All Forums > SimLeague Baseball > MLB > Ripping off ESPN -> Trout vs Cabrera MVP
10/4/2012 1:24 PM
"but at least you aren't arguing retarded **** like "the Tigers made the playoffs with a worse record so Cabrera should get it." Or  "the rest of the Tigers were way shittier than the Angels so Cabrera should get it."

Show me proof that either of these is an argument somebody's given.
10/4/2012 1:28 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 10/4/2012 1:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2012 1:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/4/2012 1:05:00 PM (view original):
I think it's close enough to debate.  The simple fact that his team achieved a pre-season goal whereas Trout's team fell short only helps Cabrera's case.

Do you understand the meaning and context of valuable yet?
Absolutely. Trout was more valuable this year. Based on, you know, things he did on the baseball field.

Not based on things he couldn't control like how bad the White Sox finished the year and how his teammates were better than Cabrera's teammates. 
I'd tell you again that he wasn't as valuable to the Angels as you're arguing he is, unless you think 3rd place in the division is very important to them, rather than finishing in last.  But you wouldn't understand my argument.
The Angels had a better record than the Tigers.
10/4/2012 1:29 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 10/4/2012 1:24:00 PM (view original):
"but at least you aren't arguing retarded **** like "the Tigers made the playoffs with a worse record so Cabrera should get it." Or  "the rest of the Tigers were way shittier than the Angels so Cabrera should get it."

Show me proof that either of these is an argument somebody's given.
You just did. See my post above. And the 7 pages where Mike argued that the tie breaker should be the fact that the Tigers made the playoffs despite the Angels better overall record.
10/4/2012 1:34 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2012 1:29:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 10/4/2012 1:24:00 PM (view original):
"but at least you aren't arguing retarded **** like "the Tigers made the playoffs with a worse record so Cabrera should get it." Or  "the rest of the Tigers were way shittier than the Angels so Cabrera should get it."

Show me proof that either of these is an argument somebody's given.
You just did. See my post above. And the 7 pages where Mike argued that the tie breaker should be the fact that the Tigers made the playoffs despite the Angels better overall record.
I don't argue that "the Tigers made the playoffs with a worse record so Cabrera should get it." The worst record part has nothing to do with anything.  I mentioned that making the playoffs is the goal, and Cabrera is more valuable to the Tigers than Trout is to the Angels, because they helped to accomplish that goal, and Trout did not.  But I've learned by now that you're unable or unwilling to see that as a valid argument, despite the fact that many other people feel this way.
10/4/2012 1:35 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 10/4/2012 1:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/4/2012 12:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/4/2012 12:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/4/2012 11:52:00 AM (view original):
Now, to put that into the context of this discussion, the MVP is given to the Most VALUABLE Player not the player with the best stats.   Maybe they're the same guy, maybe they aren't.
Isn't WAR intended to be an objective way of assessing a player's value to his team?

Mike Trout's value is 10.7 wins above a replacement level CF.
Miguel Cabrera's value is 6.9 wins above a replacement level 3B.

Isn't 10.7 greater than 6.9?
WAR is a stat.    Please see:   "the MVP is given to the Most VALUABLE Player not the player with the best stats"
WAR is a stat that objectively quantifies value.  With VALUE being the root of the world VALUABLE.
Did you have an issue with dWAR earlier?  

Are you saying you're completely comfortable with WAR despite that?
10/4/2012 1:36 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2012 1:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/4/2012 1:05:00 PM (view original):
I think it's close enough to debate.  The simple fact that his team achieved a pre-season goal whereas Trout's team fell short only helps Cabrera's case.

Do you understand the meaning and context of valuable yet?
Absolutely. Trout was more valuable this year. Based on, you know, things he did on the baseball field.

Not based on things he couldn't control like how bad the White Sox finished the year and how his teammates were better than Cabrera's teammates. 
Your answer should have been "No, I don't think I understand it yet."
10/4/2012 1:37 PM
I don't use the baseball reference WAR calculation because they use Total Zone for defense not UZR. Post 2002 Fangraphs WAR calculations use UZR, which is a much more accurate metric.
10/4/2012 1:37 PM
Tampa Bay had a better record, too.  Tigers are in the playoffs because of the division they play in.  Congrats to them, but I don't see why that would be an argument for Cabrera over Trout or anyone else.  I think Cabrera is the first triple crown winner to not lead his league in WAR, which is interesting.
10/4/2012 1:38 PM
I won't back away from what I said initially back on page whatever.

If one player is head and shoulders better than the rest, it would be very difficult to deny him the MVP.    If that's not the case, team success plays a part in the equation.   Detroit plays Saturday, the Angels start working on next year.   Advantage: Cabrera
10/4/2012 1:39 PM
Posted by trsnoke on 10/4/2012 1:37:00 PM (view original):
Tampa Bay had a better record, too.  Tigers are in the playoffs because of the division they play in.  Congrats to them, but I don't see why that would be an argument for Cabrera over Trout or anyone else.  I think Cabrera is the first triple crown winner to not lead his league in WAR, which is interesting.
Perhaps WAR is flawed?
10/4/2012 1:39 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/4/2012 1:36:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2012 1:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/4/2012 1:05:00 PM (view original):
I think it's close enough to debate.  The simple fact that his team achieved a pre-season goal whereas Trout's team fell short only helps Cabrera's case.

Do you understand the meaning and context of valuable yet?
Absolutely. Trout was more valuable this year. Based on, you know, things he did on the baseball field.

Not based on things he couldn't control like how bad the White Sox finished the year and how his teammates were better than Cabrera's teammates. 
Your answer should have been "No, I don't think I understand it yet."
Trout was better than Cabrera. The better player is more valuable. Always.
10/4/2012 1:39 PM
I quickly just asked 2 friends who know baseball who should win.  The responses were A) The Angels didn't make the playoffs. (he didn't even give an answer, just that statement) and B) Cabrera. Trout wins Most Valuable Fish.
10/4/2012 1:39 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/27/2012 9:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Jtpsops on 9/19/2012 10:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 9/19/2012 6:38:00 PM (view original):
The best player in the league is by definition the most valuable, regardless of how good his teammates are.
Depends how you interpret valuable. If you're just looking purely at the value of a player, I'd agree with you. If you're also looking at his value to his team, then that's not always the case.

If the Angels miss the playoffs, they would have done it with or without Trout. If the Tigers make it, I guarantee you they wouldn't have if Cabrera wasn't there. And vice versa if the Angels make it and the Tigers don't. Which is why I think it's a very easy decision if only one of those teams makes the playoffs.

As I said, making the playoffs isn't a prerequisite for winning the award. If neither the Angels or Tigers make it, Trout or Cabby will still win. But if two guys are close, playoffs are a legitimate tiebreaker.

FWIW, and it pains me to say it, jtpops makes some sense.

The objective is to win games and reach the post-season.    If one guy just demolishes the competition, it's not really an issue.   If it's close, it makes perfect sense to say "What do these teams do without those guys?"    If one sneaks into the playoffs and the other does not, why shouldn't the scale tilt toward the player on the team that actually accomplished a pre-season goal?


I feel dirty.

Here you go.
10/4/2012 1:42 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2012 1:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/4/2012 1:36:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2012 1:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/4/2012 1:05:00 PM (view original):
I think it's close enough to debate.  The simple fact that his team achieved a pre-season goal whereas Trout's team fell short only helps Cabrera's case.

Do you understand the meaning and context of valuable yet?
Absolutely. Trout was more valuable this year. Based on, you know, things he did on the baseball field.

Not based on things he couldn't control like how bad the White Sox finished the year and how his teammates were better than Cabrera's teammates. 
Your answer should have been "No, I don't think I understand it yet."
Trout was better than Cabrera. The better player is more valuable. Always.
Nope.  You still don't get it.

Let's try this:

Assuming Hamilton continues on the same path he has, does he get Jeter money when he's 37?

The answer is "No."    Now is it because he can't put up Jeter numbers?   Or are there other circumstances in play?

That said, don't teams pay their "most valuable" players the most?
10/4/2012 1:45 PM
Honestly, this is the problem with statgeeks.   They need everything in a tiny little formula.   They can't fathom the thought that there are other circumstances or outside forces in play.    'THE FORMULA!!!!!  THE FORMULA!!!!!!"
of 42
All Forums > SimLeague Baseball > MLB > Ripping off ESPN -> Trout vs Cabrera MVP

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.