Miguel Cabrera wins Triple Crown, but is he the MVP?

You stated my case Boik! I too vote for Trout.

 

I think either guy deserves it and neither could complain.

Winning the triple crown is a HUGE accomplishment in this day and age and his statistics for the year speak for themselves.

On the other hand what Trout did is unprecedented for ANY season. I'd probably go with Trout.

 

IMP Its Miguel. We have not seen a triple crown since the late 60's. It is unheard of now a days. HR Hitters don't hit for average, High average hitters don't hit homeruns. Cabrera done just that. So Mike Trout did not play a all year, who knows what he does in those games, maybe he wears down towards the end of the season if he did. You cant count that for him or against him. In a single season, Cabrera was the MVP, no question about it.

 

He did play in the minor leagues. It's not like he was resting up until his promotion.

 

Big difference from the Minors and the Pros

 

I don't think there is any data or even any eyeball test that would say an extra twenty games would have hurt Trout. His SB and HR numbers certainly couldn't DECREASE in those extra games. Even if he wears down those numbers are better. Worst case his AVG slips a few points maybe.

I do think that Cabrera deserves it if he wins. I mean....can we do Co-MVP's

 

In terms of physical wear and tear? I seriously doubt it.

In fact, there's a case to be made that MiLB is more taxing physically with the constant all day bus rides, crappy hotels, crappy food, no sleep, etc.

We can do hypotheticals all day but the fact remains that Trout was the better baseball player this year. It'd be a shame if Trout gets robbed because Cabrera achieved something that is, while is admittedly rare, is also mostly meaningless in determining a players worth.

 

Not really. The rules are the same. He still has to hit, run and field. If playing in the major leagues would have worn him down, then so would the minors.

 

It wouldn't be a travesty either way, but Trout did something that's never been done. Not as rookie, but ever. Leader in SB's, WAR, Uzr. He was amazing.

 

I think the TC is a HUGE deal..but the MVP was Trout. The best rookie campaign in MLB history? maybe.

 

Just rename the award to most outstanding player instead.

 

"I used to be a Marlin like you, but then I took a Jeffrey Loria to the knee."

 

I used to think the TC was a huge deal, but don't anymore. I think Miggy had an unreal year without even factoring that in. Crazy part is that you could argue this being his 3rd best offensive season.

 

ehh..

The TC is still a big deal as evidenced by it not being done in 45 YEARS.

 

I don't consider it a big deal for a couple reasons 1) The Steroid era is over and 2) Two of the stats have been proven pretty worthless

Don't get me wrong, he had a monster year and is deserving (along with Trout) of MVP, but I think the TC has definitely lost some luster.

 

Babe Ruth had a WAR of 13.7 in 1923 lol

 

Maybe so but I am going to argue that it is actually harder to attain now because of how specialized pitching is.....the days of pitchers pitching 15-30 complete games a year are over. Hell I dont even think anybody got to 10 CG's this year...maybe Verlander??

 

Hell and yes El Cabajo is the AL MVP.

 

I think sometimes people look so hard into sabermetrics they forget that hard stats matter as well.

You can't say AVG doesn't matter. OPB is great, so is OBPS but at the end of the day getting a base hit (even a single) is far superior to a walk in many situations. Walks don't move runners first to third or score runs.

HR's obviously matter. Though HR per AB or PA is probably a better measure all things considered.

RBI don't matter? I understand that it has a lot to do with how many opportunities your team allows you, but it also has to do with a player cashing in on those opportunities. I refuse to believe it is all luck. Certain guys seem to always come through in clutch spots and high a much higher BA with runners on. Some hit much worse with runners on as well. I don't believe it is an anomaly in most cases. Baseball is a sport and like any sport there is pressure to perform in key spots. Some guys do and some don't.

I'm surprised people haven't gone so far as discrediting players accomplishments based on the strength of pitching they faced over the course of a season.

All that said it is still Trout IMO

 

I don't think it makes a difference because everyone is at the same disadvantage.

 

The objective of baseball is to get on base and score runs. RBI's are a product of having guys on base. For example, Miggy had 70 more PA's with RISP than Trout did this year. Of course a lot of that has to do with where they hit in the lineup. This is also why the Triple Crown is overvalued. You can basically eliminate Trout from it every year just by virtue of him hitting leadoff.

 

Bro Triple Crown, I've followed baseball probably since before you were in the world.

Do the Tigers win the division w/o Cabajo going off for a Triple Crown?

Color me impressed.

 

People want to credit Cabrera with helping the Tigers make the playoffs but can we also discredit Cabrera for being an awful defensive 3rd baseman and perhaps costing his team games by just being on the field? I mean his defense did cost the team runs on the field. And his speed and base running also cost the Tigers runs as well.

It works both ways here. And defense and base running should matter in the MVP discussion.

And winning the Triple Crown shouldn't be an automatic MVP win. Even if Cabrera is 100% deserving of the award, if he finished 2nd in each stat by just .001 in BA, 1 HR and 1 RBI would it make him less deserving? I don't think he should get brownie points for a Triple Crown win, nor sure he because the last winner was in the 60s.

 

Nope. crown him.

 

Think about this, we've witnessed several all time records fall in the last decade, but no Triple Crown since 1967.

MLB can be a bit asinine at times, this time they should get things right and recognize what an achievement this is, not get lost in statistical penumbra that MLB can become.

"Oh but Trout had the highest WAR since the 20's!"

GTFO!

 

You mean if Hamilton had a hit a few more Homers? Yes, the Tigers still win the division.

 

It should be Trouts award. Cabreras year is unreal. But Trouts was better and he meant more to the Angels.

 

Right but originally you were arguing that it isnt as big a deal as it once was....I am just saying it should be because pitching quality is just better now...

 

So should Francisco Rodriguez won the Cy Young award when he broke the saves record? How about Mark McGwire when he hit 70 home runs and broke a record that was around since 1961. See where I'm going with this?

Sorry but two of the three Triple Crown stats are fairly meaningless nowadays and there are better stats out there to judge performance. Just like how voters voting for the Cy Young don't simply look at W/L records anymore, or Felix Hernandez never would have won it a few years ago with a .500 record.

It's nice that Cabrera did something that hasn't been done since the 1967s but that doesn't mean we should automatically give him the award. He had a great year, no doubt about it but OVERALL Mike Trout was the better PLAYER.

And defensive and base running should absolutely matter, you can't discount that. Trout was one of the best defensive players at a tougher defensive position while Cabrera was one of the worst, that absolutely needs to and should be factored in. This isn't the Silver Slugger award where it simply goes to the best hitter.

And WAR is only 1 stat people point to as to why Trout should win, it's not the only stat.

It's time to get with the times. Baseball Darwinism at it's finest.

 

Realistically, 2011 and 2010 Cabrera had better years. Its not completely lucky, but the triple crown is dependent on other peoples stats.

 

And here is the problem the 3x crown is the highest achievement a hitter can accomplish (arguably hitting .400 is up there).

To have a player achieve that, and his team won their division seems apparent that is "MVP" performance.

MLB writers hopefully get this right.

 

Stop, you're ruining the narrative....

If only Mike Trout just had a .005 higher BA or if Granderson or Hamilton hit 2 more HRs then we wouldn't be having this conversation right?

 

And the last player that hit over .400 didn't even win the MVP award. What's your point? Just because something is hard to accomplish shouldn't mean they should automatically win an award if another player was better overall.

Again though why do you want to ignore defense and base running? Because it doesn't help your case that Cabrera should be MVP, right? There's more to the MVP award then just BA, HRs and RBIs.

 

I guess I just don't get it. Does Trout win a triple crown too? He lead the league in 3 separate stats also?