All Forums > SimLeague Baseball > MLB > Cabrera won MVP
11/17/2013 12:49 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 11/17/2013 12:42:00 PM (view original):
Let's change it from $50 cash to something else.

burnsy gives both me and bad_luck a $50 gift card to the local cigar shop.

I don't smoke, in fact I can't stand cigars.  But BL is a cigar aficianado.

Does that $50 gift card have the same value to both of us?
No, but could you trade the gc for something that is valuable to you? I'm 100% certain that the Angels could get a shitload in return if they wanted to trade Trout, he has value to every team.

We don't need to use analogies for this. Baseball players have quantifiable values. A team with X amount of production plus Trout will win more games than a team with X amount of production plus Cabrera.
11/17/2013 1:43 PM
YOU seem to feel that baseball players have quantifiable values due to your blind obedience to "WAR, ************!!".

There's more to baseball than just numbers on a webpage.
11/17/2013 2:05 PM
Of course there is, but without using WAR we can see that Cabrera was a better hitter and Trout was better at defense and base running. In my opinion, the difference between the two offensively was smaller than the difference defensively and on the base paths.

Regardless of MVP voting, that is an opinion that is shared by many front offices.
11/17/2013 4:06 PM
About ten of them...out of thirty
11/17/2013 4:08 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/17/2013 11:58:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/17/2013 11:50:00 AM (view original):
I always think of the MVP award as going to "the person who most contributed to his team's success".

If a team doesn't have much success, then there's really not much value to be contributed.
Is that Cabrera, though? He was surrounded by stars. The Tigers likely make the playoffs with or without him.

Again, I don't have a problem if someone thinks Cabrera was the best player in the league. I disagree, but it was a lot closer this year than it was last year, where Trout was clearly better.

Arguing that Cabrera was more valuable simply because the Tigers surrounded him with better players is stupid.
In the year that Cabrera won the TRIPLE ******* CROWN, you still say Trout was better. You are just beyond reach. Trout is a clear second. End...of...story.
11/17/2013 6:00 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/17/2013 12:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/17/2013 12:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/15/2013 3:24:00 PM (view original):
OK, so money is a tool I use to get "stuff."  If you offer me differing amount of money so I can get "stuff," if the amounts of money you are offering me doesn't accomplish anything for me, it's not enough to get the "stuff" I need, does the differing amounts of money matter? Does it matter if you're offering me $50 or $25?
 
There is an amount of money that I'd find valuable. But you can't offer it to me.

And again, you're back to "it has no value to you, but it does." Can you explain further?
Taking the analogy back to baseball, no one player, even the best ever, can take a bad team to the playoffs. So there is no single donation that has any value to you. But $50 is still more valuable overall than $25.
You are 100% correct here. There was no player that could have made the Angels a playoff team. So no player on that team is really of much value to the Angels, just like you cannot offer me a dollar amount that would allow me to get what I need.

"But $50 is still more valuable overall than $25." Yes, in a vacuum. And as I said over and over again, there are voters who don't look at the award that way. They think "value to their respective team" rather than the way you see it - "overall." If that's the case, Trout really isn't that valuable to the Angels, and not nearly as valuable to his team as Miggy is to the Tigers, as you admitted that they don't make the playoffs without him.

Again, you can disagree with them, and think that voters who think that way are wrong. I do too. But I certainly understand the argument, which you can't seem to for some reason.
11/17/2013 6:03 PM
Posted by rsp777 on 11/17/2013 4:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/17/2013 11:58:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/17/2013 11:50:00 AM (view original):
I always think of the MVP award as going to "the person who most contributed to his team's success".

If a team doesn't have much success, then there's really not much value to be contributed.
Is that Cabrera, though? He was surrounded by stars. The Tigers likely make the playoffs with or without him.

Again, I don't have a problem if someone thinks Cabrera was the best player in the league. I disagree, but it was a lot closer this year than it was last year, where Trout was clearly better.

Arguing that Cabrera was more valuable simply because the Tigers surrounded him with better players is stupid.
In the year that Cabrera won the TRIPLE ******* CROWN, you still say Trout was better. You are just beyond reach. Trout is a clear second. End...of...story.
"TRIPLE ******* CROWN" is a terrible arguement. It is certainly possible for a player to win the triple crown and not be the best player, as there are easily better ways to judge a players performance than to use BA, HRs and RBI. I'd argue this was the case last year.
11/17/2013 6:07 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/17/2013 6:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/17/2013 12:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/17/2013 12:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/15/2013 3:24:00 PM (view original):
OK, so money is a tool I use to get "stuff."  If you offer me differing amount of money so I can get "stuff," if the amounts of money you are offering me doesn't accomplish anything for me, it's not enough to get the "stuff" I need, does the differing amounts of money matter? Does it matter if you're offering me $50 or $25?
 
There is an amount of money that I'd find valuable. But you can't offer it to me.

And again, you're back to "it has no value to you, but it does." Can you explain further?
Taking the analogy back to baseball, no one player, even the best ever, can take a bad team to the playoffs. So there is no single donation that has any value to you. But $50 is still more valuable overall than $25.
You are 100% correct here. There was no player that could have made the Angels a playoff team. So no player on that team is really of much value to the Angels, just like you cannot offer me a dollar amount that would allow me to get what I need.

"But $50 is still more valuable overall than $25." Yes, in a vacuum. And as I said over and over again, there are voters who don't look at the award that way. They think "value to their respective team" rather than the way you see it - "overall." If that's the case, Trout really isn't that valuable to the Angels, and not nearly as valuable to his team as Miggy is to the Tigers, as you admitted that they don't make the playoffs without him.

Again, you can disagree with them, and think that voters who think that way are wrong. I do too. But I certainly understand the argument, which you can't seem to for some reason.
Of course I understand the argument. I think it's ridiculous.
11/17/2013 6:09 PM
What I genuinely don't understand, though, is if Trout doesn't have value because the Angels didn't make the playoffs, why vote him second? If he's less valuable than Cabrera, he's less valuable than Donaldson, Longoria, and Ellsbury.
11/17/2013 6:37 PM
Cabrera had an outstanding year.  Trout had an outstanding year.

Nobody else in the AL really comes close to those two.  So you have to find something to further differentiate between Cabrera and Trout.  

Cabrera's team won 93 games.  Trout's team won 78 games.

There's your differentiation.  Cabrera provided outstanding value to a winning team.  Trout provided outstanding value to a losing team.

Nobody wants to reward a loser.  Unless you've drank the lefty Kool-Aid.
11/17/2013 9:48 PM (edited)
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/17/2013 6:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by rsp777 on 11/17/2013 4:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/17/2013 11:58:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/17/2013 11:50:00 AM (view original):
I always think of the MVP award as going to "the person who most contributed to his team's success".

If a team doesn't have much success, then there's really not much value to be contributed.
Is that Cabrera, though? He was surrounded by stars. The Tigers likely make the playoffs with or without him.

Again, I don't have a problem if someone thinks Cabrera was the best player in the league. I disagree, but it was a lot closer this year than it was last year, where Trout was clearly better.

Arguing that Cabrera was more valuable simply because the Tigers surrounded him with better players is stupid.
In the year that Cabrera won the TRIPLE ******* CROWN, you still say Trout was better. You are just beyond reach. Trout is a clear second. End...of...story.
"TRIPLE ******* CROWN" is a terrible arguement. It is certainly possible for a player to win the triple crown and not be the best player, as there are easily better ways to judge a players performance than to use BA, HRs and RBI. I'd argue this was the case last year.
No, it's really not. BA, HR and RBI are pretty much the HISTORICAL standard-bearer regardless of what all of you stat-geeks will say. It comes down to PRODUCTION. And those three offensive stats measure it better than pretty much everything. You can overanalyze it all you want, but Cabrera outproduced Trout, hands-down. WOW!!! He can run the bases better...which in the overall picture is about what, 3 percent of a players worth, maybe 5. Yeah, Trout is solid defensively, but Cabby is no slouch at third other than his range. He makes the plays he should make 98 percent of the time. Bring on all of the advanced bullshit you can muster, Miggy was the MVP the last TWO years, without question, which is obvious because the people who matter, those who actually VOTE on the award, gave it to him in BOTH years. Trout<Miggy.......plain and simple. And you ***** who keep arguing the point are just being stat-geek contrarians. Give it the **** up already. The award has been given...for TWO STRAIGHT YEARS, and it went to CABRERA. Your boy is 2nd best. And I'd wager that 80 percent of the free ******* world agrees.
11/17/2013 11:04 PM
If you hypothetically trade Miggy and Trout, which team improves? I would argue its the Angels, who have Bourjos who can step in and play the outfield above replacement level, whereas the Tigers have no clear options at third that are decent since they moved Castellanos to the outfield. Ramon Santiago? Andy Dirks? Plus either Trout or Jackson would take a hit on value, moving to left field, in terms of WAR. (+2.5 runs for CF to -7.5 for LF)

Therefore I would argue Miguel Cabrera, in the context of 2013, is the more valuable player.

Disclaimer: I understand you can't do this hypothetical swap with every team. You can't, for example, swap Jose Altuve and Trout (or Cabrera) and wonder which team will improve more.

11/18/2013 10:00 AM
Posted by masterdebate on 11/17/2013 11:04:00 PM (view original):
If you hypothetically trade Miggy and Trout, which team improves? I would argue its the Angels, who have Bourjos who can step in and play the outfield above replacement level, whereas the Tigers have no clear options at third that are decent since they moved Castellanos to the outfield. Ramon Santiago? Andy Dirks? Plus either Trout or Jackson would take a hit on value, moving to left field, in terms of WAR. (+2.5 runs for CF to -7.5 for LF)

Therefore I would argue Miguel Cabrera, in the context of 2013, is the more valuable player.

Disclaimer: I understand you can't do this hypothetical swap with every team. You can't, for example, swap Jose Altuve and Trout (or Cabrera) and wonder which team will improve more.

Of cours trading straight won't work for the Tigers as well as the Angels. Not because of who is being traded but because of the lack of a replacement for Cabrera.

But if two hypothetical equal teams each had a hole at CF and 3B, the team that gets Trout will win more games.
11/18/2013 10:03 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/17/2013 6:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/17/2013 6:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/17/2013 12:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/17/2013 12:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/15/2013 3:24:00 PM (view original):
OK, so money is a tool I use to get "stuff."  If you offer me differing amount of money so I can get "stuff," if the amounts of money you are offering me doesn't accomplish anything for me, it's not enough to get the "stuff" I need, does the differing amounts of money matter? Does it matter if you're offering me $50 or $25?
 
There is an amount of money that I'd find valuable. But you can't offer it to me.

And again, you're back to "it has no value to you, but it does." Can you explain further?
Taking the analogy back to baseball, no one player, even the best ever, can take a bad team to the playoffs. So there is no single donation that has any value to you. But $50 is still more valuable overall than $25.
You are 100% correct here. There was no player that could have made the Angels a playoff team. So no player on that team is really of much value to the Angels, just like you cannot offer me a dollar amount that would allow me to get what I need.

"But $50 is still more valuable overall than $25." Yes, in a vacuum. And as I said over and over again, there are voters who don't look at the award that way. They think "value to their respective team" rather than the way you see it - "overall." If that's the case, Trout really isn't that valuable to the Angels, and not nearly as valuable to his team as Miggy is to the Tigers, as you admitted that they don't make the playoffs without him.

Again, you can disagree with them, and think that voters who think that way are wrong. I do too. But I certainly understand the argument, which you can't seem to for some reason.
Of course I understand the argument. I think it's ridiculous.

It's the first time you acknowledged you understand the argument.  You've continuously responded to the explanation of the argument with "no, better means more valuable."  When you say that, it seems you lack the mental capacity to understand other arguments.

11/18/2013 10:05 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/17/2013 6:09:00 PM (view original):
What I genuinely don't understand, though, is if Trout doesn't have value because the Angels didn't make the playoffs, why vote him second? If he's less valuable than Cabrera, he's less valuable than Donaldson, Longoria, and Ellsbury.
Because it's not as black and white as my analogy. You can have value to a team, even if you don't make the playoffs.  Of course the Angels were thrilled to have Trout this season.  He adds value to the organization with his immense talent.
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.