Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)

Dickey and Price Get the Cy Young

Posted: 11/15/2012 9:05 AM

Dickey and Price Get the Cy Young 


Price just squeaked by Justin Verlander to win the 2012 AL Cy Young. RA Dickey won it handily in the NL becoming the first pure knuckleballer to win the award.

Have to figure the pricetag on trying to acquire Price from the Rays has just gone way up...should Tampa still be considering moving him along. Dickey says he is more than happy being with the Mets.

Verlander didn't have the wins this year, but many felt he was still the dominant pitcher in the AL and the voting bore that out as he received only 1 fewer first place votes than Price.
Dickey really had little competion, as last years winner, Kershaw of the Dodgers was a distant 2nd.

Today we will see if the first triple crown winner in 45 years will be enough to win an MVP award for Cabrera.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/15/2012 11:27 AM

Re: Dickey and Price Get the Cy Young 


Dickey life story only adds to me taking my hat off to him.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/16/2012 10:11 AM

RE: Dickey and Price Get the Cy Young 


Posey and Cabrera with the MVP's. Good choices IMO. And as one writer put it--Cabrera's win was a victory for the 'old traditional stats'. That makes me very happy because as most here know, I am not a huge fan of sabremetrics...too much analysis just sucks the joy and life out of the sport and takes the humanity out of it. Its bad enough that baseball is all business and money these days....I like the fact that some folks still appreciate the simplicity of BA, HR's and
RBI without making them seem outdated and irrelevent.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/16/2012 1:38 PM

RE: Dickey and Price Get the Cy Young 



insagt1 wrote: Posey and Cabrera with the MVP's. Good choices IMO. And as one writer put it--Cabrera's win was a victory for the 'old traditional stats'. That makes me very happy because as most here know, I am not a huge fan of sabremetrics...too much analysis just sucks the joy and life out of the sport and takes the humanity out of it. Its bad enough that baseball is all business and money these days....I like the fact that some folks still appreciate the simplicity of BA, HR's and
RBI without making them seem outdated and irrelevent.
I was not happy that Cabrera won and it has nothing to do with WAR.

Mike Trout is a better baseball player. He hit only slightly worse than Cabrera, played outstanding defense, and was an excellent base runner. THOSE THINGS MATTER TOO. Give Cabrera a Silver Slugger, but he wasn't the best player in baseball. He is a god awful fielder, anywhere on the field, and slow as molasses. That makes him less valuable to a team than Trout. There's more ways to win a baseball game that just hitting the crap out of the ball.

Why should Cabrera get the "Most Valuable Player" award when he was only the most valuable hitter? Why do voters ignore that defense and baserunning are essential parts of winning baseball games too.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/16/2012 2:22 PM

RE: Dickey and Price Get the Cy Young 



insagt1 wrote: Posey and Cabrera with the MVP's. Good choices IMO. And as one writer put it--Cabrera's win was a victory for the 'old traditional stats'. That makes me very happy because as most here know, I am not a huge fan of sabremetrics...too much analysis just sucks the joy and life out of the sport and takes the humanity out of it. Its bad enough that baseball is all business and money these days....I like the fact that some folks still appreciate the simplicity of BA, HR's and
RBI without making them seem outdated and irrelevent.
I don't know that I agree with Cabrera as MVP as I sort of agree with dmason on that but I DO agree with the simplicity of BA, HRs and RBIs. I guess I'm just old school and I don't know that all is new stuff is actually improving the game any.




Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/16/2012 7:20 PM

RE: Dickey and Price Get the Cy Young 



DrBNic wrote:
insagt1 wrote: Posey and Cabrera with the MVP's. Good choices IMO. And as one writer put it--Cabrera's win was a victory for the 'old traditional stats'. That makes me very happy because as most here know, I am not a huge fan of sabremetrics...too much analysis just sucks the joy and life out of the sport and takes the humanity out of it. Its bad enough that baseball is all business and money these days....I like the fact that some folks still appreciate the simplicity of BA, HR's and
RBI without making them seem outdated and irrelevent.
I don't know that I agree with Cabrera as MVP as I sort of agree with dmason on that but I DO agree with the simplicity of BA, HRs and RBIs. I guess I'm just old school and I don't know that all is new stuff is actually improving the game any.
RBIs are obviously crucial to winning games, but it's tough to use them to compare players because they depend on the guys hitting in front of you, and where you are in the order. 

I'm a math nerd, so I love all the new statistics and the research that goes into them. But when I hear a rumor about a player being linked to the Orioles, the first thing I do is look at his OBP. Then I check out his power, which I use SLG and HRs for. Then I check out his fielding, which I use UZR for. Then I look at baserunning, durability, age, etc.

I think the new statistics are a ton of fun, and I think WAR is a fantastic attempt to measure the total value of a baseball player. I like looking at it at the end of the year and seeing how WAR matches up with what my eyes told me. But I prefer to look at what specific attributes a player brings to the table when considering a player's merits.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/17/2012 1:07 AM

RE: Dickey and Price Get the Cy Young 


Cabrera accomplished something that very few players ever accomplish...and it hasn't been done since 1967. Its rarer than no hitters and even perfect games. The last 3 triple crown winners were MVP's. Cabrera helped Detroit get to the playoffs. He made them better. He had an awesome season. He deserved the award. Trout also had a great season. But Cabrera's accomplishment was in a class by itself.
It has only been recently (since sabremetrics overran the landscape) that some people enjoy telling us those basic stats are outdated. Guess I just don't buy it. Its too much. It takes the sport out of the game.

now I shall go back to my abacus, my dial phone, my 8 track player and my rabbit ears.....
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/17/2012 3:24 PM

RE: Dickey and Price Get the Cy Young 



insagt1 wrote: Cabrera accomplished something that very few players ever accomplish...and it hasn't been done since 1967. Its rarer than no hitters and even perfect games. The last 3 triple crown winners were MVP's. Cabrera helped Detroit get to the playoffs. He made them better. He had an awesome season. He deserved the award. Trout also had a great season. But Cabrera's accomplishment was in a class by itself.
It has only been recently (since sabremetrics overran the landscape) that some people enjoy telling us those basic stats are outdated. Guess I just don't buy it. Its too much. It takes the sport out of the game.

now I shall go back to my abacus, my dial phone, my 8 track player and my rabbit ears.....
Cabrera was the best hitter in the AL. Trout was the second best hitter in the AL. Cabrera was one of the worst fielders and worst baserunners in the AL. Trout was an outstanding CF and the best baserunner in the AL. That makes him a better overall player.

The only reason you view it that way is because a century ago, a bunch of cigar smoking Prohibitionists decided BA was a really important stat. The triple crown is cool, but give me the guy who can hit, steal bases, and play excellent defense over the guy who can just hit every time.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/17/2012 5:00 PM

RE: Dickey and Price Get the Cy Young 


Well that prohibitionist philosophy was good enough for decades and decades...so your dissing of it really isn't particularly shared by the masses. The triple crown is still cool..because it isn't easily achieved. It still is a standard that most basic baseball fans enjoy..before all this other stuff came along and made the simple baseball fan feel like a jerk for even considering it. I kind of resent that...as though sabremetrics 'elevates' someone above the others...an elitist if you will in a sport that was created for entertainment and enjoyment.

Trout had a fabulous season and was recognized for it...but it wasn't apparently an MVP season. And again, a debate as to what constitutes the definition of the MVP award is always out there...is it the best statistically, or the most valuable to a team, wherein his absence would have made a difference between making post season or not. The two schools of thought continue to be as far apart as sabremetric-ites and basic stat folks (aka--the dinasaurs)

And while Cabrera is no Brooks Robinson, he was asked to move to third; not his normal position and somehow the Tigers managed to survive it. The postscript on this is--before his career is over Trout will have won one or more MVP's--he is that good. And I will submit, had Cabrera not won the triple crown, Trout probably would have been the MVP. This is just a statement, not a value judgment. But I think thats the way it would have gone.
(I also think Trout probably should have won a gold glove)

As always, I enjoy the give and take...and the different philosophies between the different generations on this board.

Poppa--please weigh in on this. I'd be interested in your take.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/17/2012 5:54 PM

RE: Dickey and Price Get the Cy Young 



insagt1 wrote: Well that prohibitionist philosophy was good enough for decades and decades...so your dissing of it really isn't particularly shared by the masses. The triple crown is still cool..because it isn't easily achieved. It still is a standard that most basic baseball fans enjoy..before all this other stuff came along and made the simple baseball fan feel like a jerk for even considering it. I kind of resent that...as though sabremetrics 'elevates' someone above the others...an elitist if you will in a sport that was created for entertainment and enjoyment.

Trout had a fabulous season and was recognized for it...but it wasn't apparently an MVP season. And again, a debate as to what constitutes the definition of the MVP award is always out there...is it the best statistically, or the most valuable to a team, wherein his absence would have made a difference between making post season or not. The two schools of thought continue to be as far apart as sabremetric-ites and basic stat folks (aka--the dinasaurs)

And while Cabrera is no Brooks Robinson, he was asked to move to third; not his normal position and somehow the Tigers managed to survive it. The postscript on this is--before his career is over Trout will have won one or more MVP's--he is that good. And I will submit, had Cabrera not won the triple crown, Trout probably would have been the MVP. This is just a statement, not a value judgment. But I think thats the way it would have gone.
(I also think Trout probably should have won a gold glove)

As always, I enjoy the give and take...and the different philosophies between the different generations on this board.

Poppa--please weigh in on this. I'd be interested in your take.
Well maybe our difference of opinion lies in our views of the MVP award itself. I think it should go to the baseball player that had the best season. The guy who was the best player in the league.

To me, given the fact that he was outstanding at every aspect of baseball, rather than just one, that is Mike Trout.

The Triple Crown is a bit frustrating for me too.  Mike Trout was the first player in MLB history to record at last 45 steals, 30 HR and 125 runs scored. Almost had a ridiculous 30/50 season. He did plenty of remarkable things too, just so happened that none of them were assigned the mythical aura of the triple crown. I don't think that makes them any less valuable in the grand scheme of winning baseball games.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/17/2012 6:53 PM

RE: Dickey and Price Get the Cy Young 


the different views of the award is why I brought it up.
I'll sustain your description of Trouts season...he didn't even start the year with the Angels..making his exploits even more amazing.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/18/2012 12:39 PM

RE: Dickey and Price Get the Cy Young 



dmason85 wrote:
insagt1 wrote: Well that prohibitionist philosophy was good enough for decades and decades...so your dissing of it really isn't particularly shared by the masses. The triple crown is still cool..because it isn't easily achieved. It still is a standard that most basic baseball fans enjoy..before all this other stuff came along and made the simple baseball fan feel like a jerk for even considering it. I kind of resent that...as though sabremetrics 'elevates' someone above the others...an elitist if you will in a sport that was created for entertainment and enjoyment.

Trout had a fabulous season and was recognized for it...but it wasn't apparently an MVP season. And again, a debate as to what constitutes the definition of the MVP award is always out there...is it the best statistically, or the most valuable to a team, wherein his absence would have made a difference between making post season or not. The two schools of thought continue to be as far apart as sabremetric-ites and basic stat folks (aka--the dinasaurs)

And while Cabrera is no Brooks Robinson, he was asked to move to third; not his normal position and somehow the Tigers managed to survive it. The postscript on this is--before his career is over Trout will have won one or more MVP's--he is that good. And I will submit, had Cabrera not won the triple crown, Trout probably would have been the MVP. This is just a statement, not a value judgment. But I think thats the way it would have gone.
(I also think Trout probably should have won a gold glove)

As always, I enjoy the give and take...and the different philosophies between the different generations on this board.

Poppa--please weigh in on this. I'd be interested in your take.
Well maybe our difference of opinion lies in our views of the MVP award itself. I think it should go to the baseball player that had the best season. The guy who was the best player in the league.

To me, given the fact that he was outstanding at every aspect of baseball, rather than just one, that is Mike Trout.

The Triple Crown is a bit frustrating for me too.  Mike Trout was the first player in MLB history to record at last 45 steals, 30 HR and 125 runs scored. Almost had a ridiculous 30/50 season. He did plenty of remarkable things too, just so happened that none of them were assigned the mythical aura of the triple crown. I don't think that makes them any less valuable in the grand scheme of winning baseball games.
You seem to miss the point of what MVP actually stands for. If that's the case you should be up in arms over Buster Posey winning the NL MVP more so than Mike Trout not winning it. There were better seasons in the National League than Posey's. Ryan Braun topped his MVP season from last year.

Most Valuable Player award goes to the player that demonstrates the most value to his team. Without Miguel Cabrera, the Tigers are in the same place as the Angels, fishing in October.

When Mike Trout came up, the Angels were 7.5 games back of the division lead. At the end of the season, they were 5. And you can't argue that was too big of a hole to climb out of in that division.

The Angels should have been a much better team, even without Mike Trout. They were picked to finish first or second by most before the season started, without Trout on the roster. The Tigers were picked to win their division, and they did, because they had Miguel Cabrera.

The bottom line is, the writers sided on history, and not just the triple crown, but what Cabrera did for his team as a contender. This is an MVP award, not a Player of the Year award.

Throw the 2 seamer for strikes dammit.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/18/2012 3:43 PM

RE: Dickey and Price Get the Cy Young 



OsMagik wrote:
dmason85 wrote:
insagt1 wrote: Well that prohibitionist philosophy was good enough for decades and decades...so your dissing of it really isn't particularly shared by the masses. The triple crown is still cool..because it isn't easily achieved. It still is a standard that most basic baseball fans enjoy..before all this other stuff came along and made the simple baseball fan feel like a jerk for even considering it. I kind of resent that...as though sabremetrics 'elevates' someone above the others...an elitist if you will in a sport that was created for entertainment and enjoyment.

Trout had a fabulous season and was recognized for it...but it wasn't apparently an MVP season. And again, a debate as to what constitutes the definition of the MVP award is always out there...is it the best statistically, or the most valuable to a team, wherein his absence would have made a difference between making post season or not. The two schools of thought continue to be as far apart as sabremetric-ites and basic stat folks (aka--the dinasaurs)

And while Cabrera is no Brooks Robinson, he was asked to move to third; not his normal position and somehow the Tigers managed to survive it. The postscript on this is--before his career is over Trout will have won one or more MVP's--he is that good. And I will submit, had Cabrera not won the triple crown, Trout probably would have been the MVP. This is just a statement, not a value judgment. But I think thats the way it would have gone.
(I also think Trout probably should have won a gold glove)

As always, I enjoy the give and take...and the different philosophies between the different generations on this board.

Poppa--please weigh in on this. I'd be interested in your take.
Well maybe our difference of opinion lies in our views of the MVP award itself. I think it should go to the baseball player that had the best season. The guy who was the best player in the league.

To me, given the fact that he was outstanding at every aspect of baseball, rather than just one, that is Mike Trout.

The Triple Crown is a bit frustrating for me too.  Mike Trout was the first player in MLB history to record at last 45 steals, 30 HR and 125 runs scored. Almost had a ridiculous 30/50 season. He did plenty of remarkable things too, just so happened that none of them were assigned the mythical aura of the triple crown. I don't think that makes them any less valuable in the grand scheme of winning baseball games.
You seem to miss the point of what MVP actually stands for. If that's the case you should be up in arms over Buster Posey winning the NL MVP more so than Mike Trout not winning it. There were better seasons in the National League than Posey's. Ryan Braun topped his MVP season from last year.

Most Valuable Player award goes to the player that demonstrates the most value to his team. Without Miguel Cabrera, the Tigers are in the same place as the Angels, fishing in October.

When Mike Trout came up, the Angels were 7.5 games back of the division lead. At the end of the season, they were 5. And you can't argue that was too big of a hole to climb out of in that division.

The Angels should have been a much better team, even without Mike Trout. They were picked to finish first or second by most before the season started, without Trout on the roster. The Tigers were picked to win their division, and they did, because they had Miguel Cabrera.

The bottom line is, the writers sided on history, and not just the triple crown, but what Cabrera did for his team as a contender. This is an MVP award, not a Player of the Year award.
So Cabrera gets the award because the Rangers and As had great years and the AL Central sucked? The Angels won more games than the Tigers in a far tougher division. If they played in the AL Central, they almost certainly would have finished ahead of Detroit. I don't  think it's fair to penalize Trout for the level of competition he was in.

Can you give a concrete definition for what you think the MVP is?

Edit: The Angels were 7.5 games back because only 20 games had been played. Their record was 7-13. That sounds like an argument for Trout to me. .350 winning percentage without him. .577 with him.

Last edited 11/18/2012 3:49 PM by dmason85

Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/19/2012 12:35 AM

RE: Dickey and Price Get the Cy Young 



dmason85 wrote:
OsMagik wrote:
dmason85 wrote:
insagt1 wrote: Well that prohibitionist philosophy was good enough for decades and decades...so your dissing of it really isn't particularly shared by the masses. The triple crown is still cool..because it isn't easily achieved. It still is a standard that most basic baseball fans enjoy..before all this other stuff came along and made the simple baseball fan feel like a jerk for even considering it. I kind of resent that...as though sabremetrics 'elevates' someone above the others...an elitist if you will in a sport that was created for entertainment and enjoyment.

Trout had a fabulous season and was recognized for it...but it wasn't apparently an MVP season. And again, a debate as to what constitutes the definition of the MVP award is always out there...is it the best statistically, or the most valuable to a team, wherein his absence would have made a difference between making post season or not. The two schools of thought continue to be as far apart as sabremetric-ites and basic stat folks (aka--the dinasaurs)

And while Cabrera is no Brooks Robinson, he was asked to move to third; not his normal position and somehow the Tigers managed to survive it. The postscript on this is--before his career is over Trout will have won one or more MVP's--he is that good. And I will submit, had Cabrera not won the triple crown, Trout probably would have been the MVP. This is just a statement, not a value judgment. But I think thats the way it would have gone.
(I also think Trout probably should have won a gold glove)

As always, I enjoy the give and take...and the different philosophies between the different generations on this board.

Poppa--please weigh in on this. I'd be interested in your take.
Well maybe our difference of opinion lies in our views of the MVP award itself. I think it should go to the baseball player that had the best season. The guy who was the best player in the league.

To me, given the fact that he was outstanding at every aspect of baseball, rather than just one, that is Mike Trout.

The Triple Crown is a bit frustrating for me too.  Mike Trout was the first player in MLB history to record at last 45 steals, 30 HR and 125 runs scored. Almost had a ridiculous 30/50 season. He did plenty of remarkable things too, just so happened that none of them were assigned the mythical aura of the triple crown. I don't think that makes them any less valuable in the grand scheme of winning baseball games.
You seem to miss the point of what MVP actually stands for. If that's the case you should be up in arms over Buster Posey winning the NL MVP more so than Mike Trout not winning it. There were better seasons in the National League than Posey's. Ryan Braun topped his MVP season from last year.

Most Valuable Player award goes to the player that demonstrates the most value to his team. Without Miguel Cabrera, the Tigers are in the same place as the Angels, fishing in October.

When Mike Trout came up, the Angels were 7.5 games back of the division lead. At the end of the season, they were 5. And you can't argue that was too big of a hole to climb out of in that division.

The Angels should have been a much better team, even without Mike Trout. They were picked to finish first or second by most before the season started, without Trout on the roster. The Tigers were picked to win their division, and they did, because they had Miguel Cabrera.

The bottom line is, the writers sided on history, and not just the triple crown, but what Cabrera did for his team as a contender. This is an MVP award, not a Player of the Year award.
So Cabrera gets the award because the Rangers and As had great years and the AL Central sucked? The Angels won more games than the Tigers in a far tougher division. If they played in the AL Central, they almost certainly would have finished ahead of Detroit. I don't  think it's fair to penalize Trout for the level of competition he was in.

Can you give a concrete definition for what you think the MVP is?

Edit: The Angels were 7.5 games back because only 20 games had been played. Their record was 7-13. That sounds like an argument for Trout to me. .350 winning percentage without him. .577 with him.
so if they were 7.5 back because only 20 games had been played, then their record was so poor because they had only played 20 games? you can't use the small sample size argument for AND against me, that's just not fair.

The 7.5 back holds an entire season because it reflects team and opponent play.

The simple fact of the matter is, Cabrera's team is a playoff team with him, they aren't without him.

The Angels aren't a playoff team without Trout, and they aren't with him.

Was he the best player in baseball: yes
Was he the most valuable to his team: no

MVP Definition is exactly what the letters stand for.

You want a player of the year award, there's no doubt who deserves it.

Throw the 2 seamer for strikes dammit.

Last edited 11/19/2012 12:43 AM by OsMagik

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/19/2012 12:49 AM

RE: Dickey and Price Get the Cy Young 



OsMagik wrote: 
MVP definition: Most Valuable Player
Trout is more valuable because he is an all-around player. I've yet to see what makes Cabrera more valuable to a team. I don't buy giving him the award because he played in the AL Central or the fact that he was a slightly better hitter.

The argument "Well they wouldn't have made the playoffs without him" doesn't hold much weight to me either. They wouldn't have made it without Verlander either, probably Prince as well.

I think you have to give the award to the player who adds the most value to a team. Trout did that in all three phases, rather than just one.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/19/2012 4:38 AM

RE: Dickey and Price Get the Cy Young 



dmason85 wrote:
OsMagik wrote: 
MVP definition: Most Valuable Player
Trout is more valuable because he is an all-around player. I've yet to see what makes Cabrera more valuable to a team. I don't buy giving him the award because he played in the AL Central or the fact that he was a slightly better hitter.

The argument "Well they wouldn't have made the playoffs without him" doesn't hold much weight to me either. They wouldn't have made it without Verlander either, probably Prince as well.

I think you have to give the award to the player who adds the most value to a team. Trout did that in all three phases, rather than just one.
it's not a "make playoffs without xyz" argument. the tigers wouldn't have made it if it weren't for Omar Infate either. you could name a contribution from every player, but you'd be lying to yourself if you believed there were a more valuable player on the tigers this year than Miguel Cabrera.

you don't need to play stupid to hold onto your argument.

the thing is, as good as Trout's season was, it didn't elevate his team to the next level.

cabrera did, that's why i'm fine with him getting the MVP.

By the way, you reference Cabrera's awful defense, please, out of this blind lineup, pick him out of it:

3b  gp     e     fpct    range factor

A   159   10     .976    2.67

B   154   13     .966    2.52

C   129    8      .974    2.43

D   145    19    .950    2.53

Throw the 2 seamer for strikes dammit.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/19/2012 5:39 AM

RE: Dickey and Price Get the Cy Young 



OsMagik wrote: it's not a "make playoffs without xyz" argument. the tigers wouldn't have made it if it weren't for Omar Infate either. you could name a contribution from every player, but you'd be lying to yourself if you believed there were a more valuable player on the tigers this year than Miguel Cabrera.

you don't need to play stupid to hold onto your argument.

the thing is, as good as Trout's season was, it didn't elevate his team to the next level.

cabrera did, that's why i'm fine with him getting the MVP.

By the way, you reference Cabrera's awful defense, please, out of this blind lineup, pick him out of it:

3b  gp     e     fpct    range factor

A   159   10     .976    2.67

B   154   13     .966    2.52

C   129    8      .974    2.43

D   145    19    .950    2.53
So, to make the sides of this argument clear: We agree that Trout was better than Cabrera. However, you feel that Cabrera elevated his team to the next level, while Trout did not. 

Here's why I disagree with you:

In games Mike Trout played in, the Angels went 81-58. In games Mike Trout did not play in, the Angels went 8-15. Given this, and the fact that we both seem to agree that Trout was an all-around better player, how can you say Mike Trout did not elevate his team to a higher level? He elevated his team much more than Cabrera elevated his team. It just so happened that Cabrera played in a the worst division in baseball, which allowed them to sneak into the playoffs despite finishing with the 7th best record in the AL.

And in response to your statistics, Cabrera was a horrible, horrible fielder. There's not an argument to be made there that he was kind of alright. He had absolutely no range. Fangraphs' fielding statistics are considered the best around. They have him about equal to Wilson Betemit at 3B. That is, the worst in the league.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/20/2012 12:38 AM

RE: Dickey and Price Get the Cy Young 


Again, that argument is invalid if you're going to hold onto being 7.5 games back early because of the small sample size. There's no point in having an honest debate if the reasoning for disagreeing with me is used in supporting your own argument.

As for the pop quiz... Player A was Chase Hadley, GG in the NL, Player B, Miggy, Player C Adrian Beltre, GG winner, and player D Ryan Zimmerman.

UZR is something I'll admit I don't unerstand, but what these numbers reflect is that Miggy, on average had more chances per game at third base and didn't screw a play up far more often than the guys considered the best third basemen in baseball. Or, in other words, you should feel comfortable if the ball was hit in an area he could get a glove on it.

Throw the 2 seamer for strikes dammit.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/20/2012 12:50 AM

RE: Dickey and Price Get the Cy Young 



OsMagik wrote: Again, that argument is invalid if you're going to hold onto being 7.5 games back early because of the small sample size. There's no point in having an honest debate if the reasoning for disagreeing with me is used in supporting your own argument.

As for the pop quiz... Player A was Chase Hadley, GG in the NL, Player B, Miggy, Player C Adrian Beltre, GG winner, and player D Ryan Zimmerman.

UZR is something I'll admit I don't unerstand, but what these numbers reflect is that Miggy, on average had more chances per game at third base and didn't screw a play up far more often than the guys considered the best third basemen in baseball. Or, in other words, you should feel comfortable if the ball was hit in an area he could get a glove on it.
I was just responding to your point about them being down early. Being X games back is completely dependent on the team ahead of you. Texas and Oakland were great teams this year. Chicago was pretty good, but much worse than Texas and Oakland, and the others in the AL Central were terrible. 

The numbers on both sides acknowledge that when the ball happened to be hit right at Miguel Cabrera, he was good at getting the guy out. When it was hit in a place where he had to move even a little bit, it got into left field for a single or double.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/22/2012 9:58 PM

RE: Dickey and Price Get the Cy Young 


Until MLB can once and for all define what the MVP award is (and what it isn't) there will always be this sort of controversy. And with the introduction of all the sabremetric stats, it gets even more dicey.

When I was growing up, it pretty much was the player who was most valuable to his team...whose presence made a major difference and whose absense would have been a detriment to the teams ability to succeed. Which is why it was rare for a player on a last place team to win it. Unless he had a totally extraordinary season in a year where no one else really excelled. Ernie Banks was that guy in my day. He won the award for the woeful Cubs. Many years later Andre Dawson repeated the feat. I guess the Cubs have to feel good about something!
Reply | Quote