The Triple ******* Crown.  

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/21/2013 10:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 8/21/2013 10:54:00 AM (view original):
You guys argue about the dumbest ****.  The point is, if 70 years ago some guy decided that the triple crown was OPS+, runs, and stolen bases, Trout wins the triple crown last year.  It's dumb.

This is an acceptable argument(well, except I don't think OPS+ existed in 1939).    Claiming the cycle or triple crown are arbitrary are not.   NO ONE claims a cycle is two doubles, a homer and a SB nor does anyone claim the triple crown is IBB, OPS and sac flies. 

It may very well have been arbitrary in 1939.  It is not today.  The Triple Crown is the Triple Crown.   Has been for 74 years.

This.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/21/2013 3:13:00 PM (view original):
The Triple ******* Crown.  

But what is that?

Posted by bad_luck on 8/21/2013 3:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/21/2013 3:13:00 PM (view original):
The Triple ******* Crown.  

But what is that?

What that is, is the very numbers that YOU use to make
YOUR new version of the Triple Crown...

AGAIN --->>> not arbitrary, but numbers from the exact
"meaning" of the Triple Crown... U wanna' change the
Triple Crown, & use WAR to run little "horse races" all
day long, --->>> anywhere other than Pimlico, & U still
wanna' call it the Triple Crown...

ESPN did not choose the turf, or grass, for the events,
just as YOU should not be qualifying your own adept
player evaluation skills, based on how many replays
of "Web-Gems" that Trout appeared in this year, -vs-
last year... YOU still are w/o justification here, even if
you are only 3 days behind on your TiVo...

YOU cannot borrow from an ensconced number like a
batting average, then add to it, to create SLG & OPS, &
have an original (& newly improved) Triple Crown, NO
matter what ESPN wrote, or said 5 minutes ago... Do
U really dream of selling your numbers ???... Where,
@ a .99¢ Only Store ???... Lucky U, bad_luck...

You bet wildly on risk of credibility, w/ odds that do not
pay-off... U need "24/7" ESPN, to somehow say that U
witnessed all the "stuff" in that 1930's "sports-writer's"
head of corrupt thoughts that ruined your Triple Crown,
& then claim itsa' FACT that 1 lone writer had so much
power to persuade...

Yeah right, Mr. Self-Qualified... Impressive...

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/21/2013 3:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/21/2013 3:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/21/2013 2:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/21/2013 2:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/21/2013 2:49:00 PM (view original):
I'll help you.

Three stats were grouped together and given a label.

The stats were chosen arbitrarily.

And the achievement has been established for some 70+ years. 

The Triple Crown is what it is.   Leading the league in three established categories.   Not arbitrary categories chosen to suit one's needs.

OK, we agree that the stats were chosen arbitrarily.

What the **** are you arguing about? 

I think 70+ years establishes a meaning.  Thus removing "arbitrary" from the equation.

You think you understand the meaning of words.  And you evidently do not.

That pretty much sums it up.

You can think that 70 years establishes a meaning, fine. I think it's a cool piece of history. But there is nothing more special about leading in HR/RBI/BA than there is in leading the league in HR/RS/BA or BA/OBP/SLG.

The triple crown is only an accomplishment because we say it is. Three stats, arbitrarily chosen 70 years ago, that really aren't the best offensive indicators we have.

Is ANYONE arguing that those three stats are the best offensive indicators we have?


THAT"S the ******* point I'm making.    The value you, or me or anyone, assigns to the TC is arbitrary.   The TC itself is not.   It is established.  ****.

If the triple crown stats are NOT "the best offensive indicators we have," then winning the triple crown should be totally irrelevant to the MVP discussion.  And they are NOT the most meaningful offensive stats.  I think most people who really think about it analytically at all will accept that OBP is more important than batting average.  And stolen bases/caught stealing really indicate much more in terms of added value than RBI.  I did comment a few weeks ago that Cabrera consistently has a higher batting average with RISP, though most years his SLG drops a bit.  This indicates a willingness to play unselfishly and drive in runs.  THAT is significant, the RBI total in and of itself is not.

Posted by jsakicno19 on 8/21/2013 5:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/21/2013 3:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/21/2013 3:13:00 PM (view original):
The Triple ******* Crown.  

But what is that?

What that is, is the very numbers that YOU use to make
YOUR new version of the Triple Crown...

AGAIN --->>> not arbitrary, but numbers from the exact
"meaning" of the Triple Crown... U wanna' change the
Triple Crown, & use WAR to run little "horse races" all
day long, --->>> anywhere other than Pimlico, & U still
wanna' call it the Triple Crown...

ESPN did not choose the turf, or grass, for the events,
just as YOU should not be qualifying your own adept
player evaluation skills, based on how many replays
of "Web-Gems" that Trout appeared in this year, -vs-
last year... YOU still are w/o justification here, even if
you are only 3 days behind on your TiVo...

YOU cannot borrow from an ensconced number like a
batting average, then add to it, to create SLG & OPS, &
have an original (& newly improved) Triple Crown, NO
matter what ESPN wrote, or said 5 minutes ago... Do
U really dream of selling your numbers ???... Where,
@ a .99¢ Only Store ???... Lucky U, bad_luck...

You bet wildly on risk of credibility, w/ odds that do not
pay-off... U need "24/7" ESPN, to somehow say that U
witnessed all the "stuff" in that 1930's "sports-writer's"
head of corrupt thoughts that ruined your Triple Crown,
& then claim itsa' FACT that 1 lone writer had so much
power to persuade...

Yeah right, Mr. Self-Qualified... Impressive...

**** off, joe.

Posted by jsakicno19 on 8/21/2013 2:49:00 PM (view original):
Definitively, not arbitrarily... 3 pinnacle categories... Not just
any 3 categories that YOU choose 2 make an argument...

WAR is unsubstantially full of directions that DO NOT show
Ruth as the greatest, no matter which way U steer it's USE
& justification... If WAR did substantiate Ruth, then U would
have a number worthy of the immortal...

My example here (sadly, & for want of another canvas) goes
in the direction of another recent thread here... In it, a "user"
has discovered a relief pitcher in Tampa... His numbers are
posted, & impressive... If WAR was truly the 'jewel', then the
numbers within the 1st post (34ish IP, 20ish H, & gazillions
of K's) might crack the Top-10 WAR-wise... So what...

However, when Nolan Ryan pitching spans are "broken-up"
over the course of any 1 season, for gazillions of seasons,
& not compared favorably in the WAR department, then why
does Nolan Ryan repeatedly ''pitch'' streaks of numbers, in
mirror-like clones of numbers, as that of the hot Tampa RP,
(this long-*** question WILL end w/o a question mark, as
it, in NO WAY is set-forth seeking any answer from U)

The "Christmas-Tree-Decorated" numbers of WAR (here),
now have produced a society that commences Forums in
favor of the D'Ray well-rested, 34ish IP 'gawd', while ALSO
tormenting us w/ an unfavorable Nolan Ryan thread...

Is it possible to Forum-Ferrett-Out the gopher in the mole's
den... That's what U got there, in WAR... That's what we got
here... Without thinking, then it ain't possible... 

4-sure, w/o bad_luck, --->>> it's even more possible...

(people always conclude that anyway... whatta' pun...)

Even a cute, dumb 7-8 year old child, with the most
rudimentary of math skills, will naturally ask such as
this next question, even if ONLY in thought :

If a Tampa RP has those numbers, for the "ENTIRE"
season, & Nolan Ryan pitched those SAME numbers
4-5 times per season, then WHY doesn't Nolan Ryan
have a WAR number 4-5 times greater than Tampa's
new bullpen ace ??? (Again, don't answer it, as it isn't
any glaring ''fog-light'' that will improve your own brain,
or make U any better @ math than a 7-8 yr. old child)...

Point is NOT that 'wow' WAR numbers are your "NEW"
obelisk in life, or that they even have merit to acheive a
universal answer to the equation...

Point is that the WAR numbers contain an elephant in
a gopher suit... What is fundamental is that what ain't
broken, don't need fixing... An inflated, swelling, beast
of a number, that WAR produces... & no wonder THAT
gopher suit was needed, --->>> it's ugly... Flat-out...

What is hidden in WAR, that will never be reliable, -or-
pliable, is the absence of "the record"... Batting AVG. is
past tense, & "record" only of what's occured... WAR is
(in comparison) absent of the sole beauty, & reliability
of the MAIN ingredient in the WHOLE soup...

LIVE ON, TRIPLE CROWN... in benchmark heaven, &
here on Earth's diamonds !!!

( &, those 3 racetracks, too !!! )...

Amen

Are you talking about Torres and his 1 WAR in 2013?

Are you asking why he has a 1 WAR for that small amount of innings and Ryan's WAR, prorated to 40 innings, doesn't also equal 1???

You're going to have to clarify.

Posted by dahsdebater on 8/21/2013 6:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/21/2013 3:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/21/2013 3:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/21/2013 2:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/21/2013 2:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/21/2013 2:49:00 PM (view original):
I'll help you.

Three stats were grouped together and given a label.

The stats were chosen arbitrarily.

And the achievement has been established for some 70+ years. 

The Triple Crown is what it is.   Leading the league in three established categories.   Not arbitrary categories chosen to suit one's needs.

OK, we agree that the stats were chosen arbitrarily.

What the **** are you arguing about? 

I think 70+ years establishes a meaning.  Thus removing "arbitrary" from the equation.

You think you understand the meaning of words.  And you evidently do not.

That pretty much sums it up.

You can think that 70 years establishes a meaning, fine. I think it's a cool piece of history. But there is nothing more special about leading in HR/RBI/BA than there is in leading the league in HR/RS/BA or BA/OBP/SLG.

The triple crown is only an accomplishment because we say it is. Three stats, arbitrarily chosen 70 years ago, that really aren't the best offensive indicators we have.

Is ANYONE arguing that those three stats are the best offensive indicators we have?


THAT"S the ******* point I'm making.    The value you, or me or anyone, assigns to the TC is arbitrary.   The TC itself is not.   It is established.  ****.

If the triple crown stats are NOT "the best offensive indicators we have," then winning the triple crown should be totally irrelevant to the MVP discussion.  And they are NOT the most meaningful offensive stats.  I think most people who really think about it analytically at all will accept that OBP is more important than batting average.  And stolen bases/caught stealing really indicate much more in terms of added value than RBI.  I did comment a few weeks ago that Cabrera consistently has a higher batting average with RISP, though most years his SLG drops a bit.  This indicates a willingness to play unselfishly and drive in runs.  THAT is significant, the RBI total in and of itself is not.

I'll ask you the same question I asked BL:   Who is arguing that the TC should decide MVP?    It's a nice achievement.   Not many have done it.   But it pretty much falls in the "hit 50 homers before 'roids" category. 

This guy

Quote post by crickett13 on 8/9/2013 10:01:00 AM:

Posted by arvidjosef on 8/8/2013 10:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 8/8/2013 10:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by arvidjosef on 8/8/2013 10:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 8/8/2013 5:06:00 PM (view original):
Yea, it's like Trout's getting **** on because he was batting 1st in the Angels lineup for much of the season.  Not his fault people aren't on base when he's hitting doubles and ****.

No, it was more a point that Cabrera created more runs than Trout.

Does scoring runs count as "creating runs?"

Oh I factored that in chief.

rs+rbi

miggy- 248
trout- 212

To make the old fashioned runs created formula valid in any way you have to subtract HR's since you are credited with a run scored and an RBi when you score but the team is only credited with 1 run.  RS + RBI's - HR's

  That said. He won the ******* triple crown for god sakes. Only 14 other players have ever done that and it's only been done 16 time in the entire history of the Major Leagues. Anybody who didn't vote for him was a tard.

U mean re-phrased... ???

Nope... Only thing that qualifies EITHER myself, or you, is:

THREAD TITLE : ...The War Question...

U came in here on the PRO side, in imperfect  justification
that shot around this Forum like "shotgun pellets" from the
hands of a blindman, --->>> missing everything...

Eye came here, on the CON side of WAR... & not w/ a past
career as a 'Stevie Wonder', 'Ray Charles', 'Ronnie Milsap'
impersonator in Las Vegas...

If WAR is telling U anything, & then U add ESPN to such an
overloaded keyboard, such as yours, then U could NEVER
love baseball, as eye do... The beauty of simplicity, such a
wonderful game --->>> of simple strategies...

Your desire thru WAR numbers, contends that runs scored
& stolen bases is a higher pinnacle than the sum total that
is contained in the Triple Crown... That's value, your words...
 
Nope... Those 'Triple Crown' winners represent value in the
real world, & get paid, too... In 'like-market' value, for value...
& U totally miss the simplicity of the game... Is value for the
Nolan Ryan guy the same as the Tampa RP ???...

Simply put, U would need 5 clones of that Tampa reliever...
U have been busy all of your baseball life, chasing such a
phony belief that 5 is greater than 1...

Your PRO side adds costs of additional airline seats... The
CON side says Ruth-&-Train Tracks...  Itsa' rich profit, not a
buncha' overhead, which U equate as value... Simple...

PRO WAR hides the beauty & simplicity of Nolan Ryan, in a
4-man rotation... CON WAR says Ruth can & will hit the krap
outta' the ball BETTER than any one ever could... & could hit
ANY pitcher (except Roy Hobbs, of course)...

PRO WAR doesn't say WHY Ruth can't hit Hobbs, but simple
baseball wisdom of CON WAR makes Hobbs as "valuable"
in today's market... Need an out, bring in Hobbs...

Nolan Ryan (if pinnacles had benchmark's), one simple guy
w/ a poker face... 1 simple uniform for the dry-cleaner's... &
clicking turnstiles in the 2nd largest city in North America, in
the 70's... That ain't happening in Tampa... That ain't value in
America, ---baseball's home...

This as it pertains to the shortcomings of WAR, on so MANY
earlier pages in this thread... People here seem to me to be
trying to help you... Myself included...   

Wake me, when WAR & MLB both clone another Nolan Ryan...

Remember, too, that a proper Nolan Ryan clone takes a good
15-20 years in the oven... In that type of heat...

So, that should mean ALOT of sleep for me, --->>> ahead...

(am travelling major, 2'day... wish airports had beds, 4 those
1, & 2 hour layovers... never shoulda' brought my phone, --as
it fails more often than not, @ keeping me from falling asleep)

Bravo sir

In the folly of the vanity of thinking that 'words' can actually help
another individual, ---hence, what follows :

...In my entire baseball life, ---have witnessed only 1 batter that
stepped out of a batter's box, in direct 'contract violation', totally
refusing to step back in, & with all the body language of a hitter
who had been overcome with 'fear-of-death'...

John Kruk & Randy Johnson, in an All-Star game... He took the
'K', &, gladly re-took his dugout seat...

...In my entire baseball life, ---have heard & read tales of 1 lone
batter who should have stepped out, before the last pitch of his
life... RIP Ray Chapman... Always decisions in baseball...

Show me "Ruthian" numbers, which WAR cannot... Show "ALL"
in WAR numeric terms, means MORE... Show me Ruth stuff in
your WAR numbers, instead of 200 some-odd player-seasons,
all seperated by 1/250,000th of a point... Devise numbers, and
theories, that arrive @ "Ruthian" heighths, once calibrated in a
manner that will stand the test of time...

If your thermometer isn't working, -it's guaranteed that it is not
the mercury's fault... Elements of WAR are much like WiS here,
there's a "glitch" factor that never seems to make it into the old
original equations... Right there, the whole time...

WAR dilutes... Baseball ain't tar... WAR 's oversold & too strong
despite bad_luck's dream of someday selling it as 'snake-oil"
that'll cure everything... 

I sure hope you are asking yourself how WAR missed Ruth...