Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
But my vote goes to Miggy for two reasons (mostly).
1- Miggy played some of his best baseball when it mattered most while Trout played some of his worst and I think that should count for something. MVP isn't solely a statistical award and when the Tigers were in a race for the division title Miggy's bat started booming. And the Tigers kept winning.
I do agree with this to a point, but like I said: "does it really make up for the previous 4 months that Trout consistently beat Cabrera? After all, a win in June is worth just as much as a win in September at the end of the year."
2- The triple crown. I know you dismiss the fact I think that a 30/45/125 season will happen before another triple crown, but that season is a product of players becoming bigger, stronger and faster. There will be more and more players that are huge and fast like Trout, and some of them will have some pop in their bats. I realize that Trout is a special talent, but the likelihood that a big, strong, fast athlete with generationally exception hand-eye coordination that can go 30/45/125 is more likely to me than someone hitting for the triple crown. The talent pool gets better together, so it's (obviously) incredibly hard to be the best in all three categories in a single year. People thought a 40/40 season was something that would never happen, then something that would never happen again. But athletes got bigger and faster and there have been a few guys that have done it. Eventually we'll see someone have a 50/50 season. It could even be Trout, who knows, but that will raise the bar again.
And then there's this. A-rod went 42/46/123 in 1998. Eric Davis had a 37/50/120 season in '87. Bobby Bonds missed it by 5 runs in '69, 4 HR's in '70, and 2 SB's in '73. Carlos Beltran went 38/42/121 in 2004. Soriano went 39/41/128 in 2002. And there are more, I personally think Jacoby Ellsbury if he's healthy for 162 games has a great chance at a 30/45/125 season.
Since the 60's and the decision by many hitters to specialize as either power or average hitters it's become much less common for guys to hit for both power and average on a level to win the triple crown. This is obviously an opinion, but at least you know I'm not just blowing smoke now.
Just for lulz: Jose Conseco in a juice-filled '88 went 42/40/120 with 124 RBI's and won MVP. Tee hee.
This is great and all, and I now see your point that 30/45/125 is probably more likely to happen again before a Triple Crown. But the Triple Crown (or whatever incredibly rare combination of 3 stats you produce) does not even equate "best offensive player" let alone "Most Valuable Player." Hell, since the MVP became a thing in 1931 only 5/9 of the players who hit for the Triple Crown actually won the MVP. Value comes from all the things you offer to your team on the baseball field throughout the course of the year (Which I showed above, Trout has the clearly overall edge in), not the rarity of 3 arbitrary stats you accumulated and the likelihood of them occurring again.
Post by Longtime and Frequent Poster on Oct 4, 2012 18:28:24 GMT -5
Agree 100% with you, Alberto, but part of the reason not every Triple Crown winner has won MVP is because the media HATED Ted Williams so many of its members would refuse to vote for him. Even though he was clearly the best hitter like...ever?
I do agree with this to a point, but like I said: "does it really make up for the previous 4 months that Trout consistently beat Cabrera? After all, a win in June is worth just as much as a win in September at the end of the year
Cabrera was consistently good, though He didn't taper off he just consistently hit baseballs. In a way that can be more impressive than a couple months of HOLY SH*T baseball, at least to me.
This is great and all, and I now see your point that 30/45/125 is probably more likely to happen again before a Triple Crown. But the Triple Crown (or whatever incredibly rare combination of 3 stats you produce) does not even equate "best offensive player" let alone "Most Valuable Player." Hell, only 5/9 of the players who hit for the Triple Crown won the MVP since the MVP became a thing in 1931. Value comes from all the things you offer to your team on the baseball field throughout the course of the year (Which I showed above, Trout has the overall edge in), not the rarity of 3 arbitrary stats you accumulated and the likelihood of them occurring again.
Well, Ted Williams' teams didn't make the playoffs either year he won ithit for the triple crown. Chuck Klein lost to a pitcher who started, threw under a 2.00 ERA and closed games that he wasn't pitching in (seriously), but this was also in 1933, so the guys voting probably didn't even see Klein play very often (not sure what this means, just seems like it probably hurt him when the guy he lost to played in NY and Klein was in Philly). I have no idea why Lou Gherig was fifth in a season where his own teammate (pitcher Lefty Gomez) and three Detroit players all finished ahead of him.
I don't think the triple crown seals it for Miggy, but I think his consistency and how he played better for the playoff push gives him the edge.
I don't think the triple crown seals it for Miggy, but I think his consistency and how he played better for the playoff push gives him the edge.
I'm not quite sure I follow your logic that Miggy should be rewarded for his consistency of being less valuable than Trout, but I can't discredit his performance during the playoff push. That's really the one thing that I see him having the advantage over Trout in, but I just refuse to believe that him playing better during a window of time that's deemed "more important" (when in reality every win is worth the same) outweighs all the other factors that favor Trout. I just have a hard time seeing how, with all the information and stats we have readily available to us in this day and age of baseball, anyone who really looks into this can think that Miguel Cabrera was more valuable than Mike Trout this year. Cabrera had a hell of a year that will go down in the record books, but sometimes somebody is just better.
Post by Delicious Meatball Sub on Oct 4, 2012 19:18:29 GMT -5
My real issue with Trout's #s is that I think SB's are overvalued. I certainly recognize their value on the field, but you still need the green light from manager, and it's just a team by team thing how many opportunities you get. But regardless, I think power hitting is the single most valuable skill set for a player and Miggy absolutely has Trout beat there.
My real issue with Trout's #s is that I think SB's are overvalued. I certainly recognize their value on the field, but you still need the green light from manager, and it's just a team by team thing how many opportunities you get. But regardless, I think power hitting is the single most valuable skill set for a player and Miggy absolutely has Trout beat there.
The thing is, at least in the arguments that I used with wOBA and WPA and such, nothing is undervalued or overvalued. Mathematicians have figured out the exact run value of a steal, compared to a single, double, triple, home run, etc. based on all the occurrences of these events throughout the history of baseball. It can't be debated, it is fact.
Yes, a home run is the most valuable event that can be performed on offense. It is worth on average 1.39 true runs to a stolen base's .16. But the major difference in steals (45), along with all the other things Trout contributed, make up for their lesser difference in home runs (14).
These are not just random weights assigned intuitively to different events, these are proven mathematical values throughout the course of baseball history.
Post by Delicious Meatball Sub on Oct 4, 2012 19:37:55 GMT -5
Ya I get that, value maybe wasn't the right word. I get their value to the game. But all players don't have the same likelihood over being able to attempt to steal for any number of totally subjective reasons, more so than hitting away or hit and run calls or whatever. So while the value of the outcome may be weighed appropriate, there is no factor for likelihood of being allowed to attempt a steal.
Ya I get that, value maybe wasn't the right word. I get their value to the game. But all players don't have the same likelihood over being able to attempt to steal for any number of totally subjective reasons, more so than hitting away or hit and run calls or whatever. So while the value of the outcome may be weighed appropriate, there is no factor for likelihood of being allowed to attempt a steal.
But you can't discredit Trout for playing to one of his greatest strengths. He was successful in 91% of his steal attempts this year, an absurd number and (I believe) the league-high. When you're that much better than everyone else at something, of course you're going to do it a lot. The reason why Trout has so many more steal attempts is because he is that much better than Cabrera at stealing. It's not like RBI where the cumulative value can be misleading due to # of opportunities because the # of opportunities depend on other players. The # of SB attempts depends solely on the one player in question and his ability to steal bases or not
Post by Delicious Meatball Sub on Oct 4, 2012 19:52:43 GMT -5
But the reason he has so many more steals is because he bats lead off, and he bats leadoff cause he's still more of an average hitter than a power hitter.
I'm not trying to discredit steals, but like RBIs they can be really situational and sorta arbitrary.
But the reason he has so many more steals is because he bats lead off, and he bats leadoff cause he's still more of an average hitter than a power hitter.
I'm not trying to discredit steals, but like RBIs they can be really situational and sorta arbitrary.
That's not really the same at all though. I'm not sure you caught the end of my post because I slipped it in on an edit but-
" It's not like RBI where the cumulative value can be misleading due to # of opportunities because the # of opportunities depend on other players. The # of SB attempts depends solely on the one player in question and his ability to steal bases or not"
another way of putting that is:
Every time a player reaches base, they have an opportunity to steal the next base. Therefore, two players with an identical OBP have the same number of opportunities to steal over the course of a season. The amount of steals accumulated afterwards and the success % is then totally and completely dependent on the players ability to execute it.
However, each time a player comes up he may or may not have an opportunity at additional RBI. Therefore two players with identical AVG/OBP/SLG/OPS/wOBA could still have DRASTICALLY different RBI opportunities/totals. In fact, the player with the worse slash line could still have the higher RBI total. For example, take a look at Ruben Sierra's season in 1993 where he posted a HORRENDOUS .233/.288/.390/.678 slash line and still managed to rack up 101 RBI, to a year like Bonds had in 2003 where he posted an absurd .341/.529/.749/1.278 line for only 90 RBI. The amount of RBI accumulated in this case clearly had absolutely nothing to do with the players ability to execute, unlike the steals scenario above.
Post by Alberto Balsalm on Oct 4, 2012 20:08:30 GMT -5
You can always still steal the base though, even if the bases are loaded. You cannot create a baserunner to drive in if there is not one on the basepaths.
Post by Alberto Balsalm on Oct 4, 2012 20:24:04 GMT -5
However, despite all of this, Cabrera is still going to win the MVP because voters are old and stubborn and refuse to admit that there is more information out there that is much more accurate in comparing player performance than their archaic methods suggest.
Agree 100% with you, Alberto, but part of the reason not every Triple Crown winner has won MVP is because the media HATED Ted Williams so many of its members would refuse to vote for him. Even though he was clearly the best hitter like...ever?
I think the biggest reason that many TC winners didn't get MVP is because it used to be more common. Ted Williams was not likable and arrogant but that only accounts for two times the TC winner didn't win the MVP. Nowadays it has become more of a deal in the same way that perfect games lately have become devalued because there have been a rash of them.
However, despite all of this, Cabrera is still going to win the MVP because voters are old and stubborn and refuse to admit that there is more information out there that is much more accurate in comparing player performance than their archaic methods suggest.
And BCUZ TRIPEL CROWN!!!1!1! LOLZZ!!
Hah oh god, you're such a sabermetrics fanboy. The Triple Crown isn't an archaic method, it's one of the hardest things to do in all of sports. If anything it's becoming harder as time's gone on.
I do agree a lot of old-time writers refuse to acknowledge the advances in stats, but you're acting like those stats need to dictate who they vote for. If that was the case, they wouldn't have a vote and just develop a formula that decided the winner.
I have never understood the baseball culture's fascination with statistics. I think that is what is driving this whole Sabermetrics train. I have read moneyball, and I get that UZR, WAR, OBP, and slash stats provide a different picture and maybe more accurate than traditional stats, but it is also making baseball nerds even more ostracized. People can get behind ERA, HR, RBI, and BA. The common audience can understand those statistics, making the game accessible to them. There is a mysticism around winning the Triple Crown that people can understand.
Yes, Trout had a very good year. Arguably better than Cabrera. But it is like Bert Blyleven in 2011. He was not one of the most dominant pitchers while he played. He didn't even win all that much, but he got it on sabermetric performance. Which bust are you going to go look at. Berts or Nolan Ryan?
I also think you still need to be on a playoff team to win the MVP, but I know there is a vast difference of opinion there. There is a leadership component, and if you give it to someone who misses the playoffs, it is like saying nice try, we like the losers too, so here is your award.
TL;DR, Cabrera should win because he pulled off an incredible achievement that is marketable and accessible to the average fan of baseball. Trout had a great year, and will probably win one in the future, but Cabrera should / will get the votes.
I have never understood the baseball culture's fascination with statistics. I think that is what is driving this whole Sabermetrics train. I have read moneyball, and I get that UZR, WAR, OBP, and slash stats provide a different picture and maybe more accurate than traditional stats, but it is also making baseball nerds even more ostracized. People can get behind ERA, HR, RBI, and BA. The common audience can understand those statistics, making the game accessible to them. There is a mysticism around winning the Triple Crown that people can understand.
Yes, Trout had a very good year. Arguably better than Cabrera. But it is like Bert Blyleven in 2011. He was not one of the most dominant pitchers while he played. He didn't even win all that much, but he got it on sabermetric performance. Which bust are you going to go look at. Berts or Nolan Ryan?
I also think you still need to be on a playoff team to win the MVP, but I know there is a vast difference of opinion there. There is a leadership component, and if you give it to someone who misses the playoffs, it is like saying nice try, we like the losers too, so here is your award.
TL;DR, Cabrera should win because he pulled off an incredible achievement that is marketable and accessible to the average fan of baseball. Trout had a great year, and will probably win one in the future, but Cabrera should / will get the votes.
Well, baseball is really just an individual sport masquerading as a team sport. Baseball games are mostly individual battles in succession so stats carry more weight. Football, for instance, is just scratching the surface of their advanced stats, but that sport makes it almost impossible for individuals to shine if their team is bad. Even Brady struggles when his line is sucking. A hitter can always hit, and a pitcher can always pitch. Their output might vary slightly based on a pitcher's defense or a hitter's base runners, but for the most part their stats are their own so these advanced metrics work. For other sports it's a lot different.
Thats true, and that is kind of what I am getting at. You can go 7 innings with no offense. Just pitchers getting people to fly out, ground out and strikeout. Just accumulating statistics.
In Football, you picked skill players, but I will give you a different example. Kevin Williams. DT for the Vikings. He does not get a ton of tackles, or sacks, or really any stats, but he is typically ranked one of the best DTs in the league. Why? Because no one will run at him due to the fact that he can and will eat you.
The point is, you probably could figure out a stat to measure him using some advanced metrics, but less than 1% of people will care, and the more they hear about that stat, the more it grates on them, and the less interested they become in the sport overall.
Most fans do not care about advanced metrics, and shoving them down their throat and calling people dumb for not following them makes them less likely to follow the sport.