Miguel Cabrera Wins AL MVP Award

[HUGG]

Speaking of counting stats, Trout's the only player in the history of ever to have 30 home runs, 45 steals and 125 runs scored.

[Bobbob1313]

Yeah.

I completely understand the whole "Triple Crown shouldn't guarantee an MVP" argument, but when you start taking away hits from one guy and adding home runs for another, that's when it starts to get silly.

You guys are misunderstanding the argument.

The argument is that if Cabrera hadnt won the Triple Crowm, he likely would not have won the MVP, even if he had essentially the same season. Cabrera wouldn't have been a notably less valuable player if he batted .320 this season, but since he wouldn't have had the "Triple Crown" attached to his resume, he wouldn't have won.

The argument is that it is silly that he basically only won because he ended up with a razor thin margin in two counting statistics.

[Valid]

You guys are misunderstanding the argument.

The argument is that if Cabrera hadnt won the Triple Crowm, he likely would not have won the MVP, even if he had essentially the same season. Cabrera wouldn't have been a notably less valuable player if he batted .320 this season, but since he wouldn't have had the "Triple Crown" attached to his resume, he wouldn't have won.

The argument is that it is silly that he basically only won because he ended up with a razor thin margin in two counting statistics.

I get that. I'm pretty sure Sandro gets it, too.

But he did win the Triple Crown, so this shouldn't even be a discussion. I'm not debating that the Triple Crown shouldn't guarantee the MVP. I'm just saying that you can't just take away hits from a guy or add homers for another. It doesn't work that way.

This is like saying, well, if Bartman doesn't get in Alou's way in '03, the Marlins don't win the WS.

[Bobbob1313]

So, the Triple Crown doesn't guarantee the MVP, but since he did win the Triple Crown it should not be a discussion?

You guys are focusing on the wrong bit. The point being made is that the Triple Crown has little to actually say about value. It is an impressive and entirely arbitrary accomplishment, when it comes to determining value. The "what ifs" are just to point out that he could have lost the Triple Crown and not been any less of a valuable player. Which is why it is not a good way to determine value.

This is like saying, well, if Bartman doesn't get in Alou's way in '03, the Marlins don't win the WS.

This is not a good analogy. Anything related to the outcome of a game is not a good analogy to a vote.

Games are inherently chaotic, and the outcomes are often determined by random, meaningless events. I hope you do not think it is appropriate to make decisions based on random, meaningless events.

[Valid]

Wait; so home runs, hits, etc. can't be determined by random events?

[Bobbob1313]

I don't know what you're trying to say.

[Valid]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but you said that random events can determine the outcome of a game. That is true, but can't the same be said for things like hits? Like, if an outfielder loses the ball in the lights and it drops (a rare thing to happen), it's a hit.

[Bobbob1313]

I still don't get what that has to do with the argument at hand.

[Valid]

Okay. I said the "what if" argument with taking hits away from Cabrera is like saying the Marlins don't win the WS if it weren't for Bartman in Game 6. Then you said it wasn't a good analogy because games are often determined by random events. What I'm saying is that you can use the "random events" argument for pretty much anything.

[nny]

Here's what I think the "It's a what if" group are missing.

An MVP is Most Valuable Player.

If Cabrera has a little less hits/home runs, he is still at the same value as a player.

I can say "Even if Cabrera had two less home runs, he barely loses any value and is still the third most valuable player in the AL" (Cano es numbero dos huehuehue)

It's a what if statement, and it's true. It does NOT affect the outcome. If you use a "what if" scenario to change the outcome, that's bad. Using a "what if" scenario to show that it had no affect on the outcome is just proving that it had no affect on the outcome anyway.

You cannot use a GAME example because you cannot make a true statement based off it.

You cannot say "if it weren't for bartman, we wouldn't have won the world series." We still might have. Or maybe we wouldn't have. We don't know. EVERYTHING that happens in a game has a big impact on the outcome of that game.

If you take out two home runs from Miguel Cabrera, it does NOT affect his value rankings but it DOES affect his triple crown. And Cabrera won the Triple Crown, no one can take it away from him, no one is TRYING to, great accomplishment.

However, we can then easily determine that triple crown != value of player.

Unfortunately, it was voted as triple crown = value of player.

Bring back the exclamation mark!
--------------------
And also the difference in "what if" statements, the proof.

Best case scenario, two home runs instead hit the wall (or something) and are two doubles: .330/.393/.600/.993. Cabrera lost .006 points in SLG and OPS.

Worst case scenario, they were two flyball outs so he lost two hits in the process: .326/.390/.593/.983. Cabrera loses 16 points in OPS...and still leads all of the AL in OPS by a large margin.

Proof: With two less homeruns, Cabrera would still be around the same value.

[MiamiHomer]

I give you the must infuriating article about this discussion:

Mitch Albom: Miguel Cabrera's award a win for fans, defeat for stats geeks

The eyes have it.

In a battle of computer analysis versus people who still watch baseball as, you know, a sport, what we saw with our Detroit vision was what most voters saw as well:

Miguel Cabrera is the Most Valuable Player in the American League this year.

"It means a lot," he told reporters over the phone from Miami. "I'm very thankful. ... I thought it was gonna be very close."

So did everyone. But the debate ended Thursday night when the results were announced, with Cabrera earning 22 of the 28 first-place votes from the Baseball Writers' Association of America. It reinforced what Tigers fans have been saying all season: This guy is a monster.

It also answered the kind of frenzied cyberspace argument that never shadowed baseball 20 years ago but may never stop shadowing it now.

Statistics geeks insisted Cabrera was less worthy than Angels rookie centerfielder Mike Trout. Not because Trout's traditional baseball numbers were better. They weren't. Cabrera had more home runs (44), more runs batted in (139) and a better batting average (.330) than Trout and everyone else in the American League. It gave him the sport's first Triple Crown in 45 years.

But Trout excelled in the kind of numbers that weren't even considered a few years ago, mostly because A) They were impossible to measure, and B) Nobody gave a hoot.

Today, every stat matters. There is no end to the appetite for categories -- from OBP to OPS to WAR. I mean, OMG! The number of triples hit while wearing a certain-colored underwear is probably being measured as we speak.

So in areas such as "how many Cabrera home runs would have gone out in Angel Stadium of Anaheim" or "batting average when leading off an inning" or "Win Probability Added," Trout had the edge. At least this is what we were told.

I mean, did you do the math? I didn't. I like to actually see the sun once in a while.
Plus he has intangibles

Besides, if you live in Detroit, you didn't need a slide rule. This was an easy choice. People here watched Cabrera, 29, tower above the game in 2012. Day after day, game after game, he was a Herculean force. Valuable? What other word was there? How many late-inning heroics? How many clutch hits? And he only missed one game all year.

"During the season, a lot of guys tell me I'm gonna be the MVP," Cabrera said, laughing. "But they said the same thing to Trout."

Yes, it's true, Trout is faster, Trout is a better defensive player, Trout is a leadoff hitter, and Trout edged Cabrera in several of those made-for-Microsoft categories.

But if you are going to go molten deep into intangibles, why stop at things like "which guy hit more homers into the power alleys?" (A real statistic, I am sorry to say.)

Why not also consider such intangibles as locker-room presence? Teammates love playing around -- and around with -- Miggy. He helps the room.

How about his effect on pitchers? Nobody wanted the embarrassment of him slamming a pitch over the wall. The amount of effort pitchers expended on Cabrera or the guy batting ahead of him surely took its toll and affected the pitches other batters saw. Why not find a way to measure that? (Don't worry. I'm sure someone is working on it as we speak.)

What about the debilitating power of a three-run homer? How many opposing teams slumped after Cabrera muscled one out? How about team confidence? You heard everyone from Prince Fielder to Justin Verlander speak in awed tones about being on the same team as Cabrera. Doesn't that embolden teammates and bring out their best?

How about the value of a guy who could shift from first to third base -- as Cabrera did this past season -- to make room for Fielder? Ask manager Jim Leyland how valuable that is.

How about the fact that Cabrera's team made the playoffs and Trout's did not? ("Yes," countered Team Trout, "but the Angels actually won more games.") How about the fact that Cabrera played the whole season while Trout started his in the minors? ("Yes," said the Trout Shouters, "but the Angels won a greater percentage with Trout than Detroit did with Cabrera.")

How about this? How about that? The fact is, voters are not instructed to give more credence to any one category than another. Twenty-eight sportswriters, two from each AL city, decide, in their own minds, what is "valuable" and who displayed it the most.

They chose Cabrera.

By an overwhelming majority.

In the end, memories were more powerful than microchips.
A rival for the future

Which, by the way, speaks to a larger issue about baseball. It is simply being saturated with situational statistics. What other sport keeps coming up with new categories to watch the same game? A box score now reads like an annual report. And this WAR statistic -- which measures the number of wins a player gives his team versus a replacement player of minor league/bench talent (honestly, who comes up with this stuff?) -- is another way of declaring, "Nerds win!"

We need to slow down the shoveling of raw data into the "what can we come up with next?" machine. It is actually creating a divide between those who like to watch the game of baseball and those who want to reduce it to binary code.

To that end, Cabrera's winning was actually a bell ring for the old school. There is also an element of tradition here. The last three Triple Crown winners were also voted as MVP.

"I think they can use both," Cabrera said when asked about computer stats versus old-time performance. "In the end, it's gonna be the same. You gotta play baseball."

Indeed.

This was a nice moment for the Tigers -- and a small consolation prize for owner Mike Ilitch and president Dave Dombrowski, who, like Cabrera, would have traded a World Series ring for any postseason award. But the Tigers now have back-to-back MVPs (Verlander last year), which speaks pretty well for their ability to develop and sign talent. It's also nice that Cabrera has seemingly made a turn for the better with his off-field behavior.

And none of this diminishes the season Trout gave the Los Angeles Angels -- and baseball history. Rarely has a rookie so dominated on so many levels. It is scary to think that Trout, only 21, will get better. And if he improves even incrementally, who is going to beat him for MVP in years to come?

But for today, for this season, anyhow, Cabrera gets the nod. In a season of fits and starts, he was a reliable Tiger, a consistent source of power, and a shadow that fell on opposing pitchers even before he reached the batter's box. He was the meat in the stew that became the American League champions, and while it is possible to argue the other way, it's undeniable to argue this one.

"Hopefully every year it can be a battle like that," Cabrera said.

This year, what you saw is what he got.

MVP.

The eyes have it.

--------------------
Holy fuck, I just read it again to make sure it was real. I can't believe he even used "OMG".

[Beef]

Ehe OMG

if you lived in Detroit, didn't need a slide rule

[Bobbob1313]

Nothing makes me feel better about believing something than knowing Mitch Albom believe the opposite.

Also, Nny knocked it out of the park.

[CrimsonCane]

Glad to see someone who was seen as a fat, lazy, spousal abusing, alcoholic, clubhouse cancer with unrealized potential only 2 years ago is now Mr. Intangibles.

Those eyes of ours. So reliable.

[Bobbob1313]

Glad to see someone who was seen as a fat, lazy, spousal abusing, alcoholic, clubhouse cancer with unrealized potential only 2 years ago is now Mr. Intangibles.

It's kind of like when Jason Kidd beat LeBron James in the finals and everyone forgot that he is a scummy person.