the AL, maybe Lawrie but he has far fewer innings played and more errors. Cabrera is better in all offensive categories except steals, by a lot, and triples, by a few. Cabrera has about 100 more total chances in the field, Granted, this is the nature of 3B versus CF, but isn't that the point: outs.
   8. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:33 PM (#4251268)
Can someone explain this vote to me?

1934
1. Mickey Cochrane DET .320 2 HR 76 RBI 3.7 WAR
2. Charlie Gehringer DET .356 11 HR 127 RBI 8.1 WAR
3. Lefty Gomez NYY 26-5 2.33 ERA 7.4 WAR
4. Schoolboy Rowe DET 24-8 3.45 ERA 6.6 WAR
5. Lou Gehrig NYY .363 49 HR 165 RBI 10.1 WAR

The Tigers won the pennant. Cochane was maybe the fourth best player...on that team. Gehrig won the Triple Crown for the second place 94-win Yankees. WTF?
   9. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:35 PM (#4251270)
And in terms of WAR, 2012 would be the first time that the Triple Crown winner was not also the WAR leader.


Chuck Klein in 1933 was third, behind Carl Hubbell, the MVP, and Lon Warneke.
   10. The District Attorney Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:36 PM (#4251275)
Chuck Klein in 1933 was third, behind Carl Hubbell, the MVP, and Lon Warneke.
... I was misinformed. Okay, it's the first time a hitter... or it's the first time in American League history... whoops.
   11. RJ in TO Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:40 PM (#4251283)
Can someone explain this vote to me?

1934
1. Mickey Cochrane DET .320 2 HR 76 RBI 3.7 WAR
2. Charlie Gehringer DET .356 11 HR 127 RBI 8.1 WAR
3. Lefty Gomez NYY 26-5 2.33 ERA 7.4 WAR
4. Schoolboy Rowe DET 24-8 3.45 ERA 6.6 WAR
5. Lou Gehrig NYY .363 49 HR 165 RBI 10.1 WAR

The Tigers won the pennant. Cochane was maybe the fourth best player...on that team. Gehrig won the Triple Crown for the second place 94-win Yankees. WTF?


Cochrane was also the manager, and the team went from 75 wins to 105 in his first year there. He almost certainly got a massive intangibles bonus.
   12. John DiFool2 Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:51 PM (#4251306)
And at some point you could only win MVP once.
   13. RJ in TO Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:54 PM (#4251308)
And at some point you could only win MVP once.

That rule was dumped in 1929.
   14. phredbird Posted: October 02, 2012 at 03:00 PM (#4251316)
I suspect your point is that they would instead argue it was further evidence that WAR is getting this one wrong.


more this than the other, but mostly i was just suggesting that you are opening up a whole new WAR debate thread that could get tedious. :)
   15. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: October 02, 2012 at 03:15 PM (#4251331)
And in terms of WAR, 2012 would be the first time that the Triple Crown winner was not also the WAR leader.

Paul Hines.
   16. The Polish Sausage Racer Posted: October 02, 2012 at 03:24 PM (#4251348)
Does it count for the Triple Crown if Cabrera is tied with Hamilton for HR, or does he have to have the lead unchallenged?
   17. The District Attorney Posted: October 02, 2012 at 03:24 PM (#4251349)
Paul Hines.
COME ON!
   18. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: October 02, 2012 at 03:25 PM (#4251355)

Does it count for the Triple Crown if Cabrera is tied with Hamilton for HR, or does he have to have the lead unchallenged?


Ties count.
   19. SoSH U at work Posted: October 02, 2012 at 03:33 PM (#4251367)
Ties count.


Yes. Yaz and Killer tied for the HR crown in Carl's 1967 Triple Crown season. And, if Cabrera happens to share the lead in one of the TC categories, it most likely would be with the same number of home runs as in the 1967 race.

   20. phredbird Posted: October 02, 2012 at 03:50 PM (#4251392)
unwritten rule time.

texas has been in the playoffs for a while now. whether they win or lose the next two days won't have much affect will it? do they care who they face?

if all those are true, does josh hamilton go up to bat swinging for the fences for the next two days? or does he just play his game, or what? do the players care that much about making cabrera 'earn' the TC?
   21. The Good Face Posted: October 02, 2012 at 03:59 PM (#4251402)
unwritten rule time.

texas has been in the playoffs for a while now. whether they win or lose the next two days won't have much affect will it? do they care who they face?

if all those are true, does josh hamilton go up to bat swinging for the fences for the next two days? or does he just play his game, or what? do the players care that much about making cabrera 'earn' the TC?


I'm pretty sure Texas cares a great deal about winning the division as opposed to being forced into a coin-flip WC game.
   22. phredbird Posted: October 02, 2012 at 04:11 PM (#4251420)
oh dear. NL fan here, i kind of lost sight of the fact that the AL western div. is still up for grabs. my bad.
   23. hokieneer Posted: October 02, 2012 at 04:16 PM (#4251425)
oh dear. NL fan here, i kind of lost sight of the fact that the AL western div. is still up for grabs. my bad.


Happened to me too. I knew the A's had been fairly close the last few weeks, but never thought the outcome was in doubt. That was until I saw the headline this morning about them clinching a playoff spot and only being 1 game out.
   24. Booey Posted: October 02, 2012 at 04:31 PM (#4251451)
Random Triple Crown trivia:

Who's the only player to hold a single season franchise triple crown? (single season team records in AVG, HR, and RBI). The totals don't all have to be from one season.
   25. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 02, 2012 at 04:35 PM (#4251457)
My guess was Bagwell, but Berkman's best RBI season beat him by one.
   26. Mike Emeigh Posted: October 02, 2012 at 04:39 PM (#4251463)
but here's the thing. williams did NOT win MVP in either of those years.


And both MVP votes were controversial, especially the 1947 vote. In the latter vote Williams lost to Joe DiMaggio by one point and always claimed it was because Boston writer Mel Webb didn't like him and intentionally left him off the ballot. Webb didn't have a vote in 1947; the reason Williams lost by only one point is that three Yankees (DiMaggio, Joe Page, and George McQuinn) split the first-place votes.

-- MWE
   27. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: October 02, 2012 at 04:42 PM (#4251465)
Who's the only player to hold a single season franchise triple crown? (single season team records in AVG, HR, and RBI). The totals don't all have to be from one season.

Luis Gonzales
   28. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: October 02, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4251483)
Vlad with the Ex-Nats?
   29. Baldrick Posted: October 02, 2012 at 04:59 PM (#4251492)
But Trout is hitting .321 with 30 homers and 48 stolen bases and nobody’s done that since, well, ever. This is a Mays-in-his-prime type season

Well, Eric Davis in 1987 only hit .293, but his OBP and SLG were better. And he hit 37 HR and stole 50 bases. A-Rod hit .310 in his 40-40 season. Bonds in 1990. Or 1996. Or 1997.

That Bonds guy was pretty good, huh?

And it's pretty amazing company for Trout, which basically confirms the author's point - that this is easily a "Wow, that guy is the MVP!" type of season.
   30. Booey Posted: October 02, 2012 at 05:04 PM (#4251497)
Who's the only player to hold a single season franchise triple crown? (single season team records in AVG, HR, and RBI). The totals don't all have to be from one season.

Luis Gonzales


Correct. Bagwell and Vlad were both good guesses and would have been co-winners prior to 2006. In that same season, Berkman beat Bagwells RBI record by 1 and Soriano beat Vlad's HR record by 2.
   31. MuttsIdolCochrane Posted: October 02, 2012 at 05:48 PM (#4251548)
Does it count for the Triple Crown if Cabrera is tied with Hamilton for HR, or does he have to have the lead unchallenged?

The triple crown is not an official baseball award. I believe it is a concept created by writers and fans. While Yaz (and Ducky Joe for that matter) are recognized as triple crown winners, it just has never made sense according to every definition of the triple crown that has ever been recorded. (I do not believe that there is an MLB baseball rule defining it; does anyone know of one?) Wherever you look it clearly states that the player must lead the league in all three categories; nowhere is that qualified by the statement "lead or tied for the lead", or at least in my many years I've never seen it. Words have meanings that must be adhered to, and leading the league means being ahead of all other players. It might sound ludicrous, but if everyone hit 20 home runs some year, would everyone be considered the league leader in homers? Sorry Yaz, but you never did lead the league in homers in 1967, and really did not win the triple crown. Simple mathematical logic leads to the following statement being incontrovertibly true: If Carl Yastrzemski won the triple crown in 1967, then I led the major leagues in unassisted triple plays in 2011. He didn't, and neither did I.
   32. Baldrick Posted: October 02, 2012 at 05:54 PM (#4251557)
It might sound ludicrous, but if everyone hit 20 home runs some year, would everyone be considered the league leader in homers? Sorry Yaz, but you never did lead the league in homers in 1967, and really did not win the triple crown. Simple mathematical logic leads to the following statement being incontrovertibly true: If Carl Yastrzemski won the triple crown in 1967, then I led the major leagues in unassisted triple plays in 2011. He didn't, and neither did I.

This is incorrect.
   33. Nasty Nate Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:00 PM (#4251564)
but if everyone hit 20 home runs some year, would everyone be considered the league leader in homers?


Yes. (1981 in the AL?)

It's only in your imagination that no one leads the league some years.
   34. Booey Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:11 PM (#4251579)
Sorry Yaz, but you never did lead the league in homers in 1967, and really did not win the triple crown. Simple mathematical logic leads to the following statement being incontrovertibly true

So they should not acknowledge anyone as winning the HR title (or whatever category you prefer) if there's a tie? Nah.

The triple crown is not an official baseball award.


Exactly, which is why there's no "official" definition about whether ties count or not. People decided that Yaz's tie counted, and therefore it did, since there was no official rule that said otherwise.
   35. Walt Davis Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:23 PM (#4251595)
Words have meanings

True, often several, including many "unofficial" ones.

that must be adhered to

Only if they're in a law and you don't have a good lawyer.

You state that (to your knowledge ... and mine) that there is no official rule.

Anyway, I was surprised to discover in the Melky controversy that the rule about 502 PAs and the zero-ing out of PAs under 502 is in the official rule book. So at this point I wouldn't be surprised to find there's an official rule about "leading" the league in other categories.
   36. MuttsIdolCochrane Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:31 PM (#4251607)
Again, there have in fact been years when nobody "led" the league in homers, only tied for the lead. Either you acknowledge there is a difference, or you acknowledge the meaning of the english language in this case is being perverted. Just because there is no official MLB rule covering the triple crown, it doesn't change the fact that in every definition including in Cooperstown, "lead the league is cited", not "lead or tie for the lead". And the statement: "If Carl Yastrzemski won the triple crown in 1967, then I led the major leagues in unassisted triple plays in 2011" is correct - mathematically and logically a simple truism; not open to personal interpretation or opinion.
   37. cardsfanboy Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:34 PM (#4251609)
Again, there have in fact been years when nobody "led" the league in homers, only tied for the lead. Either you acknowledge there is a difference, or you acknowledge the meaning of the english language in this case is being perverted. Just because there is no official MLB rule covering the triple crown, it doesn't change the fact that in every definition including in Cooperstown, "lead the league is cited", not "lead or tie for the lead". And the statement: "If Carl Yastrzemski won the triple crown in 1967, then I led the major leagues in unassisted triple plays in 2011" is correct - mathematically and logically a simple truism; not open to personal interpretation or opinion.


You must be fun to talk to everytime Alanis Morissette comes on the radio.

If you look at the listing on the leaderboards, they list everyone who is tied for the top spot as 1. in ranking. That is leading the league.
   38. The District Attorney Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:39 PM (#4251622)
the statement: "If Carl Yastrzemski won the triple crown in 1967, then I led the major leagues in unassisted triple plays in 2011" is correct
No, it isn't, because you weren't in the major leagues, so you weren't part of the consideration set.

Mike Nickeas did, though.
   39. MuttsIdolCochrane Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:43 PM (#4251628)
By definition, leading means being ahead of everyone. Everyone. Being tied is not leading; it's like kissing your sister. And I don't really know Alanis Morissette; Dylan, The Dead, Bruce, Queen, Patty Smith, The VU, Radiohead, Rage Against the Machine, even Dashboard Confessional, but sorry, no Alanis. And no (or a tainted) triple crown for Yaz and Ducky. Simple logic, as Spock would say. Don't worry DA; you led in unassisted triple plays too.
   40. Baldrick Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:43 PM (#4251629)
By your standard, no one has EVER led the league in ERA. Because every single year, that vast majority of the world's population ties at 0.00 and somehow the couple hundred best pitchers on the planet ALWAYS finish in the bottom 0.00001% of the world ERA race.
   41. MuttsIdolCochrane Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:47 PM (#4251635)
That is not true by my standards. The vast majority of the world's population did not pitch 162 innings.
   42. Booey Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:50 PM (#4251637)
Either you acknowledge there is a difference, or you acknowledge the meaning of the english language in this case is being perverted.


Or you do what most people seem to do and consider both players that tied to be league leaders and don't worry about how it perverts the english language.
   43. The District Attorney Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:52 PM (#4251640)
The vast majority of the world's population did not pitch 162 innings.
Okay, so just like there is a 162 IP requirement for an ERA leader, there is a 1 game played requirement for any counting stat leader.
   44. Booey Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:53 PM (#4251642)
Being tied is not leading; it's like kissing your sister.

I can say without hesitation that I would much rather tie for a Major League HR title than kiss my sister.

That was a weird example, man.
   45. MuttsIdolCochrane Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:54 PM (#4251643)
1 game played requirement, says who?
   46. Athletic Supporter can feel the slow rot Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:55 PM (#4251644)
but if everyone hit 20 home runs some year, would everyone be considered the league leader in homers?


My understanding is that the dealer needs to have a pair of jacks or better for anyone to be considered the league leader in homers.
   47. Booey Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:55 PM (#4251646)
Being tied in a category at the top of a major league leaderboard = incest

Ummm....
   48. The District Attorney Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:56 PM (#4251647)
Says who?
Words have meanings that must be adhered to, and leading the league means being in the league.
   49. MuttsIdolCochrane Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:57 PM (#4251649)
The unpopularity of ties in American sports is reflected in the saying, "A tie is like kissing your sister." The earliest known use of the phrase was by Navy football coach Eddie Erdelatz after a scoreless tie against Duke in 1953.
   50. Athletic Supporter can feel the slow rot Posted: October 02, 2012 at 06:59 PM (#4251652)
The earliest known use of the phrase was by Navy football coach Eddie Erdelatz after a scoreless tie against Duke in 1953.


Mrs. Erdelatz had no comment.
   51. Booey Posted: October 02, 2012 at 07:00 PM (#4251654)
The unpopularity of ties in American sports is reflected in the saying, "A tie is like kissing your sister." The earliest known use of the phrase was by Navy football coach Eddie Erdelatz after a scoreless tie against Duke in 1953.


Never heard that one. My bad.

It doesn't make it any less of a weird example to use though just cuz someone else said it.
   52. MuttsIdolCochrane Posted: October 02, 2012 at 07:00 PM (#4251656)
I think Mrs. Erdelatz might have been his sister. And it wasn't just someone else; it's been repeatedly used for almost 60 years now.
   53. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: October 02, 2012 at 07:04 PM (#4251659)
I think Mrs. Erdelatz might have been his sister. And it wasn't just someone else; it's been repeatedly used for almost 60 years now.

The poor woman. She must be, what, 85 years old now?
   54. Booey Posted: October 02, 2012 at 07:05 PM (#4251660)
Besides, I think there's a difference between a tie game and a tie for the league lead in an individual category. If the World Series had an even number of games that ended in a tie and Selig declared a "co-champion", that would be stupid. But there are already 2 HR champs every year, so why does it matter if occasionally there's a 3rd (or like 5, in 1981)?
   55. Booey Posted: October 02, 2012 at 07:07 PM (#4251667)
I think Mrs. Erdelatz might have been his sister. And it wasn't just someone else; it's been repeatedly used for almost 60 years now.


Okay. Doesn't change any of the points people are making, though. It was a weird comparison 60 years ago, it's a weird comparison today, and it was a weird comparison every time it was used in between then and now.
   56. MuttsIdolCochrane Posted: October 02, 2012 at 07:18 PM (#4251678)
OK Fa-Fa; but you do seem a bit obsessed with what is an old and common analogy.
   57. MuttsIdolCochrane Posted: October 02, 2012 at 07:21 PM (#4251684)
And there have been multiple HR Champs, but they were all co-leaders, not leaders.
   58. cardsfanboy Posted: October 02, 2012 at 07:31 PM (#4251700)
It doesn't make it any less of a weird example to use though just cuz someone else said it.


It's an extremely common quote.

The world is full of phrases that aren't 100% logical.
   59. kthejoker Posted: October 02, 2012 at 07:59 PM (#4251720)
How come no one writes an article explaining what's wrong with using the Triple Crown stats to judge players?

Doesn't take stolen bases or baserunning into account.
Doesn't take defense into account.
Doesn't take walking into account.
Doesn't take playing time into account.
Doesn't take doubles or triples into account.
Doesn't take park factors into account.
Doesn't take teammates into account.

There are so many things not to like about the Triple Crown stats without even using the word WAR.
   60. Booey Posted: October 02, 2012 at 08:13 PM (#4251734)
And there have been multiple HR Champs, but they were all co-leaders, not leaders.


Eh. Semantics.

It's an extremely common quote.


I believe you. Like I said earlier, I just hadn't heard it. Again, my bad.

How come no one writes an article explaining what's wrong with using the Triple Crown stats to judge players?

There are so many things not to like about the Triple Crown stats without even using the word WAR.


Many people on this site have pointed those things out. And even those that think Triple Crowns are cool (like me) have never claimed that it's a fair, thorough, and all encompassing way of evaluating players. It's just for fun (though as has also been pointed out, every TC winner up to this point has also been the WAR leader amongst position players, so it does appear that it'd be fairly tough to win one WITHOUT being one of the best).

   61. SoSH U at work Posted: October 02, 2012 at 08:21 PM (#4251741)
(though as has also been pointed out, every TC winner up to this point has also been the WAR leader amongst position players, so it does appear that it'd be fairly tough to win one WITHOUT being one of the best).


That was incorrect though. A few haven't led the league in WAR.
   62. The District Attorney Posted: October 02, 2012 at 08:26 PM (#4251744)
Unless someone hasn't been mentioned here, if you phrase it as "the WAR leader amongst position players", Paul Hines in 1878 (when I don't think there were RBI, and there certainly wasn't an MVP, and by the way he hit four homeruns) would be the only exception. Hubbell and Warneke were pitchers.
   63. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: October 02, 2012 at 08:32 PM (#4251747)
And there have been multiple HR Champs, but they were all co-leaders, not leaders.

I am disturbed to learn that the fact that I peacefully coexist with my coworkers means that none of us either work or exist.
   64. Booey Posted: October 02, 2012 at 08:46 PM (#4251759)
That was incorrect though. A few haven't led the league in WAR.


That's why I said "amongst position players." Klein was third behind two pitchers.

As DA notes I guess you could count Paul Hines as the exception if you want to get technical, but I was only looking at the 20th century and beyond.
   65. something like a train wreck Posted: October 02, 2012 at 09:27 PM (#4251798)
Since when does MVP mean WAR leader? It's one thing when it is given to a third rate player,(George Bell, anyone?), but Cabrera is a HOF player having a very good year and achieving something that has long been thought notable. Nor is it absurd for a sportswriter to favor Cabrera because he has been among the very best players for 8 years but has never received an MVP. Cabrera is a solid MVP by the usual standards for the award and the sniggering disdain for anyone who thinks so is off-putting. By the way, I would vote for Trout..
   66. Nasty Nate Posted: October 02, 2012 at 10:27 PM (#4251882)
By definition, leading means being ahead of everyone.


That is not the definition of leading.
   67. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 02, 2012 at 10:30 PM (#4251887)
By definition, leading means being ahead of everyone.



That is not the definition of leading.


It could just as easily mean, no one is ahead of you.
   68. Walt Davis Posted: October 03, 2012 at 12:14 AM (#4252003)
The world is full of phrases that aren't 100% logical.

But, but, but ... words have meaning and they must be adhered to!

There's clearly no way you can say a tie is like kissing your sister unless you have kissed your sister. Don't give me any of that mumbo-jumbo about similes, words have meanings and they must be adhered to.

Consequently you can't say that tying for the ML lead in HR is like kissing your sister unless you've done both. That narrows our list of suspects as to who MIC is to Carlos Pena, Mark Teixeira, Jose Canseco, Cecil Fielder, Dale Murphy, Mike Schmidt, Armas/Evans/Grich/Murray, Reggie, George Scott, Yaz, Aaron or McCovey.

Now Canseco's a creep but I don't know if he has a sister. Murphy's a Mormon so, y'know, he's gotta be high on the list.



   69. SandyRiver Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:03 AM (#4252167)
Again, there have in fact been years when nobody "led" the league in homers, only tied for the lead. Either you acknowledge there is a difference, or you acknowledge the meaning of the english language in this case is being perverted. Just because there is no official MLB rule covering the triple crown, it doesn't change the fact that in every definition including in Cooperstown, "lead the league is cited", not "lead or tie for the lead". And the statement: "If Carl Yastrzemski won the triple crown in 1967, then I led the major leagues in unassisted triple plays in 2011" is correct - mathematically and logically a simple truism; not open to personal interpretation or opinion.

In the 1950s I had a book called "Big Time Baseball" (or something like that) that noted Ralph Kiner leading the league in HR for 7 straight years. Since two of those years saw Kiner tied with Johnny Mize, baseball statisticians have obviously been "perverting the English language" for decades, probably since long before 1947-48, the years of Kiner-Mize ties. Now at long last we are being set straight. Be proud!

The specious comment about being tied for the lead in unassisted TPs (specious because one cannot logically lead when having zero) reminds me of a joke concerning the US-USSR track meets which used to be held annually for Cold War bragging rights. After an unsuccessful meet one year, the Soviet commentator would say, "The valiant Soviet team finsihed a strong second; the American team finished next to last."
   70. Rants Mulliniks Posted: October 03, 2012 at 10:35 AM (#4252280)
These comments by Mutts are the most blatant examples of trolling I've ever seen on this site.
   71. Bug Selig Posted: October 03, 2012 at 01:22 PM (#4252507)
These comments by Mutts are the most blatant examples of trolling I've ever seen on this site.


His kids should have their kids taken away from them.
   72. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 03, 2012 at 01:38 PM (#4252522)
These comments by Mutts are the most blatant examples of trolling I've ever seen on this site.


He is a leader. He's leading. No co-leadership for him.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogA’s lose Triple-A Sacramento affiliate
(60 - 4:28am, Sep 17)
Last: Bhaakon

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(264 - 4:00am, Sep 17)
Last: Moses Taylor World Re-Tour 2.0: Warszawa

NewsblogBryan Cranston’s One-Man Baseball Play Inspired By ‘Looney Tunes’ Is Incredible
(22 - 3:49am, Sep 17)
Last: Toothless

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-16-2014
(113 - 2:58am, Sep 17)
Last: TerpNats

Hall of Merit2015 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(27 - 2:53am, Sep 17)
Last: Ardo

NewsblogDave Kreiger: New Baseball Hall of Fame voting rules
(44 - 1:17am, Sep 17)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogPedro pens a letter to Clayton Kershaw
(15 - 12:42am, Sep 17)
Last: Textbook Editor

NewsblogNew approach on offense has Pirates in playoff contention this season
(4 - 12:24am, Sep 17)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(249 - 11:58pm, Sep 16)
Last: The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB)

NewsblogSteven Matz, other top minor league Mets to be honored at Citi Field on Monday
(22 - 11:57pm, Sep 16)
Last: billyshears

NewsblogJohnny Cueto shuts down the Cardinals, lowers ERA to 2.15
(26 - 11:51pm, Sep 16)
Last: Srul Itza

NewsblogVox.com: Major League Baseball’s human-trafficking problem
(7 - 10:29pm, Sep 16)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-16-2014
(26 - 10:01pm, Sep 16)
Last: bobm

NewsblogLonestarball: Jonathan Papelbon suspended for 7 games
(13 - 9:51pm, Sep 16)
Last: Famous Original Joe C

NewsblogToronto Blue Jays’ Marcus Stroman gets no defence from his manager after nearly hitting a batter in the head
(22 - 9:27pm, Sep 16)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

Page rendered in 0.6779 seconds
52 querie(s) executed