Ripping off ESPN -> Trout vs Cabrera MVP Topic

Jtpsops
Posts: 13985 (1)
Hall of Famer
624 1 2 2 138
Prospect
Cabrera will win it for two reasons: playoffs and triple crown.

Should playoffs be a mandatory requirement for winning MVP? Absolutely not. But when you have two guys who are close, is it fair to use playoffs as a tiebreaker? I think so. You can argue for both guys statistically, but Cabrera was the difference in his team making the playoffs. Though it's not Trout's fault the Angels struggled, he didn't get them there. Therefore, Cabrera provided value beyond what Trout could.

Also, whether you think the Triple Crown is skill or luck, it's something that hasn't been done in 45 years. That's going to factor in, and it should. If Hamilton, Dunn or Encarnacion go off in these last couple games and take the HR lead, maybe that helps Trout's case a bit, who knows.

I vot Cabby though, and I think he deserves it. But I certainly won't argue if Trout wins it.
10/2/2012 6:42 PM
kneeneighbor
Posts: 3829 (0)
Hall of Famer
96 4 1 21 19 42
Prospect
How about the fact that down the stretch when it mattered for both teams Trout hit only .271?
10/2/2012 6:45 PM
Jtpsops
Posts: 13985 (1)
Hall of Famer
624 1 2 2 138
Prospect
True, but the obvious argument to that would be if Trout hadn't been so good, the Angels may not have been in a place where those games mattered at all.
10/2/2012 7:02 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10036 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 270 18
Pro
bad_luck is more of an arrogant douche than me and miket put together, and with less knowledge by far than either of us on our own.  And that's saying something, at least with respect to mike...
10/2/2012 7:06 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
Posted by Jtpsops on 10/2/2012 6:42:00 PM (view original):
Cabrera will win it for two reasons: playoffs and triple crown.

Should playoffs be a mandatory requirement for winning MVP? Absolutely not. But when you have two guys who are close, is it fair to use playoffs as a tiebreaker? I think so. You can argue for both guys statistically, but Cabrera was the difference in his team making the playoffs. Though it's not Trout's fault the Angels struggled, he didn't get them there. Therefore, Cabrera provided value beyond what Trout could.

Also, whether you think the Triple Crown is skill or luck, it's something that hasn't been done in 45 years. That's going to factor in, and it should. If Hamilton, Dunn or Encarnacion go off in these last couple games and take the HR lead, maybe that helps Trout's case a bit, who knows.

I vot Cabby though, and I think he deserves it. But I certainly won't argue if Trout wins it.
"Though it's not Trout's fault the Angels struggled . . . "

Since August 26, the Angels went 23-9.  How is that "struggling"?

FYI . . . since August 26, the Tigers went 18-15.
10/2/2012 7:08 PM
Jtpsops
Posts: 13985 (1)
Hall of Famer
624 1 2 2 138
Prospect
Bad phrasing. It's not Trout's fault the Angels didn't make the playoffs.
10/2/2012 7:16 PM
inkdskn
Posts: 1876 (0)
Hall of Famer
111 1 1
Prospect
I don't have a problem with either guy winning, but those of you using the "making the playoffs" argument seem retarded. For one thing, teammates play a significant role in that, as you know. Furthermore, the Angels have a BETTER record than Detroit, so using the 'playoff' argument means you're penalizing Trout because his team was in a better division than Detroit. In other words, you're penalizing him because LA's division rivals (TEX/OAK) were better than Detroit's division rivals(White Sux). That is RETARDED. If LA happened to be in the Central division, they would be AHEAD of Detroit, and Detroit would not be in the playoffs, period! Neither player has any control over division alignment.

You can make a valid argument for either guy based on their performance, leaving teammates/division rivals, etc out of it. Please do that instead of this 'making the playoffs' ****--that is an argument for people who do not understand statistics at all.
10/2/2012 7:16 PM
inkdskn
Posts: 1876 (0)
Hall of Famer
111 1 1
Prospect
When you use the 'playoff' crap, here's what you're doing:

a) Looking at each player's stats (i.e., their in-field performance).
b) Deciding, "They're pretty close, and I am unable/unwilling to use subjective criteria to weight their stats in order to determine the more valuable player."
c) Deciding, "Hey! I'll look at how their teams (which the players have only a limited influence on) did against an arbitrary, geographically-determined collection of other teams (which the players have ZERO control over). I'll use that to help decide who was more valuable!"

Seriously, wtf. Look at their stats. Use your own subjective criteria to weight their contributions, and decide who you think the 'more valuable' guy was. Period.

10/2/2012 7:29 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
Agreed.  While I normally think that "making the playoffs" is a valid consideration in MVP discussion, it just doesn't pass the smell test in this particular case.

As has been pointed out, LA has a better record than DET while playing a much tougher schedule.  By my count, the Tigers played a total of 33 games against teams that have won 90 games this season.  The Angels have played a 38 of those games just within their division alone, with another 21 out-of-division games against 90+ win teams.

The "playoff" argument is just plain retarded in this case.
10/2/2012 7:31 PM
Jtpsops
Posts: 13985 (1)
Hall of Famer
624 1 2 2 138
Prospect

Angels were also WS favourites in a lot of people's minds, without Trout. They severely underperformed this season. Again, that's not Trout's fault, but that will weigh on voters' minds.

The Angels also have a much better supporting cast. There's no way they should be worse than the A's, and maybe even the Rangers. The Tigers did what they were supposed to do, and as predicted, they needed a big year from Miggy to accomplish it.

So, Tigers (and Miggy) met/exceeded expectations, Angels fell flat. This is why they should add a hitters award equivalent to the Cy. When you have "MVP" it's subjective, and voters are always going to weigh the team element in that, to some degree or another.

10/2/2012 7:59 PM
inkdskn
Posts: 1876 (0)
Hall of Famer
111 1 1
Prospect
So Cabrera is more valuable because some people expected LA to be better than they actually were? Makes sense!









Not.
10/2/2012 8:03 PM
Jtpsops
Posts: 13985 (1)
Hall of Famer
624 1 2 2 138
Prospect
You're missing the point. I still think Cabby had the marginally better season, but it's basically a toss-up. Voters will turn to the term "value" to break the tie. If you look at what both teams accomplished, Cabrera provided more value to his team. You may not agree with that being used as a criteria, and that's fine - but it's how most voters will think.

This is why the NFL has an Offensive POY and an MVP, and they're not always the same player.
10/2/2012 8:06 PM
inkdskn
Posts: 1876 (0)
Hall of Famer
111 1 1
Prospect
And for the record, I'm not arguing FOR Trout; I'm just pointing out how nonsensical I think alot of criteria many people use is. They both had killer years, but their stats (alone) imo should dictate who was more valuable. Stats are a measure/tally of their performance, which is the only way they had value to their teams. The other stuff is beyond their control (and stupid ).
10/2/2012 8:09 PM
inkdskn
Posts: 1876 (0)
Hall of Famer
111 1 1
Prospect
You missed the point, Jtp--you're unable/unwilling to determine who was better, and are using **** they had little to no control over (teammates/divional rivals) to help you decide. That is dumb, imo.
10/2/2012 8:10 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
Posted by Jtpsops on 10/2/2012 7:59:00 PM (view original):

Angels were also WS favourites in a lot of people's minds, without Trout. They severely underperformed this season. Again, that's not Trout's fault, but that will weigh on voters' minds.

The Angels also have a much better supporting cast. There's no way they should be worse than the A's, and maybe even the Rangers. The Tigers did what they were supposed to do, and as predicted, they needed a big year from Miggy to accomplish it.

So, Tigers (and Miggy) met/exceeded expectations, Angels fell flat. This is why they should add a hitters award equivalent to the Cy. When you have "MVP" it's subjective, and voters are always going to weigh the team element in that, to some degree or another.

Here's the difference in the Angels season: Albert Pujols.

Through May 11, Pujols' numbers were .192 AVG with 1 HR and 11 RBI.  Also a .505 OPS.  The Angels were 14-19 through May 11.

So now the story becomes: because Albert Pujols absolutely sucked for the first 33 games of the season, likely costing the Angels a couple of wins in April and May that might have put them in the post-season in October, that Mike Trout has to pay the price.

Sure.  That makes a hell of a lot of sense.
10/2/2012 8:19 PM
◂ Prev 1...7|8|9|10|11...42 Next ▸
Ripping off ESPN -> Trout vs Cabrera MVP Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 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.