User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.4316 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
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)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.
no NL MVP in 22, but hornsby won it in 1925.
robinson and yaz both won in their respective years.
now you've done it.
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.
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.
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?
Chuck Klein in 1933 was third, behind Carl Hubbell, the MVP, and Lon Warneke.
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.
That rule was dumped in 1929.
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. :)
Paul Hines.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Luis Gonzales
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.
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.
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.
This is incorrect.
Yes. (1981 in the AL?)
It's only in your imagination that no one leads the league some years.
So they should not acknowledge anyone as winning the HR title (or whatever category you prefer) if there's a tie? Nah.
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.
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.
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.
Mike Nickeas did, though.
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.
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.
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.
Ummm....
Mrs. Erdelatz had no comment.
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.
The poor woman. She must be, what, 85 years old 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.
It's an extremely common quote.
The world is full of phrases that aren't 100% logical.
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.
Eh. Semantics.
I believe you. Like I said earlier, I just hadn't heard it. Again, my bad.
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).
That was incorrect though. A few haven't led the league in WAR.
I am disturbed to learn that the fact that I peacefully coexist with my coworkers means that none of us either work or exist.
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.
That is not the definition of leading.
It could just as easily mean, no one is ahead of you.
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.
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."
His kids should have their kids taken away from them.
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