or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › 2016 MLB Season Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2016 MLB Season Thread - Page 148

post #2206 of 5143
Stax just laid it out. The rest of you sound like Meister in the presidential election thread.
post #2207 of 5143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennglock View Post

Stax just laid it out. The rest of you sound like Meister in the presidential election thread.

there was widespread voter fraud in the Baseball Writers of America polling. hell, half of them didn't even show ID!
post #2208 of 5143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambo View Post

there was widespread voter fraud in the Baseball Writers of America polling. hell, half of them didn't even show ID!

smile.gif
post #2209 of 5143
I really don't see the argument in any of this. Trout's numbers after August 1st, though solid, certainly didn't help his cause. he hit below .290 and his team fell short to the surging A's.
Cabrera, on the other hand, hit .344 19hr and 54 rbi while leading his team to the division.

Both are great players. One lead his team to the playoffs and world series, one did not.

The angels would have finished the season the same way they started without Trout-no postseason(and they were favored to be get there)
The tigers would not have reached the postseason without Cabrera. (and they were favored to get there as well)
post #2210 of 5143
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullethead View Post

I really don't see the argument in any of this. Trout's numbers after August 1st, though solid, certainly didn't help his cause. he hit below .290 and his team fell short to the surging A's.
Cabrera, on the other hand, hit .344 19hr and 54 rbi while leading his team to the division.

Another way of saying that is that Trout had an incredibly strong first half. And since games in April affect your playoff spot the same as games in September, fail to see your point.
Quote:
Both are great players. One lead his team to the playoffs and world series, one did not.

The MVP voting occurs before the playoffs, again, so the World Series has no effect on this. And Trout led his team to more wins, the ticket to the playoffs, in a harder schedule. Silliness of the 'led his team to the playoffs' argument aside, you are literally arguing that Miguel Cabrera should get credit for the badness of other AL Central teams.

This post remains one of my favorite Fire Joe Morgan quotes of all time, in describing a similar issue with the 2008 NL MVP race
Quote:
Originally Posted by FJM 
"But as unthinkably dangerous as the Cardinals’ slugger was, he couldn’t get his team to the postseason. Howard did."

You're right. Albert Pujols did not nearly pitch well enough, or for enough innings (Can you believe zero innings? What a bum!) for the Cardinals to to make the playoffs. (The Phillies had a team ERA of 3.88; the Cardinals 4.19. Albert Pujols? More like Albert Not A Very Good Pitching Coach!)

Pujols should have lobbied to have St. Louis the city moved to Oregon, where his Cardinals would have won the NL West by two games and he would be lauded as a clutch MVP baseball superhero with quality intangibles and a leader with the uncanny ability to come through when it counts. But unfortunately, Pujols has never been good at getting entire cities to spontaneously change their geographical locations.
Quote:
The angels would have finished the season the same way they started without Trout-no postseason(and they were favored to be get there)
The tigers would not have reached the postseason without Cabrera. (and they were favored to get there as well)

Players contribute runs (and through runs, wins), not playoff spots. Playoff spots are a combination of the individual player's achievements along with his teammates. The MVP is an individual award, not a team award, so accrediting Miguel Cabrera or Mike trout with the performance of the other 39 guys on the roster that helped get the Tigers to the playoffs, or of the other 4 AL Central and 3 AL West teams that led to each team's eventual playoff result is nonsensical.

The Angels would not be in the same spot with or without Trout, their record would be significantly worse. The same for Cabrera. However, the delta between their respective records is the value that player added, and Trout's is greater.
post #2211 of 5143
Quote:
Originally Posted by staxringold View Post

Another way of saying that is that Trout had an incredibly strong first half. And since games in April affect your playoff spot the same as games in September, fail to see your point. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The MVP voting occurs before the playoffs, again, so the World Series has no effect on this. And Trout led his team to more wins, the ticket to the playoffs, in a harder schedule. Silliness of the 'led his team to the playoffs' argument aside, you are literally arguing that Miguel Cabrera should get credit for the badness of other AL Central teams.
This post remains one of my favorite Fire Joe Morgan quotes of all time, in describing a similar issue with the 2008 NL MVP race
Players contribute runs (and through runs, wins), not playoff spots. Playoff spots are a combination of the individual player's achievements along with his teammates. The MVP is an individual award, not a team award, so accrediting Miguel Cabrera or Mike trout with the performance of the other 39 guys on the roster that helped get the Tigers to the playoffs, or of the other 4 AL Central and 3 AL West teams that led to each team's eventual playoff result is nonsensical.
The Angels would not be in the same spot with or without Trout, their record would be significantly worse. The same for Cabrera. However, the delta between their respective records is the value that player added, and Trout's is greater.

^why even argue? there's no point in it.

mike trout was a viable, even favored by advanced stats candidate to win the MVP.

the "underdog" cardinals last year, or the giants in 2010/2012 won the world series the outcome was determined by the two teams actually playing the game.

determining who's the MVP is an arbitrary process thats made by tallying votes by an arbitrary panel of voters. thats the game, thats the way they choose who's MVP.

sometimes the voters will realize that advanced statistics are relevant and award the winner according to who was the leader in such categories: 2010 Felix Hernandez

other times not.

derek jeter won the gold glove in 2010 facepalm.gif and was actually considered to be a MVP candidate this year facepalm.gif

you're just wasting your time really by engaging in argument... its almost like your masturbating with pages of bill james' historical abstract.
post #2212 of 5143
Quote:
Originally Posted by LawrenceMD View Post



derek jeter won the gold glove in 2010 facepalm.gif and was actually considered to be a MVP candidate this year facepalm.gif

Funnily enough Jeter actually wasn't as bad in 2010 as most other years. But still, yeah.

Quote:
^why even argue? there's no point in it.
...
you're just wasting your time really by engaging in argument... its almost like your masturbating with pages of bill james' historical abstract.

Uh, there's the most basic reason in the world to discuss/argue it. I believe the decision reached was the wrong one... That's why all arguments are had... And your example of a stat candidate winning, Felix Hernandez, only happened because people had those kind of discussions for decades...
post #2213 of 5143
Quote:
Originally Posted by staxringold View Post

Funnily enough Jeter actually wasn't as bad in 2010 as most other years. But still, yeah.
Uh, there's the most basic reason in the world to discuss/argue it. I believe the decision reached was the wrong one... That's why all arguments are had... And your example of a stat candidate winning, Felix Hernandez, only happened because people had those kind of discussions for decades...

^well no fucking duh. its turning into a vicious cycle where you're getting trolled though.

i'm just saying its a waste of time to argue that stats prove Mike trout is deserving of the MvP in a styleforum sub forum that mostly consists of Detroit fans and people not interested in the advanced statistics.

I remember trying to bring up the true hoop article about how Kobe Bryant isn't actually clutch (where they used numerous advanced stats) in the styleforum NBA sub forum [which consists of 95% laker fans] and you can only imagine the reaction.

I'm my experience its best to just keep quiet about the advanced stats then use advance stats for gambling purposes. like using the advanced stats for NBA individual Prop Bets. but casual encounters at the bar and in non stat forums usually you just end up getting trolled and wasting your time and energy.
post #2214 of 5143
null-32.png
post #2215 of 5143
Tori Hunter has been Tweeting asking for advice about a place to live next Spring/Summer/Fall. "It has to be near a Starbucks." Quite a few realtors have responded already.
post #2216 of 5143
This thread makes me laugh. Thanks fellas.
post #2217 of 5143
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve B. View Post

He won the Triple Crown. He went to the World Series. "Nuff Said.

Yeah, 1/3 of Triple Crown starts are not indicative of how well a player played so not exactly a strong argument. Nor is citing a team's performance a good sign of how well an individual played.

But then again, we've come to expect nothing less from Steve B.

Goodbye.

'Nuff said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LawrenceMD View Post

its just going to be harder to make the voters consider the stats when it comes to hitters especially in a year when someone wins the triple crown.

Which is a damn shame because the writers all have antiquated views of baseball and rely on narratives, not, you know, actual performances when determining their awards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LawrenceMD View Post

of course the triple crown is winning three fucking arbitrary stats, just like the Kentucky derby, Prekness, and Belmont races is totally fucking arbitrarily winning three random races in a row.

The horseracing Triple Crown winner isn't exactly comparable, first there are several derbies and races betwixt the three, they are only open to one specific type of horse, they attract the best competitors and the Breeders Cup winner is the superior thoroughbred.
post #2218 of 5143
Quote:
Originally Posted by edinatlanta View Post

Yeah, 1/3 of Triple Crown starts are not indicative of how well a player played so not exactly a strong argument. Nor is citing a team's performance a good sign of how well an individual played.
But then again, we've come to expect nothing less from Steve B.
Goodbye.
'Nuff said.
Which is a damn shame because the writers all have antiquated views of baseball and rely on narratives, not, you know, actual performances when determining their awards.
The horseracing Triple Crown winner isn't exactly comparable, first there are several derbies and races betwixt the three, they are only open to one specific type of horse, they attract the best competitors and the Breeders Cup winner is the superior thoroughbred.


Yep. I'm predictable. grumpy. old. But I like myself. Do you?
post #2219 of 5143
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdeuce22 View Post

null-32.png

MiguelCabreraClutch.gif
post #2220 of 5143
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › 2016 MLB Season Thread