• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Official 2012-2013 MLB Hot Stove Thread

Stanton has always struck me as a likable guy. This Marlins fiasco has only confirmed my suspicions.
 
ESPN analysts voted on who should win the AL MVP. 21 said Trout, 7 said Miggy.

To no surprise, Jim Bowden gave the following reasoning for selecting Cabrera: "He wins the MVP for me slightly over Trout because he won the Triple Crown and his team made it to the postseason."

It's almost as if he's purposely trolling.
 
Kind of surprised it was so one sided by the ESPN writers.

I liked Posnanski's writeup. (I like all of Posnanski's writeups, really.)

Value Added
 
Bowden is right. Trout may have been the Most Outstanding Player. Cabrera was Most Valuable Player.
 
It's one thing to be Ernie Banks and be a great, great player on a terrible team.

I love Trout (he might be Mickey), but he was on a good team that should have made the playoffs. They didn't.

Cabrera won a Triple Crown (don't talk about RBI not mattering until you show me UZR on the scoreboard). His team made the playoffs.

Each had historic years. One won. One didn't .
 
The Angels won more games. Why does Cabrera get credit for being in a terrible division?
 
As a Tiger fan, and a Miguel Cabrera fan, the MVP absolutely belongs to Trout.
 
Yay Buster

posey.gif
 
Kimbrel with a second place vote.

Every voter had Braun in their top four.
 
Hunter Pence got a 10th place vote! I love having the voting results online.
 
10th place vote for Ibanez from the Detroit Free Press! Ahahahaha.
 
It's also called the Most Valuable Player... not the Most Valuable Batter.

Trout had a better all around season.
 
One of the things I've never understood about the MVP award is the semantics of it. Why would MLB want to recognize the player that "meant the most to his team" as the word "valuable" is often assumed to mean (as if that is something discernible anyway), to the exclusion of recognizing the best player in each league? Wouldn't it be more logical to acknowledge the player that had the best season than the player whose performance has to be contextualized by the other players on his team?
 
On the Trout/Cabrera debate, here's how I came down:

It seems there are three phases to the game- hitting, defense, and base running. If you scale each of these guy's performances from 1-10 in each of the phases, and try to weight those phases(obviously subject to debate), it makes Trout's performance stand out even more. For example:

Hitting- though an argument could be made these guys were equal, for the sake of argument, I'll give Cabrera 10 points and Trout 9 points. I'll also give hitting a weight of 60%. Cabrera = 6.0. Trout = 5.4

Defense- Cabrera is a poor defender and Trout is one of the best in the game. I give Trout a 10 and Cabrera a 3. I'll weight defense at 30%. Cabrera = .9 Trout = 3.0

Base running- I won't go so far as to give Cabrera negative points, but he ain't good on the bases. Trout is elite. Trout gets 10 points and Cabrera gets 1 point. I'll weight base running at 10%. Cabrera = .1. Trout = 1.0

Overall- Cabrera = 7 points. Trout = 9.4 points

The interesting thing is you can adjust the weights around quite a bit, but if you account for defense and base running with some level of reason, the discrepancy between Cabrera's ineptitude in two of the three phases of the game and Trout's elite status makes it difficult for Cabrera to measure up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top