Miguel Cabrera is AL MVP!

[Scottwood]

I'm not sure they have great defensive data yet (which is really the biggest problem with WAR), but they probably can come up with an estimate based on scouts and what data they do have.

Yeah, that is what I would expect.

[tiger337]

Yeah, that is what I would expect.

I would add that the reason I don't think their defensive data is great yet is because the Field F/X stuff is still too new to test on multiple years of data. They do have some info we don't have though and they have real scouts too.

[Gehringer_2]

With April about over (and having time to look since it was just the weekend) we find that Mike Trout is going to finish April hitting about 260-270. So this will be his third consecutive month at a 900 or less OPS, out of a 6 month career - or half his career. And as a matter of fact, Miguel Cabrera also once went 3 consecutive months at or below 900 OPS, once in a 10 year career.

[ben9753]

There's no doubt that Cabrera will go down with Pujols as the greatest hitters of the post-steroid era.

[Nastradamus]

With April about over (and having time to look since it was just the weekend) we find that Mike Trout is going to finish April hitting about 260-270. So this will be his third consecutive month at a 900 or less OPS, out of a 6 month career - or half his career. And as a matter of fact, Miguel Cabrera also once went 3 consecutive months at or below 900 OPS, once in a 10 year career.

Hopefully we also found out that this has nothing to do with last year's MVP race......

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

There's no doubt that Cabrera will go down with Pujols as the greatest hitters of the post-steroid era.

David Eckstein says hello.

[John_Brian_K]

With April about over (and having time to look since it was just the weekend) we find that Mike Trout is going to finish April hitting about 260-270. So this will be his third consecutive month at a 900 or less OPS, out of a 6 month career - or half his career. And as a matter of fact, Miguel Cabrera also once went 3 consecutive months at or below 900 OPS, once in a 10 year career.

LOVE LOVE LOVE

[tiger337]

Hopefully we also found out that this has nothing to do with last year's MVP race......

That and also Trout does not have to consistently OPS .900 to be a great player because he does other things well. He did have a poor month of April though.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

LOVE LOVE LOVE

I know, right?

What an ***hole Trout was for deigning to have a MVP caliber season and for others to point that fact out in a season a Tiger won the batting triple crown.

[tiger337]

I think that Cabrera will have an even better season this year, but not win the Triple Crown or MVP.

[Yoda]

LOVE LOVE LOVE

Stupid Trout yay go tigers go team!!!!11

[lesgoblu02]

Stupid Trout yay go tigers go team!!!!11

Shouldn't that be "tigerz"?

[Gehringer_2]

Hopefully we also found out that this has nothing to do with last year's MVP race......

Hey - someone has to generate some non-political traffic. The baseball threads have been pretty dead.

[Yoda]

Are we really knocking Trout for "only" posting a .866 and .900 OPS in August and September?

I don't really understand the point in this.

[qsilvr2531]

Are we really knocking Trout for "only" posting a .866 and .900 OPS in August and September?

I don't really understand the point in this.

What part of "Trout doesn't even deserve to live in a country that Cabrera plays baseball in" do you not understand?

[Gehringer_2]

Are we really knocking Trout for "only" posting a .866 and .900 OPS in August and September?

I don't really understand the point in this.

My only point in any of this (other than discussion itself) has been that people were way ahead of the curve predicting what a great hitter Trout was going to be, he didn't yet have enough track record to make that prediction. There are a lot more guys that have 8-10 torrid weeks with the bat than ever turn into the next Jr or Cabrera. Trout had his at the beginning of his career in a call up shortened season that really magnified the effect, but none of those factors mitigated the statistical reality that he hadn't proved enough to be compared to Cabrera as a hitter. He may yet. But not yet.

[qsilvr2531]

My only point in any of this (other than discussion itself) has been that people were way ahead of the curve predicting what a great hitter Trout was going to be, he didn't yet have enough track record to make that prediction. There are a lot more guys that have 8-10 torrid weeks with the bat than ever turn into the next Jr or Cabrera. Trout had his at the beginning of his career in a call up shortened season that really magnified the effect, but none of those factors mitigated the statistical reality that he hadn't proved enough to be compared to Cabrera as a hitter. He may yet. But not yet.

All true but how many people were comparing Trout's career to Cabrera's?

[Yoda]

My only point in any of this (other than discussion itself) has been that people were way ahead of the curve predicting what a great hitter Trout was going to be, he didn't yet have enough track record to make that prediction. There are a lot more guys that have 8-10 torrid weeks with the bat than ever turn into the next Jr or Cabrera. Trout had his at the beginning of his career in a call up shortened season that really magnified the effect, but none of those factors mitigated the statistical reality that he hadn't proved enough to be compared to Cabrera as a hitter. He may yet. But not yet.

639 plate appearances. Using "call up shortened season" in your argument is a bit silly. It's been going on far too long. It's an insinuation that the sample is too small and that simply is not true.

[RedRamage]

I think there is a natural tendency for fans to want to value their teams/players above the opposition. In that sense it's ... well, gratifying isn't exactly the right word, but it kinda like that... to see an opposition player not living up to the standards of your favorite player.

I enjoy being able to say that Cabrera was the best player in the AL last year. I enjoy being able to say that he is the best hitter in the game. I enjoy being able to say that Verlander is the most dominate pitcher right now. And when this idea is challenged by other players doing well, I don't like it. I want my team, my players to be number one.

So if someone says that player X is just as good a pitcher as Verlander, but then I see he does poorly for a number of starts in a row, I enjoy that. I don't see that as a bad thing... it's why we are fans right? Doesn't mean I can't appreciate a good performance by another team/player, just as long as that performance isn't as good as my favorite team/player.

[Yoda]

All true but how many people were comparing Trout's career to Cabrera's?

Exactly. Trout, at age 20, had 639 PA's and posted a .963 OPS.

Cabrera, at age 20, had 346 PA's and posted a .793 OPS. The nerve of anyone comparing the two.

In fact, Cabrera didn't post an OPS as high as Trout's until his 4th season, at age 23. He's also had three seasons where he posted a sub-.900 OPS, including his first year in Detroit.

Pulling out "three months in a row" is cherry-picking at it's finest, especially when they span from one year to the next.

[RedRamage]

639 plate appearances. Using "call up shortened season" in your argument is a bit silly. It's been going on far too long. It's an insinuation that the sample is too small and that simply is not true.

Well, it depends on what was being said based on that sample size. I'm not saying that others did say this, I don't remember what the talking heads or fans said about Trout. But if someone was saying he was going to have a HOF career based on one season, that's too small of a sample size to make that claim.

On the other hand, it's not too small a sample size for an MVP award as those are, by definition, based on the year in question. I do believe that some people cited Cabrera's track record as a reason he should get the MVP over Trout. That's not correct in my opinion.

[Gehringer_2]

639 plate appearances. Using "call up shortened season" in your argument is a bit silly. It's been going on far too long. It's an insinuation that the sample is too small and that simply is not true.

I'd buy your argument if your evidence were better, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. Of those 639 AB, roughly half were as a great hitter, half were only as a good hitter. So the sample size of Trout as a great hitter is still under 500 AB, which is still too small in my book. YMMV.

My issue is consistency, that is what gets you to the HOF in the MLB. Cabrera was a more consistent hitter out of the gate in his career than Trout.

[Antrat]

League is adjusting to Trout. Now it's Trout's turn to adjust as well.
It'll be a very interesting season for him.
Of course, even if he finishes this season with a .850 OPS, I'll take that from a guy as young as him. That most likely will mean that he's going to get much, much better.

EDIT: Hell, I'll take an .850 OPS from most guys not named Miguel Cabrera and be thrilled..

[Yoda]

I'd buy your argument if your evidence were better, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. Of those 639 AB, roughly half were as a great hitter, half were only as a good hitter. So the sample size of Trout as a great hitter is still under 500 AB, which is still too small in my book. YMMV.

My issue is consistency, that is what gets you to the HOF in the MLB. Cabrera was a more consistent hitter out of the gate in his career than Trout.

So consistency is more important than actual production? Is that really the argument you're trying to make?

[tiger337]

My only point in any of this (other than discussion itself) has been that people were way ahead of the curve predicting what a great hitter Trout was going to be, he didn't yet have enough track record to make that prediction. There are a lot more guys that have 8-10 torrid weeks with the bat than ever turn into the next Jr or Cabrera. Trout had his at the beginning of his career in a call up shortened season that really magnified the effect, but none of those factors mitigated the statistical reality that he hadn't proved enough to be compared to Cabrera as a hitter. He may yet. But not yet.

Who said Trout would have a better career as a hitter than Cabrera? The whole debate last year was not about who was the better hitter or who would be the better hitter. It was whether the sum of everything (not just hitting) Trout did was better than everything than Cabrera did. Last year Trout was better because his base running and defense more than made up for the difference in hitting (which was very small if any). This year, Cabrera is better so far, because Trout's base running and defense do not make up for Cabrera's huge hitting advantage.

[Yoda]

Come on Lee, Trout played a shortened season last year.

[Gehringer_2]

So consistency is more important than actual production? Is that really the argument you're trying to make?

If you have two great months, that's nice, but yes, if you want to be called a great hitter you have to produce consistently. 263AB - 755OPS is not great production and that is where Trout is right now. And 287 BA 883 OPS is where he has been since last Aug 1, which is now almost half of his career. those are nice numbers, but not great player numbers. To fulfill the promise of last May and June he has to keep doing it or it was just a fluke.

And he may be a great fielder but corner OF is not a premium defensive position in baseball. That may be the Angels fault, but the value his defense brings as a LF is also limited.

[Gehringer_2]

Who said Trout would have a better career as a hitter than Cabrera? The whole debate last year was not about who was the better hitter or who would be the better hitter. It was whether the sum of everything (not just hitting) Trout did was better than everything than Cabrera did. Last year Trout was better because his base running and defense more than made up for the difference in hitting (which was very small if any). This year, Cabrera is better so far, because Trout's base running and defense do not make up for Cabrera's huge hitting advantage.

I'm not going to repost all the threads Lee. There were two debates running simultaneously, the technical one you describe, as well as the 'Mike Trout is going to make everyone forget about anyone who ever played the game before'. None of which is relevant anyway. This is thread about what a great player Cabrera is, and the post was primarily about the fact that Cabby in 10 years had only had a three month stretch as 'bad' as baseball's new phenom exactly once in his whole career. The rest is in the eye of beholder.

[Yoda]

If you have two great months, that's nice, but yes, if you want to be called a great hitter you have to produce consistently. 263AB - 755OPS is not great production and that is where Trout is right now. And 287 BA 883 OPS is where he has been since last Aug 1, which is now almost half of his career. those are nice numbers, but not great player numbers. To fulfill the promise of last May and June he has to keep doing it or it was just a fluke.

And he may be a great fielder but corner OF is not a premium defensive position in baseball. That may be the Angels fault, but the value his defense brings as a LF is also limited.

He had 4 months of a .900 OPS or better, to go with terrific defense and baserunning (which Cabrera didn't reach until August of his 2nd year). The other month he merely had an .866 OPS.

To say he only had two great months is yet another falsehood.

[tiger337]

I'm not going to repost all the threads Lee. There were two debates running simultaneously, the technical one you describe, as well as the 'Mike Trout is going to make everyone forget about anyone who ever played the game before'. None of which is relevant anyway. This is thread about what a great player Cabrera is, and the post was primarily about the fact that Cabby in 10 years had only had a three month stretch as 'bad' as baseball's new phenom exactly once in his whole career. The rest is in the eye of beholder.

If the thread is supposed to be about how great Cabrera is, then why bring up Trout? They aren't even similar types of players. Comparing Cabrera to Pujols over their careers would be more interesting.

[Yoda]

In honor of Bryce Harper playing his 162nd career game, here is the list of the top 12 home run hitters through their age 20 seasons:

1. Mel Ott, 61
2. Tony Conigliaro, 56
3. Alex Rodriguez, 41
4. Ken Griffey, 38
5. Frank Robinson, 38
6. Mickey Mantle, 36
7. Mike Trout, 35
8. Al Kaline, 32
9. Bryce Harper, 31
(tie) Ted Williams, 31
11. Orlando Cepeda, 25

(tie) Eddie Mathews, 25

Now, some of these players — Alex Rodriguez, Ted Williams and Cepeda — actually turned 21at some point DURING the season, something Bryce Harper will not do until October.

Harper, Trout and the future | HardballTalk

Meh...

[Gehringer_2]

If the thread is supposed to be about how great Cabrera is, then why bring up Trout? They aren't even similar types of players. Comparing Cabrera to Pujols over their careers would be more interesting.

Umm - answered in the prior post. Since the comparison had tremendous currency last last season it seemed appropriate enough.

[John_Brian_K]

I think there is a natural tendency for fans to want to value their teams/players above the opposition. In that sense it's ... well, gratifying isn't exactly the right word, but it kinda like that... to see an opposition player not living up to the standards of your favorite player.

I enjoy being able to say that Cabrera was the best player in the AL last year. I enjoy being able to say that he is the best hitter in the game. I enjoy being able to say that Verlander is the most dominate pitcher right now. And when this idea is challenged by other players doing well, I don't like it. I want my team, my players to be number one.

So if someone says that player X is just as good a pitcher as Verlander, but then I see he does poorly for a number of starts in a row, I enjoy that. I don't see that as a bad thing... it's why we are fans right? Doesn't mean I can't appreciate a good performance by another team/player, just as long as that performance isn't as good as my favorite team/player.

God...plus 1 million

[tiger337]

Umm - answered in the prior post. Since the comparison had tremendous currency last last season it seemed appropriate enough.

But the comparison was not just about hitting. Trout could post .860 - .900 OPS consistently and still be a superstar, especially if he moves back to CF on a regular basis. Cabrera would not be the superstar he is if consistently OPSed .860 - .900.

[Antrat]

Can we all agree that Josh Reddick sucks ***?

[tiger337]

I think there is a natural tendency for fans to want to value their teams/players above the opposition. In that sense it's ... well, gratifying isn't exactly the right word, but it kinda like that... to see an opposition player not living up to the standards of your favorite player.

I enjoy being able to say that Cabrera was the best player in the AL last year. I enjoy being able to say that he is the best hitter in the game. I enjoy being able to say that Verlander is the most dominate pitcher right now. And when this idea is challenged by other players doing well, I don't like it. I want my team, my players to be number one.

So if someone says that player X is just as good a pitcher as Verlander, but then I see he does poorly for a number of starts in a row, I enjoy that. I don't see that as a bad thing... it's why we are fans right? Doesn't mean I can't appreciate a good performance by another team/player, just as long as that performance isn't as good as my favorite team/player.

Very true! And some have said they thought Trout was better but would have voted for Cabrera because they are Tigers fans and he had a great enough year. However, once someone tries to back up their claims with analysis, it turns into a different kind of debate (which I don't think is a bad thing).

[Nastradamus]

If you have two great months, that's nice, but yes, if you want to be called a great hitter you have to produce consistently. 263AB - 755OPS is not great production and that is where Trout is right now. And 287 BA 883 OPS is where he has been since last Aug 1, which is now almost half of his career. those are nice numbers, but not great player numbers. To fulfill the promise of last May and June he has to keep doing it or it was just a fluke.

And he may be a great fielder but corner OF is not a premium defensive position in baseball. That may be the Angels fault, but the value his defense brings as a LF is also limited.

883 OPS with great defense and baserunning is an elite player, period.

[John_Brian_K]

883 OPS with great defense and baserunning is an elite player, period.

..

if you want to be called a great hitter

[Gehringer_2]

But the comparison was not just about hitting. Trout could post .860 - .900 OPS consistently and still be a superstar, especially if he moves back to CF on a regular basis. Cabrera would not be the superstar he is if consistently OPSed .860 - .900.

IDK Lee. Maybe. But I think while you might get to Cooperstown for D as a middle IF, if you don't really mash you'd be swimming upstream as a LF. There just isn't that much D value there. It a game of Hitting, Pitching and maybe up the middle Defense. I mean, I love great OF play probably more than almost anyone, but I don't overestimate its value. More teams go to the WS with middling fielding corner OFs that can hit a ton than vice-versa.

If he moves back to CF he certainly will have a better claim - but none of that matters unless his hitting picks back up. Seriously, lets say he turns into a somewhat better Torii Hunter. How close do you think Hunter is to HOF status? I haven't really thought about it but I would not have thought that close.

As for base stealing - again, many guys come in with with great base stealing speed when they are young, but relatively few have the genes to keep doing that as they get older and 'fill out'. Only time will tell on that score for Trout, but again - it is no sure thing he will be able to run like he can now at 28, or even 26. So I think the question of how much his speed can contribute to SuperStar status, which I think is by definition a longer term kind of performance, is also something that has to be proved and not assumed.

EDIT: HaHa - and here we are talking more about Trout. If it becomes an interesting topic, who cares what thread it's in?

EDIT/EDIT: and Hunter is probably not the comparison I wanted. Thought Torii was closer to 850 career OPS, but he is only about 800

[RedRamage]

God...plus 1 million

Okay, now just because I'm a wish-washy sorta guy who likes to straddle the fence most of the time, I will add that I think: "Love it, love it, love it!" is taking it a bit too far. I'm happy to see my guys play well and put up better numbers than the opposition. But I don't take joy or glee from a player doing poorly... unless that player is with the Yanks.

Honestly I think your "love it, love it, love it" statement is directed not so much at Trout "struggling" (compared to what he did early last year). Rather, I think it's directed at those talking heads who were insinuating that (to steal from Gehringer: ) "'Mike Trout is going to make everyone forget about anyone who ever played the game before.'"

You don't want to see Trout fail. Rather you want to see these talking heads who made super early long term career projections based on a small sample size fail. Unfortunately that means Trout has to kinda fail, but that's an unfortunate by product, not your desired outcome.