A.L. MVP 2013

So wait, 21-year-old Mike Trout is putting up lines comparable to Barry Bonds in 1998 and Willie Mays in 1957 ... in a more difficult run-scoring environment ... and that's not historic?

Would love to know what you consider historic, then.

And I'll grant you Cabrera, who is indeed putting up better numbers than last year. But c'mon, let's have a little perspective.

 

This isn't so much to argue for Trout as MVP, but to point out how absurdly good he's been to this point in his career: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9715559/mike-trout-quest-mvp-great-performance-major-league.

 

I don't know what him being 21 has to do with it. Interestingly, though, neither player I mentioned won that year's MVP, which is of course what we are talking about.

My point is that there are all kinds of seasons of a player getting close in most or all of those categories, but by setting the bar at nine triples (why nine?) and 33 steals (why 33?) he is making it sound like Trout is having a historic season.

Since you don't like the Mays and Bonds comparisons, here is another one: Carl Everett, 1999 Astros. 25 HRs, 33 doubles, three triples, 27 steals. Not Trout level, but not far off. He finished 17th in the voting that year.

Or how about Jose Valentin, 2000: 25/37/6/19. Even that isn't a tremendous distance from Trout's history-making 2013.

 

Hell of a lot easier to put up those numbers in 1999-2000 than it is in 2013. Or 1957 for that matter.

Or are you seriously trying to argue that Mike Trout's season is as pedestrian as Jose Valentin in 2000?

 

The awards is not Best Player. It is Most Valuable Player.

It is about value to the team. One player helped his team accomplish something (winning its division). The other did not. That needs to be part of the discussion.

Just because you disagree does not make that thinking lazy or archaic. When you do that, you are attacking the person you are disagreeing with rather than arguing the point on its merits.

 

You know, maybe it would be better if the numbers were just fed into a computer and that's how we got the MVP. It'd stop all these stupid arguments. Just like the BCS did.

 

I'm not trying to argue that at all. I'm trying to say that putting together a specifically engineered set of numbers to yield this BEST EVAH!!!! result is misleading.

Here's the best example I can find. Using the stats in question:

MIKE TROUT IN 2013
27 HRs, 39 doubles, nine triples, 33 SBs

CARLOS BELTRAN IN 2002
29 HRs, 44 doubles, seven triples, 38 SBs

Beltran beats him in three of the four categories, but because he had two fewer triples, Trout's season fits into this spreadsheet definition of historic. As we go through Gehrig's list of all the other historic accomplishments, how many other players would qualify if the bar were set at 30 steals or 35 doubles or 25 home runs or whatever? Dozens, would be my guess. And of course, in all of them the differentiator is the 33 steals, which is unusual. But set it at 10 or 20 or maybe even 30 and see what happens.

It's just stat manipulation. We all know he's a great player already.

 

In theory, players usually improve steadily from 21 to 22 to 23 to 24..., and then will regress about 30 to 31 or so. So we have not even come close to seeing Trout's best season (unless he is Andruw Jones in disguise).

 

"Don't. Praise. The Machine."

http://vimeo.com/18516240

 

Beltran had 0 career home runs when he was 21.

 

And?

 

The age that Trout is doing this is part of the magic.