1
I could sware Cabrera won MVP...saw it in the MLBTR headlines this morning...........
Classy Rook CF wins MVP over Superduperstar Slugger
Sportswriters jump at chance to show disdain of HR, RBI
.
In the AL MVP race, you had two sluggers bashing lots of home runs, and one of those sluggers was the game's biggest name. You had a rookie center fielder going against them, and he had many fewer HR's, but he did have a ton of doubles, a high slugging percentage, and an impact glove in the middle of the diamond. It was "Triple Crown Stats" against "underappreciated all-around game," and it was a rookie with the underappreciated doubles and homers.
We're talking about the 1974 MVP vote, the first one that Dr. D really remembers well. Fred Lynn hit .331/.401/.566 in Fenway, but remember, in 1974 it was pre-Rickey and pre-OBP. Also, Lynn hit only 21 homers. Lynn did hit 47 doubles, but doubles remained legitimately underappreciated all the way through Edgar Martinez' career.
Reggie Jackson, the original "superduperstar" after he hit 47 homers in 1969 and then led the A's to three straight Series titles in 1972-74, then led the AL in home runs again in 1975.
Of 24 MVP votes that season, rookie "sabermetric" player Fred Lynn got 22 first-place votes; the other two went to a "Closer" (what's that?), Rollie Fingers.
This thing about Cabrera vs Trout being a referendum on old school vs WAR? Nonsense. I was there. Sportswriters have always loved to show their appreciation for the game with Mike Trout votes. Like the Phil Rizzuto HOF thing. Give a sportswriter a chance to show his extra level of knowledge, his perception of things that fans don't perceive, and he'll grab it. Sportswriters would have loved to have voted Mike Trout the MVP - and that was back in 1972.
I think there are very few BBWAA members any more who don't have Fangraphs bookmarked. If there ever were a time when you were "educating" the great mass of sportswriters as to what WAR was, gentlemen, those days are long gone.
People didn't vote for Miguel Cabrera because they're stupid. They voted for him for reasons that are, generally, sophisticated. That doesn't mean that they were demonstrably right, of course.
.
=== Talking Points ===
From BJOL:
What kind of odds would you give Trout and Harper of having Hall of Fame careers?Asked by: izzy2112Answered: 11/13/201220, 25%. Could be higher. There are a lot of good 20, 21-year-old players who DON'T go on to be great. But there are not a lot of Bryce Harpers and Trouts.
Bill was in a conservative mood here. In another time and place, he calculated a 20-30% such chance for 22-year-old players having average-solid seasons.
I love Trout's super-short, powerful swing and his hitting talent, never mind his speed and instincts, never mind his skill set. I'd imagine that a Fred Lynn career is, barring injury, his worst-case scenario. Lynn and Cesar Cedeno are the two worst players I can remember, going from where Trout is now on to a less-than-HOF career. Trout had a lot better age-21 season, for example, than Ken Griffey Jr. did.
............
Trout was worth essentially +100 runs this year, +100 over a good triple-A center fielder like (say) Endy Chavez. To put that in perspective, Albert Pujols is a +80 runs player, the next best after that is ARod who Has Been a +60 player (over the last 10 years), and then you have a handful of reliable +50 players: Utley, Cabrera, Beltran, Beltre, and Ichiro. There are about 15 more reliable +40 players over the last decade.
A +100 season? A hundred runs' team differential is basically the offseason target if you want to contend. Think about that.
...............
As Mariner fans, two glimmers of hope:
Jacoby Ellsbury in 2011 had +95 runs, or 9.4 WAR. The next year he had 1.5. The huge WAR year was based on a very Trout-like skill set: 30 homers, .50 EYE, position scarcity in CF, speed, everything.
Dr. D legitimately could see Trout's offense fading back from 175 OPS+ ... he had a .383 BABIP, his power is not light-tower, his EYE is a bit suspect for a .300 hitter. He's a tremendous young player, of course, but it's not yet established that he's a young Ken Griffey Jr level player.
Don't get me wrong. Trout is fast, he can hit for power, and he can hit for contact. He's a great player at age 21.
Comments
2
ellsbury didn't just spontaneously get less good at baseball, reid brignac curb-stomped his shoulder in a play at second base the first week of the season and he was never the same even when he came back
3
There was a bit of irony in my headline and article here; some sabermigos interpreted the BBWAA's decision as being hypnotized by Triple Crown stats. My tongue-in-cheek response was, triple crown stats stopped hypnotizing sportswriters in about the 1950's, if not earlier.
It's an MVP award, not a BP (best player) award, which is why (to me) there is some reasonable case to be made for Cabrera.
I failed to pitch my irony on this one I guess, but not nearly as bad as the Lookout Landing readers failed to catch the irony in this one. Read a headline, you ninnies :- )
Thirteen, disbelieving, TOLD them that and they blinked and shuffled on forward. I think the implications for Jeff and his audience are a bit alarming.
Heh!
4
But still: after 2012, not everybody expects 9 WAR from Ellsbury next season. Or six! Ellsbury had had one nuclear year, as has Trout.
But still, still: Ellsbury wasn't 21 years old when he had his.
... what are your expectations for Ellsbury going forward, Wily Mo?
5
Sorry Doc,
I *totally* did not get the irony in this post...I thought you'd been into the good communion wine or something. :)
And LOL on the LL post...that one made my afternoon...hilarious