Ripping off ESPN -> Trout vs Cabrera MVP Topic

Jtpsops
Posts: 13983 (0)
Hall of Famer
623 1 2 2 138
Prospect
Posted by inkdskn on 10/2/2012 8:10:00 PM (view original):
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.
Again, you're not reading what I'm saying. I've said several times I think Cabrera (marginally) had the better season.

But for most people, it's a toss-up. When that happens, people turn to other criteria to help them break the tie. You say turning to "value" and team performance around the player is BS - and yet some stat geeks will turn to arbitrary numbers to help solidify their case for a guy. I'm not saying that's you, just in general. When two players appear dead even, voters will either turn to some other criteria or flip a coin. Which would you prefer?
10/2/2012 8:22 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2012 8:19:00 PM (view original):
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.
In other words, for those unable to connect the dots:

If Albert Pujols had OPSed his current season total of .870 over those first 33 games, and the Angels went 17-16 instead of 14-19 during that span, and were still in the playoff hunt (with 5 more wins than Detroit), we wouldn't even be having this discussion.  Both Trout and Cabrera would be debated on their merits, not because the team with fewer wins in a weaker division is in the playoffs while the arguably better team in the stronger division is not.
10/2/2012 8:27 PM
Jtpsops
Posts: 13983 (0)
Hall of Famer
623 1 2 2 138
Prospect
And that's a fair argument. I'm just telling you how most voters will settle a perceived "tie".

I've already said I think Cabrera should win on his merits.
10/2/2012 8:35 PM
inkdskn
Posts: 1876 (0)
Hall of Famer
111 1 1
Prospect
"I've said several times I think Cabrera (marginally) had the better season."

If you think this, and agree that the only way a guy has value to his team is by what he does on the field, he's your mvp. Period. Your last post says that's the case. Unfortunately, many people still say, "It's close though; how 'bout I look at stuff the players can't control to help me decide." UGH.

"When two players appear dead even, voters will either turn to some other criteria or flip a coin. Which would you prefer?"

Turning to crap they have little to no control (teammates/divisional rivals) is dumb. Many people do it, but it's idiotic. That's all I'm saying. I would prefer that voters use their own subjective weights regarding the many aspects of the players' on-field contributions, and make a decision based on that. The mvp should be subjective in that sense, ie "How does a player's collective (fielding/batting etc) performance on the field compare to someone else's?" but not subjective in the sense of "How did his team do compared to the other teams in his division?" The latter is nonsense, because it is far beyond any individual player's control. Someone doing that is not using subjectivity to determine their vote; they are using idiocy. If they're unable to do the former, they have no business being a voter. It ****** me off every year.
10/2/2012 8:46 PM
masterdebate
Posts: 4106 (0)
Hall of Famer
249 111 1 1
Rookie
only two guys in mlb history have hit 30 homers and stolen 50 bases in a season.
only two guys (done 3 total times) have 200 hits, 40 doubles, 100 runs, 140 rbis and 40 home runs, at least if you believe jason stark.
eric davis and barry bonds are the first group, ruth and gehrig are the other group.
10/2/2012 9:06 PM
Jtpsops
Posts: 13983 (0)
Hall of Famer
623 1 2 2 138
Prospect
Does Miggy pull a Jose Reyes tomorrow?
10/2/2012 10:32 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
Jtpsops
Posts: 13983 (0)
Hall of Famer
623 1 2 2 138
Prospect
Agreed, though I can see Leyland yanking him after a couple ABs, like tonight.
10/2/2012 10:35 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
Jtpsops
Posts: 13983 (0)
Hall of Famer
623 1 2 2 138
Prospect
It would be so brutal if he went 0/4 and Trout went 4/4 to pass him by a point or two. Or if Hamilton goes off and hits a couple tonight/tomorrow. Still a great season for Miggy.
10/2/2012 10:55 PM
stinenavy
Posts: 4004 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 330 1
All Star
Rangers game will be done and Trout will have 2-3 at bats before the Tigers play. Interesting scenario if Trout starts off 3-3.
10/3/2012 1:06 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Hell, I won't back away like jtpops did.

I guess the top 4 in the AL are Cabrera, Hamilton, Cano and Trout.    Maybe I'm missing someone(LIKE DEREK JETER, BEST SS EVAH!!!!) but I'll work with those 4.  I  don't think Cano/Hamilton had comparable seasons(although one could argue their case using old/new school stats).  So I'll eliminate them.  However, three of them have something in common.   They're playing next weekend.    Why is it that the MVP candidates always seem to get some post-season action?  Because they're individuals playing a team game with a common goal:   Win the WS.   You can't do that if your golf game gets work in early October. 

So, when the MVP race is tight, who plays on is a factor.
10/3/2012 8:38 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect

So if the AL Central was completely retarded in an HBD kind of way, and the Tigers won the division with a 78-84 record, you would still use "Hell yeah, PLAYOFFS BABY!" as a factor in your MVP voting?

10/3/2012 8:44 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
If two players with comparable seasons were in play, yes. 

This isn't really difficult to understand.   I think most teams have a playoff goal.   You have to get there to win the WS.   That seems to be the point of baseball.  Using my 1981 example, virtually no one knows the Reds had the best record because they weren't part of the post-season.   If MC wins the Triple Crown, people will remember it 40 years from now.  No one will remember Trout and his playoffless Angels.   His season wasn't so outstanding(McGwire/Sosa homer contest, Ted's .406, Carlton's 27 wins, etc, etc) that it jumps out at you.   There is no WOW! factor.   Couple that with 162 games played for his team and it's not better than Cabrera's season. 

Mike Tirico agrees. 
10/3/2012 9:15 AM
◂ Prev 1...8|9|10|11|12...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.