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

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Tigers’ Justin Verlander blasts MVP voters who aren’t ready to vote for Miguel Cabrera

I don’t believe in below
I don’t believe in Coke
I don’t believe in I-nge
I don’t believe in Sabermetrics

Tigers manager Jim Leyland, 67, was asked about Sabermetrics following Wednesday’s 6-2 win, in which Verlander had to labor through six shutout innings because of all the Athletics foul balls. And Leyland, of course, was diplomatic in his response. He paused for more than 10 seconds after the question was asked, showed just a hint of a smile, and then began talking.

“Well, I’m gonna answer that this way,” Leyland said. “I will not use a player’s name, but according to the Sabermetrics, there’s a player that is better than Miguel Cabrera. When the guy that gave me the Sabermetrics told me that, I said, ‘Well then should we trade Miguel Cabrera for the player you’re talking about,’ and he said, ‘Oh no, you can’t do that.’

“And I said, ‘Well then you don’t believe in Sabermetrics, and neither do I.’”

That player Leyland wouldn’t name, we will: Mike Trout.

Verlander, who knows his baseball history, cited Joe DiMaggio’s MVP win in 1947 over a Triple Crown-winning Ted Williams as “one of the worst MVP votings of all time.”

And he now has made clear he’d add a Trout victory over Cabrera to the top of that list.

Repoz Posted: September 20, 2012 at 05:39 AM | 253 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: awards, 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.

Page 3 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3
   201. Nasty Nate Posted: September 21, 2012 at 03:07 PM (#4242318)
The "I'm ok with an incorrect result because it fulfills a childhood narrative" is a slap in the face to the 'Baseball for the Thinking Fan' motto. I'm surprised the monkey at the top of the page hasn't puked.


Obsession with the awards voting results is a similar slap in the face - that motto must be concussed by now.
   202. alilisd Posted: September 21, 2012 at 03:59 PM (#4242422)
Ahh, come on. He's good, but he's no Mel Ott.


I don't know, but I think he's at least close. Let's get them on the Field of Dreams and find out.
   203. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 22, 2012 at 12:17 AM (#4242759)

I've re-read your posts, and I think you're nitpicking. Basically, it sounds like you're saying that just cuz someone is leading in a few arbitrarily selected stats doesn't mean he's having a great season. I agree with that in principal. However, in this case, Cabrera IS having a great season, so I personally don't really care if it's the wrong stats voters are using to recognize it. Make sense?


No. Not at all. The MVP is not supposed to go to any player who had a great season. It is supposed to go to the player who had the BEST season.

If the players are so close in value that a credible argument can be made for each, fine - but that's not what is happening here.
   204. Josh1 Posted: September 22, 2012 at 08:11 AM (#4242804)
Here's a thought for AROM or Sean Forman:

I'm thinking the PA-based nature of WAR systematically overvalues leadoff hitters through both the rbat and replacement run components. The lineup construction chapter of "The Book" shows how batting a player leadoff or fourth will generate similar overall value for the team (with caveats for SLG-heavy and OBP-heavy players better equipped for 4th or 1st). The leadoff spots gets more PA than cleanup, but the cleanup spot gets better base-out states where every offensive event has more value -- the effects roughly balance out.

A linear weights framework gives equal value to the offensive events of a #1 or #4 hitter and also credits the #1 hitter with more of those events and more replacement playing time. A generic 370/500 hitter batting leadoff and playing 150 games I think will have a higher WAR than an identical 370/500 teammate hitting cleanup in 150 games even though the second guy contributed equal value to the team as the first guy, since his fewer offensive events had more value to the team due to his better lineup position.

There may also be a chaining element to consider like with closers. When the leadoff hitter is out of the lineup, the replacement hitter will hit at the bottom of the order and the team will switch some other good player into the leadoff spot. Therefore the marginal PA that the players at the top of the lineup get over those at the bottom have a high replacement value -- above league average in fact.
   205. bobm Posted: September 22, 2012 at 11:42 AM (#4242877)
For all the talk about Triple Crown and the MVP, what about the relevance of "leading" one's team to the playoffs? It was a big topic of debate in the last few years' MVP discussions; its absence is interesting. However, Cano is tied with Cabrera in WAR and Beltre is not far behind, both on division leaders. If you like counting stats, there's Josh Hamilton.
   206. Booey Posted: September 22, 2012 at 08:09 PM (#4243307)
No. Not at all. The MVP is not supposed to go to any player who had a great season. It is supposed to go to the player who had the BEST season.


Or the best player on a playoff team. Or the player with the best numbers in September. Or the one who had the most memorable season (DiMaggio over Williams in 1941, Maris over Mantle in 1961, etc). Voters have used all kinds of criteria for determining who deserves the MVP. As far as I can tell, it's never been strictly an award for the best statistical season with no other considerations thrown into the mix. Why should we expect them to buck 80 years of history now?

Trout should win. If Miggy gets the TC, he probably won't. I'll be able to sleep at night just fine either way. I don't see why we're required to be outraged about this when we've all seen many, many worse choices in the past.
   207. RMc is a fine piece of cheese Posted: September 23, 2012 at 05:16 AM (#4243443)
The MVP is not supposed to go to any player who had a great season. It is supposed to go to the player who had the BEST season.

And if it doesn't, well, nothing will ever be any good ever again. Let Cabrera win the MVP, gentlemen, and all our lives will be forfeit, the great game will wither, and love will die.

Geez. I'm rooting for Miggy, not just because he's a Tiger, but also to p!ss off people like Ray.
   208. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 23, 2012 at 10:06 PM (#4243889)

I'm thinking the PA-based nature of WAR systematically overvalues leadoff hitters through both the rbat and replacement run components.


I've pointed this out with regard to Ichiro.
   209. vivaelpujols Posted: September 24, 2012 at 12:30 AM (#4243944)
No, Booey, I'm saying that winning the triple crown in three arbitrarily selected shouldn't give him bonus value over his actually on field value.
   210. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 24, 2012 at 07:06 AM (#4243977)
No, Booey, I'm saying that winning the triple crown in three arbitrarily selected shouldn't give him bonus value over his actually on field value.

Could we at least be fair. They're not arbitrarily selected. They're 3 very important stats. Probably 3 or the 4 traditional stats that correlate best with good offense (along with runs).
   211. vivaelpujols Posted: September 24, 2012 at 07:38 AM (#4243987)
But the fact that they don't include runs makes in arbitrary. Also that they use batting average instead of OBP. Home runs and batting average pretty much insure that you get the slugging leader, but OBP and runs are like half of your offensive value. The traditional stats that you'd really care about would be OBP, SLG, and SB (can someone check to see if anyone's ever done this?). And besides the cutoff is arbitrary. Does it really matter if Cabrera bats 5 points higher than Trout vs. 5 points lower?
   212. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 24, 2012 at 10:53 AM (#4244062)
Could we at least be fair. They're not arbitrarily selected. They're 3 very important stats. Probably 3 or the 4 traditional stats that correlate best with good offense (along with runs).


No walks, no doubles, no SB-CS, no triples. Those four groups together are kind of important for offense.
   213. bunyon Posted: September 24, 2012 at 11:03 AM (#4244071)
Also that they use batting average instead of OBP.

This really is the rub and its the thing that makes sabermetrics super important.

As an outside and fairly casual observer, I'm not so sure that 95% of what sabermetrics has given us is simply saying over and over, "OBP instead of BA".
   214. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 24, 2012 at 11:06 AM (#4244072)

No walks, no doubles, no SB-CS, no triples. Those four groups together are kind of important for offense.


Of those only BBs and doubles are usually a major factor.

Again not saying the triple crown stats are perfect (OBP would obviously be better than BA), just saying they correlate pretty well with offensive production. They are not "trivial" categories.
   215. JJ1986 Posted: September 24, 2012 at 11:09 AM (#4244076)
OBP/Total Bases/(R+RBI)

There's your new triple crown.
   216. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 24, 2012 at 11:13 AM (#4244078)
There's your new triple crown.

Snore. Way too boring.

Much like grace in the "Jackie O" Seinfeld episode, you can't build tradition and panache from scratch and you can't acquire them. You either have it or you don't. The Triple Crown has it.
   217. Booey Posted: September 24, 2012 at 11:13 AM (#4244079)
No, Booey, I'm saying that winning the triple crown in three arbitrarily selected shouldn't give him bonus value over his actually on field value.


I get that, but:

A)They've given players bonus points for rare achievements in the past that didn't affect the players actual value. Would DiMaggio's 1941 season really have been much different value wise if he'd had one 0-fer in the middle of the streak rather than a 1-4? Would Maris's 1961 really have been that much less valuable statistically if he'd finished at 59 homers instead of 61? They've cared about this kind of stuff in the past; I don't see any reason why we should be all shocked and offended if they choose to do so again. And...

B)It seems kinda weird to keep arguing that AVG/HR/RBI are arbitrary and don't really prove that Cabrera is one of the best when all the stats you probably do like show that he is too. It's nitpicking. Your next post you mention that runs and OBP should be used instead of RBI and AVG. K, well Miggy is 2nd in runs and 3rd in OBP, so that's not really changing the discussion much.

So I get what you're trying to say. I just think it's kinda irrelevant in this particular case. It's like arguing that 500 homers shouldn't mean automatic HOF enshrinement when Pujols becomes eligible. It's true, but save the argument for a player that wouldn't otherwise be qualified anyway.
   218. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 24, 2012 at 11:17 AM (#4244082)
Again not saying the triple crown stats are perfect (OBP would obviously be better than BA), just saying they correlate pretty well with offensive production. They are not "trivial" categories.


But it _is_ largely a fluke that a player leads the league in all three. And as with any arbitrary grouping, it doesn't mean that the player was the best offensive player in the league, or even that he led in OBP or SLG or OPS+ or EqA -- or that he was the best player in the league, which is what the issue for MVP is.

Positional adjustment and defense are a major part of the MVP, and the triple crown has absolutely nothing to do with those things, and since we have more/better information than BA/HR/RBI, the triple crown does not provide any useful information in determining the MVP. None at all. The triple crown does not excuse a poor choice for the MVP. It is silly to think that the triple crown is related to the MVP at all. They are simply different discussions.
   219. DanG Posted: September 24, 2012 at 11:18 AM (#4244083)
A few years back I wrote an article about the Leadoff Triple Crown (LTC), the categories being SB/R/OBP. In the traditional TC a year with 30 hr, 100 rbi and .300 ba is a "Hall of Fame season". For LTC it's 30 sb, 100 R, .370 OBP.

Naturally, Rickey Henderson dominates the modern era with 12 HOF LTC seasons (13 counting 1981). Most years with 30 SB, 100 R and .370 OBP:

Rk                      Yrs From   To   Age
1      Rickey Henderson  12 1980 1998 21
-39
2        Billy Hamilton  11 1889 1900 23
-34
3    George Van Haltren  10 1891 1900 25
-34
4            Joe Morgan   7 1970 1977 26
-33
5               Ty Cobb   7 1909 1917 22
-30
6          Honus Wagner   7 1899 1908 25
-34
7         Eddie Collins   6 1909 1924 22
-37
8         Willie Keeler   6 1894 1900 22
-28
9            Joe Kelley   6 1893 1899 21
-27
10           Hugh Duffy   6 1890 1897 23
-30
11         Mike Tiernan   6 1889 1897 22
-30
12        Ichiro Suzuki   5 2001 2007 27
-33
13       Roberto Alomar   5 1992 2001 24
-33
14          Barry Bonds   5 1990 1997 25
-32
15           Tim Raines   5 1983 1992 23
-32 

IIRC, Rickey is the only player since 1920 to lead his league in all three categories, in his MVP year 1990.
   220. vivaelpujols Posted: September 24, 2012 at 11:23 AM (#4244088)
Holy #### dude, I'm not saying Cabrera isn't one of the best hitters in the league (he's the second best by a huge margin). Give him full ####### credit for all of his offensive glory. This is why I told you to read my ####### posts because you're ascribing to me something I've already refuted. But the fact that he's leading in a triple crown that's horridly constructed (the RBI's are hugely correlated with the other two stats, how many times has a hitter been in the top 5 in BA and HR and not in RBIs?) means nothing to me. I don't care that it's rare. You want rare, Curtis Granderson's 2007 is the best season of all time.

Edit: My triple crown would be OBP, SLG and SB-CS. Cabrera is not close to that because of the SB. Trout is the only one kind of close. I would bet that's never been done.
   221. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 24, 2012 at 11:30 AM (#4244095)
- or that he was the best player in the league, which is what the issue for MVP is.

You know that's never strictly been true. Team performance has often played a huge role.

If Cabrera was to put the Tigers on his back and hit 6 HRs in the next 10 games, while leading them to the division, while Trout and the Angels fade, you know that will impact the voting.

I actually have some sympathy for the "best player on a playoff team" view of MVP. Unless you have a true monster season, with no other viable candidates, "we finished last with you, we could finish last without you" rings true to me.
   222. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 24, 2012 at 11:30 AM (#4244096)
Edit: My triple crown would be OBP, SLG and SB-CS. Cabrera is not close to that because of the SB. Trout is the only one kind of close. I would bet that's never been done.

Trout's 60 points behind in SLG. That isn't "kind of close."
   223. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 24, 2012 at 11:33 AM (#4244097)
Edit: My triple crown would be OBP, SLG and SB-CS. Cabrera is not close to that because of the SB. Trout is the only one kind of close. I would bet that's never been done.

Why would you include SB-CS, it's such a minor part of offense? And OBP and SLG overlap; both include BA.

How about OBP, ISO, and (R+RBI-HR)?

Or, if you want no contextual stats, BA, ISO, and (OBP-BA).
   224. SoSH U at work Posted: September 24, 2012 at 11:33 AM (#4244098)
Holy #### dude, I'm not saying Cabrera isn't one of the best hitters in the league (he's the second best by a huge margin). Give him full ####### credit for all of his offensive glory. This is why I told you to read my ####### posts because you're ascribing to me something I've already refuted. But the fact that he's leading in a triple crown that's horridly constructed (the RBI's are hugely correlated with the other two stats, how many times has a hitter been in the top 5 in BA and HR and not in RBIs?) means nothing to me. I don't care that it's rare. You want rare, Curtis Granderson's 2007 is the best season of all time.


There's one person who isn't reading posts here viva, but it ain't booey. He fully understands your position. He even, in a sense, agrees with it.

His argument, which is shared by a lot of other people here, is that while he'd personally vote for Trout, he's not going to get worked up when a guy who accomplishes a rare, historical feat (and one that is a signifier of offensive excellence) is rewarded the MVP. You and Ray and others are free to get your outrage on over this future injustice. But no matter how many nannied-out swear words you use, or how much (ironic) "intellectually indefensible" rhetoric Ray wants to toss around, you're not going to get him, or others like him, to pick up a pitchfork.
   225. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 24, 2012 at 11:43 AM (#4244103)
You know that's never strictly been true. Team performance has often played a huge role.


Only to the extent that writers often have an incorrect sense of "value." But even in that case, they're trying to find the player who had the most value. (*) In contrast, everyone here pimping the childish "Oooh, triple crown!!" viewpoint agrees that Cabrera does not.

(*) Fine, sometimes they used the pennant race as a pretext for voting for a more favorite player, but that's no better than what is happening here.

And who cares what voters "have often done" in the past? Voters have often been wrong. The MVP is for the best player.

I actually have some sympathy for the "best player on a playoff team" view of MVP.


Well, in that case, what you mean is "best player on a team that made the postseason by the least amount." Because we have seen the best player in the league not be awarded the MVP because "his team won by too much" or some such.
   226. vivaelpujols Posted: September 24, 2012 at 11:47 AM (#4244104)
OBP is how often you get on base, SLG is how valuable your bases are, and SB-CS is what you when you get on base. Once you have those three stats, there is nothing else that adds value (unless your trying to measure clutch, or getting into more granular stuff like non SB baserunning. OBP and SLG definitely overlap a little, but cleaning that up doesn't really add any value, I don't think. SB's have a not small amount of value.

Trout's top 4 in OBP and SLG. I agree he's not really close and that's why I said kind of close. He's by far the closest in the league.

I just understand why care about the current triple crown at all. It's two stats that only describe a portion of offensive value and one stat that's highly correlated with the other two. You don't need it to tell Cabrera's offensive value OPS or linear weights is much better. Rarity isn't a good argument because you can make any arbitrary cutoff point where. Again, wouldn't Granderson's 2007 be the most impressive season ever?
   227. Booey Posted: September 24, 2012 at 11:47 AM (#4244106)
#220 - Dude, I've read your posts several times to make sure I'm not misunderstanding anything. I don't think I am. I know the Triple Crown means nothing to you. And I've said several times that I myself think Trout should win. But if the second best hitter in the league wins instead by getting bonus points for a feat that's cool and rare but maybe not actually statistically significant, I'm not going to go on a killing spree over it. I'm sorry it's so offensive to you that not everyone shares your level of outrage over something so trivial. So Triple Crowns are meaningless. By the same token so are MVP's. It's all just for fun. Chill.

#224 - Exactly. Thank you.
   228. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 24, 2012 at 11:48 AM (#4244107)
His argument, which is shared by a lot of other people here,


I've never understood why "which is shared by a lot of other people here" is supposed to be justification for a wrong opinion. If an opinion is wrong, it's wrong. And our position is shared by lots of others also. So, whoop dee doo.
   229. Nasty Nate Posted: September 24, 2012 at 11:51 AM (#4244109)
The MVP is an award - it is 'Best Kiss' or 'Best Fight Scene' at the MTV Video Awards, it is a Blue Ribbon Pig at a county fair, it is Best Costume at a rec center halloween party, it is the last page on an internet slideshow of Worst Football Injuries of the 2000's, it is Country Album of the Year, it is the Rawlings Gold Glove, it is the Cannibus Cup Best New Strain. It is meaningful because people give it meaning, but it is just as arbitrary or silly as the Triple Crown (which itself is only meaningful because people care about it). I understand wanting the MVP to go to the best players, but scorning the Triple Crown as sentimental and arbitrary but treating the MVP as if it is ultra-serious (and also not sentimental and arbitrary) smacks of obliviousness.
   230. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 24, 2012 at 11:52 AM (#4244110)
Only to the extent that writers often have an incorrect sense of "value." But even in that case, they're trying to find the player who had the most value.

You knew this was coming, as it parallels the similar and equally silly claim regarding Hall of Fame voting.

No, they aren't. That isn't what the voters are doing. They aren't trying to tease out most "value" in a purely statistical, sabermetric sense. Players are advantaged when they play for good teams -- as they should be. Nobody cares about a guy who has a big year for a 60-102 team.

I just understand why care about the current triple crown at all.

Becasue it's part of the fabric of the game and cool in its own right.

   231. Booey Posted: September 24, 2012 at 11:53 AM (#4244111)
I just understand why care about the current triple crown at all.


Cuz it's fun, man. Same way that no hitters and hitting streaks and such are fun.
   232. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 24, 2012 at 11:56 AM (#4244112)
And our position is shared by lots of others also.

How many people? Ten thousand in the whole country?
   233. Booey Posted: September 24, 2012 at 11:56 AM (#4244113)
If an opinion is wrong, it's wrong


How is saying "I won't freak out if the wrong player is awarded the MVP yet again?" a wrong opinion? Why are we required to go nuts over something so insignificant?
   234. SoSH U at work Posted: September 24, 2012 at 11:58 AM (#4244115)
I've never understood why "which is shared by a lot of other people here" is supposed to be justification for a wrong opinion. If an opinion is wrong, it's wrong. And our position is shared by lots of others also. So, whoop dee doo.


First of all, this isn't a wrong opinion. You have no say in what booey gets worked up about. None. Your myopic viewpoint on that subject means even less on this particular topic than it does on the rest of the #### you post about here.

Second, no one on the other side gives a #### that you and viva and others are getting yourself worked into a frothy lather over this intellectually indefensible outrage (to come). Have at it. Now, I can't say we won't laugh at you over your clenched fists of fury, but by golly we will let you have your moment.

   235. Nasty Nate Posted: September 24, 2012 at 11:59 AM (#4244117)
Players are advantaged when they play for good teams -- as they should be. Nobody cares about a guy who has a big year for a 60-102 team.


What about for the gold gloves and rookies of the year?
   236. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 24, 2012 at 12:01 PM (#4244120)
Cuz it's fun, man. Same way that no hitters and hitting streaks and such are fun.


They're flukes.
   237. Nasty Nate Posted: September 24, 2012 at 12:02 PM (#4244123)
Cuz it's fun, man. Same way that no hitters and hitting streaks and such are fun.




They're flukes.


uhh, that's a big part of why lots of people find them fun.
   238. Booey Posted: September 24, 2012 at 12:03 PM (#4244126)
They're flukes.


Yeah. So? They're still fun to see.
   239. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 24, 2012 at 12:05 PM (#4244127)
What about for the gold gloves and rookies of the year?

It probably helps there, too.

Frankly, I don't really care. What I do care about is lectures from Ray, Dave Cameron, Tom Tango, and other soulless slide-rulers about what other people should and shouldn't enjoy about baseball and value within baseball.
   240. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 24, 2012 at 12:08 PM (#4244129)
They're flukes.

So what?

It's upon that question that numerous saberesque analyses fall apart.

Define "fluke," and tell us why it matters that something is a "fluke."
   241. Yardape Posted: September 24, 2012 at 12:11 PM (#4244131)
How is saying "I won't freak out if the wrong player is awarded the MVP yet again?" a wrong opinion? Why are we required to go nuts over something so insignificant?


I think part of the frustration about this is that every year, people on this web site flip out over perceived injustices in the MVP voting - sometimes including vociferous complaining about the downballot ordering of the results. Outrage! Now you personally may not care about the MVP, but given past discussions here, I also admit to being surprised about how readily people are willing to accept the "wrong" player winning the award.

It's like arguing that 500 homers shouldn't mean automatic HOF enshrinement when Pujols becomes eligible. It's true, but save the argument for a player that wouldn't otherwise be qualified anyway.


I disagree. Cabrera is not an MVP candidate absent the Triple Crown. If you're inclined to complain, this is a perfect time to do it. (If you're not inclined to complain, then don't worry about it.)
   242. Booey Posted: September 24, 2012 at 12:29 PM (#4244144)
Now you personally may not care about the MVP, but given past discussions here, I also admit to being surprised about how readily people are willing to accept the "wrong" player winning the award.

I do care about the MVP, which is why I said I'd vote for Trout. What I'm saying is that I'd UNDERSTAND if the voters gave Miggy extra credit for winning the TC, even if I don't agree with it. Whether we like it or not, there is past precedent for voters giving bonus points for historic achievements, and it's hard to be too surprised and outraged over a bad choice when you can see it coming a mile away. The wrong choices that bugged me the most were the surprise "Wait, what? Why'd they vote for HIM?" selections that seemed to come from nowhere (Vaughn 1995, Juan Gone 1996, Morneau 2006, etc).

I disagree. Cabrera is not an MVP candidate absent the Triple Crown.


To the actual voters I think he still would be. For the non SABR inclined that don't put much stock into WAR, he still leads Trout in most hitting categories. My guess is that it's gonna be a close vote between the two either way (my fearless prediction is that Miggy wins a close vote if he gets the TC, and Trout wins a close vote if he doesn't).
   243. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: September 24, 2012 at 12:34 PM (#4244149)
Only to the extent that writers often have an incorrect sense of "value." But even in that case, they're trying to find the player who had the most value. (*) In contrast, everyone here pimping the childish "Oooh, triple crown!!" viewpoint agrees that Cabrera does not.

And all of them (or all of us, I suppose), as far as I can tell, have said that we would vote for Trout as the MVP.
   244. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 24, 2012 at 12:36 PM (#4244151)
Cabrera is lapping the field in OPS, lapping the field in SLG, is 3rd in the league in OBP, and is leading the league in BA. The idea that he's some kind of squatter in the MVP race, there only because of the Triple Crown, is cookoo in its purest form.
   245. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 24, 2012 at 12:38 PM (#4244153)
And all of them (or all of us, I suppose), as far as I can tell, have said that we would vote for Trout as the MVP.

Yup, the only way I could think that I'd change my mind is if Cabrera goes on some unwordly streak, and single-handedly carries Detroit to the playoffs, while the Angels fade.
   246. vivaelpujols Posted: September 24, 2012 at 01:02 PM (#4244194)
I disagree. Cabrera is not an MVP candidate absent the Triple Crown. If you're inclined to complain, this is a perfect time to do it. (If you're not inclined to complain, then don't worry about it.)


Yes this the general point. No one's saying he's a squatter (this is now the 4th time I've had to refute that strawman), but if you actually try to measure it, Trout's clearly the MVP. If the triple crown is just a fun meaningless thing (and it is once you already know his WAR or some other value metric) then why does it factor into you MVP perception?

Also why don't you guys just create your own triple crown and celebrate that? Why are you relying at the current boneheaded definition?
   247. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 24, 2012 at 01:11 PM (#4244202)
Yes this the general point. No one's saying he's a squatter (this is now the 4th time I've had to refute that strawman), but if you actually try to measure it, Trout's clearly the MVP. If the triple crown is just a fun meaningless thing (and it is once you already know his WAR or some other value metric) then why does it factor into you MVP perception?

Trout's WAR advantage is mostly defense -- ok -- and a bunch of park effects that make his OPS look much closer to Cabrera's than it really is. Trout's OPSing 90 points better at home than on the road. Comerica being an ca. 12% better hitters park than a warm-weather stadium with generally smaller dimensions makes you go hmmmm, but whatever.
   248. Booey Posted: September 24, 2012 at 01:15 PM (#4244213)
Yes this the general point. No one's saying he's a squatter (this is now the 4th time I've had to refute that strawman), but if you actually try to measure it, Trout's clearly the MVP.


And how many times do people have to agree with you on that last line before you'll acknowledge it?

If the triple crown is just a fun meaningless thing (and it is once you already know his WAR or some other value metric) then why does it factor into you MVP perception?


As far as I've read, no one has said their hypothetical MVP pick WOULD rely on whether or not Cabrera wins the TC. Again, this is something that's been pointed out several times.

Viva, you're preaching to the choir on most of your points. Everyone knows that AVG/HR/RBI aren't the best way to determine value. We get all that. In fact, I think I agree with all of your points except for one - why any of this is worth getting upset about.
   249. SoSH U at work Posted: September 24, 2012 at 01:20 PM (#4244221)
Also why don't you guys just create your own triple crown and celebrate that? Why are you relying at the current boneheaded definition?


Why don't you guys just create your own MVP and celebrate that? Why are you relying at (sic) the current MSM-defined honor that has never been an accurate assessment of the league's most valuable player?

Sorry, but there's no consistency to your position. You can be oblivious or devoted to these two baseball artifacts, but to hold one up as outdated while still clinging to the other is illogical.

   250. vivaelpujols Posted: September 24, 2012 at 01:35 PM (#4244239)
redacted
   251. DL from MN Posted: September 24, 2012 at 01:51 PM (#4244266)
If you're a fan of MVP discussions I will just pop in to note that you can have your say on 1976 in the MMP election. Voting is underway.
   252. Booey Posted: September 24, 2012 at 02:25 PM (#4244317)
If you're a fan of MVP discussions I will just pop in to note that you can have your say on 1976 in the MMP election. Voting is underway.


How long do the discussions for each year last before the final vote is tallied? I think I'll start participating once you hit 1987 and beyond.
   253. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: September 24, 2012 at 05:59 PM (#4244589)
'Fun' is very subjective. I do actually find no-hitters fun, but hitting streaks? Meh.
Page 3 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
robneyer
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogWall Street didn't kill sabermetrics - Beyond the Box Score
(2 - 8:43am, Oct 24)
Last: Downtown Bookie

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3410 - 8:39am, Oct 24)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogDid Adam Dunn Ruin Baseball? – The Hardball Times
(2 - 8:31am, Oct 24)
Last: Cris E

NewsblogWhat's Buster Posey's best trait as a catcher? Here's what his pitchers had to say - Giants Extra
(6 - 8:21am, Oct 24)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(370 - 8:02am, Oct 24)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(868 - 7:52am, Oct 24)
Last: TFTIO is familiar with the works of Pablo Neruda

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-23-2014
(14 - 7:43am, Oct 24)
Last: Rennie's Tenet

NewsblogAJC: Hart says ‘yes’ to Braves, will head baseball operations
(16 - 6:46am, Oct 24)
Last: Flynn

NewsblogGleeman: Royals may bench Norichika Aoki for Game 3
(21 - 3:00am, Oct 24)
Last: PreservedFish

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(8 - 2:52am, Oct 24)
Last: mex4173

NewsblogKey question GMs have to weigh with top World Series free agents | New York Post
(28 - 12:50am, Oct 24)
Last: Dale Sams

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(44 - 11:31pm, Oct 23)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogRoyals are not the future of baseball | FOX Sports
(39 - 11:25pm, Oct 23)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8370 - 11:22pm, Oct 23)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

NewsblogI hope this doesn't get me fired. | FOX Sports
(23 - 11:17pm, Oct 23)
Last: Walt Davis

Page rendered in 0.7463 seconds
52 querie(s) executed