Miguel Cabrera is AL MVP!

[alwaysthrowheat]

Do you have tiger337 blocked? He answered your question before you asked it.

Of course he does. Lee is a big bad SABR who has never seen a game, and only views it in strat-o-matic form.

[alwaysthrowheat]

Keith Law a tool? Sure. But I like Mitch Albom and thought his article was pretty good.

Mitch Albom hasn't written anything insightful in 10+ years.

[NeedMoreLike84]

Mitch is a terrible writer and a worse human.

[Gehringer_2]

Mitch is a terrible writer and a worse human.

Yes and no on the 1st. He's a very good writer in terms of his craft, but if you have run out of worthwhile things to say, the former alone doesn't keep you a good writer.

[Oblong]

He may have been at one time a good writer but his writing now smacks of something you'd see by a high school student... it really is bad. He works off templates. I bet it takes him 10 minutes to churn out a column. Probably done while in his limo from the house to the airport for his trip to NY on the weekends.

Free Press should get rid of him and hire 10 good writers and pay them $100K a year and they'd be ahead financially. As much as Craigslist put the newspapers in a financial hole, spending millions on salaries for the likes of ALbom is another reason.

[jake]

5 years ago, every sabre in the world would have had Cabrera as MVP by a landslide because baserunning and defense weren't acknowledged by them as part of the game of baseball. Now every one else is stupid. Arrogant sob's. 5 years ago everyone was stupid, too BTW.

[tiger337]

5 years ago, every sabre in the world would have had Cabrera as MVP by a landslide because baserunning and defense weren't acknowledged by them as part of the game of baseball. Now every one else is stupid. Arrogant sob's. 5 years ago everyone was stupid, too BTW.

Jake, you're just pissed because you know the sabers are right about Trout and you don't get to use your speed and defense argument anymore.

[Charles Liston]

5 years ago, every sabre in the world would have had Cabrera as MVP by a landslide because baserunning and defense weren't acknowledged by them as part of the game of baseball. Now every one else is stupid. Arrogant sob's. 5 years ago everyone was stupid, too BTW.

I always like a mean-spirited, judgemental post that is followed by a scripture quote in the sig line.

[Yoda]

5 years ago, every sabre in the world would have had Cabrera as MVP by a landslide because baserunning and defense weren't acknowledged by them as part of the game of baseball. Now every one else is stupid. Arrogant sob's. 5 years ago everyone was stupid, too BTW.

10,000 troll points! This is your best one yet.

[Yoda]

Jake, you're just pissed because you know the sabers are right about Trout and you don't get to use your speed and defense argument anymore.

Not rushing to his defense this time?

I always like a mean-spirited, judgemental post that is followed by a scripture quote in the sig line.

The two go hand-in-hand.

[RandyMarsh]

5 years ago, every sabre in the world would have had Cabrera as MVP by a landslide because baserunning and defense weren't acknowledged by them as part of the game of baseball. Now every one else is stupid. Arrogant sob's. 5 years ago everyone was stupid, too BTW.

I doubt it, the thing is though is it's not like Trout just had a great season running the bases and in the field, and was merely just solid at the plate. He had a higher OBP than Cabrera, while hitting more doubles and triples and hitting 30+HRs himself. Plus I would guess that he faced tougher pitching than Miggy.(I don't know that for sure just a guess) The reason being is that everybody in the AL West has great pitching and outside of Texas all the parks are tough to hit in. The ALC probably has the worst pitching in baseball(especially when you take away the Tigers) so I would imagine Miggy faced much easier competition. So no I doubt every saber would've voted for Miggy 5 years ago, maybe in a time where all you had access to were the triple crown stats than maybe, but not 5 years ago.

[Walt]

I always like a mean-spirited, judgemental post that is followed by a scripture quote in the sig line.

Seems appropriate.

[deadcenter~440]

Best all around player AL - Trout

MVP (as in who was most valuable, backed by Cabrera's late inning and aug/sept. stats) - Cabrera

Simple once you've defined it, the best all around player isn't always the MVP.

[Yoda]

I doubt it, the thing is though is it's not like Trout just had a great season running the bases and in the field, and was merely just solid at the plate. He had a higher OBP than Cabrera, while hitting more doubles and triples and hitting 30+HRs himself. Plus I would guess that he faced tougher pitching than Miggy.(I don't know that for sure just a guess) The reason being is that everybody in the AL West has great pitching and outside of Texas all the parks are tough to hit in. The ALC probably has the worst pitching in baseball(especially when you take away the Tigers) so I would imagine Miggy faced much easier competition. So no I doubt every saber would've voted for Miggy 5 years ago, maybe in a time where all you had access to were the triple crown stats than maybe, but not 5 years ago.

Did you really just put this much effort into responding to that post?

[Yoda]

Best all around player AL - Trout

MVP (as in who was most valuable, backed by Cabrera's late inning and aug/sept. stats) - Cabrera

Simple once you've defined it, the best all around player isn't always the MVP.

Not trying to be condescending here, but by are wins in August/Sept (Trout's team won more games in Sept) than in April/May?

[RandyMarsh]

Did you really just put this much effort into responding to that post?

Yeah, I didn't realize who it was from until after I posted it.

[tiger337]

Not trying to be condescending here, but by are wins in August/Sept (Trout's team won more games in Sept) than in April/May?

Cabrera's worst month was probably the one where they needed him most - In May when they had a lot of injuries. That doesn't affect my opinion on the MVP, but if you are going to count some games more than others, the last month is not necessarily the most important.

[Charles Liston]

Not trying to be condescending here, but by are wins in August/Sept (Trout's team won more games in Sept) than in April/May?

Against my better judgement I was going to attempt an answer to this question. The reason that I say "against my better judgement" is that one of my nightmares is that you're going to come into my house some night, bind me and gag me, and then just tattoo the crap out of me.

I am one who had believed that Trout and Cabrera were 50-50 for the MVP, but that Cabrera put it away with an awesome September. But then I looked at the numbers, and his September OPS of 1.032 was actually his lowest since May. I still feel like as of September 1st he grabbed the entire American League by the nuts and just squeezed until they screamed and then fainted. The 10 HR's would certainly get my attention. But back to your question, aren't wins in April as valuable as wins in September? Yes, it would be foolish to argue that they are not. But somehow the chips are on the line in September when they don't really seem to be in April. It's like going to an NBA game, if you walk in halfway through the 4th quarter you didn't miss anything.

I think that the players would say that however we got here, as of September 1 we are in a dogfight to get to the playoffs.. That being the case, who is the one guy we want on our team? It's Cabrera, not even close. The wins in April count the same, but they seem to be more highly-leveraged in September. I know, I'm incoherent. Do you get Bushmill's down there?

[Yoda]

Cabrera's worst month was probably the one where they needed him most - In May when they had a lot of injuries. That doesn't affect my opinion on the MVP, but if you are going to count some games more than others, the last month is not necessarily the most important.

Exactly.

I really feel a lot of people here will be more open minded if next year the roles are reversed. Maybe next year Joe Mauer wins a triple crown while playing a crappy 1st base and DHing, and Austin Jackson hits .330 with 50 doubles, 15 triples, 15 HR, and a bunch of stolen bases to go with his usual great defense.

Suddenly those that "watch the games" will "clearly see" that Jackson is the better player probably, and the triple crown won't mean as much.

[Yoda]

Liston - I'm putting that on my bucket list.

[Walt]

Exactly.

I really feel a lot of people here will be more open minded if next year the roles are reversed. Maybe next year Joe Mauer wins a triple crown while playing a crappy 1st base and DHing, and Austin Jackson hits .330 with 50 doubles, 15 triples, 15 HR, and a bunch of stolen bases to go with his usual great defense.

Suddenly those that "watch the games" will "clearly see" that Jackson is the better player probably, and the triple crown won't mean as much.

I agree with your scenario, but I don't think we will ever see Mauer lead the league in HR. Unless he gets traded to the Yankees.

[Yoda]

Yeah, bad example, but I wanted it to be a Twin because everyone (including me) hates them.

[Oblong]

It's easy to say, and it's true, that the games count in April the same as in September but in April the players are not tired from playing 6 straight months, including the last 2 in probably incredible heat. They're not dealing with the wear and tear of a full season like they are in September. They also know that the margin for error is shrinking and the window is closing. That's not to say the results shouldn't' count the same but I'm speaking to the overall point that the games in April and May are the same as the games in September. They're not. This has nothing to do with Cabrera vs. Trout. I'm just expounding on the general April vs. September comparisons that pop up all the time.

On the flip side, in April and possibly May, the players are not in their routine yet. They went from heat in FL or AZ to the chilly North. They're still moving into their places and getting settled into that. Their wife and kids may not be with them. Their body may not be used to the night games after mostly day games in the spring. Getting to bed a little later, etc.

I"m not suggesting one is harder than the other, just that the environments are different.

[Antrat]

Maybe what the writers like Keith Law and the like ought to start is their own awards. "The SABR player of the year", etc.
Why not? If the "old school" writers won't accept their stats, just start their own awards and maybe one day they will be more prestigious that the current ones.

[tiger337]

Maybe what the writers like Keith Law and the like ought to start is their own awards. "The SABR player of the year", etc.
Why not? If the "old school" writers won't accept their stats, just start their own awards and maybe one day they will be more prestigious that the current ones.

They already have that at Baseball Prospectus. And then there's the Fielding Bible awards which I think are better than the Gold Glove awards. The goal is to influence the game and the way it is covered though and having their own stat club doesn't accomplishment that. They need to interact the traditionalists to make that happen. They did influence the mainstream when Felix Hernandez won the Cy Young with a 13-12 record.

[Antrat]

They already have that at Baseball Prospectus. And then there's the Fielding Bible awards which I think are better than the Gold Glove awards. The goal is to influence the game and the way it is covered though and having their own stat club doesn't accomplishment that. They need to interact the traditionalists to make that happen. They did influence the mainstream when Felix Hernandez won the Cy Young with a 13-12 record.

I agree. Though I think they need to use more honey than vinegar to change people's minds. The "you're stupid if you don't vote Trout MVP" strategy was the wrong way to go.
I would dare say that you, Cats and a few others on this board would make much better spokespersons for the SABR argument than dicks like Law.

[tiger337]

I agree. Though I think they need to use more honey than vinegar to change people's minds. The "you're stupid if you don't vote Trout MVP" strategy was the wrong way to go.
I would dare say that you, Cats and a few others on this board would make much better spokespersons for the SABR argument than dicks like Law.

I agree Law is too insulting, but I think they need a mix of both honey and vinegar. Joe Posnanski has probably been the best at that. Rob Neyer is good too. He can be pretty smug at times, but he knows how to keep a balance. Stats is a dry subject, so you have have certain amount of aggressiveness to get points across.

[Yoda]

Keith Law and Lee Panas

[Gehringer_2]

I agree. Though I think they need to use more honey than vinegar to change people's minds. The "you're stupid if you don't vote Trout MVP" strategy was the wrong way to go.
I would dare say that you, Cats and a few others on this board would make much better spokespersons for the SABR argument than dicks like Law.

Thing is, whether measured Sabr or old school, most skilled player is only half of the disgreement. The other half is that there will always be voters who hold that the most valuable player can't come from a losing team. They are going to disagree with the Sabrs as well, but it is over more than the measurement. So even if you could resolve Sabre vs old school stats, the MVP 'problem' will go on.

[Antrat]

Here is a video of two famed atheists arguing about the right way to promote their views:



NSFW!

[deadcenter~440]

Not trying to be condescending here, but by are wins in August/Sept (Trout's team won more games in Sept) than in April/May?

How many of those games did Trout win by himself? What was the factor quantified that he was involved in those wins? Same for Cabrera?

I don't believe you can quantify it by a single stat or group of stats. Now don't get me wrong, we can get close to rating players and putting a worth to them, but no stat shows everything on and off the field.

From a national standpoint, Trout dipped ever so slightly in sept., even though his defense and speed didn't, while Cabrera was a monster the whole second half and helped carry his team to a division, regardless of the white sox collapse or the A's incredible run. Of course the triple crown chase helped Cabrera, but in my mind he won it without it. It's telling when voters poll the players/managers and hands down Cabrera is mentioned as MVP.

No one is arguing that Trout may be best all around player in the AL, but given the circumstances I can logically see the case for Cabrera. And if your Mauer scenario plays out with all the same tangibles, I wouldnt have a problem with it, because that's the way it goes with these kind of votes. In the end it's an award, and you've still got Jackson under team control for a few more years.....

[sabretooth]

The two go hand-in-hand.

Just like paganism and virginal sacrifice.

[Nastradamus]

Here's what it comes down to for me. Sabers acknowledge traditional stats in their arguments. Traditionalists do not acknowledge sabermetrics in their arguments.

[Biff Mayhem]

Here's what it comes down to for me. Sabers acknowledge traditional stats in their arguments. Traditionalists do not acknowledge sabermetrics in their arguments.

What about those of us in the middle? I like a lot of the sabermetrics because of what they add to the conversation but the side of me that likes the traditionalist side of the game cannot stand things like WAR and is variants.

[TigersSlappy]

Just like paganism and virginal sacrifice.

Like scrambled eggs and calf brains.

[TigersSlappy]

Maybe what the writers like Keith Law and the like ought to start is their own awards.

Wouldn't work. Law would insult/belittle everyone that didn't toe his line.

I read all the stat stuff new and old, and realize that some of the old measures of success just aren't very good. That said, I don't appreciate the snide crap when people still refer to RBI or batting average.

[Yoda]

What about those of us in the middle? I like a lot of the sabermetrics because of what they add to the conversation but the side of me that likes the traditionalist side of the game cannot stand things like WAR and is variants.

I like WAR but hate the way it's often used.

[Nastradamus]

What about those of us in the middle? I like a lot of the sabermetrics because of what they add to the conversation but the side of me that likes the traditionalist side of the game cannot stand things like WAR and is variants.

Then that doesn't put you in either camp tbh. WAR is no doubt flawed, but every saber(except maybe Keith Law, yeesh) will admit this. Especially when it comes to defense. However, just about every traditional stat is just as flawed, such as fielding percentage, errors, ERA, batting average, RBI etc., yet WAR is ripped for not being accurate WAY more.

The biggest problem with the WAR criticisms, as has been mentioned on this board a few times, is that people refuse to accept it even if it passes the eyeball test, like with Trout. It would be impossible to construct an argument that said he wasn't an elite fielder and probably the best baserunner in baseball this year. Also you don't get a 10 WAR by accident. I think 6 OFs have done it in the live ball era and they are all names like Ruth and Mantle

[T&P_Fan]

Wouldn't work. Law would insult/belittle everyone that didn't toe his line.

I read all the stat stuff new and old, and realize that some of the old measures of success just aren't very good. That said, I don't appreciate the snide crap when people still refer to RBI or batting average.

Agreed, both of those are still vaulable evalution tools, and much more useful than a stat liuke WAR. WAR is neat because it is novel and people like to have one stat that says it all, but it really provides little use.

[TigersSlappy]

Agreed, both of those are still vaulable evalution tools, and much more useful than a stat liuke WAR. WAR is neat because it is novel and people like to have one stat that says it all, but it really provides little use.

My problem with WAR is who/how the replacement level player is determined.

Beyond that, there's no adjustment for reality. On some teams the loss of a catcher would be devastating if they had no adequate back up. On another team with a very similar back up to the starter it wouldn't make much of a difference. To me there should be some sort of duality of the hypothetical replacement vs the actual replacement. This would more specifically show the value of the player to his team.

A good example would be the '68 Tigers - if they lost Jim Northrup they replace him with Mickey Stanley - If they lose Bill Freehan they replace him with Jim Price. A huge difference in how much it affects the team going forward.