yes, now they will almost make the postseason

There are sites for serious sports discussions, which aren’t hand to find using your favorite search engine.

This is the First Take of sports-related blogs. The sooner you embrace it, the happier you will be.

The trolling factor has gone up, so I am thinking of upgrading its credit rating to “McBayless Dong Blog”.

it’s the ones who view the page, and then don’t say anything. He counts that as an affirmation.

What about those of us who view the page but don’t count towards his pageviews? I’m guessing that we are the devil.

it’s the ones who view the page, and then don’t say anything. He counts that as an affirmation.

Could you point out that 90%? Could you also explain what the point was? Also, could you explain the difference between what you perceive SC did and you banning people that disagree with you? I’m genuinely curious and not attempting to troll in any way.

I see people talking about the good ole days on here as if there is a difference between then and now. TBL writes the same posts now as he did then. All you had to have been is on the Kobe side of the Kobe/LeBron argument 3 to 4 years ago to recognize this. People changed towards him once he made his big deal,which is often the case. He went from the proverbial basement poster to establishment in a flash.

Kirk Gibson in ’88 and Terry Pendleton in ’91 are prime examples of MVPs who won not because of any stats but because of the perception that they elevated their teammates and their teams into the postseason.

Gibson won in 88 because half of the NY media hated Strawberry and waged an unofficial campaign for Kevin McReynolds, splitting the vote.

he beauty is that 90% people GET this post … and then you have a small portion of guys, like SC, who take it seriously and try to make some grand statement and want to quit the site.

sigh.

Could you point out that 90%? Could you also explain what the point was? Also, could you explain the difference between what you perceive SC did and you banning people that disagree with you? I’m genuinely curious and not attempting to troll in any way.

I was referring to the comment that atrocious defense should negate Cabrera altogether and was simply pointing out actual stats, not defending

Yeah, I know you were just pointing that out. Two guys who won the NL MVP, even though their teams didn’t make the playoffs (but still shouldn’t have won on performance alone): Dawson in 87 and Howard in 06

Nada

Fair enough, doesn’t mean I have to agree with that.

Wasn’t defending it, just pointing it out.

Kirk Gibson in ’88 and Terry Pendleton in ’91 are prime examples of MVPs who won not because of any stats but because of the perception that they elevated their teammates and their teams into the postseason.

Pedroia won for that too, in a year where his great defense and really good offense stood out where no one had a crazy-good stat year, IIRC.

Fair enough, doesn’t mean I have to agree with that.

Using errors to make any kind of argument invalidates it completely

“Can’t boot balls you don’t get to” remains my mantra on all things Tiger defense

He is still ahead of Cabrera is just offensive WAR, so being qualitatively better defensively is enough, even you we don’t have good means to truly compare defensive value across positions.

Mantis – Cabrera has a 6.5 WAR and 7.2 Off-WAR. That bodes pretty badly for his defense.

I don’t think “Triple Crown” is enough to definitely win the MVP, but for anyone dismissing it as an indicator of elite performance, they are crazy, considering no one has ever sucked his way to one of them.

Everything keeps coming back to Trout, though. I’m just saying if Cabrera goes crazy, Trout sucks, and Det gets in while LAA stays home… the argument my guess is Cabrera wins.

Team success does not matter to me. I don’t think it should matter to anyone else

Kirk Gibson in ’88 and Terry Pendleton in ’91 are prime examples of MVPs who won not because of any stats but because of the perception that they elevated their teammates and their teams into the postseason.

Team success does not matter to me. I don’t think it should matter to anyone else, but in this case, does it even matter? Both the Tigers and Angels are currently set NOT to make the playoffs.

And yes, I do know that Trout is decimating the competition in WAR. I use it as a tool, not the end all be all. Especially considering that the inputs for bWar v. fWar on defense (i.e. UZR v. DRS) are suspect at best. So, I’m not relying on that. BUT, this is what I do know. If a CFer puts up commensurate offensive production (in whatever manner it may be) to a third baseman, the CFer is more valuable UNLESS the third basemen is top notch defensively and the CFer sucks at his respective position. This is NOT the case. I think even the most rational fan would acknowledge that Trout is good in CF and Cabrera sucks at 3B. Scout writers, including Klaw, Goldstein (before he left), Callis, and such will confirm that argument as well.

13 errors in over 350 chances is not horrible. It aint great, but moving to a position he hadn’t played in a long time I’ll live with 13 errors.

Using errors to make any kind of argument invalidates it completely. Errors are subjective and can be made on the whim of a scorer. sorry, I’ll trust my eyeballs and the defensive stats.

That’s all I would like to add to this conversation.

I do think the Triple Crown, while slightly antiquated, is pretty special.

Just an FYI, for offensive WAR only, Trout = 7.8, Cabrera = 7.2. Most arguments seem to keep coming back to Trout, no matter how you slice it. If I was a voter though, I’d prefer to see a nice couple of weeks to end the season though.