What an amazing accomplishment. The last time this occurred was 1967.
Hope he wins the MVP as well.
Hope he wins the MVP as well.
Miguel Cabrera wins the triple crown
- Thread starter Kooze
- Start date
That is pretty amazing. I remember watching him in the 2003 World Series and how his power really picked up the next year.
Awesome throwback accomplishment but really Mike Trout should be MVP.
Miguel Cabrera WAR - 7.2
Mike Trout - 10.4 (first time over 10 since Barry Bonds)
Miguel Cabrera WAR - 7.2
Mike Trout - 10.4 (first time over 10 since Barry Bonds)
Last edited:
MVP? Hard to do better than win a triple crown.
Indeed, amazing!!! I always thought I was never going to see this happen in my lifetime.
He's a beast for sure, needs to improve on defense but nowadays teams dont really care, especially in the AL.
Seriously? First off, WAR values are not standardized so they can differ depending on which outlet you get the stats from, off the head I'm guessing that Trout's better WAR stats come from defense... Did you know that some players earn errors just for trying to make a play, while a player who doesnt even try to make a play might not get an error scored? Who would really deserve a gold glove then? Now, that being said, I dont want to take ANYTHING away from Mike Trout but we're talking about THE triple crown maaaaaaannnn... Oh, and Bonds as gauge for how a good a player is, is like... I dont know what to say, lol... it's just not a good gauge imo.
Agreed. It's only been done 17 times since 1877 vs 23* perfect games since 1880...
* Armando Galarraga.
The AL MVP race is not even close. Trout should win by a MILE.
The Triple Crown, despite being a huge accomplishment, adds no value to a team. That, along with the fact that the stats used to calculate it are outdated and not a clear representation of a player's skill, make it irrelevant to the MVP race.
Here is a nice article about why Trout is the obvious choice for AL MVP. Do not get me wrong, Cabrera had a great season, but he is not the 2012 AL MVP (not even close).
The Triple Crown, despite being a huge accomplishment, adds no value to a team. That, along with the fact that the stats used to calculate it are outdated and not a clear representation of a player's skill, make it irrelevant to the MVP race.
Here is a nice article about why Trout is the obvious choice for AL MVP. Do not get me wrong, Cabrera had a great season, but he is not the 2012 AL MVP (not even close).
Miguel Cabrera should win the AL MVP. He accomplished the Triple Crown which has not been done since 1967. 1967!!! With that said... both had great seasons but in my opinion Carbrera wins MVP.
WARHAWK
WARHAWK
Why should Cabrera win? The Triple Crown is a great accomplishment on its own, but has nothing to do with the MVP award. Using batting average, homeruns, and RBIs to judge a player's ability is outdated and, to be quite frank, archaic. There are so many factors that influence those stats that they are irrelevant. That is like saying Jeter should win the MVP because of hits, when Jeter's UZR and WAR are terrible. Fangraphs is the place to get reliable stats, not MLB.com.
I linked to an article in my above post (did not read yours before replying), but here is another one.
Matthew, for every argument there's a rebuttal, even for seemingly sure shot things like the evolution of species. You seem to not understand what a triple crown is and its meaning. The reality is that we could go back and forth and if you dont really understand (or at least understand it the way I do) what a triple crown is, you will never understand its importance. You can be swayed by articles all you want but the bottom line is that the baseball triple crown is, if not the ultimate achievement, one of the most amazing -and rare- feats in sports.
I think it is evident that the MVP is the most misunderstood award in sports. It has nothing to do with the best player or any feats completed by a player, but rather with the value a player adds to his team. Cabrera has more impressive numbers than Trout and has certainly accomplished something amazing, but Trout added more value to his team than Cabrera did. If the MVP went to the player with the best traditional statistics, Cabrera would win, but that is not how the MVP award is awarded. The award is based on value, not ancient statistics.
I was there, it was amazing the entire stadium cheered him!
Cabrera and his team are in the postseason... Trout is sitting at home waiting for the wild card round to begin, just like us.
BTW, I would usually agree with you (Felix Hernandez 2010 Cy Young -meager number of wins but stats broken down properly by sabremeticians-) but this is not one of those times... it's the triple crown maaaaaannnn, lol...
I can only imagine...
I think we will just have to agree to disagree, as I disagree about King Felix (look at his WAR) as well. We shall see in four to six weeks.
I think I may have lost you inadvertently, I'm talking about when King Felix won the Cy in 2010... but yeah, let's agree to disagree. W.A.R. is just such a dubious stat imo.
Ted Williams won the triple crown in 1947 and lost the MVP to Joe D. (He also lost it to JD in '41, when he batted .406)
I've been arguing with people over the MVP for fifty years, and I always hear the same thing- it means the most valuable player for their team. Funny, but I don't see that written down anywhere, even though it's taken as gospel. Why isn't it called the MVPFTT? If we get to add words to the title, why shouldn't I be allowed to call it the "Most Valuable Player for the Sport of Baseball Irrespective of Their Team"?
It's funny how a great player can be overlooked if he plays for a crappy team, but that can help a pitcher in the eyes of the voters for the Cy Young award. It's much harder to be a successful (and arguably valuable) pitcher for a lousy team.
Cabrera's year was even better than Yaz's in '67:
330/44/139 vs 326/44/121, with no ties.
I've been arguing with people over the MVP for fifty years, and I always hear the same thing- it means the most valuable player for their team. Funny, but I don't see that written down anywhere, even though it's taken as gospel. Why isn't it called the MVPFTT? If we get to add words to the title, why shouldn't I be allowed to call it the "Most Valuable Player for the Sport of Baseball Irrespective of Their Team"?
It's funny how a great player can be overlooked if he plays for a crappy team, but that can help a pitcher in the eyes of the voters for the Cy Young award. It's much harder to be a successful (and arguably valuable) pitcher for a lousy team.
Cabrera's year was even better than Yaz's in '67:
330/44/139 vs 326/44/121, with no ties.
And only won by 12 men in the modern era.
Matt- I'm not surprised that someone younger than my newest baseball glove thinks BA, HRs, and RBIs are "archaic".
And only won by 12 men in the modern era.
Matt- I'm not surprised that someone younger than my newest baseball glove thinks BA, HRs, and RBIs are "archaic".
I just think sabermetrics better evaluates players because of how many things that are unrelated to skill can affect BA, HRs, RBIs, etc.
I agree that if I'm picking a team, I'm taking Trout before Cabrera.
It's amazing how they could even choose an MVP or a Cy before WAR and UZR and BABIP were invented.
Those ancient guys much just have been guessing.....
Those were just the best statistics they had at the time. As we have moved on, we have learned those statistics are not very good at evaluating a player. Where you bat in the order, who bats in front of you, who bats behind you, the division you play in, the team you play on, etc. all skew BA, HRs, and RBIs. WAR, UZR, and other sybermetric statistics are not skewed like that.
Similar threads
