Most Important Thing to Happen Tonight

[Nate Pruitt]

For the first time since 1967 there is a Triple-Crown winner in MLB. What an incredible accomplishment for Miguel Cabrera. I would sincerely hope that the MVP vote is just a formality at this point. That isn't to take anything away from the other players who have been so meaningful to their teams. Shoot, I'm not even a Tigers fan. But to have a guy be so valuable as a batter in comparison to the league seems to put him nicely in the lead.

I will say that Trout was definitely MVP of my fantasy baseball team, but I didn't have Cabrera.

[Jim Franklin]

Is Trout eligible for "Rookie of the Year?"

[Peggy Gray]

I was living in Boston in 1967 when Yaz won the last triple crown. I wondered if I'd ever see another one! (Even with steroids)

[Shea Zellweger]

Now the horse racing people will never shut up about how special theirs is...

[Nate Pruitt]

Is Trout eligible for "Rookie of the Year?"

Yes, and seems to be the clear winner.

[Benjamin Burch]

Trout is still the clear MVP. He was more valuable offensively he was more valuable defensively. He plays a far more valuable position.

Even with the triple crown, Miguel Cabrera was not as good with the bat as Trout was.

[Nate Pruitt]

I can attest to Trout falling off significantly the final two months of the season. Those would tend to be when the race to the playoffs succeeds or fails. Miggy & company rose toward the end and succeeded. Trout and his team faltered. No way Miggy gets the Triple Crown if Trout doesn't drop so much in September, especially.

Like most rookies Trout lacked full season endurance. He was great, but I would struggle to give MVP to a lead-off batter that drastically dropped the number of times he got on base right as the playoff/wild card race tightened.

[Mike Schutz]

This might still be close, although the conversation has become a bit more one-sided (pro Cabrera) in recent days. It seems, at least anecdotally, that we are going to see this break down old-school, new-school - and sportswriters tend to be old school. However, the Cy Young has been dramatically influenced by new stats in the recent past.

This is one of those great debates that separates baseball from other sports.

[Benjamin Burch]

This might still be close, although the conversation has become a bit more one-sided (pro Cabrera) in recent days. It seems, at least anecdotally, that we are going to see this break down old-school, new-school - and sportswriters tend to be old school. However, the Cy Young has been dramatically influenced by new stats in the recent past.

This is one of those great debates that separates baseball from other sports.

Old school will win ou like last year and Cabrera will win the MVP even though he isn't close to Trout.

Players do more than bat, you know.

Lastly, in response to Nate, MVP is a full season award which addresses the cumulative value of a player over the course of a full season. It shouldn't matter when the slump came. Especially considering Trout's team had the better record and if they were competing with the Tigers for a playoff spot Trout would be playing while Cabrera sat on his couch watching.

[Nate Pruitt]

Old school will win ou like last year and Cabrera will win the MVP even though he isn't close to Trout.

Players do more than bat, you know.

Lastly, in response to Nate, MVP is a full season award which addresses the cumulative value of a player over the course of a full season. It shouldn't matter when the slump came. Especially considering Trout's team had the better record and if they were competing with the Tigers for a playoff spot Trout would be playing while Cabrera sat on his couch watching.

I've truly wanted to believe they were full season awards, but in recent years it seems many voters have become dumbed down by things like the BCS (weight on what happens late). I think Trout's numbers and impact were phenomenal! Especially when you consider that he did what he did without playing the first month at the pro level, so most players he beat statistically he overtook. I'd build a team around him any day, and over Harper, too. If I'm fortunate I'll be able to get him for fantasy next season, too.

[David Morris]

Trout is still the clear MVP. He was more valuable offensively he was more valuable defensively. He plays a far more valuable position.

Even with the triple crown, Miguel Cabrera was not as good with the bat as Trout was.

Old school will win ou like last year and Cabrera will win the MVP even though he isn't close to Trout.

Players do more than bat, you know.

Lastly, in response to Nate, MVP is a full season award which addresses the cumulative value of a player over the course of a full season. It shouldn't matter when the slump came. Especially considering Trout's team had the better record and if they were competing with the Tigers for a playoff spot Trout would be playing while Cabrera sat on his couch watching.

Sorry, Ben. You will really need to back these statements up with some solid evidence.

How is Trout "the clear MVP?" How is it "not even close?" Trout's team had the better record? They won one more game...which would indeed be a better record, but the tone of your posts suggest it was a night and day difference.

You are correct in stating that players do more than bat, and Trout's abilities on the base paths are incredible. However, what makes Trout's position more valuable defensively?

An argument can be made for both guys, and I don't think it would be correct to say that Trout was hands down more valuable.

Without Cabrera, the Tigers are probably not in the playoffs (IMO).

With Trout, the Angels are not in the playoffs. That fact cannot be argued.

[Benjamin Burch]

Trout beats Cabrera in almost every category.

fWAR
rWAR

Offensively:

oWAR
wRC+
wOBA
OPS+

Defensively:

dWAR
TZ
UZR

He also ran the bases better. There is not a single thing Cabrera did better except hit for more power and not by much. In fact, if you took Trout's singles which he stole 2nd and converted them to doubles (it is effectively the same thing) Trout would win in power, too.

Cabrera literally did nothin better than Trout. Literally.

Lastly, 3B hit better than CF. If you took their performance and only graded it against their position instead of league-wide average, Trout would dwarf Cabrera.

Baseball Reference has done the research and found that, on average, 3B is worth 2.5 runs above average each year while CF are worth about 9. CF is far more valuable defensively than 3B and offensive value is harder to come by at CF than 3B, making Trout's offensive production far more valuable than Canrera's.

It isn't even remotely close.

[Benjamin Burch]

Oh, I forgot, Cabrera Getz thim Arbeyiiiiiiizze!

Check this out. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index...text-included/

Trout crushes Cabrera in everything. This race isn't remotely close.

[Shea Zellweger]

Oh, I forgot, Cabrera Getz thim Arbeyiiiiiiizze!

Check this out. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index...text-included/

Wow, that might just be my new favorite statistic.

Trout crushes Cabrera in everything. This race isn't remotely close.

Nope, Trout doesn't crush Cabrera in everything, and this race remains close. Trout crushes Cabrera in all Sabermetric statistics. Cabrera won the three biggest non-adjusted raw statistics, and was the first person to do so in 45 years. This is not a race between Mike Trout and Miguel Cabrera, it is a race between traditional and newfangled understandings of baseball statistics. Each of them is the clear winner by one of those measures, and the clear loser by the other.

[David Morris]

Wow, that might just be my new favorite statistic.



Nope, Trout doesn't crush Cabrera in everything, and this race remains close. Trout crushes Cabrera in all Sabermetric statistics. Cabrera won the three biggest non-adjusted raw statistics, and was the first person to do so in 45 years. This is not a race between Mike Trout and Melky Cabrera, it is a race between traditional and newfangled understandings of baseball statistics. Each of them is the clear winner by one of those measures, and the clear loser by the other.

Did you mean Miguel?

[Benjamin Burch]

Wow, that might just be my new favorite statistic.



Nope, Trout doesn't crush Cabrera in everything, and this race remains close. Trout crushes Cabrera in all Sabermetric statistics. Cabrera won the three biggest non-adjusted raw statistics, and was the first person to do so in 45 years. This is not a race between Mike Trout and Melky Cabrera, it is a race between traditional and newfangled understandings of baseball statistics. Each of them is the clear winner by one of those measures, and the clear loser by the other.

Technically even that isn't true. That is, HR and BA don't mean anything without being given meaning. Saber statistics give them meaning.

[Shea Zellweger]

Did you mean Miguel?

Why, yes, I did. Which is why I wrote Miguel. I can't imagine why you felt the need to edit your quote of me to make it appear as though I wrote Melky...

Technically even that isn't true. That is, HR and BA don't mean anything without being given meaning. Saber statistics give them meaning.

Ben,
I agree with you on Saber Statistics. But you're going to have to face facts here; a lot of people do not agree with you on Saber Statistics, and are not going to be persuaded by anything but the fact that Cabrera won the triple crown, which they consider to be the greatest statistical achievement possible. So technically, it is true that Cabrera won the traditional statistics. You can't read the Triple Crown through the lens of a Sabermetrician and then expect Traditionalists to see it the same way, despite having a distinctly different lens. For goodness sake, man, that's Hermeneutics 101.

[Benjamin Burch]

Why, yes, I did. Which is why I wrote Miguel. I can't imagine why you felt the need to edit your quote of me to make it appear as though I wrote Melky...

Ben,
I agree with you on Saber Statistics. But you're going to have to face facts here; a lot of people do not agree with you on Saber Statistics, and are not going to be persuaded by anything but the fact that Cabrera won the triple crown, which they consider to be the greatest statistical achievement possible. So technically, it is true that Cabrera won the traditional statistics. You can't read the Triple Crown through the lens of a Sabermetrician and then expect Traditionalists to see it the same way, despite having a distinctly different lens. For goodness sake, man, that's Hermeneutics 101.

Even still, I don't buy it.

Trout had more SB, better OBP, more runs, more walks, more outs defensively, and a better fielding percentage.

So, again, I am not convinced Cabrera won traditional metrics. Again, this isn't even about saver metrics at all. It is about understanding and looking at the entire game of baseball.

Hitting
Fielding
Baserunning

If you go by traditional stats Cabrera was maybe better than Trout in one of 3 categories.

[Nate Pruitt]

Even still, I don't buy it.

Trout had more SB, better OBP, more runs, more walks, more outs defensively, and a better fielding percentage.

So, again, I am not convinced Cabrera won traditional metrics. Again, this isn't even about saver metrics at all. It is about understanding and looking at the entire game of baseball.

Hitting
Fielding
Baserunning

If you go by traditional stats Cabrera was maybe better than Trout in one of 3 categories.

I can tell you'll be sorely disappointed when the old-school voters go ahead and let Trout get Rookie of the Year while they hand the MVP to the veteran, Cabrera. There is a distinct human element in all of this, too.

[Benjamin Burch]

I can tell you'll be sorely disappointed when the old-school voters go ahead and let Trout get Rookie of the Year while they hand the MVP to the veteran, Cabrera. There is a distinct human element in all of this, too.

Yes, I will be sorely disappointed. However, 3x the triple crown winner did not win MVP. I can hope. They got last year's NL MVP wrong, too, bc of old school ideas. I can't even believe it. At this point we know so much to be true and confirmed yet so many are afraid of it and refuse to come around on sheer ignorance.

All I can say about this race is.... Players do more than hit the ball.

[Michael Flowers]

My thoughts are this: Miguel Cabrera will win the AL MVP to give honor to his Triple Crown achievement and his team making the playoffs. Mike Trout will win a gold glove and is the clear cut winner of the AL Rookie of the Year, who likely deserves at the very worst, second place (though a super strong case for first) in the MVP voting. The other thing that I could see playing against Trout in the MVP voting is that Cabrera played in 22 more games than Trout. Those 22 games could also explain the large gap in certain statistics. Trout will for sure be making an MVP case for years to come and not getting the award should not damage his career in any way.

[Michael Flowers]

I would also say that the most important thing that happened was that Chipper Jones ended a remarkable regular season career the day that this thread originated. Yesterday was a far worse way to end a career (What a call!)

[Nate Pruitt]

My thoughts are this: Miguel Cabrera will win the AL MVP to give honor to his Triple Crown achievement and his team making the playoffs. Mike Trout will win a gold glove and is the clear cut winner of the AL Rookie of the Year, who likely deserves at the very worst, second place (though a super strong case for first) in the MVP voting. The other thing that I could see playing against Trout in the MVP voting is that Cabrera played in 22 more games than Trout. Those 22 games could also explain the large gap in certain statistics. Trout will for sure be making an MVP case for years to come and not getting the award should not damage his career in any way.

Considering it was batting average that Trout most closely contested Cabrera, yes, 22 games mean a LOT. Especially considering that more games tend to work only to lower a BA substantially- as Trout's last 6 weeks of the season proved (which is why I respect Melky withdrawing himself from that in the NL as his suspension greatly increased his odds of winning the batting title rather than losing it).

[Benjamin Burch]

My thoughts are this: Miguel Cabrera will win the AL MVP to give honor to his Triple Crown achievement and his team making the playoffs. Mike Trout will win a gold glove and is the clear cut winner of the AL Rookie of the Year, who likely deserves at the very worst, second place (though a super strong case for first) in the MVP voting. The other thing that I could see playing against Trout in the MVP voting is that Cabrera played in 22 more games than Trout. Those 22 games could also explain the large gap in certain statistics. Trout will for sure be making an MVP case for years to come and not getting the award should not damage his career in any way.

Yes and no. What we saw this year was greatness, plain and simple. However, a few things to note moving forward.

(1) trout has never displayed this sort of power, or even the potential for this kind of power before. I will be interested to see what his power numbers look like moving forward.

(2) What Trout did this year was so special because he combined elite production at the plate with elite production at a premier defensive position, with elite defense at that position. However, the peak for players' defensive a abilities is usually 24 or 25. At CF (the position requiring the most speed), that age can be younger. Usually guys with string arms can make up for that for a few years, but Trout's arm is very so-so. While he will no doubt have some MVP bids, his window for this kind of all-around greatness could be short. I would hate to see this year go to acknowledging someone else.

[Benjamin Burch]

Just something to think about which proves the futility of both the RBI stat and the concept of the triple crown in this context...

Sometime around 1900 someone decided that knocking in runs was more important than scoring runs, even though they are two sides of the same coin. If the triple crown were instead BA, HR, R, Cabrera wouldn't have won and this discussion wouldn't even be going on.

On top of that, it privileges BA over OBP, which is the most obvious flaw in baseball.

This isn't even talking saber metrics. Again, the idea that Cabrera won traditional stats simply isn't clear at all.

OBP, HR, R ---- Trout wins two legs.

[Nate Pruitt]

What Trout did this year was so special because he combined elite production at the plate with elite production at a premier defensive position, with elite defense at that position. However, the peak for players' defensive a abilities is usually 24 or 25. At CF (the position requiring the most speed), that age can be younger.

I dunno- Otis Nixon was an incredibly solid defensive CF at 68 or however old he was in his hey-day for the Braves.

[Nate Pruitt]

Well, Trout didn't even win the Golden Glove in the AL (beat out by Adam Jones of the Baltimore Orioles). I would imagine that pretty much gives the MVP to Cabrera.

[Michael Flowers]

Well, Trout didn't even win the Golden Glove in the AL (beat out by Adam Jones of the Baltimore Orioles). I would imagine that pretty much gives the MVP to Cabrera.

Depends, because Cabrera didn't win one either (unless I'm missing his name on the report).

[David Morris]

3 Orioles win Gold Gloves. They will also definitely walk away with the Manager of the Year award...that is no contest.

[Michael Flowers]

Oakland's manager (Bob Melvin) put up a good bid for it though too (and posted a better record). Oakland won the west division and weren't expected to compete with LA or Tex, so that will definitely warrant Melvin consideration for the Manager of the Year award. Both teams were greatly improved but I believe that the A's talent performed far greater than the expectations going into the season. Everyone knew that Baltimore should be a good team, and a serious contender because they have been developing and bringing in the talent the past few years. No matter which manager gets the award, either one would be deserving (any chance of having co-winners?)

[David Troxler]

Manager of the Year....
What, not Bobby V?

[Benjamin Burch]

GG is a joke. It irritates me to no end.

UZR:

Trout: 10.6
Jones: -6.7

UZR/150:

Trout: 13.9
Jones: -5.6

Fld%:

Trout: .993
Jones: .982

FldRuns:

Trout: 21
Jones: -16

dWAR:

Trout: 2.2
Jones: -1.3

DRS:

Trout: 23
Jones: -16

It really doesn't matter what standard you go by. Every advanced stat has Jones below average and Trout as the best in the AL.

[Michael Flowers]

GG is a joke. It irritates me to no end.

UZR:

Trout: 10.6
Jones: -6.7

UZR/150:

Trout: 13.9
Jones: -5.6

Fld%:

Trout: .993
Jones: .982

FldRuns:

Trout: 21
Jones: -16

dWAR:

Trout: 2.2
Jones: -1.3

DRS:

Trout: 23
Jones: -16

It really doesn't matter what standard you go by. Every advanced stat has Jones below average and Trout as the best in the AL.

At least Trout won the Fielding Bible award for his position. But not being given the Gold Glove does take away any shot at a grand slam of the awards (Field Bible, Gold Glove, MVP, Rookie/Year). Oh well, he should at least win two of the four (if he doesn't get the rookie award then something is wrong).

[Benjamin Burch]

At least Trout won the Fielding Bible award for his position. But not being given the Gold Glove does take away any shot at a grand slam of the awards (Field Bible, Gold Glove, MVP, Rookie/Year). Oh well, he should at least win two of the four (if he doesn't get the rookie award then something is wrong).

The frustrating part, for me, isn't even that Trout didn't win GG. It is that Jones did. Jones has been a below-average fielder in CF for 3 years now. The most volatile defensive metric (UZR) usually is considered stabilized after 3 years, and Jones' is a net negative of -19.7. So, at the very least, we can say that Jones is definitely a below-average fielder in CF...

Yet he won the GG.

DRS has him at -28 runs from average over the past 3 years.

The guy is a well-below average CF winning the GG. I would love to know their criteria.

[Nate Pruitt]

The frustrating part, for me, isn't even that Trout didn't win GG. It is that Jones did. Jones has been a below-average fielder in CF for 3 years now. The most volatile defensive metric (UZR) usually is considered stabilized after 3 years, and Jones' is a net negative of -19.7. So, at the very least, we can say that Jones is definitely a below-average fielder in CF...

Yet he won the GG.

DRS has him at -28 runs from average over the past 3 years.

The guy is a well-below average CF winning the GG. I would love to know their criteria.

Yeah, that was what I was looking for- I fired this back up because I just can't reconcile Jones even being in talks for the GG, forget winning the award. As for Michael's question- no Cabrera didn't win one, but Ben's argument for Trout as MVP included his vastly superior fielding (which is true, Trout is already a great defensive baseball player with potential for improvement in all aspects of his game). The joke, as it were, was that Trout didn't win the GG so his fielding couldn't be that superior to Cabrera, who also didn't win, thus giving Cabrera the MVP edge. Unfortunately, the worse joke is that Jones won it at all. I hope he finds motivation in winning to focus on defense and to continue to improve. Honestly, MLB postseason awards voting is about as foolish as NCAA preseason rankings.

[Benjamin Burch]

Yeah, that was what I was looking for- I fired this back up because I just can't reconcile Jones even being in talks for the GG, forget winning the award. As for Michael's question- no Cabrera didn't win one, but Ben's argument for Trout as MVP included his vastly superior fielding (which is true, Trout is already a great defensive baseball player with potential for improvement in all aspects of his game). The joke, as it were, was that Trout didn't win the GG so his fielding couldn't be that superior to Cabrera, who also didn't win, thus giving Cabrera the MVP edge. Unfortunately, the worse joke is that Jones won it at all. I hope he finds motivation in winning to focus on defense and to continue to improve. Honestly, MLB postseason awards voting is about as foolish as NCAA preseason rankings.

Exactly. If it were Austin Jackson winning the GG, I'd disagree but I'd shrug it off. But Adam Jones? :sigh:

[Benjamin Burch]

What's worse????

Michael Bourn was, without any competition, the best fielding outfielder in all of baseball this year. Who won CF? McCutchen... another below-average CF.

[David Morris]

Exactly. If it were Austin Jackson winning the GG, I'd disagree but I'd shrug it off. But Adam Jones? :sigh:

Unfortunately living in California, you don't get many opportunities to watch Adam Jones play baseball. UZR...seriously? Who cares what Adam Jones did for 2 of the years that make up his 3 year UZR average...this was an award based only on his performance for 2012.

How could we argue with the managers and players that vote on this?

[Michael Flowers]

Unfortunately living in California, you don't get many opportunities to watch Adam Jones play baseball. UZR...seriously? Who cares what Adam Jones did for 2 of the years that make up his 3 year UZR average...this was an award based only on his performance for 2012.

How could we argue with the managers and players that vote on this?

I could argue pretty easily.

[Benjamin Burch]

Unfortunately living in California, you don't get many opportunities to watch Adam Jones play baseball. UZR...seriously? Who cares what Adam Jones did for 2 of the years that make up his 3 year UZR average...this was an award based only on his performance for 2012.

How could we argue with the managers and players that vote on this?

(1) Yes, UZR, seriously.
(2) I used more than UZR, I also used DRS. Between the two they are the most well-respected statistics in the baseball community and the best we have as far as defensive metrics.
(3) His UZR this year was horrible. That was the point. The only point of showing the other 2 was to show that this isn't an aberation (as is sometimes the case with UZR). But, instead, his full, 3-year, stabilized sample only confirms his below-average fielding this year.

(4) It is very easy to argue with them.

(a) As many have commented, these managers usually only see these other players about 6-10 times a year. Other than that, they spend their time with their team, not breaking down film of other players.
(b) Managers are notoriously behind the 8-ball when it comes to understanding the game statistically.
(c) Years upon years upon years of research have been invested into these SABRmetrics. They're far more valuable than people's opinions.

I'm sorry that you're an Orioles fan and that your guy won even though he shouldn't have. Alex Rios led all RF in baseball in Total Zone (the only metric Jones led the league in at CF, which he was tied with Trout)... yet you don't see me advocating for him. Josh Reddick was the right pick because he dominated, clearly.

Derek Jeter has tons of GG, and yet every single advanced statistic and statistician will tell you that he is arguably the worst defensive SS to ever play the game. He has no range whatsoever and routinely doesn't get to balls in his zone.

It is what it is. GG is a joke of an award. You want a valuable award, go look up Fielding Bible.