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

And he is a better fielder...

 

That is an interesting story, Williams was so abrasive that 2 writers did not place his name on their ballots.

 

And the point is.....?

You don't think there's going to be a writer(s) out there that won't vote Trout or Cabrera 1st or 2nd in the ballot for some personal reason? How about last year when a Texas reporter gave a 1st place MVP vote to Michael Young. The voting system isn't perfect, it never has been and never will be.

 

No, pitching has nothing to do with it because it's all players have the same disadvantage. If we were talking about a concrete set of numbers you'd have a point, but the TC depends on what other players do.

 

And this is one of the problems with MLB, instead of being a somewhat emotional experience, fans have reduced it to a CPA exam.

 

Or today's fan is more knowledgeable and realize there's better ways to truly judge a player then just 3 stats.

 

Batting average and RBI absolutely do not matter. It's been proven time and time again that guys hit virtually the same with RISP as they do without. You can choose to ignore it if you wish, but it's undeniable fact.

Heck, look at Miggy. Career numbers: .318/.395/.563 (.960 OPS) vs career numbers with RISP: .320/.423./.545 (.968 OPS). It's practically identical. In fact, the only reason it's a little higher with RISP is because Miggy was intentionally walked 160 times with RISP

 

Yeah, or reduce the game to a boring experience designed for stat geeks.

There is that, MLB is NOT an isolated, stat driven, thing.

Like the catcher getting trucked and injuring his ankle and sturm and drung.

Part of the game, which is the difference between CPA fans and actual fans of the sport.

 

I think your baseball opinion was forever discredited when you called Anthony Rizzo a bust after 150 PA's.

 

There's nothing boring about being armed with facts.

 

Do stats hit home runs, or do athletes.

 

You do realize that these are stats that actual front office people in baseball use in judging players right? It's not just fans but people inside of the game.

 

Wait, what?

Please elaborate.

 

You did notice that he cooled off right?

 

Worst.counterarguement.ever.

 

As a professional hitting instructor and coach, I ask that you please not insult me like that.

 

A player is exciting, or they are not.

Do tell, when Nolan Ryan was striking out 350 and walking 350, but throwing a 100 mph, would you still go see him pitch or would one worship stats and "gosh, his runners per 9 inning number is awful"?

 

I stand by what I posted, and re ask the question.

 

He hit .281/.359/.474/.833 in Sept/Oct and finished his age 23 season with a .285/.342/.463/.805 stat line in 87 games, 368 plate appearances. He also hit 15 HRs or only 3 fewer than Adrian Gonzalez in less than half of Gonzalez's PAs.

Yeah I'd trade Gonzalez for Rizzo straight up if I could right now.

 

I'm not going to dignity that with a response.

 

I'd say "OMG someone throws 100 MPH, he must be good!". And then go watch Greg Maddux throw 93/94 instead and get people out without walking the ball park and who is/was the better pitcher.

And yes I'd probably stay away from Ryan because he puts too many guys on base thus increasing the chance of teams scoring runs off of him. Whether he throws hard or not is a moot point. I want a guy that can get batters out and not put guys on base.

Nolan Ryan was actually a bit overrated. He just was a freak of nature that struck out a lot of batters and had a long career.

 

"Good" or entertaining to watch?

This to me is where MLB has run off of the rails, stats are fine, however games are played 1 at a time and going to see a guy who can throw a no hitter each time out, or walk 12, all the while throwing 100 mph, is devalued in favor of a sort of dry, CPA approach in overview, not game by game.

 

I mean, Nolan Ryan had an above average whip for 23 of his 27 years. And it's no coincidence that the other 4 years of him putting a lot of guys base, were his worst 4 years in MLB.

So thank you for making our point, I guess.

 

Is there a difference? If someone or something is good, isn't it entertaining almost automatically? But to answer the question, I'd rather watch someone that is consistently good at baseball than someone that is entertaining simply because he throws 100 MPH.

Case in point, I'd rather watch Clayton Kershaw or Felix Hernandez pitch every day than Brandon Morrow, Daniel Bard or Andrew Cashner.

Or I'd rather watch a game of Pedro Martinez, Greg Maddux, Roger Clemens, or Randy Johnson in their prime pitching a good game than Nolan Ryan just because he throws 100 MPH.

 

I don't know why you keep making this distinction.

As a "stat nerd" and baseball fan, I'm entertained by baseball game to game. I absolutely love it. And I definitely can make the distinction with a guy like Emilio Bonifacio, who isn't very good by any metric, but is also a guy who is fun to watch.

 

It's Trout hands down and not even close.

 

Anthony Rizzo FTW!

 

Again based on position played, defense, base running, you could absolutely make that case.

I think a harder decision/debate would be the NL where you have Posey, Molina, Braun, Headley, Wright and McCutchen who all have cases.

 

I'd rank Kimbrel second in Cy Young behind Kershaw.

 

Of course you would.

 

First pitcher in the history of baseball to pitch 50 innings and K half the batters he faced, and as you said never gave up 2 hits in an inning.

Sheer dominance.

 

Kershaw and Dickey are as neck and neck as it gets. I'd probably vote Dickey, if only because he looks a little bit like Chuck Norris.

As dominant as Kimbrel was, and you probably can't get more dominant than that as a pitcher, he still pitched about a quarter of the innings that those two did. Just can't give it to him.

 

I think AL Cy Young is interesting as well. IMO you got to have 2 Tampa pitchers in the top 4.