Miguel Cabrera Nearly Getbig Pay

[snx]

Guy was injured all year and still almost won the triple crown, again.

The triple crown is over-rated, mostly due to nostalgia by historians of the game who point to its rarity as the reason it's such an effective measure of dominance. And just because something doesn't happen often doesn't mean it's worth pursuing.

However, the truth is, the triple crown overly values two relatively-speaking less useful statistics (or at least, antiquated); batting average and runs batted in.

The batting average does not accurately reflect how often a man puts himself in a position to score runs. In fact, on-base percentage is a more accurate reflection of how well a man puts himself on a base, where he can score. So a real triple crown winner should be celebrated for having the highest on base percentage, not batting average.

As for runs batted in, they are not a reflection of a player's potential to score runs for his team. Rather, it's a fortuitous combination of a man's position in a batting order following other men who are truly able to get in scoring position. For example, am I a poor ball player if I put up 70rbis in a year versus a man who put up 135 rbis? What if my OB %age was .410, while the other man was only .280? Clearly, I hit the ball more (at least enough to put myself on base and not get out), so why am I not as highly valued? If it's RBI's, that's the fault of men in front of me for not getting on base (i.e. not maximizing their OB%age) and taking advantage of my hitting prowess.

Cabrera's RBI numbers are more a celebration of the effectiveness of men ahead of him in the batting order than they are of his batting prowess (as fantastic as it is).

For those reasons, the triple crown is an antiquated, albeit nostalgic and fun, baseball fact.

The fact remains, both of these statistical measures (batting average and RBIs) do not correlate to how well a player scores runs for his team, as do other more recently lauded statistical measures. And scoring runs (and by way of comparison, preventing the other team from scoring runs) is the only worthwhile endeavor in baseball. Because the team that scores more wins more games, and winning games more games than the other team is the only reason a team can be considered successful.

[THE ARS]

So far, Cabrerra's been a big part of costing his team their best shot.

If you say so.



Also you need to stop harping on the advanced metrics and then talking up what a great fielder Trout is.

He was -.9 defensive WAR last year.

The batting average does not accurately reflect how often a man puts himself in a position to score runs. In fact, on-base percentage is a more accurate reflection of how well a man puts himself on a base, where he can score. So a real triple crown winner should be celebrated for having the highest on base percentage, not batting average.

So he should have won the Triple Crown last year, right?

.348/.442/.636/1.078 187 OPS+ all led the AL.

[snx]

If you say so.



Also you need to stop harping on the advanced metrics and then talking up what a great fielder Trout is.

He was -.9 defensive WAR last year.

So he should have won the Triple Crown last year, right?

.348/.442/.636/1.078 187 OPS+ all led the AL.

I agree he should have won what I'll call a modified triple crown.

I would replace batting average with OBP, which you're right to point out, he won.

I would replace RBIs, with "Runs Created", a more appropriate metric to describe how many runs a player creates than RBIs, which is often confused with how many runs a batter creates. It is not. In this case, Cabrera tied with Trout for the MLB lead, so again, he wins part two of the triple crown.

But, my final metric would be adjusted batting wins, which measures a players' contribution to his team's ability to win, based on his bat alone. In this case, Cabrera wins again.

The triple crown should measure the man, who, at the plate, is most likely help his team score as many runs as possible and win as many games as possible. In my case, my three most important metrics again find Cabrera to be the most deadly man in baseball with a bat in his hand, as far as helping his team win.

That does not mean he was the most valuable player in the league, though.

If the game only depended on batting prowess, then yes.

But Trout wins more games than Cabrera. Because although Cabrera is better with a bat, Trout makes up for his un-Cabrera like production with his bat by over-achieving with his glove and base running skills (relative to Cabrera, who is certainly not in Trout's league).

So, Cabrera is decidely one-sided with his game and not a complete player. Trout is more akin to the five tool player.

Baseball is dominated by the over-emphasis on what players do with the bat. Though critically important, recent stats have shown that the over-emphasis on offense has led to managers de-valuing (at their own peril) the skills of defense and base running.

No manager in MLB would take a speedy Ozzie Smith over a Cabrera. But what if Ozzie Smith stole 30 bases and knocked in 25 HR's and slugged .590? Then, he is more valuable than Cabrera, because he will win more games for his team than Cabrera.

As a GM, all you care about is winning games. As a team owner, all you care about is winning more games. Nothing else matters. Therefore, the most valuable player in the league should be the man who wins the most games for his GM/owner.

There is no greater value that a player can provide to his team, than helping them win more games than his peers on the competing teams.   

[Grape Ape]

Also you need to stop harping on the advanced metrics and then talking up what a great fielder Trout is.

He was -.9 defensive WAR last year.

Defensive metrics in a single season don't provide much value, in my opinion.  And the creator of UZR agrees.

[snx]

Defensive metrics in a single season don't provide much value, in my opinion.  And the creator of UZR agrees.

Although, Cabrera was -1.5 on his dWAR. Versus Trout at -0.9.

Let's look at it another way.

If you're a GM, who do you take in 2013? Trout at $510K, or Cabrera at $21MM? Who's the smarter GM?

Versus a replacement value player, Trout gets you 85 runs over the course of the year. Cabrera is worth 72.

Trout will win you 8.9 games in 2013 over some replacement player in 2013; Cabrera will win you 7.5 more games in 2013 for a replacement player.

But with Trout, you have $20MM more payroll dollars to play with to add more runs to your team than Cabrera.

So now, who really is the most valuable player to his team? Is it Cabrera, the most deadly man with a bat? Or is it Trout, a man who will win you more games (not much more, but slightly more), and puts an extra $20MM in your pocket to buy more great players for your team to give you a shot at a WS title?

I think the answer is clear. Trout is clearly the better buy, as he's the more valuable player to his team (owing to his production as a function of his salary).

I know why no one likes to look at it like this (certainly the union, anyways). It would make fans more aware of the salary to production ratio, and allow fans to pooh-pooh greater salaries/WAR production ratios with a more fervent pitch.

After all, if you're truly a fan, would you rather win a WS title with a bunch of cheap players who find ways to win? Or watch a player on your team hit 45 HR's for $18MM but get knocked out in a playoff game?

I guess I'm part fan, part business man. I would like to win above all costs, even with a bunch of scrubs. I enjoy the sheer ferocity of Cabrera at the plate. But he doesn't win enough games to be worth $21MM, in my mind.

Now that Trout is inked to a massive friggin deal, my opinion of his value to his team will decrease as well, and I'll probably jump on some other player's bandwagon. I would have traded him last year for butt load of talent. Just saying...

I know Grape Ape will love that last comment! LOL!

[Grape Ape]

Now that Trout is inked to a massive friggin deal, my opinion of his value to his team will decrease as well, and I'll probably jump on some other player's bandwagon. I would have traded him last year for butt load of talent. Just saying...

I know Grape Ape will love that last comment! LOL!

Agreed with everything until that, yes.   

All potential talent sucks, until they don't.   I've just seen so many top prospects fizzle, that I'd have to assume the haul for Trout would yield 50% duds, a decent player, and one that surpassed expectation.   Rather have a Trout.

[CalvinH]

Baseball geeks

[The Abdominal Snoman]

Whats interesting about Cabrera is the media barely talks about him. One would have thought when he won the triple crown that ESPN would have really made a big deal about it but that didn't happen. It's almost like he's black balled from the industry. One of the greatest hitters in baseball to ever play the game and he's basically an after thought. Weird

[UPINTHEMGUTS]

Whats interesting about Cabrera is the media barely talks about him. One would have thought when he won the triple crown that ESPN would have really made a big deal about it but that didn't happen. It's almost like he's black balled from the industry. One of the greatest hitters in baseball to ever play the game and he's basically an after thought. Weird

It was a down year for hitters when Cabrera won the triple crown. He won the batting title with an average of .330.....That's a good average, don't get me wrong, but when you look at the averages of past league batting average champs....those past averages were way above .330...the stars were perfectly aligned in 2012 for Cabrera.

Chris Davis of the Orioles prevented a repeat of that feat in 2013.