AL mvp.... - Page 14 - RedsZone.com - Cincinnati Reds Fans' Home for Baseball Discussion

Tom Servo · 10-02-2012, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bumstead

So, Mike Trout is such a tremendous player and so valuable that he couldn't even lead the Angels to the playoffs? Are the Angels short on talent compared to Oakland? I would argue that the Angels have more talent and yet even with Mike Trout they have failed to reach the playoffs. How is that possible if he is that valuable?

It's easy to blow-off Cabrera agreeing to move to 3b and forget that he didn't have to do that. Votto wouldn't do it. Cabrera did and that allowed Detroit to sign Fielder. It doesn't work for all'y'alls argument to give that any value but I bet even the Reds would be a better team if Votto had moved to LF so that the Reds could sign Fielder (not that the Reds had the money to do so, but saying there is no value is just discounting something that doesn't help your argument).

I believe it is Cabrera in a landslide, although there will be the people that only rely on WAR that vote for Trout; I just find it short-sighted to rely on a stat that has so many assumptions tied into calculating it. Even I can see all the talent on the Angels roster; how can adding the best player in baseball turn a playoff team into a non-playoff team and how does that make Trout the most "valuable" player?

Bum

The Angels have a better record than the Tigers do.

jojo · 10-02-2012, 05:44 PM

Cabrera came up as a shortstop who was converted to a third baseman by age 19.

moving from first to third probably wasn't viewed as a sacrifice by him.

Bumstead · 10-02-2012, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

The Angels have a better record than the Tigers do.

The Angels are not in the playoffs and I believe baseball goes with an unbalanced schedule, no?

So, their record must be significantly better than last season now that they have Trout, right? No? sigh....

jojo · 10-02-2012, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bumstead

The Angels are not in the playoffs and I believe baseball goes with an unbalanced schedule, no?

So, their record must be significantly better than last season now that they have Trout, right? No? sigh....

This strikes me as a strange way to determine the MVP. BTW, they technically had Trout last year and the tigers certainly had Cabrera last year and are 8 games worse this season.

Homer Bailey · 10-02-2012, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bumstead

So, Mike Trout is such a tremendous player and so valuable that he couldn't even lead the Angels to the playoffs? Are the Angels short on talent compared to Oakland? I would argue that the Angels have more talent and yet even with Mike Trout they have failed to reach the playoffs. How is that possible if he is that valuable?

It's easy to blow-off Cabrera agreeing to move to 3b and forget that he didn't have to do that. Votto wouldn't do it. Cabrera did and that allowed Detroit to sign Fielder. It doesn't work for all'y'alls argument to give that any value but I bet even the Reds would be a better team if Votto had moved to LF so that the Reds could sign Fielder (not that the Reds had the money to do so, but saying there is no value is just discounting something that doesn't help your argument).

I believe it is Cabrera in a landslide, although there will be the people that only rely on WAR that vote for Trout; I just find it short-sighted to rely on a stat that has so many assumptions tied into calculating it. Even I can see all the talent on the Angels roster; how can adding the best player in baseball turn a playoff team into a non-playoff team and how does that make Trout the most "valuable" player?

Bum

Since Trout came up to the majors, the Angels have the best record in the American League.

I know you're not going to try to understand any other points made, so that's all the time I'll spend on this post.

Bumstead · 10-02-2012, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Homer Bailey

Since Trout came up to the majors, the Angels have the best record in the American League.

I know you're not going to try to understand any other points made, so that's all the time I'll spend on this post.

I have already tried to understand all the points made. Still, it's not about who the best player is. It's about who the most "valuable" player is...That's Cabrera this year in my mind. You want to make determinations with a stat that has arbitrary decisions made in the calculation and I just don't believe that one can rely on that to make this type of decision. Is it interesting and useful at times? Yes. Is it the main or even a major factor in what I would use to determine MVP? Absolutely not.

Brutus · 10-02-2012, 06:01 PM

In order to call Cabrera the most valuable, one has to totally ignore baserunning and defense.

Baseball isn't just about hitting, it's about hitting, fielding and baserunning. Cabrera arguably has a small edge in one facet -- arguably -- but the other two aren't remotely close by any measure.

jojo · 10-02-2012, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bumstead

I have already tried to understand all the points made. Still, it's not about who the best player is. It's about who the most "valuable" player is...That's Cabrera this year in my mind. You want to make determinations with a stat that has arbitrary decisions made in the calculation and I just don't believe that one can rely on that to make this type of decision. Is it interesting and useful at times? Yes. Is it the main or even a major factor in what I would use to determine MVP? Absolutely not.

If you're referring to WAR, your criticism is off base. Assuming you're specifically referring to the defensive component of WAR, I doubt anyone would argue with the conclusion that Trout is substantially more valuable defensively both from the standpoint of the positions that Trout and Cabrera play and their ability to actually play them.

Bumstead · 10-02-2012, 06:30 PM

Were the Angels in the playoffs last year? How can Trout be MVP if that is the case? Do they have less talent than the A's? No. And they have Trout? And they missed the playoffs? How is this possible if they actually added the MVP (lets try to forget they also added an ok 1B)?

Bum

Patrick Bateman · 10-02-2012, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bumstead

Were the Angels in the playoffs last year? How can Trout be MVP if that is the case? Do they have less talent than the A's? No. And they have Trout? And they missed the playoffs? How is this possible if they actually added the MVP (lets try to forget they also added an ok 1B)?

Bum

Presumably has something to do with the rest of the roster.

Just a hunch.

Bumstead · 10-02-2012, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

Presumably has something to do with the rest of the roster.

Just a hunch.

I don't recall significant subtraction, only significant additions. How does adding the MVP not lead to more wins on a significantly improved team? Maybe the A's have a better candidate?

Brutus · 10-02-2012, 06:51 PM

Detroit this year has won 87 games; last year 95. They added Prince Fielder on top of Cabrera. So how can Cabrera be MVP for a team that has eight fewer wins?

There is no inherent logic to assuming a static number of wins from season to season.

Bumstead · 10-02-2012, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brutus

Detroit this year has won 87 games; last year 95. They added Prince Fielder on top of Cabrera. So how can Cabrera be MVP for a team that has eight fewer wins?

There is no inherent logic to assuming a static number of wins from season to season.

Answered a question w a question...yet the Yigers are in the playoffs & the Angels are at home with the MVP?

Brutus · 10-02-2012, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bumstead

Answered a question w a question...yet the Yigers are in the playoffs & the Angels are at home with the MVP?

Yet the Angels have a better record than the Tigers do. So if it were the Angels getting to play Kansas City, Minnesota and Cleveland as often as Detroit, they, not the Tigers, would be in the playoffs.

So basically you're saying Trout isn't as valuable as Cabrera because he is on a better team in a harder division.

Tom Servo · 10-02-2012, 07:02 PM

Somebody better go back in time and tell all of the MVP award winners before 1994 that unless their team played in the ALCS or NLCS, than they weren't really the MVP that season.

10-02-2012, 05:44 PM	#197
jojo Five Tool Fool Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 16,573	Re: AL mvp.... Cabrera came up as a shortstop who was converted to a third baseman by age 19. moving from first to third probably wasn't viewed as a sacrifice by him. __________________ "This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

10-02-2012, 06:01 PM	#202
Brutus Et tu, Brutus? Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Atlanta, Ga. Posts: 8,934	Re: AL mvp.... In order to call Cabrera the most valuable, one has to totally ignore baserunning and defense. Baseball isn't just about hitting, it's about hitting, fielding and baserunning. Cabrera arguably has a small edge in one facet -- arguably -- but the other two aren't remotely close by any measure. __________________ "No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

10-02-2012, 06:30 PM	#204
Bumstead Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,268	Re: AL mvp.... Were the Angels in the playoffs last year? How can Trout be MVP if that is the case? Do they have less talent than the A's? No. And they have Trout? And they missed the playoffs? How is this possible if they actually added the MVP (lets try to forget they also added an ok 1B)? Bum

10-02-2012, 06:51 PM	#207
Brutus Et tu, Brutus? Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Atlanta, Ga. Posts: 8,934	Re: AL mvp.... Detroit this year has won 87 games; last year 95. They added Prince Fielder on top of Cabrera. So how can Cabrera be MVP for a team that has eight fewer wins? There is no inherent logic to assuming a static number of wins from season to season. __________________ "No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

10-02-2012, 07:02 PM	#210
Tom Servo thirsty and miserable Join Date: May 2006 Location: NJ/NY Posts: 5,416	Re: AL mvp.... Somebody better go back in time and tell all of the MVP award winners before 1994 that unless their team played in the ALCS or NLCS, than they weren't really the MVP that season. __________________ "Since I've been with the Reds in 1989, we've never had a farm system this loaded," Bowden said. "If we were the New York Yankees and had unlimited dollars, we could have traded for Colon, (Jeff) Weaver, Rolen, (Cliff) Floyd, (Kenny) Rogers and Finley and gotten them all -- and still held onto our top five prospects. That's an amazing statement."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode