MVP/CY/ROY Talk

[jth1331]

Quote: Originally Posted by SPTO

The last time I made comments on the Cabrera thing I got a bit schooled but one thing i'll say is this: What Cabrera did was one of those special milestones in baseball. To say that leading the league in the Triple Crown categories makes one not worthy of winning the MVP is a bit ridiculous. I don't blame BK and some others being emotional about it but it's not like Trout hasn't been rewarded for what he's done. The guy won the ROY fer cryin' out loud! I will say this, if Cabrera didn't win the Triple Crown Trout may very well have won the MVP so it's not like the award was given to someone else just because Trout is a rookie. In closing, if there was no Triple Crown winner Trout would've won the award and there wouldn't be this gnashing of teeth from Trout supporters. It took a once in a generation type feat to thwart the kid from getting the award. Think about that for a moment and let that sink in. That's the last i'll say on the subject.

So because Cabrera had 2 more home runs than Josh Hamilton, that makes him the MVP?

[thaSLAB]

Quote: Originally Posted by SoxFan01605

Let me start by saying that I agree that the MVP award is subjective (I mean, the BBWAA pretty much says so up front), so, I have no issue with Cabrera winning or if you think he is more deserving. However, I can't say I follow the logic that leads you there: - Being a "traditionalist" is an odd reason to reject objective data. I'm not saying you need to agree about sabermetrics, but to say they have no place in the process simply out of some nod to tradition seems counter-intuitive. Traditions change. Baseball has changed. At what point in the game's history does your version of "traditional" baseball start? There was a time when "traditional stats" were new too. I'm assuming you are willing to look over some tradition as a Tigers fan considering they utilize the DH, which is certainly not "old school." -While there's little point in debating the value of sabermetrics here, I will just say that they aren't some randomly thrown together formulas to argue cases for certain players. In fact, many simply offer an objective and quantifiable representation of what scouts have claimed to see for years. I'm not saying they're the end-all-be-all, but I don't understand why people continue to act as though some nerd in a basement is just randomly picking numbers to track either...lol. - On your last point, I have no issue with leadership or guidance (if demonstrable) being taken into account for MVP, but how exactly would that favor the guy with a DUI and domestic violence on his record?

Yes, the MVP award (or any award for that matter) is highly subjective. That also means, that no matter how much us as fans go back and forth, petition, what have you, it's not up to us. That's why I reiterated my points as in my opinion, not believing that anyone else or the BWAA should hold my views. And I wouldn't have deemed the award meaningless, had Trout won based off of sabermetrics.

Actually baseball hasn't changed that much, and for the most part traditions have held strong. And as far as how far back as when for traditional awards, I mean as far back as the MVP (early-1910s) award goes, which started out as the Chalmers award and was ironically given to the player with the highest batting average, alone. Although that award was nothing more than an advertising ploy, it still lives on in tradition, as we still give automobiles to MVPs. So does the sabermetrics approach now mean that we need to go back and do a comparison amongst past MVP winners/runner-ups? Maybe they introduce a new WAR award? I don't know lol. FYI, for the record, I dislike the DH rule.

And to the point of leadership, etc. What is done outside of the clubhouse has no bearing on what a player can teach and display to their teammates in the clubhouse, and on the field. I wouldn't vote him role model of the year either. Despite the off-field issues, he didn't let it become a distraction to the team, and he still managed to be well-respected when it came to baseball. On a similar note, I think its a travesty that Pete Rose isn't in the HoF, because baseball-wise IMO he is a Hall of Famer. Ty Cobb, likewise, was not the nicest person but he was a helluva baseball player.

Anyway, with (almost) everyone agreeing that it's all subjective, there is really no need for pleading for one case or the other. The vote is in, 28 different people voted what they deemed correct. That is, unless we are getting a jumpstart on the 2013 awards, or plan to submit a petition of change in selection processes.

[SPTO]

Quote: Originally Posted by jth1331

So because Cabrera had 2 more home runs than Josh Hamilton, that makes him the MVP?

Did Hamilton lead the league in RBI or Average?

Case closed.

(for me at least :P )

[SoxFan01605]

Quote: Originally Posted by gopher_guy

What award isn't subjective???

True enough. Perhaps I should have said "definitionally" or "purposely" subjective. In other words, the award for "most valuable" doesn't even give any pretense that it means to be objective (like a "Defensive player of the year" type of award, for example, which at least implies more objective criteria). My point was simply that it's hard for me to get worked up about the measures used when what is being measured isn't even clearly defined.

Quote: Originally Posted by thaSLAB

Yes, the MVP award (or any award for that matter) is highly subjective. That also means, that no matter how much us as fans go back and forth, petition, what have you, it's not up to us. That's why I reiterated my points as in my opinion, not believing that anyone else or the BWAA should hold my views. And I wouldn't have deemed the award meaningless, had Trout won based off of sabermetrics. Yeah. No worries. Again, I'm not disagreeing on this point. Actually baseball hasn't changed that much, and for the most part traditions have held strong. And as far as how far back as when for traditional awards, I mean as far back as the MVP (early-1910s) award goes, which started out as the Chalmers award and was ironically given to the player with the highest batting average, alone. Although that award was nothing more than an advertising ploy, it still lives on in tradition, as we still give automobiles to MVPs. So does the sabermetrics approach now mean that we need to go back and do a comparison amongst past MVP winners/runner-ups? Maybe they introduce a new WAR award? I don't know lol. FYI, for the record, I dislike the DH rule. MLB has often taken the long and sometimes painful road to change, but I can't agree that it's changed very little. Some traditions hold, some become outdated or adapted. That's true of anything that passes through generations. My point being that, despite some people trying to make it that, it's not really an issue of "sabermetrics vs tradition" IMO. Over the years, the BBWAA has considered more and more statistical info. That hasn't hindered the voting tradition. It's simply new, more detailed information. Just like saves, RBIs, OPS, and other stats that have been added over the years. And no, I don't think there needs to be an audit on past winners. A new award is a fun idea, but would essentially be meaningless since it wouldn't impact things like HOF induction, etc. Again, I'm not really that invested, I guess I just don't see how having a more complete picture threatens tradition is all. You call yourself a traditionalist, I call you a curmudgeon (j/k ). And to the point of leadership, etc. What is done outside of the clubhouse has no bearing on what a player can teach and display to their teammates in the clubhouse, and on the field. I wouldn't vote him role model of the year either. Despite the off-field issues, he didn't let it become a distraction to the team, and he still managed to be well-respected when it came to baseball. On a similar note, I think its a travesty that Pete Rose isn't in the HoF, because baseball-wise IMO he is a Hall of Famer. Ty Cobb, likewise, was not the nicest person but he was a helluva baseball player. Yeah, I wasn't making a moral case or suggesting it has anything to do with award selection. I was simply having a bit of fun with leadership being brought up. To my knowledge, there is nothing that has suggested Cabrera is a leader on that team beyond simple performance. Not letting self-inflicted personal issues affect his play, to me, is more a product of his talent than any intangible quality and should generally be expected. I have no disagreement about Rose or Cobb. I will say that off-the-field matters FAR more now than it did when Cobb played (though talent will still trump all). That's part of the evolution in society that baseball is dragged into each generation, kicking and screaming...lol. Anyway, with (almost) everyone agreeing that it's all subjective, there is really no need for pleading for one case or the other. The vote is in, 28 different people voted what they deemed correct. That is, unless we are getting a jumpstart on the 2013 awards, or plan to submit a petition of change in selection processes. To be clear, I'm not pleading a case (though I would definitely not oppose the BBWAA process disappearing for this and especially the HOF). Just discussing.

[Blzer]

Quote: Originally Posted by gopher_guy

What award isn't subjective???

The Triple Crown.

I've stated most of my cases in that cover athlete thread on The Show sub-forum, but basically, I'm still "on the fence" with it all... yet I haven't seen Cabrera advocates dispute what Trout actually did this year. Instead, it's been all about Cabrera. Some good cases have been made there against Cabrera, but not too many against Trout.