SpecialFNK wrote:Cabrera getting the triple crown in offensive categories is impressive no doubt, but in today's game with all the numbers it shouldn't be as meaningful as it once was.
Years players won the triple crown: 1878; 1887; 1894; 1901; 1909; 1922; 1925; 1933; 1933; 1934; 1937; 1942; 1947; 1956; 1966; 1967
No one's won since '67 so... you're claim is false. If, as you say, "in today's game with all the numbers it shouldn't be as meaningful as it once was," then folks would be racking up triple crowns every year. In fact, as the numbers indicate, it's harder to get the triple crown now than before. So Cabrera's possible feat is even more meaningful than it would have been in, say, 1934.
It would be one thing if the Detroit lineup was one of the best ever, but it's not. Only one aspect of the Triple Crown (RBI) can even be considered team-based but if you are leading the league in average and home runs the RBI are going to come no matter if you are on the Yankees or the Astros. It's going to be more difficult to get there on the Astros, but if a player's hitting with contact and power, runs get created. Now, I still believe Trout deserves MVP, but you guys are trying to make the Triple Crown into this worthless relic of the game which it's not.
Whatever, sub batting average in instead of runs. Trout is 25 BA points higher than both Eric Davis and Barry Bonds' 30/50 seasons. That's all beside the point. There are lots of combinations of 3 random stats that Trout did this year that nobody has ever done. What makes batting average and RBI so valuable? We are concerned with value here, right? As opposed to ancient narrative. I believe that's the criteria.
maybe I should have been more clear with what I meant. I meant the categories that include the triple crown. leading in HR and RBI are not as impressive as they used to be. Jose Bautista lead the league in HR in each of the last 2 seasons (along with being close in RBI), but he didn't win the MVP. last year he lost the award to a pitcher. HR are nice, and RBI depend on other teammates to get on base to drive in. Cabrera wouldn't have as many RBI if the players in front of him didn't get on base as often.
Trout had absolutely no chance at the triple crown. not because he can't hit HR, but because he bats leadoff and didn't have nearly as many opportunities with winners on base. he still had 83 RBI batting out of the leadoff spot, in only 139 games.
Cabrera had 248 R/RBI combined, in 161 games. Trout had 212 R/RBI combined, in 139 games.
whether a players team makes the playoffs or not really should not be a deciding factor, because there are so many other players on the team that help the team win.
now if someone wants to throw out that Cabrera also lead the league in other categories like OPS and SLG, then those mean more. I have no idea what the other numbers are for the 2 of them as far as statistics like OPS+, WAR, ect.
I don't know if this has ever happened, but has there ever been a tie in an MVP award where both players got to win the award because of the tie? this could be a good season for that to happen, because both are deserving. although it would be difficult, because the voting consists off human voters and it's unlikely to have it end in a tie.
It really comes down to whether or not you think the MVP means 'best player on a team that fought and snuck into the playoffs'
If that's the MVP to you, obviously you vote Cabrera.
If you think it's the best player regardless of setting or location or team, then you vote Trout
I always feel it is a combination of the two...you can't completely ignore team success because there are no players without teams. Tigers clinched the playoffs on the final weekend in baseball. Trout has a tee time tomorrow. I don't think the glamorous steals and individual fielding sway me enough to not vote for the Triple Crown Winner in the playoffs.
Why don't they just get a house that's already painted?
jcook3127 wrote:I always feel it is a combination of the two...you can't completely ignore team success because there are no players without teams. Tigers clinched the playoffs on the final weekend in baseball. Trout has a tee time tomorrow. I don't think the glamorous steals and individual fielding sway me enough to not vote for the Triple Crown Winner in the playoffs.
The Angles finished with a better record than DET and in a MUCH tougher division to play in. So to me the whole argument of "Miggy made the playoffs and Trout did not" has no importance IMO. Had the Tigers finished above OAK/TEX record wise, then okay, I can somewhat follow the logic of that (though I don't agree with it).
Trout had the better season. Plain and simple. Better WAR, better stats, and supreme defense vs. sub-par defense from Miggy. The triple crown is nice, but as mentioned above, it is just an arbitrary set of numbers. The triple crown very well could have been, SLG%, SB%, and OBP. It really doesn't matter nowadays. I'd also like to point out that had Miggy not been pulled in the final game (after going 0/2) and continued on and went 0/4 or 0/5 then he may not have won the AVG title. Ted Williams was in a similar situation and played the ENTIRETY of the final game KNOWING that if he didn't hit he wouldn't have won the triple crown. Miggy (or the coaches) took the safe path and pulled him from the game.
Odds are that Miggy wins the MVP. Voters love players from teams who make the playoffs (even though it doesn't make sense) and titles that don't mean squat (the triple crown) compared to stats that take in the whole picture (WAR).
Trout still had the better season. And it wasn't close.