Posted by rsp777 on 11/17/2013 9:48:00 PM (view original):

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.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2013 10:01:00 AM (view original):

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.

Posted by burnsy483 on 11/18/2013 10:08:00 AM (view original):
Also, I thought Miggy was better than Trout this year, and deserved the award.

Posted by tecwrg on 11/18/2013 10:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2013 10:01:00 AM (view original):

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.

WAR, ************!!!

Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2013 11:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/18/2013 10:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2013 10:01:00 AM (view original):

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.

WAR, ************!!!

Yep.

Posted by masterdebate on 11/18/2013 11:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2013 11:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/18/2013 10:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2013 10:01:00 AM (view original):

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.

WAR, ************!!!

Yep.

Wouldn't the lack of replacement suggest increased value? Rarity and all?

Posted by tecwrg on 11/18/2013 12:18:00 PM (view original):
Actually, it would, dumbass.  Using your own "WAR, ************!!!" logic.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/18/2013 12:19:00 PM (view original):
Players sitting on the bench aren't less valuable just because they're not playing. 

Yeah, that makes sense.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2013 12:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/18/2013 12:18:00 PM (view original):
Actually, it would, dumbass.  Using your own "WAR, ************!!!" logic.

How?

Posted by tecwrg on 11/18/2013 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2013 12:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/18/2013 12:18:00 PM (view original):
Actually, it would, dumbass.  Using your own "WAR, ************!!!" logic.

How?

Think it through.

I know you can do it.