Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 4
To a guy who bats.1000. 50 for 50 states correct.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Nemo
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Okay.

Would you let him do surgery on you?

He's wrong in this case. Trout is a worthy runner up.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Trout should be the MVP, but probably won't be because of a weird fascination with the Triple Crown. If some other player had hit .345 this year, this wouldn't even be a debate, Trout would easily win.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Trout is only in the discussion because of a weird fascination with flawed statistics that don't translate well with reality but which have captured the post D&D generation sport fan who believes that the more variables that are introduced into a system the more accurate it becomes.

This group accepts without question that Trout had a superior (and also somehow 'more valuable') season to Cabreras while conveniently ignoring that the same metric would have respectively put David Wright and Chase Headley 3rd and 4th in NL MVP voting - and both of them ahead of Cabrera among rankings of MLB 3rd basemen. Meanwhile this same metric informs us that Nick Swisher was the 3rd best 1b in MLB, Jesus Montero the 10th best C despite only starting 55 games there, and the Braves with the 4th, 5th and 6th best OF. Truly bizarre.

I like WAR. Truly I do. But it only tells us what it tells us and like with every other advanced stat one has to apply the sniff test. Take away WAR and Trout is probably 4th - 5th in overall MVP voting; Cabrera the unanimous winner.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
weird fascination with the Triple Crown?

I guess that means football players have a weird fascination with touchdowns.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I can not agree with this.

While executives, scouts and others paid to objectively assess the game are almost universal in agreement that Trout is the better candidate, the fallibility of human subjectivity colors opinions enough that something neutral and impartial can serve as a better arbiter. That is the role of statistics in baseball, which embraced numbers as a touchstone of success from its early days. Granted, the numbers that came to denote offensive prowess – batting average, home runs and runs batted in – were far from the best troika to do so. Still, baseball's acknowledgement of statistics was, like politics' acceptance of polling data, a proper foundation upon which greater truths could be gleaned

Nate never had to answer the election question. Who is better? Just who is winning was his mantra. This baseball question is, who is better?

I love stats but they are not able to tell you who is the MVP.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The 2011 Angels, sans Trout, missed the playoffs, but made it to the last week of the season.

The 2012 Angels, with Trout, missed the playoffs, but were out of it about two weeks before the season ended.

Seems to me that the guy whose Triple Crown helped lead his team to a division title was more valuable.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I agree that winning the Triple Crown cinched it for Cabrera

...but...

Sabermetrics people will point out that stats were bloated playing about a 1/3 of his games against Cleveland, Kansas City, Minnesota and Chicago helped him pad his stats...

while Trout was playing an equal number of games against the pitching staffs of Texas, Oakland and Seattle...I know Mariners sucked but they faced King Felix once a series naybe...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Seems to me that the guy whose Triple Crown helped lead his team to a division title was more valuable.

BUT, this guy was on a team with over one half of his starting team batting at 300 or better. That is five guys in the line up each and every day. That has got to help Cabrera get hits,RBI's and hitting average. Also, he was supported by a league ace pitcher and a very apt pitching staff.

Those "conditions" cannot go unmentioned.

99
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
BUT, this guy was on a team with over one half of his starting team batting at 300 or better. That is five guys in the line up each and every day. That has got to help Cabrera get hits,RBI's and hitting average. Also, he was supported by a league ace pitcher and a very apt pitching staff.


The Angels had a team batting overage of .274, vs. .268 for the Tigers and scored 41 more runs. Their respective team ERA's were 4.02 and 3.75, which equates to another 40 or so runs. Detroit had the #2 Cy Young finisher, while the Angels had #3. Looks to be pretty much a wash, except that Cabrera had better numbers everywhere except stolen bases.

And his team won.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And his team won.

Won just what?

99
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The Angels had a team batting overage of .274, vs. .268 for the Tigers and scored 41 more runs. Their respective team ERA's were 4.02 and 3.75, which equates to another 40 or so runs. Detroit had the #2 Cy Young finisher, while the Angels had #3. Looks to be pretty much a wash, except that Cabrera had better numbers everywhere except stolen bases.

And his team won.


Let me start by saying that I believe Cabrera should have won the MVP. But, an interesting take on the "his team won" argument, also known as the "only those that reach the playoffs should be MVP" argument.

Anaheim actually won more games than Detroit. Sure, they didn't make the playoffs and didn't win their division, but of course, they weren't helped by a free falling Chicago White Sox team like Detroit was. Chicago went 4-8 in their last 12 games. Detroit passed them by going 8-4 (and Cabrera played a big role in that, so he deserves some credit there).

The Angels also went 8-4, but they were chasing the A's who went 9-3 and the Orioles who went 7-5.

So again, this is not an argument that Cabrera shouldn't have won. It's an attempt at a cautionary tale for making the argument that he should have won because his team went to the playoffs and someone else's didn't.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Seems to me that the guy whose Triple Crown helped lead his team to a division title was more valuable.

On the other hand, it could be argued that Cabrera wasn't even the most valuable player on his own team. Verlander was.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
On the other hand, it could be argued that Cabrera wasn't even the most valuable player on his own team. Verlander was.


They have a different award for the non players.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
BUT, this guy was on a team with over one half of his starting team batting at 300 or better.

This is wrong. I know why you think this, you are giving Garcia and his 52 at bats credit. Obviously though, a guy with 52 at bats wouldn't present Cabrera with many more opportunities for RBI at .300 than at .270 - and in fact in this case zero more opportunities since Garcia always hit in the back half. Other than Cabrera, two other qualifiers hit .300: Jackson and Prince (who also hit behind Cabrera). Additionally, Dirks hit .300 in 300 AB - hitting 2nd about a third of the time.

Meanwhile guys like Kelly (113 AB, .187), Rayburn (205 AB, .171), and Santiago (228 AB, .206) were also getting regular AB - more combined than Dirks and Garcia.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This is wrong.

While attending game #2 of the world series, the scoreboard showed the starting lineups. I counted the number of 300+ hitters in the lineup for Detroit. That number dwarfed what the Giants had to offer. That number was 5.

That is what it is.

As already mentioned, Verlander was a more valuable player on that team than Cabrera, IMO. The second most valuable fact was the other batters that led to support for and needing to pitch to Cabrera, IMO

Enough.

So who are you picking for next years WS? I know too early to know who is playing where, but....try.

99
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
While attending game #2 of the world series, the scoreboard showed the starting lineups. I counted the number of 300+ hitters in the lineup for Detroit. That number dwarfed what the Giants had to offer. That number was 5.


and as I JUST POINTED OUT one of those players had 52 ML at bats total. Another of those players was Miguel Cabrera who certainly couldn't benefit from RBI situations created when he himself was standing on 1st base.

That leaves 3 players, one of whom hit behind Cabrera all year.

Your claim was that Cabrera's RBI total benefited greatly from 'all the .300 hitters in the Tiger lineup' (paraphrasing). And again, your assertion was wrong.

~

Since I couldn't peg any team at greater than 30% to make the Series next year right now, it is pointless to pick.

Hold my feet to a flame and I go with Texas.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Your claim was that Cabrera's RBI total benefited greatly from 'all the .300 hitters in the Tiger lineup' (paraphrasing). And again, your assertion was wrong.

Factually all season long, is not correct. Yes you are correct on that point. But honestly, does it make that big a difference when for all season you were followed in the lineup by Prince Fielder making them pitch to you every game you both played? Then they have to face a strong hitter before and after each of you? That was the general point negated by simple stat. Shame.

I am picking the Reds next year for WS from the NL. However, things do change.

99
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
This is wrong. I know why you think this, you are giving Garcia and his 52 at bats credit.


You're wasting your time, patch.

As a point of comparison, I don't argue sports with my grandmother either. Sure she's seen a game or two on TV but....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I tried to warn you...........
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
You shouldn't argue with your grandmother about anything. She is a wise lady who has seen everything life has to offer.

Plus, if you agree with her, you'll get all the good stuff in the will.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You're right, Ray - I don't know what I was thinking...
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement