STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
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!
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.
FJM said:"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.
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)
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.
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.
derek jeter won the gold glove in 2010 and was actually considered to be a MVP candidate this year
^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.
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...
He won the Triple Crown. He went to the World Series. "Nuff Said.
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.
of course the triple crown is winning three ******* arbitrary stats, just like the Kentucky derby, Prekness, and Belmont races is totally ******* arbitrarily winning three random races in a row.
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.