Trout should win AL MVP

Originally posted by quackquack
I strongly disagree with artificially putting more weight on September than the rest of the year. All games count the same in the standing and in the end the Angles won MORE games against TOUGHER competition.

The reason the Tigers made the playoffs and the Angels did not has more to do with the fact that the Angels were (1) stupid and did not bring ...[text shortened]... itter like Trout would do if he had the same RBI chances as a middle order guy like Cabrera.

Then you are STRONGLY unaware of the term crunch time.
You are uninformed about the time when champions rise and wannabes fall to the side.

August and September are when the bulk of ALL championships (in baseball) are won or lost.

The pressure to perform is greatest when the most is on the line.
Trout played well all season, but seemed to wilt during crunch time.
Cabrera turned his game up another notch and got the job done.
Cabrera won all three of the major titles for the Triple Crown.
Very rarely does that happen. Last time a triple crown was won was in 1967.
With the pressure on to maintain the levels in all categories (and to run down the HR
lead in September) all happening while in the midst of a difficult pennant race,
Cabrera showed the mettle of a champion and, like it was shown to be in the voting,
won a decisive victory as the MVP.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Then you are STRONGLY unaware of the term crunch time.
You are uninformed about the time when champions rise and wannabes fall to the side.

August and September are when the bulk of ALL championships (in baseball) are won or lost.

The pressure to perform is greatest when the most is on the line.
Trout played well all season, but seemed to wilt d ...[text shortened]... le of a champion and, like it was shown to be in the voting,
won a decisive victory as the MVP.

Crunch time is just garbage. Hack sports writers who do not understand how organizations make decisions love to cluch hitting as if the season began in September. Quality general managers look at defense, base running, on base percentage and all other points of the game not just the triple crown categories.

The Angels lost the season early (when they played poorly in April before Trout reached the majors). In the end they add up all your wins and you don't get bonuses for ones late in the season. The White Sox collapse down the stretch was more noteworthy that the Tigers quality play. But the comparison isn't between teams (and the Angels had the better record in the much tougher division). It is between Trout and Cabrera and as the articel discusses Trout simply had a better year.

Originally posted by quackquack
Crunch time is just garbage. Hack sports writers who do not understand how organizations make decisions love to cluch hitting as if the season began in September. Quality general managers look at defense, base running, on base percentage and all other points of the game not just the triple crown categories.

The Angels lost the season early (when ...[text shortened]... It is between Trout and Cabrera and as the articel discusses Trout simply had a better year.

In the end they add up all your wins and if you don't have enough to make the playoffs under the existing rules, you don't.

The Angels didn't. Thus Trout's contributions, while considerable, in the end did not effect which team achieved the ultimate goal of winning the championship as much as Cabrera's did. All the "advanced statistics" in the world don't alter that fact.

Originally posted by no1marauder
In the end they add up all your wins and if you don't have enough to make the playoffs under the existing rules, you don't.

The Angels didn't. Thus Trout's contributions, while considerable, in the end did not effect which team achieved the ultimate goal of winning the championship as much as Cabrera's did. All the "advanced statistics" in the world don't alter that fact.

I never said Trout's team made the playoffs. I said I believe Trout had the better year.

Originally posted by quackquack
I never said Trout's team made the playoffs. I said I believe Trout had the better year.

Trout overall had a better year.

Cabrera was the more valuable player as far as the league was concerned.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Trout overall had a better year.

Cabrera was the more valuable player as far as the league was concerned.

I'd always give the MVP to the guy who was better. If you throught Cabrera was better I'd be interested to hear why. But you just said Trout was better and I am not sure I understand your arguement why team success matters.

The Tigers did not make the playoffs because Cabrera was better than Trout (in fact you just said Trout's season was better). So why should team success matter? Even if it did, you really think Cabrera with a worse year should get the MVP because his team won division with a worse record and an easier schedule?

Originally posted by quackquack
I'd always give the MVP to the guy who was better. If you throught Cabrera was better I'd be interested to hear why. But you just said Trout was better and I am not sure I understand your arguement why team success matters.

The Tigers did not make the playoffs because Cabrera was better than Trout (in fact you just said Trout's season was better). ...[text shortened]... should get the MVP because his team won division with a worse record and an easier schedule?

I've already explained my reasoning several times. I don't necessarily think MVP = The Better Player (if the award was for "Player of the Year" I'd think differently).

Cabrera was the most important factor in his team making the playoffs. Trout had a great year, but in the end, his contributions weren't as "valuable" as they meant little at the end (when he tailed off quite a bit). Team success is what counts in baseball or they wouldn't keep track of wins and losses and have the teams that qualify for the playoffs advance. I don't understand your argument that team success doesn't matter.

Originally posted by quackquack
Crunch time is just garbage. Hack sports writers who do not understand how organizations make decisions love to cluch hitting as if the season began in September. Quality general managers look at defense, base running, on base percentage and all other points of the game not just the triple crown categories.

The Angels lost the season early (when ...[text shortened]... It is between Trout and Cabrera and as the articel discusses Trout simply had a better year.

The Tigers played the White Sox 7 times from August 31st on and won 5 giving them their margin of victory over Chicago. In those 7 games, Cabrera was 12 for 26 (.462) with 2 HRs and 6 RBIs.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I've already explained my reasoning several times. I don't necessarily think MVP = The Better Player (if the award was for "Player of the Year" I'd think differently).

Cabrera was the most important factor in his team making the playoffs. Trout had a great year, but in the end, his contributions weren't as "valuable" as they meant little ...[text shortened]... playoffs advance. I don't understand your argument that team success doesn't matter.

I guess we just disagree on what matters for MVP. I don't think team success means much at all but if it did I would weigh it in favor of Trout as his team won more games and played a tougher schedule.

Originally posted by quackquack
I guess we just disagree on what matters for MVP. I don't think team success means much at all but if it did I would weigh it in favor of Trout as his team won more games and played a tougher schedule.

It seems many of us disagree with your definition.....just saying!!!

Originally posted by shortcircuit
It seems many of us disagree with your definition.....just saying!!!

A discussion isn't a popularity contest. I certainly could not care whether you agreed with me at all. But since it seems to matter to you, I'll point out that many knowledgable people including the overwhelming majority of those who actually build teams and make decisions agree with me.

Originally posted by quackquack
A discussion isn't a popularity contest. I certainly could not care whether you agreed with me at all. But since it seems to matter to you, I'll point out that many knowledgable people including the overwhelming majority of those who actually build teams and make decisions agree with me.

Well, I will disagree with you there too.
The voters seem to disagree with you too.

I really don't care if you like my opinion or not, but I suspect I have many more ties to
the game than you do, and all teams are not employing sabermetrics that you gush
over. Granted there are a few being swayed to your dark side, but old time talent
is spotted by long time baseball men, not by pencil pushers in an office.

I have not said Trout is not a good ball player who has done it for less than one year.
I said, his contribution to the Angels was not as great as Cabrera's was to Detroit.
Cabrera was the MVP....period!!

Originally posted by shortcircuit
[b]
I really don't care if you like my opinion or not, but I suspect I have many more ties to the game than you do

I don't like or dislike your opinion. I simply don't agree and I am not sure why you feel the need to tell anyone that you have ties to the game.

Your clutch argument simply ignores:
(1) defense
(2) base running
(3) that all games count in the standing equally and that the Angels season completely changed when Trout arrived
(4) that teams win games because of all their players not just one player
(5) that the Angels had a better record
(6) that the Angels play in a tougher division and therefore Trout faced better pitchers to get his statisitics
(7) that Cabrera made more outs (lower OBP and led the league in double plays) and had more RBI chances but if you look at how they did in the same situations Trout has tremendous clutch numbers as well.

I don't love statisticains/ sabermetrics but I think they look at a lot of things that you completely ignore when you just look at who went to the playoffs and who won the Triple Crown.

Originally posted by quackquack
I don't like or dislike your opinion. I simply don't agree and I am not sure why you feel the need to tell anyone that you have ties to the game.

Your clutch argument simply ignores:
(1) defense
(2) base running
(3) that all games count in the standing equally and that the Angels season completely changed when Trout arrived
(4) that teams win g ...[text shortened]... ompletely ignore when you just look at who went to the playoffs and who won the Triple Crown.

Yeah, those triple crowns. Last one occurred 45 years ago??

Must be relatively easy to attain.

If defense was such a huge factor McCutcheon would have been the runaway NL MVP
over Posey and Braun, both of whom he finished behind.

Your toughest division is a crap argument. I would argue the AL east was just as tough.

It doesn't matter. You aren't changing your mind and neither am I.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Yeah, those triple crowns. Last one occurred 45 years ago??

Must be relatively easy to attain.

If defense was such a huge factor McCutcheon would have been the runaway NL MVP
over Posey and Braun, both of whom he finished behind.

Your toughest division is a crap argument. I would argue the AL east was just as tough.

It doesn't matter. You aren't changing your mind and neither am I.

You are right there is no point in discussing things with you becuase you intentionally misrepresent my points.

I never said the AL West was the toughest division (although half the teams made the playoffs and three quarters of the teams had better records than the Tigers). I simply said the Tigers played in a much worse division and had a worse record.

I also never said defense was the only thing that mattered but it gives Trout a HUGE advantage over Cabrera. Trout had a higher on base percentage, led the league in stolen bases and runs. When you look at RBIs in similar situations (what percentage of the time drive in a run with guys on certain bases) you can see Trout was every bit as good as Cabrera in those situations too. To limit a baseball season to three categories is simply foolish.

Defense and the importance of the catching position is a major reason Posey won the MVP. If relevant (you brought it up) it supports my general argument of what matters for MVPs/