2012 MVP Race

[RenoHightower]

In 1941, would you have given the MVP to Ted Williams over Joe D?

Yes, because he provided more total value, not because he happened to have a lot of RBIs.

[Yankee Tripper]

In 1941, would you have given the MVP to Ted Williams over Joe D?

He had a much better year. Yes I would have. I think I had the argument with someone before in another part of the forum. His AVE was 50 points higher, his OBP was 110 points higher and his SLG was 90 points higher than Joe D. But you know Joe had a weird statistical anomoly of hitting in 56 games straight that got him the MVP. Joe's defense was good but not good enough to over come a 200 point gap in OPS.

[RenoHightower]

He had a much better year. Yes I would have. I think I had the argument with someone before in another part of the forum. His AVE was 50 points higher, his OBP was 110 points higher and his SLG was 90 points higher than Joe D. But you know Joe had a weird statistical anomoly of hitting in 56 games straight that got him the MVP. Joe's defense was good but not good enough to over come a 200 point gap in OPS.

This is actually pretty analogous with the current situation. DiMaggio won the MVP because of a fluky and arbitrary accomplishment, despite Williams providing much more value.

[Yankee Tripper]

Yes, because he provided more total value, not because he happened to have a lot of RBIs.

Actually RBIs was the one offensive cat where Joe D beat Williams, 125 to 120. Well that and stolen bases where Joe D doubled Teddy ballgames 2.

[roblyo33]

I don't think, either, Trout or Cabrera is a bad choice.

[madjack]

This is actually pretty analogous with the current situation. DiMaggio won the MVP because of a fluky and arbitrary accomplishment, despite Williams providing much more value.

The Yankees went on an absolute tear when the streak started. They were 5-8 in May, and finished the month 13-13. Then in June and July they were 19-7, and 25-4. I am pretty sure Joe contributed to quite a few of those wins. The Yankees pretty much won the pennant because of the streak.

[Yankee Tripper]

This is actually pretty analogous with the current situation. DiMaggio won the MVP because of a fluky and arbitrary accomplishment, despite Williams providing much more value.

Joe D did have a 8.6 WAR to Williams 10.1 so the gap was much closer. Joe's team like Miggy's also finished in 1st place, but unlike Miggy whose team won fewer than Trout's, Joes team was 17 games ahead of the splendid splinter. So there was that.

Plus I don't thing they were tracking WAR on the internet back then

[MTYankee23]

Joe D did have a 8.6 WAR to Williams 10.1 so the gap was much closer. Joes team like Miggy's also finished in 1st place, 17 games ahead of the splendid splinter. So there was that.

Oddly enough, Ted's Red Sox had a higher winning percentage that year than Miggy's Tigers.

[RenoHightower]

The Yankees went on an absolute tear when the streak started. They were 5-8 in May, and finished the month 13-13. Then in June and July they were 19-7, and 25-4. I am pretty sure Joe contributed to quite a few of those wins. The Yankees pretty much won the pennant because of the streak.

They won the AL by 17 games. You think that if DiMaggio had sprinkled a couple of 0-fers in there, they wouldn't have won the pennant?

[Yankee Tripper]

Oddly enough, Ted's Red Sox had a higher winning percentage that year than Miggy's Tigers.

If only there was a wild card back then

[effdamets]

I don't think, either, Trout or Cabrera is a bad choice.

I don't think anyone is saying that Cabrerra is a bad choice.
It's just that Trout is an infinitely better choice.

[madjack]

They won the AL by 17 games. You think that if DiMaggio had sprinkled a couple of 0-fers in there, they wouldn't have won the pennant?

They were 15-14 when the streak started. There is no way to really answer your question correctly. What we do know is that Joe Dimaggio went on a streak that had never been done, and the Yankees won a lot of games during that time, at a much better percentage than prior to the streak.

[pleasepassthesoup]

I don't think anyone is saying that Cabrerra is a bad choice.
It's just that Trout is an infinitely better choice.

Since only one can win, doesn't that make Cabrera a bad choice?

[JL25and3]

Yes, because he provided more total value, not because he happened to have a lot of RBIs.

That assumes that 1941 defensive value can be calculated on the basis of anything other than a guess. Current day defensive stats may consist of mysterious proprietary data plugged into mysterious proprietary formulae, but at least I have confidence that there is some data. What do they have from 1941?

[Snatch Catch]

They were 15-14 when the streak started. There is no way to really answer your question correctly. What we do know is that Joe Dimaggio went on a streak that had never been done, and the Yankees won a lot of games during that time, at a much better percentage than prior to the streak.

You need to troll better.

Not even two hours ago:

The Angels were 6-14 before calling up Trout.

The Angels were 83-59 after calling up Trout, good for a .585 winning%.

A .585 winning percentage would have put the Angels 4th in MLB behind the Nationals, Reds, and Yankees (.586).

This is concrete proof of an amazing impact, by their logic.

Wow a 20 game sample size. Teams never turn it around once they get off to a slow start, and teams that start good always end good.

[effdamets]

Since only one can win, doesn't that make Cabrera a bad choice?

No. It doesn't.
If Trout didn't exist, Cabrerra would be a candidate to win (some might argue that Cano should win over Miggy)
But since Trout does exist, Trout should win because he provided much more value.

[Big_E]

The best part about this year as that you can jump in the pool of ignorance and defeat these people with their own reasoning.

The Angels were 6-14 before calling up Trout.

The Angerls were 83-59 after calling up Trout, good for a .585 winning%.

A .585 winning percentage would have put the Angels 4th in MLB behind the Nationals, Reds, and Yankees (.586).

This is concrete proof of an amazing impact, by their logic.

Could also be the historic slow start by Albert Pujols.

[effdamets]

Could also be the historic slow start by Albert Pujols.

But then again, it could be that Pujols got off the deck because Trout was inserted into the lineup....

[madjack]

You need to troll better.

Not even two hours ago:

I never said Trout didn't contribute to the better winning percentage. He led the league in WAR. But he wasn't even on the team when they started slow. Joe Dimaggio was on the Yankees when they started slow. As others have said, Pujols being awful for the first month played a big role in the Angels slow start.

[Yankee Tripper]

I never said Trout didn't contribute to the better winning percentage. He led the league in WAR. But he wasn't even on the team when they started slow. Joe Dimaggio was on the Yankees when they started slow. As others have said, Pujols being awful for the first month played a big role in the Angels slow start.

Yes exactly Joe D was part of the problem withteh Yankees slow start as much as he was part of the solution durring his 56 game anomoly.

Trout had nothing to do with the Angles being 6-14 as he was at Salt Lake City or some other out of the way place in the Pacific Coast League. I could blame the Angles on being cheap for not having him on the roster to start the year but since he was dreadful in his cameo last year and they had a surplus of outfielders, it was understanable to start him in AAA.

[Mr. Mxylsplk]

I never said Trout didn't contribute to the better winning percentage. He led the league in WAR. But he wasn't even on the team when they started slow. Joe Dimaggio was on the Yankees when they started slow.

For which of them is this supposed to be a plus?

[Snatch Catch]

For which of them is this supposed to be a plus?

Don't confuse the man. Please.

[madjack]

For which of them is this supposed to be a plus?

Where did I say it had to be a plus for either?

[Mr. Mxylsplk]

Where did I say it had to be a plus for either?

So you're simply making observations which aren't actually relevant to the discussion you've been having. Appreciate the clarification.

[NYYankeesFan92]

Yes exactly Joe D was part of the problem withteh Yankees slow start as much as he was part of the solution durring his 56 game anomoly.

Trout had nothing to do with the Angles being 6-14 as he was at Salt Lake City or some other out of the way place in the Pacific Coast League. I could blame the Angles on being cheap for not having him on the roster to start the year but since he was dreadful in his cameo last year and they had a surplus of outfielders, it was understanable to start him in AAA.

During March & April Dimaggio had a slash line of .375/.474/.719.