I know miguel cabrera won the triple crown but mike trout had a pretty
special season too. so here's my question: should winning the triple
crown make one theautomatic MVP?
-- "Okay, if you're going to question the importance of an actor's signature on a
plastic helmet from a movie based on a comic book then all of our lives have no
meaning"!!!
On Friday, November 9, 2012 7:50:03 AM UTC-5, Don Violette wrote:
> I know miguel cabrera won the triple crown but mike trout had a pretty
> special season too. so here's my question: should winning the triple
> crown make one theautomatic MVP?
> --
> "Okay, if you're going to question the
> importance of an actor's signature on a
> plastic helmet from a movie based on a
> comic book then all of our lives have no
> meaning"!!!
I don't think so. If the Triple Crown winner was on a team that went nowhere (2102 Sox), how valuable was he? Or if the TCW was on a talent-loaded team where his absence wouldn't have made too much difference?
But a TCW on a playoff-bubble team could have a huge impact, as Cabrera did this year. So my answer is that sometimes the TWC and MVP are the same player, but not always.
> I know miguel cabrera won the triple crown but mike trout had a pretty
> special season too. so here's my question: should winning the triple
> crown make one theautomatic MVP?
Apparently not.
Ted Williams missed twice.
mario in victoria
-- but won major league player of the year
On Nov 9, 6:50 am, DonFromBa...@webtv.net (Don Violette) wrote:
> I know miguel cabrera won the triple crown but mike trout had a pretty
> special season too. so here's my question: should winning the triple
> crown make one theautomatic MVP?
Depends on where his team finished. If Miggy was on the Royals and
they still sucked to high heaven, no the TC is not enough.
Given that he's on a team that made the post-season, yes - he should
get the M.V.P.
On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 07:42:57 -0500, DonFromBa...@webtv.net (Don
Violette) wrote:
>I know miguel cabrera won the triple crown but mike trout had a pretty
>special season too. so here's my question: should winning the triple
>crown make one theautomatic MVP?
Well, not automatic. I don't like automatic rules for discretionary
awards. But a HUGE credential. And I'd vote for Miggy, and I would
have voted for YAZ. And for Ted in 1942 and 1947.
On Friday, November 9, 2012 11:11:51 AM UTC-5, PETER SHORTS wrote:
> automatically? those 3 stats are more important than anything else and sum up the value of a player? you statheads crack me up.
The current way they calculate Batting Average has already been found fraught with flaws.
RBI - heavily dependent on batting in the midst of a powerful lineup AND not leading off, such as the case in Detroit.
HR - perhaps, Park Factor corrected, something that has value.
Trout played for a less powerful team, in a pitcher's ballpark and still put up huge numbers, including my Adjusted OPS and WARP. He fielded a much harder postion and was a much better baserunner.
As far as I'm concerned, Trout had a much better year then MCabrera. However, given that the MVP has lost it's lustre anyways these days, I'll will not mind at all the Triple Crown Winner wins it for my old home team.
I know miguel cabrera won the triple crown but mike trout had a pretty
special season too. so here's my question: should winning the triple
crown make one theautomatic MVP?
On Saturday, November 10, 2012 12:57:23 PM UTC-5, Dano wrote:
> "nate" wrote in message
> They have a "Triple Crown" in pitching too, Shan. Wins, K's and ERA.
> ======================================
> Who is this "they" you speak of Nate?
They? Who is they??
Who says Triple Crown?? - no, in all seriousness, there is a Triple Crown for Pitchers. I have seen it in the Boston Globe papers, don't you remember Roger Clemens or Pedro Martinez? Wins/K's/ERA. Look it up. Wins of course are the easily discredited RBI-equivalent. K's like HRs. ERA like the stupid batting average they still cling to, religiously.
<greyst...@net1plus.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, November 10, 2012 12:57:23 PM UTC-5, Dano wrote:
>> "nate" wrote in message
>> They have a "Triple Crown" in pitching too, Shan. Wins, K's and ERA.
>> ======================================
>> Who is this "they" you speak of Nate?
>They? Who is they??
>Who says Triple Crown?? - no, in all seriousness, there is a Triple Crown for Pitchers. I have seen it in the Boston Globe papers, don't you remember Roger Clemens or Pedro Martinez? Wins/K's/ERA. Look it up. Wins of course are the easily discredited RBI-equivalent. K's like HRs. ERA like the stupid batting average they still cling to, religiously.
On Saturday, November 10, 2012 12:57:23 PM UTC-5, Dano wrote:
> "nate" wrote in message
> They have a "Triple Crown" in pitching too, Shan. Wins, K's and ERA.
> ======================================
> Who is this "they" you speak of Nate?
They? Who is they??
Who says Triple Crown?? - no, in all seriousness, there is a Triple Crown for Pitchers. I have seen it in the Boston Globe papers, don't you remember Roger Clemens or Pedro Martinez? Wins/K's/ERA. Look it up. Wins of course are the easily discredited RBI-equivalent. K's like HRs. ERA like the stupid batting average they still cling to, religiously.
=================================================
Okay. I just Googled it...and you ARE right. I just hear far less mention of the pitching triple crown. Maybe because it's far more commonly achieved. The pitching version has occurred 10 times since Yaz did it as a hitter. So mea culpa...you da man Nate. :-)
On Friday, November 9, 2012 3:49:37 PM UTC-5, nate wrote:
> On Friday, November 9, 2012 11:11:51 AM UTC-5, PETER SHORTS wrote:
> > automatically? those 3 stats are more important than anything else and sum up the value of a player? you statheads crack me up.
> The current way they calculate Batting Average has already been found fraught with flaws.
> RBI - heavily dependent on batting in the midst of a powerful lineup AND not leading off, such as the case in Detroit.
> HR - perhaps, Park Factor corrected, something that has value.
> Trout played for a less powerful team, in a pitcher's ballpark and still put up huge numbers, including my Adjusted OPS and WARP. He fielded a much harder postion and was a much better baserunner.
> As far as I'm concerned, Trout had a much better year then MCabrera. However, given that the MVP has lost it's lustre anyways these days, I'll will not mind at all the Triple Crown Winner wins it for my old home team.
> - nate
and the triple crown is arbitrary in its selection of old-time stats. why rbi and not runs? why not stolen bases? it's gimmicky, and not an accurate reflection of value.
>and the triple crown is arbitrary in its selection of old-time stats. why rbi and not runs? why not stolen bases? it's gimmicky, and not an accurate reflection of value.
Well, it is an old gimmick. Old religions are better than new
religions.
Still, the triple crown winners in the last 70 years all had good
seasons by any sensible measure. Yaz in 1967 was easily the best
player in baseball. Ted was other worldly in 1942 and 1947.
I've not looked for the list of triple crown winners for pitchers, but
my guess is that it is a great collection of dudes.
> I know miguel cabrera won the triple crown but mike trout had a pretty
> special season too. so here's my question: should winning the triple
> crown make one theautomatic MVP?
The fact that his team made the playoffs, positively yes.
