AL mvp....

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

I agree with this completely, which is why I don't think it is crazy to believe that this may actually be the best season that Mike Trout ever has. If he regresses his BABIP, and that is incredibly likely, he is going to have to pick up his power, lower his strikeouts by a decent chunk or walk a lot more than he already does. Those things could certainly be possible given his age. But, Mike Trout does have a hit on 38.1% of the balls he has put in play this year. Those count just as much as those cheap home runs hit in Yankee Stadium count.

If Trout maintains his current LD and GB rates, with his speed, I'm not sure that BABIP is really going to dip much.

[bucksfan2]

Originally Posted by jojo

If Cabrera played for the Whitesox, it's very likely that we wouldn't be having this conversation.

If Cabrera played for the White Sox they would be in the playoffs and we would be having this very exact conversation.

[M2]

Originally Posted by jojo

If Cabrera played for the Whitesox, it's very likely that we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Count me in with bucksfan2, I suspect Cabrera would have a stronger case with the White Sox:

1) His team probably would have run away with the division.

2) He'd be playing in a larger media market.

3) His home park would be giving his numbers a bit more padding.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by jojo

If Cabrera played for the Whitesox, it's very likely that we wouldn't be having this conversation.

If he was a camel we wouldn't either.

[Bumstead]

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts Christmas would be everyday...

[M2]

Originally Posted by westofyou

If he was a camel we wouldn't either.

Dromedary or Bactrian?

If he was a three-hump camel, that might do it. Haven't seen one of those since 1967.

[jojo]

It's pretty clear that the point was: A significant amount of support for Cabrera is derived from the fact that his team is in the playoffs.

If he wasn't in the playoffs, would he still be MVP-worthy? He's pretty much had an identical year to last year. If his team had wrapped it up two weeks ago, would he still be MVP-worthy. Verlander has largely had an identical year this season as last and no one is talking about him in terms of the MVP who led his team past the CHiSox.

In other words, alot of the value being ascribed to Cabrera is assumed value based upon a romantic narrative.

So if "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts and using this cliche actually made a salient point, why is the date for Christmas so arbitrary in this debate?

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by M2

The rush for a simple answer, IMO, is passing by a chance to think more broadly about the game.

Great, let's talk about those things I omitted; those things that fall outside of WAR. What are they? Cabrera's move to 3B? Clubhouse leadership? I'm 100% for thinking as broadly as possible. However, if in going broad you get so nebulous, vague and undefined that there is no such thing as objectivity, what's the point? What I'm asking for isn't simplicity. It's clarity, transparency and consistency.

I'm all for including whatever other factors you want to include. I may disagree with your choices, but at least we can have the conversation. But I want those factors to be both stated explicit and equally applied. For example, to talk about Cabrera's leadership, but make no mention of Trout's makes for an unfair comparison. To dismiss GIDP because of batting order but to not treat RBI with skepticism for the same reason in unfair. It ends up turning in to an exercise in cherry picking a set of criteria that supports a conclusion already arrived at.

If people go through a process of comparing the players across a discrete set of criteria and come out Cabrera on top, that's one thing. But I want people to be intellectually honest and consistent in how they define value and how each guy rates across that definition and to be willing to defend the definition they choose.

[Brutus]

Since when does Cabrera get marks for leadership? The Marlins traded him because he was overweight, had questions about his work ethic and was sketchy in the clubhouse. Since he has gone to Detroit, he's had numerous run-ins with the law and a reported drinking problem.

I didn't think leadership was one of his so-called strongsuits.

[M2]

Originally Posted by jojo

It's pretty clear that the point was: A significant amount of support for Cabrera is derived from the fact that his team is in the playoffs.

I don't know that it is. His team's strong finish certainly helps, but if Cabrera had played just as well down the stretch and his team fell short, his support might be near identical.

Trout's getting some demerits for flagging down the stretch while his team fell short. By the same token, he might still be getting those demerits if the Angels were in the playoffs (based on him not being the main man on the team when it made its big push).

[M2]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

Great, let's talk about those things I omitted; those things that fall outside of WAR. What are they? Cabrera's move to 3B? Clubhouse leadership? I'm 100% for thinking as broadly as possible. However, if in going broad you get so nebulous, vague and undefined that there is no such thing as objectivity, what's the point? What I'm asking for isn't simplicity. It's clarity, transparency and consistency.

I'm all for including whatever other factors you want to include. I may disagree with your choices, but at least we can have the conversation. But I want those factors to be both stated explicit and equally applied. For example, to talk about Cabrera's leadership, but make no mention of Trout's makes for an unfair comparison. To dismiss GIDP because of batting order but to not treat RBI with skepticism for the same reason in unfair. It ends up turning in to an exercise in cherry picking a set of criteria that supports a conclusion already arrived at.

If people go through a process of comparing the players across a discrete set of criteria and come out Cabrera on top, that's one thing. But I want people to be intellectually honest and consistent in how they define value and how each guy rates across that definition and to be willing to defend the definition they choose.

I didn't dismiss GIDP, far from it. And if you're going to type garbage like that, then go waste someone else's time with your pointless drivel.

[DGullett35]

If Miggy gets the triple crown there is no argument for anyone else. Plus his team is in the postseason. To me thats a no-brainer. 47 years since Yaz done it??? Kind of crazy it hasnt happened in that long.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by DGullett35

If Miggy gets the triple crown there is no argument for anyone else. Plus his team is in the postseason. To me thats a no-brainer. 47 years since Yaz done it??? Kind of crazy it hasnt happened in that long.

Why should he be rewarded for what his team did? That is a concept I have never understood.

As for the triple crown.... great, but what does it actually mean? Simply leading the league in average, home runs and RBI does not mean you produced more than everyone else. Is it awesome that he has done it? Sure is. As a baseball fan, it really is awesome. But that alone doesn't make him the most valuable player.

[757690]

Originally Posted by DGullett35

If Miggy gets the triple crown there is no argument for anyone else. Plus his team is in the postseason. To me thats a no-brainer. 47 years since Yaz done it??? Kind of crazy it hasnt happened in that long.

If the triple crown included things besides just hitting, I'd agree, but it doesn't, so it really shouldn't be the only factor in deciding who wins the MVP. And history tells us it never has been.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by 757690

If the triple crown included things besides just hitting, I'd agree, but it doesn't, so it really shouldn't be the only factor in deciding who wins the MVP. And history tells us it never has been.

And it doesn't even give us the best snapshot of hitting, as it doesn't include doubles, triples or walks.