i really would probably do some co mvp shyt. both of these dudes had seasons that we may not see again for a while.
Miguel Cabrera Triple Crown Watch
- Thread starter nomoreneveragain
- Start date
Spidey Man
Superstar
Latin excellenceHe deserves the MVP alone on the strength of doing something that hasn't been done in a lot of decades. Not to take nothing away from Trout but Miggy just did something that we will proly never see again in our lifetime.
Trout is the first player ever with 30 HR, 40 SB and 125 R.
Piff Huxtable
Delaney 2020,2024,2028...
NYC Rebel
...on the otherside of the pond
And the "Triple Crown" being an older, more established and repeated label somehow means more?
The War Report
NewNewYork
People need to stop thinking the MVP is a hitting award.
every year, there's some argument like this, and every year it's just as obnoxious as the last... actually not true, this year has taken it well and beyond obnoxious.
I'm glad Miggy got the Triple Crown, and the Triple Crown actually means a lot to me as someone who grew up with baseball as his first love and who read baseball history books cover to cover as a child. But my attachment to the Triple Crown is emotional, nostalgic. To claim it's the supreme achievement despite the mountains of context and statistical insight we have available at this point is tantamount to subscribing to phrenology in 2012.
WAR is completely irrelevant to assessing the Triple Crown and it's really not even worth discussing as far as Mike Trout's season goes. WAR is the new boogeyman to which dumbasses can ascribe all their baseless fears of "stat geeks in basements" ruining the game.
I think WAR is problematic. I have debated with HHR over shyt like ranking Ary Vaughn over Derek Jeter (DA GAWD), and the notion that chemistry and psychology are completely contrived aspects of sports. I thought the popular profile of Daryl Morey's advanced stat usage in basketball and Shane Battier as underrated winner no-stat all star was fukking bunk, because it was.
However, there is nothing complicated, geeky, abstract, or indicative of experimental thinking in claiming Mike Trout has an argument for having had a better all-around season than Miguel Cabrera, and that the Triple Crown is nothing but a stubborn, romanticized remnant of ages during which fewer people thought about the nitty gritty of player value and instead genuflected to easily digestible stats. HHR hasn't made any irrational claims or even any particularly complex ones.
Miguel Cabrera is a more-than-worthy MVP candidate. He's a fukking beast. I watch every at bat of his I can. But to pretend he has had a clearly better season than Trout, or to worship the Triple Crown for any reasons that you can't admit are nostalgic is, frankly, imbecilic. And to hoist "Triple Crown" on your shoulders and parade it around as some pure, unassailable baseball metric while labeling any other grouping of stats as made up ESPN junk science is mindbogglingly idiotic.
Smarmy stat-obsessed a$$holes who think they can predict and dictate performance, wins, and losses strictly by running sets of numbers through a calculator are annoying as fukk. But no more annoying than "purists" and "traditionalists" who are militantly ignorant and treat even the most basic explanations of statistics as if its some alien creed from Planet Evil.
WAR is completely irrelevant to assessing the Triple Crown and it's really not even worth discussing as far as Mike Trout's season goes. WAR is the new boogeyman to which dumbasses can ascribe all their baseless fears of "stat geeks in basements" ruining the game.
I think WAR is problematic. I have debated with HHR over shyt like ranking Ary Vaughn over Derek Jeter (DA GAWD), and the notion that chemistry and psychology are completely contrived aspects of sports. I thought the popular profile of Daryl Morey's advanced stat usage in basketball and Shane Battier as underrated winner no-stat all star was fukking bunk, because it was.
However, there is nothing complicated, geeky, abstract, or indicative of experimental thinking in claiming Mike Trout has an argument for having had a better all-around season than Miguel Cabrera, and that the Triple Crown is nothing but a stubborn, romanticized remnant of ages during which fewer people thought about the nitty gritty of player value and instead genuflected to easily digestible stats. HHR hasn't made any irrational claims or even any particularly complex ones.
Miguel Cabrera is a more-than-worthy MVP candidate. He's a fukking beast. I watch every at bat of his I can. But to pretend he has had a clearly better season than Trout, or to worship the Triple Crown for any reasons that you can't admit are nostalgic is, frankly, imbecilic. And to hoist "Triple Crown" on your shoulders and parade it around as some pure, unassailable baseball metric while labeling any other grouping of stats as made up ESPN junk science is mindbogglingly idiotic.
Smarmy stat-obsessed a$$holes who think they can predict and dictate performance, wins, and losses strictly by running sets of numbers through a calculator are annoying as fukk. But no more annoying than "purists" and "traditionalists" who are militantly ignorant and treat even the most basic explanations of statistics as if its some alien creed from Planet Evil.
The War Report
NewNewYork
It's simple. If you've seen Mike Trout play baseball this year then you know he's been playing MVP baseball. Ricky Henderson and Micky Mantle are players that come to mind when you see him play, but I think Trout has a better mental makeup than both.
Captain Crunch
Veteran
Trout is basically Willie Mays w/ less power.
His potential
you dont think he going to display MORE power....30 hrs aint nothing to sneeze at.
its crazy. i think hes the MVP cause he made me forget about pujols. that says a lot to me...this is HIS team now.
I think this is his power ceiling, or close to it.
He hit more HRs this year, in 560 ABs, than he hit in his entire professional career before his call-up, which was close to 1300 ABs.
