Discussion in 'Entertainment, Culture, and Sports' started by edinatlanta, Feb 3, 2011.
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.
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.
^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 and was actually considered to be a MVP candidate this year
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...
^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.
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.
This thread makes me laugh. Thanks fellas.
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.
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?
Jays just signed Melky Cabrera: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-b...elky-cabrera-two-years-16-195901094--mlb.html
Separate names with a comma.