Discussion in 'Entertainment, Culture, and Sports' started by edinatlanta, Feb 3, 2011.
He won the Triple Crown. He went to the World Series. "Nuff Said.
4/9 Triple Crown winners before Miggy didn't win the MVP. MVP voting ends before the playoff begin, let alone the World Series. Not nuff said.
I remember getting into stats then just being delated when Barry Zito won over Pedro because zito had more "wins". I don't even want to look at Pedro's stats that year, but its fucking mind numbing how stupid the voters were.
2002 was bad enough of a cy young snub, but even 2003 was debatable then and totally obvious now.
the year Felix Hernandez won was a bit of a paradigm shift that stats are relevant especially in the absence of any other real contender (stats wise), but things like the triple crown are a bit of a holy grail of sports accomplishments.
its akin to horses winning the triple crown of horse racing. there could be another horse that has better stats ... started in the furthest gate and traveled more distance in the same given time each race, but what the people want is the horse that wins the race.
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.
You're equating 'stats' with some pretty arbitrary stats, which really undercuts the point. Actually useful statistics measure precisely what happened on the field, allowing you to discuss who did what to benefit their team without the failures of human memories, the biases of the human condition, and just general emotion.
There is not an argument under which Miguel Cabrera generated more value for his team than Mike Trout did. Including the old 'playoff argument' (which has it's own logical failings), because THE ANGELS WON MORE GAMES AGAINST A HARDER SCHEDULE.
Maybe not an argument in numbers but a player is more than what he produces on the field. Hence the soul sucking of the statistics only crowd.
^dude I'm actually agreeing with you that stats are relevant but you're coming off as a "I know more than you" dick.
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.
but people place importance on those numbers and give it meaning. thats the reality.
the whole debate amongst people right now even considering Trout for MVP is progress, in lieu of someone winning the triple crown and being the focal point of offense of a playoff team that went to the world series.
What. What value does a player add to his team other than what he does between the lines 162 times max a season?
Being a good clubhouse guy and such? Is there anyone on Earth who thinks Trout was a clubhouse cancer or something?
Jersey sales? I guess that's monetary value.
I was sharing in your anger...
These players do not exist insulated from the rest of their team. To ignore the effect players have on other players is shortsighted. Do you think Teixeira would play as well if Padilla was in the dugout and practicing alongside him?
here's my argument - you suck and nobody gives a shit about your counterargument.
I wouldn't put too much stock in this because it wasn't really so rare back then-kind of like a 30 game winning pitcher. Mickey Mantle was offered a 17k salary cut for not winning the triple crown again in '57.
SABR can suck a donkey dick.
45 years since the last Triple Crown Winner. Much harder to do nowadays.
Miggy does it year in and year out.
Let's see how Trout does next year. I'm betting a bunch of fantasy gurus will rate him no. 1 and he'll end up 50.
Nate Silver developed PECOTA. Remember how he did picking the last 2 presidential elections.
PLUS Trout plays for the Angels.
Was the award name changed to Player to Accomplish a Feat Not Recently Accomplished Award?
No one will rank him #1. And when was the MVP changed to a lifetime achievement award rather than being awarded for an individual season? Will they take away Tim Lincecum's CYAs if he doesn't get his career back on track?
Uhhh, huh? He did incredibly well and thinks Trout is the MVP...
A team that won more games than the Tigers against a harder schedule.
Why does the rarity of an event make it more valuable?
I said none of those things. Strawman away though.
I'm asking what things off the field did Miggy do better than Trout such that he deserves the MVP
K. Again, not even SABR. Just basic looking at players and not going glassy eyed at a cool historical achievement.
Separate names with a comma.