All Forums > SimLeague Baseball > MLB > Mike Trout turned 22 yesterday.
8/10/2013 11:17 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 8/10/2013 11:01:00 AM (view original):
Yup. Again, if the argument is DERRR TRIPLE CROWN there's no changing most of those people's minds. By this logic, if a couple of Trouts liners for outs fell for hits, Miggy is suddenly much less valuable. Or if Triple Crown meant runs, BA and homers.
No, if his team didn't make the Playoffs, his triple crown becomes less valuable.

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.
8/10/2013 11:30 AM
I think your aunt growing balls is slightly less likely Trout getting a few more hits over a baseball season. Should a couple hits sway your mind from "obvious MVP" to "maybe not MVP" so easily?
8/10/2013 11:41 AM
Well, being that neither happened last year, I'd say they were just as likely.  If and or but's are fun to talk about, but we are talking about reality in this case.  If Trout had gotten a few more hits and won the batting title, I definitely would look harder at him for MVP because he was the best hitter in the league...but he wasn't. 

A few more wins from the Angels might have made me look harder at Trout also, but again, those wins are woulda/shoulda/coulda.

8/10/2013 12:13 PM
But why would a few more wins for the Angels make a difference when they already had more wins than the Tigers?  As did the Rays, another non-playoff team.  That's fine if you prefer Miggy, but I don't understand why people use the "his team made the playoffs" argument in this age of multiple divisions and wildcards.  Maybe it would have had some merit when there was one playoff team from each league.
8/10/2013 12:14 PM
I said it before but "valuable" is part of the process.    No, the third string catcher on Detroit is not more valuable than Trout because Detroit played in the post-season.    However, Cabrera is not a third string catcher.   He was the best hitter on a post-season team and his numbers compared well to Trout's. 
8/10/2013 12:23 PM
Posted by The Taint on 8/10/2013 11:41:00 AM (view original):
Well, being that neither happened last year, I'd say they were just as likely.  If and or but's are fun to talk about, but we are talking about reality in this case.  If Trout had gotten a few more hits and won the batting title, I definitely would look harder at him for MVP because he was the best hitter in the league...but he wasn't. 

A few more wins from the Angels might have made me look harder at Trout also, but again, those wins are woulda/shoulda/coulda.

Yes, except making the playoffs is much more significant than a batting title.
8/10/2013 1:55 PM
Posted by The Taint on 8/10/2013 12:00:00 AM (view original):
Posted by raucous on 8/9/2013 5:40:00 PM (view original):
...and nobody is valuable if they are playing golf on October 1st.
this bears repeating.  I can't believe a real baseball fan, that wasn't an Angels homer, would think that Trout was more valuable than Cabrera.  The dude won the triple crown and his team made the playoffs.  Case closed....save your DWAR and FIP and BABBBbip/ops+3.14/2.3.  case closed cubicle nerd.


That's just dumb, Taint. Cabrera had a great year but he isn't magically more valuable because he won the triple crown. It's a cool thing but Cabrera wouldn't have been less valuable if Josh Hamilton had hit 2 more home runs.

Trout's team won one more game than Detroit. Detroit only made the playoffs because they play in a weaker division. As dumb as it is to base individual awards on team performance, it's way dumber to base an individual award on the performance of other teams in the division.

Individual awards should be decided by individual performance. If you think Cabrera's offensive performance was so much better than Trout's that it overcomes Trout's advantages in the field and on the bases, I'll disagree but it's a reasonable argument.
8/10/2013 3:16 PM
DERRRR TRIPLE CROWN!!!
8/10/2013 3:20 PM
Player A: .330 AVG, 35 homers, 120 RBI, below average defender, 0 steals

Player B: .328 AVG, 33 homers, 117 RBI, above average defender, 40 steals

It's a hypothetical, yes, but who had a better year? Does it matter if Player A led the league on those first 3 categories?
8/10/2013 6:06 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2013 1:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 8/10/2013 12:00:00 AM (view original):
Posted by raucous on 8/9/2013 5:40:00 PM (view original):
...and nobody is valuable if they are playing golf on October 1st.
this bears repeating.  I can't believe a real baseball fan, that wasn't an Angels homer, would think that Trout was more valuable than Cabrera.  The dude won the triple crown and his team made the playoffs.  Case closed....save your DWAR and FIP and BABBBbip/ops+3.14/2.3.  case closed cubicle nerd.


That's just dumb, Taint. Cabrera had a great year but he isn't magically more valuable because he won the triple crown. It's a cool thing but Cabrera wouldn't have been less valuable if Josh Hamilton had hit 2 more home runs.

Trout's team won one more game than Detroit. Detroit only made the playoffs because they play in a weaker division. As dumb as it is to base individual awards on team performance, it's way dumber to base an individual award on the performance of other teams in the division.

Individual awards should be decided by individual performance. If you think Cabrera's offensive performance was so much better than Trout's that it overcomes Trout's advantages in the field and on the bases, I'll disagree but it's a reasonable argument.
HE'S BETTER BECAUSE HE HIT 14 MORE HOME RUNS, DROVE IN 56 MORE RIBS, HAD A HIGHER BATTING AVERAGE, PLAYED IN 22 MORE GAMES, PRODUCED 60+ MORE TOTAL BASES, HAD LIKE 35 MORE RUNS SCORED+RBI, AND LED HIS SQUAD TO A PLAYOFF BERTH.  This really shouldn't even be an argument imho
8/10/2013 6:27 PM

Hell, even Prince Fielder and Austin Jackson were more valuable than Trout last year. 


 

MLB should follow in the ilks of the NHL and give out an MVP and a best offensive player. 

8/10/2013 7:18 PM

I think that's where the argument starts.  Some believe the MVP should go to the guy with the best stats.   Others understand what the V means.

8/10/2013 7:36 PM
Even the voters don't agree on what V means.
8/10/2013 9:03 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2013 7:18:00 PM (view original):

I think that's where the argument starts.  Some believe the MVP should go to the guy with the best stats.   Others understand what the V means.

The MVP should go to the best player because, by definition, best IS most valuable.
8/10/2013 9:18 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 8/10/2013 3:20:00 PM (view original):
Player A: .330 AVG, 35 homers, 120 RBI, below average defender, 0 steals

Player B: .328 AVG, 33 homers, 117 RBI, above average defender, 40 steals

It's a hypothetical, yes, but who had a better year? Does it matter if Player A led the league on those first 3 categories?
That's great, but that's not what happened. It was much wider than that in hrs and rbis
of 10
All Forums > SimLeague Baseball > MLB > Mike Trout turned 22 yesterday.

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.