Author Topic: Miggy and the triple crown.  (Read 1168 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 24485
Re: Miggy and the triple crown.
« Reply #25: October 04, 2012, 03:39:22 PM »
The Tigers wouldn't have made the playoffs with Cabrera.

Angels wouldn't have made it with or without Trout.

Hence, Cabrera is more valuable.

Sure ... sure.

Or, maybe not. Trout plays LF/RF and hits third and the Tigers get a third baseman who can actually play defense, the Tigers would probably have a better record. Trout would also probably have a 120+ RBIs.

Trout was the best player in baseball this season. There have been 16 Triple Crown winners in the history of baseball. Only twice has a player hit .300+, hit 30 or more home runs, and stolen at least 49 bases.

Trout > Cabrera

Offline BigMeech

  • Posts: 3128
  • BM Punk
Re: Miggy and the triple crown.
« Reply #26: October 04, 2012, 03:41:43 PM »
It's not about being the best player though.  It's about being the most valuable.  Cabrera was more valuable to the Tigers in the sense that they would be on the playoff couch without him.  Angles couldn't make the playoffs even with Trout having one of the best seasons ever.

It would be a no doubter had the Angels made the playoff though. 

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 54504
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Miggy and the triple crown.
« Reply #27: October 04, 2012, 03:52:00 PM »
tigers would not have any other MLB division.  Cabrera would not have piled up numbers but for the cruddy pitching in the AL central.  The tigers have a good pitching staff, Prince and Austin Jackson, and traded for FORMER ALL STAR Omar Infante.  Andy Dirks and Quintin Berry had good years, and Alex Avila hit around MLB average OPS+.  Even if you ignore the defense, Trout had a better year.


Poor little Mike Trout was stuck on an awful Angels team. crap if it weren't for Trout the Angels would've lost 110+ and made the 2009 Washington Nationals look good.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 24485
Re: Miggy and the triple crown.
« Reply #28: October 04, 2012, 05:49:32 PM »
It's not about being the best player though.  It's about being the most valuable.  Cabrera was more valuable to the Tigers in the sense that they would be on the playoff couch without him.  Angles couldn't make the playoffs even with Trout having one of the best seasons ever.

It would be a no doubter had the Angels made the playoff though. 

MVP is for the most valuable player in the league. Not the most valuable player who's team made the playoffs. Several winners before have won it without their team making the playoffs.  It's for the most valuable player in the league.

Second, Trout's team won 89 games. Miggy's won 88. So .... who's team had the better record? Yea, must be nice to play in a crappy division with the Royals, Twins, and Indians. After Trout was called up, the angels posted a .584 winning percentage. Better than anyone in their division. Second in the AL.

Third, Cabrera's claim to the MVP rests solely on him winning the Triple Crown .. which is completely dependent on RBIs. Which is completely dependent on what the hitter's teammates do. Austin Jackson doesn't have a monster career year with the bat and Miguel Cabrera doesn't even sniff the Triple Crown. Oh, and if you gave Trout twice as many plate appearances with runners on base (like Miggy had) and I'd like to see what kind of numbers Trout puts up.

Fourth, Cabrera's defense was actually costing his team games. Do you know why Cabrera's WAR is the same as last year, despite putting up better hitting numbers this year? Because Cabrera's defense was awful. He wasn't a very good at first. He was amongst the worst at  third. Meanwhile, Trout is one of the best defenders in center field.


As I said, Trout had one of the greatest seasons in the history of baseball. And he did it in 138 games.

Offline Vega

  • Posts: 4611
Re: Miggy and the triple crown.
« Reply #29: October 04, 2012, 06:08:18 PM »
The Angels were playing like crap before calling up Trout. He seemed to spark the team quite a bit. I'd say that he was more valuable to Anaheim than Cabrera was to Detroit.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 15138
Re: Miggy and the triple crown.
« Reply #30: October 04, 2012, 08:40:43 PM »
Either way this vote will be interesting- Felix winning the cy young supposedly meant that traditional stats weren't the only thing that mattered anymore,  but he was by far the best pitcher,  this year you get a triple Crown winner (2 out of 3 components traditional)  vs a Saber darling

Offline Obed_Marsh

  • Posts: 7666
  • ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
    • Photos
Re: Miggy and the triple crown.
« Reply #31: October 04, 2012, 08:57:16 PM »
As long as it isn't Kemp or Trout I am content. Too many douche bags chanting for both of them for my taste.

Offline cmdterps44

  • Posts: 15536
  • Future
Re: Miggy and the triple crown.
« Reply #32: October 05, 2012, 01:45:13 PM »
Talking about which division is worse is sort of a scape goat. Who cares if Miguel played the AL central a a bit more than the other teams. They were still a terrible team and Miguel did his part. The Angels had all the talent to bring them to the playoffs, even with Trout, and they couldn't do it. Now, that aside, the triple crown is a pretty huge thing.... been, what, 40 years? Trout had a tremendous season for any player, even a rookie, but it's not like we won't even see that again.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 18100
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Miggy and the triple crown.
« Reply #33: October 05, 2012, 03:05:41 PM »
You don't have to resort to saber stats to say Trout had a better year.  Just looks at traditional things like runs, double plays hit into, steals. 

                 AVG   HR    RBI   OPS    R    GDPs   SBs
Cabrera:   .330   44   139   .999  109    28       4
Trout:       .326    30     83  .963  129       7     49

Look at the runs Cabrera wiped off the bases with those GDPs.  FWIW, Trout beat Cabrera on OPS+, 171 to 166.  OPS+ is a park adjusted number.

And for those who say Cabrera had no one around him, have you seen what Austin Jackson all year at leadoff and Quintin Berry and Andy Dirks did once they settled on them as #2?  He had ducks on the pond all the time.   It's a farce to say that he lacked RBI opportunities.  Heck, Adrian Gonzalez was probably more efficient at knocking in runs (I'll leave someone else to chase down that stat).

Cabrera simply did not have as good an offensive year as Trout, and offense is the only basis for saying he had a better year.  Also, for those of you saying Detroit had a cruddy team around him, who was the consensus pick in the AL East Central before the start of the year?

Online houston-nat

  • Posts: 16386
Re: Miggy and the triple crown.
« Reply #34: October 05, 2012, 03:11:03 PM »
I agree 99% with you, but...
Also, for those of you saying Detroit had a cruddy team around him, who was the consensus pick in the AL East before the start of the year?
...Central?

Online mitlen

  • Posts: 26788
Re: Miggy and the triple crown.
« Reply #35: October 05, 2012, 03:17:47 PM »

                 AVG   HR    RBI   OPS    R    GDPs   SBs
Cabrera:   .330   44   139   .999  109    28       4
Trout:       .326    30     83  .963  129       7     49



Higher average; 14 more HR's; 56 more RBI's  ...  SB  ...  nah ain't happenin' for me.    Cabrera never was a base stealer.    The real BS is claiming Trout is a rookie.    I'm not sayin' either one is MVP but I'll take Cabrera offensively over Trout this year.    My opinion only  ....  Plus, I think Trout gets to much SoCal/non-Detriot love.

Online houston-nat

  • Posts: 16386
Re: Miggy and the triple crown.
« Reply #36: October 05, 2012, 03:31:01 PM »
Higher average; 14 more HR's; 56 more RBI's  ...  SB  ...  nah ain't happenin' for me.    Cabrera never was a base stealer.    The real BS is claiming Trout is a rookie.    I'm not sayin' either one is MVP but I'll take Cabrera offensively over Trout this year.    My opinion only  ....


So the stat guys use a stat that's, how many runs can the team expect to score in this situation. Like if the bases are loaded with no outs, you expect more to score than if the bases are loaded with 2 outs. If the bases are loaded, no outs, and you hit a grand slam, then maybe you expected to be able to score 2 and the other 2 are gravy. But with bases loaded, 2 outs, you hit a grand slam, all 4 of those runs are gravy, pretty much.

Long story short, the stat geeks keep track of this. Miggy Cabrera generated 45 "bonus runs" that the Tigers shouldn't have expected to score, but scored cuz Miggy is awesome and insanely clutch.

Mike Trout generated 56.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 18100
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Miggy and the triple crown.
« Reply #37: October 05, 2012, 03:33:15 PM »
houston - fixed the division reference.

Mitlen - look at the double plays. That's an awful lot of runs killed when you take another guy off the bases and hit into an out yourself.  Easier for your team to score if you simply K rather than DP.  DPs are the definition of unclutch / negative value.

As for average, it is close to a wash, and OPS+ tells you something about the rest of the slash line.  As for runs, you may say that Pujols hit 2 slots behind Trout, but Fielder hit directly behind Cabrera, and Avila wasn't a slouch, either.

Saying Cabrera was never much of a base stealer is like saying Tiny Archibald was never tall so don't count ignore the rebounding difference between him and Kareem when discussing MVP.  heck, I'm not even asking you to figure in how much Trout's running led to hitters after him getting more fastballs, pitches thrown from a slide step or a stretch (slower fastballs), and other stuff easier to hit. 

Online mitlen

  • Posts: 26788
Re: Miggy and the triple crown.
« Reply #38: October 05, 2012, 03:38:38 PM »
houston - fixed the division reference.

Mitlen - look at the double plays. That's an awful lot of runs killed when you take another guy off the bases and hit into an out yourself.  Easier for your team to score if you simply K rather than DP.  DPs are the definition of unclutch / negative value.

As for average, it is close to a wash, and OPS+ tells you something about the rest of the slash line.  As for runs, you may say that Pujols hit 2 slots behind Trout, but Fielder hit directly behind Cabrera, and Avila wasn't a slouch, either.

Saying Cabrera was never much of a base stealer is like saying Tiny Archibald was never tall so don't count ignore the rebounding difference between him and Kareem when discussing MVP.  heck, I'm not even asking you to figure in how much Trout's running led to hitters after him getting more fastballs, pitches thrown from a slide step or a stretch (slower fastballs), and other stuff easier to hit. 

I only deal in mindfacts.   :)    I think Trout gets a lot of good free press because he's in LA and all that.    I feel the same way about him being designated "a rookie".   Trout is the chosen one.    The triple crown is a special designation to this old guy.   To me, that trumps all the WARs, etc.      Why are there conditions for Cabrera and not Yaz or Williams or Robinson or Mantle?    I'm bailin' on this thread before I get in trouble.   :P

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 18100
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Miggy and the triple crown.
« Reply #39: October 05, 2012, 03:48:53 PM »
Well, there are triple crown winners who missed the MVP.  Trout has had a season like Mays.  The triple crown was more important when there was less video of defense so objective voters could not factor it into a player's value. Also, the RBI stat used to be credited too much to the hitter. 

Here's another way to think about it.  I'll concede you AVG over OBP and I'll even let you factor is RBI not adjusted for opportunity (like % of runners on base driven in).  I'll even say you don't have to do HR on rate basis because this is a season award (rates will help Trout on HR and RBI).  Just count the 5 traditional measure of stats that are typically considered in 5 by 5 fantasy - AVG - HR - RBI - R - SB.  Runs are no less valid than RBI measuring a players performance. An SB is directly useful only if it leads to a run, but SB are a nice proxy for speed which helps in lots of other aspects of the game and an SB threat helps other hitters, too.

Online houston-nat

  • Posts: 16386
Re: Miggy and the triple crown.
« Reply #40: October 05, 2012, 03:55:45 PM »
Well, there are triple crown winners who missed the MVP.
Ted Williams twice I think.


Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 24485
Re: Miggy and the triple crown.
« Reply #41: October 05, 2012, 04:21:13 PM »
I only deal in mindfacts.   :)    I think Trout gets a lot of good free press because he's in LA and all that.    I feel the same way about him being designated "a rookie".   Trout is the chosen one.    The triple crown is a special designation to this old guy.   To me, that trumps all the WARs, etc.      Why are there conditions for Cabrera and not Yaz or Williams or Robinson or Mantle?    I'm bailin' on this thread before I get in trouble.   :P

You want special?

One other player in the history of baseball has hit .300+, 30 or more homers and stolen 49 or more bases in a season.

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 54504
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Miggy and the triple crown.
« Reply #42: October 05, 2012, 04:43:13 PM »
Well, there are triple crown winners who missed the MVP. 

Because their teams didn't make the playoffs. The eventual MVP was on the playoff team.

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 54504
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Miggy and the triple crown.
« Reply #43: October 05, 2012, 04:44:43 PM »
People find it easier to jerk off to Trout than to Cabrera. 

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 24485
Re: Miggy and the triple crown.
« Reply #44: October 05, 2012, 05:06:56 PM »
Because their teams didn't make the playoffs. The eventual MVP was on the playoff team.



LMAO ... so what? There were eight teams in the AL when Red Sox didn't make the playoffs in 1942/47. Oh, and in 1949, the Red Sox didn't go the playoffs, but Ted Williams was still the MVP. In 1991, Cal Ripken won it and the Orioles finished 6th in their division. 2001, Barry Bonds, no playoffs.

Oh and once again, Trout's team was the best in the AL after he was called up. He starts the season with the Angels, they win that division. Easily.

Trout was easily the best player in baseball this season.

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 54504
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Miggy and the triple crown.
« Reply #45: October 05, 2012, 05:09:40 PM »

There were eight teams in the AL when Red Sox didn't make the playoffs in 1942/47.


LMAO ...  so what?


Oh and once again, Trout's team was the best in the AL after he was called up. He starts the season with the Angels, they win that division. Easily.



:lmao:  MVPIF



Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 24485
Re: Miggy and the triple crown.
« Reply #46: October 05, 2012, 05:13:21 PM »
LMAO ...  so what?


:lmao:  MVPIF




Updated my post. A player's team making it to the playoffs doesn't make or break the MVP award. Otherwise, there's going to be a ton of revisionist history.

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 54504
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Miggy and the triple crown.
« Reply #47: October 05, 2012, 05:14:51 PM »
I totally agree with you blue but for decades the criteria (or at least the way the voters have leaned) points to leading your team to the playoffs as meriting major consideration. That was the reasoning behind rewarding Sosa with the MVP over McGwire in 1998 (I hate to bring those two juicers up but it is what it is).

I'm not saying it's right but that's they way the voters have leaned.



Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 24485
Re: Miggy and the triple crown.
« Reply #48: October 05, 2012, 05:17:06 PM »
And I just disproved that. The award goes the most valuable player in the league. Playoffs have nothing to do with it.


Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 54504
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Miggy and the triple crown.
« Reply #49: October 05, 2012, 05:42:15 PM »
And I just disproved that. The award goes the most valuable player in the league. Playoffs have nothing to do with it.



It depends on the kind of seasons other players had those years. (I don't know why Frank Thomas didn't win the year Ripken won other than Ripken's popularity so that bodes well for Trout.) That can't be said this year. In the years the triple crown winners were overlooked there were some that merited consideration. I don't think it's coincidence that they went with the players on teams that advanced to the World Series even though I believe the triple crown winners had better seasons. Trout had an amazing season. I'm not arguing against that. I think they should go with Cabrera but I don't think they will. Trout is a media favorite. They are drooling all over him. He's the next face of baseball.