All Forums > SimLeague Baseball > MLB > Cabrera won MVP
11/16/2013 1:55 PM
Look, it's OBVIOUS that bad_luck is a fucktard. He's MASSIVELY exposed that in these last few pages. Cabby was better. End of story. The right guy won the award.
11/16/2013 2:03 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2013 12:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/16/2013 12:08:00 PM (view original):
Since BL won't I will (emphasis mine):

"I also hear the Trout proponents make the point that the Cabrera supporters are ignoring Cabrera's mediocre September (when his batting average was just .278, with only two extra-base hits all month).

Well, I, for one, am not ignoring it. It ought to be a factor, for any voter. But I also think Cabrera's September vividly defines the difference between his team and Trout's team.

If Miguel Cabrera played for Mike Trout's team -- a team that finished 18 games out of first place and spent exactly one day above .500 all season -- hey, guess what?

He never would have had that mediocre September -- because he wouldn't have been playing.

He was a guy who spent that whole month (and October) battling a groin/abdomen injury that was so severe, he required surgery right after the season. And here's something I've noticed about players on losing teams who are that seriously injured:

Their teams shut them down.

There's no reason for them to battle through the pain and the limitations at the end of a lost season. So they pack it in.

But as Cabrera told us in October, once the Tigers had finally been eliminated, he felt he had to play because his team was trying to win. And he understood what his presence meant to a team that needed to keep pushing, all the way to the finish line.

Because he felt that way, he staggered through the last five weeks of the season -- and still finished with a stat line so incredible (.348/.442/.636/1.078/44 HR) that only two other right-handed hitters in the history of baseball (Jimmie Foxx and Hack Wilson) have ever matched or beaten it.

So please. Can the folks on the Trout side stop writing and/or screaming that those 23 MVP voters who cast their first-place votes for Miguel Cabrera were "wrong," or just a bunch of dopes who made a "bad" choice?"

You didn't need to quote the entire thing. You could have just summed it up like this:

Trout was clearly the best player in baseball in 2013. But, because the rest of Trout's team sucked, Stark thinks the MVP should go to the second most valuable player in the league.
Still...you...do...not...know...what...MVP...means?  Are you illiterate and use Dragon to speak your mind on here?
11/16/2013 2:31 PM
BL amuses me.  Like a clown.
11/16/2013 2:35 PM
Posted by raucous on 11/16/2013 2:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2013 12:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/16/2013 12:08:00 PM (view original):
Since BL won't I will (emphasis mine):

"I also hear the Trout proponents make the point that the Cabrera supporters are ignoring Cabrera's mediocre September (when his batting average was just .278, with only two extra-base hits all month).

Well, I, for one, am not ignoring it. It ought to be a factor, for any voter. But I also think Cabrera's September vividly defines the difference between his team and Trout's team.

If Miguel Cabrera played for Mike Trout's team -- a team that finished 18 games out of first place and spent exactly one day above .500 all season -- hey, guess what?

He never would have had that mediocre September -- because he wouldn't have been playing.

He was a guy who spent that whole month (and October) battling a groin/abdomen injury that was so severe, he required surgery right after the season. And here's something I've noticed about players on losing teams who are that seriously injured:

Their teams shut them down.

There's no reason for them to battle through the pain and the limitations at the end of a lost season. So they pack it in.

But as Cabrera told us in October, once the Tigers had finally been eliminated, he felt he had to play because his team was trying to win. And he understood what his presence meant to a team that needed to keep pushing, all the way to the finish line.

Because he felt that way, he staggered through the last five weeks of the season -- and still finished with a stat line so incredible (.348/.442/.636/1.078/44 HR) that only two other right-handed hitters in the history of baseball (Jimmie Foxx and Hack Wilson) have ever matched or beaten it.

So please. Can the folks on the Trout side stop writing and/or screaming that those 23 MVP voters who cast their first-place votes for Miguel Cabrera were "wrong," or just a bunch of dopes who made a "bad" choice?"

You didn't need to quote the entire thing. You could have just summed it up like this:

Trout was clearly the best player in baseball in 2013. But, because the rest of Trout's team sucked, Stark thinks the MVP should go to the second most valuable player in the league.
Still...you...do...not...know...what...MVP...means?  Are you illiterate and use Dragon to speak your mind on here?
Most valuable is by definition the best. Had the Tigers received Trout's production instead of Cabrera's, they would have won more games.
11/16/2013 2:44 PM
"Most valuable is by definition the best."

By your definition, maybe.  Not by everybody else's.

That's the part you don't seem to understand.  Or just refuse to understand.
11/16/2013 2:51 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 11/16/2013 2:44:00 PM (view original):
"Most valuable is by definition the best."

By your definition, maybe.  Not by everybody else's.

That's the part you don't seem to understand.  Or just refuse to understand.
We can argue about it all you want but it makes no sense to call a player most valuable if he wasn't the most valuable. Had the tigers swapped Trouts production for Cabrera's, they would have won more games.

By your logic, Trout had less value than Tori Hunter because Hunter helped get the Tigers to the playoffs and Trout didn't. Makes zero sense.
11/16/2013 3:04 PM
I never know in these kinds of arguments if people are just trolling or really think that calling people names and spouting opinions will change minds.

This is not a science. It's an opinion. That's why there is a vote. 
11/16/2013 3:39 PM

valuable

 

/'vælyu?b?l, -y?b?l/ Show Spelled [val-yoo-uh-buhl, -yuh-buhl] Show IPA

adjective
1.
having considerable monetary worth; costing or bringing a high price: a valuable painting; a valuable crop.

2.
having qualities worthy of respect, admiration, or esteem: a valuable friend.

3.
of considerable use, service, or importance: valuable information.
noun

4.
Usually, valuables. articles of considerable value, as of personal property, especially those of relatively small size: They locked their valuables in the hotel safe.


It's definition Number 4 that makes Trout more valuable.  He's smaller than Cabrera, therefore he'd be easier to lock into a hotel safe - making him valuable.

11/16/2013 7:10 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2013 2:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/16/2013 2:44:00 PM (view original):
"Most valuable is by definition the best."

By your definition, maybe.  Not by everybody else's.

That's the part you don't seem to understand.  Or just refuse to understand.
We can argue about it all you want but it makes no sense to call a player most valuable if he wasn't the most valuable. Had the tigers swapped Trouts production for Cabrera's, they would have won more games.

By your logic, Trout had less value than Tori Hunter because Hunter helped get the Tigers to the playoffs and Trout didn't. Makes zero sense.
You know what else makes zero sense?

An MVP from a losing team.  Especially when you've got a guy with a .348/.442/.636 line from a 93 win team.

But, I digress . . . with you, it's all about WAR, ************!!!!!
11/16/2013 7:32 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 11/16/2013 7:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2013 2:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/16/2013 2:44:00 PM (view original):
"Most valuable is by definition the best."

By your definition, maybe.  Not by everybody else's.

That's the part you don't seem to understand.  Or just refuse to understand.
We can argue about it all you want but it makes no sense to call a player most valuable if he wasn't the most valuable. Had the tigers swapped Trouts production for Cabrera's, they would have won more games.

By your logic, Trout had less value than Tori Hunter because Hunter helped get the Tigers to the playoffs and Trout didn't. Makes zero sense.
You know what else makes zero sense?

An MVP from a losing team.  Especially when you've got a guy with a .348/.442/.636 line from a 93 win team.

But, I digress . . . with you, it's all about WAR, ************!!!!!
Why doesn't that make sense? Of all sports, baseball is least determined by one player. The Angels sucked because they had no pitching. Trout was still better and more valuable than any player in the league.
11/16/2013 9:19 PM
For a losing team.

Maybe if the award was "Most Valuable Loser", you'd have a winning argument.
11/16/2013 9:21 PM
Well, he did finish second. So it seems like, even on a losing team, the voters thought he was more valuable than every player on every winning team, other than Cabrera.
11/16/2013 9:33 PM
He finished second because he got a lot of second place votes.  As in (1) Cabrera and (2) Trout.

He also got third, fourth, fifth and seventh place votes.  So not everybody thought he was "more valuable than every player on every winning team".

But, I know . . . they're all fucktards because they don't agree with you.

Maybe you should send them all "WAR, ************!!!" emails.
11/16/2013 10:17 PM
Posted by rsp777 on 11/15/2013 11:58:00 PM (view original):
Posted by trsnoke on 11/15/2013 11:17:00 PM (view original):
I wish a voter had put Fielder, Austin, Jackson, Martinez, Hunter, etc. before Trout.  Stupid, inconsistent voters.
Austin and Jackson are the same guy noke.
That's funny.  I guess he was so good I had to list him twice.
11/16/2013 11:23 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 11/16/2013 9:33:00 PM (view original):
He finished second because he got a lot of second place votes.  As in (1) Cabrera and (2) Trout.

He also got third, fourth, fifth and seventh place votes.  So not everybody thought he was "more valuable than every player on every winning team".

But, I know . . . they're all fucktards because they don't agree with you.

Maybe you should send them all "WAR, ************!!!" emails.
He also had plenty of first place votes.

If the rational for voting Cabrera first is: Cabrera was better. Fine.
If the rational is: the Tigers made the playoffs. Retarded.
of 35
All Forums > SimLeague Baseball > MLB > Cabrera won 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.