Skip to content

Miguel Cabrera’s possible Triple Crown is not getting enough attention? Really?

Oct 1, 2012, 3:30 PM EDT

Miguel Cabrera Getty Images

Jon Heyman today:

Specifically in this case, Cabrera’s amazing Triple Crown chase isn’t getting the attention it deserves. The Triple Crown hasn’t been achieved for 45 years, so we know it isn’t easy. Sure, he’s getting some press and a fair amount of praise. But not nearly enough in my estimation.

Cabrera’s chase deserves a much greater spotlight than it’s receiving

Carl Yastrzemski, last week:

“In `67, the Triple Crown was never even mentioned once,” Yastrzemski said Wednesday night. “We were so involved in the pennant race, I didn’t know I won the Triple Crown until the next day, when I read it in the paper.”

I dunno, if the coverage was good enough for Yaz, it’s good enough for Cabrera.

Not that you haven’t heard about Cabrera, right?

  1. Jeremy T - Oct 1, 2012 at 3:37 PM

    The triple crown, you say? Well this changes everything.

    • 18thstreet - Oct 1, 2012 at 5:18 PM

      This is the first I’ve heard of it.
      Also, who is this Miguel Cabrera? And since when did Detroit’s baseball team start being called the Tigers?

      This is all news to me.

      • stlouis1baseball - Oct 2, 2012 at 9:06 AM

        “It’s nice that conservatives are no longer pretending to be compassionate.”
        “And thinking less of Hamilton for struggling with it isn’t that different than getting mad at people whose cancer metastasized to another part of their body.”

        What the Hell?

        How can you possibly get THAT…out of my posts? Where did I say I thought less of him?
        You have serious issues Dude. You would liked for me to have said that so you can throw your conservative/liberal/progressive/liberal (or is it progressive?)…bullshit at the wall.
        I said…we are at a point where SOCIETY almost thinks MORE HIGHLY of a person who has overcome issues with substance abuse, alcoholism, etc… than a person who never had those issues to begin with. You are an idiot. I am done with you.

  2. baseballisboring - Oct 1, 2012 at 3:37 PM

    NO way, really? He’s competing for the Triple Crown? I’ve been so wrapped up in my spreadsheets I haven’t been watching the games!

  3. El Bravo - Oct 1, 2012 at 3:38 PM

    What does this have to do with horse racing?

    • The Dangerous Mabry - Oct 1, 2012 at 4:34 PM

      Following that line of thinking, if Cabrera does win the Triple Crown, does he start getting stud fees? Sounds like a pretty good deal.

  4. craggt - Oct 1, 2012 at 3:39 PM

    With all due respect to Yaz maybe his triple crown wasn’t getting as much attention because it had been achieved as recently as the year before by Frank Robinson while it has been 45 years since Yaz’s Crown. Also there was no 24/7 coverage or blogs in 1967, EVERYTHING gets more coverage now compared to 1967.

    • philliesblow - Oct 1, 2012 at 5:24 PM

      + 1000. We have a winner!

  5. kruegererik - Oct 1, 2012 at 3:40 PM

    See Also: JFK and Bill Clinton.

    The media is a bit better at covering things now.

  6. card0109 - Oct 1, 2012 at 3:41 PM

    Read an awesome argument about the Triple Crown/MVP discussion today. Thought people here would appreciate it:

    “But I don’t think the “he won the Triple Crown so he should win the MVP” award argument flies. Here’s why:

    Let’s say that Miguel Cabrera hits three home runs in the Tigers’ last four games and wins the Triple Crown. I think it goes without saying that the vast majority of voters and baseball fans would think he deserves the MVP.

    OK, now let’s say that Miguel Cabrera hits three home runs in the Tigers’ last four games, but Josh Hamilton hits four and Miggy LOSES the Triple Crown. Nothing really changed there except someone else took the Triple Crown away from him. But now, suddenly, without the Triple Crown, you might wonder: Hey, didn’t Trout have the better season?

    Turn it the other way. Let’s say Cabrera goes 0-for-15 down the stretch, barely holds on to his batting title victory and ties for the home run lead — so he still wins the Triple Crown. Is he MVP? He won the Triple Crown, so you would have to say yes.

    Now let’s say Cabrera goes 0-for-15 down the stretch, loses the batting title (to Mike Trout, let’s say) and gets passed by Josh Hamilton AND Edwin Encarnacion in home runs. Suddenly, he doesn’t look very good as an MVP candidate.”

    Part of:

    • craggt - Oct 1, 2012 at 3:46 PM

      It’s an interesting argument, and a possibly valid one. However I have trouble taking anything Joe Posnanski says seriously now since he is at the forefront of the Joe Paterno apologists. I know this has nothing to do with his writing or even baseball but like MVP voting it is sometimes impossible to separate the emotional from the factual.

      • mrfloydpink - Oct 1, 2012 at 4:09 PM

        I agree with you 100%, though the last time I said so (last week) I was hit with many dozens of thumbs down.

        Posnanski’s approach is really rooted, I think, in his likability and his “Joe Everyman” approach. When I used to read him, his mixture of insight and humility made it feel like he was talking to me, not at me or down to me.

        However, the situation with the Paterno book–from the $750,000 advance, to the visit to the Penn State class, to rushing the book into print before the story had come anywhere near reaching a conclusion, to the ultimately pretty friendly presentation of Paterno in the final book–has made it clear that Posnanski is not like me. And, more importantly, he’s not like the man he purported to be. He did what so many in the media do–Stern, Limbaugh, T.J. Simers, whomever–he created a character, in this case a “nice guy” named Joe Posnanski, and wrote as that character. I don’t doubt that the character is partly rooted in who he really is, but it’s still a facade.

        I’m a huge Angels fan, and there’s a time that a Posnanski story about Mike Trout would be priority reading. But I’ve tried to go back to his blog since the Penn State situation, and I just don’t have any interest. It feels phony to me.

      • Lukehart80 - Oct 1, 2012 at 4:21 PM

        You’re as entitled to your opinion of Posnanski as anyone else, and certainly I think there some legitimate questions around his handling of the Paterno situation, but I don’t think it’s accurate or fair to pin the decision to rush the book onto him. Ultimately, that would be the publisher’s call, would it not?

      • craggt - Oct 1, 2012 at 4:26 PM

        @Lukehart80 Considering the fervor from the Penn State scandal and the fact that Paterno died Posnanski rewrote some of the book, he easily could have told the publisher he needed more time to recraft the book in light of recent events. Also even beyond the book he has defending Paterno every step of the way. Personally I think Posnanski rushed the book out to try to rebuild Paterno’s image.

      • mrfloydpink - Oct 1, 2012 at 4:39 PM

        @lukehart: I agree with craggt. Posnanski surely had some ability to influence these decisions; and at very least he had the ability to speak out and to tell his readership that he preferred to take more time.

        I mean, there’s a pretty big issue of integrity here. I have no idea who his publisher is, but nobody will associate them with this book in five years. On the other hand, this is a defining moment in Posnanski’s career. If he’s willing to allow his name to be put on a book that is kind of half-baked and ultimately pretty shoddy, that says something about him. And people WILL remember in five years.

        To put that another way, I have no idea who published “A Million Little Pieces.” But I do know that I would never buy a book written by James Frey.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Oct 1, 2012 at 4:57 PM

        Posnanski says seriously now since he is at the forefront of the Joe Paterno apologists.

        The only time it’s been rumored that he’s defended Paterno is a third hand view, with no evidence, of someone at a conference Posnanski held the day after the charges came out. And it’s only one person who was saying this.

        On Joe’s blog, all he asked the day the stuff came out is to wait on the rush to judgment. That’s it. He didn’t say Paterno didn’t do it. He didn’t say the reports were wrong. He asked people to wait. They couldn’t. They took those comments, and the ones above and said that he’s defending Paterno.

        Also even beyond the book he has defending Paterno every step of the way

        Again, you are 100% wrong.

      • craggt - Oct 1, 2012 at 5:11 PM

        quotes from Joe Posnanski:
        “”I think [Paterno] is a scapegoat. I definitely think that…I think he tried to do the right thing, and the right thing didn’t happen.”

        “I’ve never seen anything handled worse. Maybe how New Orleans, post-Katrina….Paterno was always dangled by this university.”

        That sure sounds like defending Paterno to me.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Oct 1, 2012 at 5:40 PM

        Oh wow, you quoted the deadspin article I referenced in my comment. Thanks for proving my point.

      • thefalcon123 - Oct 1, 2012 at 5:49 PM

        “It’s an interesting argument, and a possibly valid one. However I have trouble taking anything Joe Posnanski says seriously now since he is at the forefront of the Joe Paterno apologists.”

        Oh holy crap! Really dude? The Paterno stuff is about actions, consequences and morals. It is in an entirely different world from this. What you just said is the equivalent of “Well, Ted Bundy made have a valid point when he says 1+1=2, but I trouble taking anything he says seriously”.

    • El Bravo - Oct 1, 2012 at 3:54 PM

      This may be a good argument, but the hypothetical where Miggy goes 0-15 down the stretch is about a possible as Frenchy taking 6 straight walks down the stretch. That scenario may as well be eliminated as an impossibility.

    • Jeremy T - Oct 1, 2012 at 4:05 PM

      If Joe Pos is writing it, I’m most likely going to agree (or at least enjoy the way he presents his point). I think he phrased this quite nicely, although I think his point would hold slightly more weight if his hypothetical has Mauer passing Cabrera in average instead of Trout. I think the overall point is, if the two of them play the same, then the results should be the same, regardless of whether or not other factors cause Cabrera to get the triple crown.

    • bobbleheadguru - Oct 1, 2012 at 4:46 PM

      Agree. Triple Crown or No triple Crown, Miguel Cabrera is the MVP… but I am sure he would give up the Triple Crown and MVP for a WS ring.

      • historiophiliac - Oct 1, 2012 at 5:47 PM

        Realizing of course that he was on the WS Marlins team in 2003.

      • thefalcon123 - Oct 1, 2012 at 6:02 PM

        “Agree. Triple Crown or No triple Crown, Miguel Cabrera is the MVP”

        I disagree with you about the MVP, but kudos for being sensible about it. He’s the MVP is the best player in the league, not because he had a batting average 0.1% higher than Joe Mauer.

    • scatterbrian - Oct 1, 2012 at 4:46 PM

      I was also wondering what Tigers fans supporting Cabrera might think if you gave Austin Jackson 14 more home runs, 36 more steals, and made him into one of the very best defensive center fielders in the game. Enough to trump the Triple Crown?

    • card0109 - Oct 1, 2012 at 5:31 PM

      This conversation went into an area I had no idea about… whew boy… I had no idea Joe Posnanski was a controversial name in sport journalism/blogging. I just discovered the Sports On Earth webpage last week and thought this was interesting… Also, I have no preference on who wins MVP or if Cabrera gets the Triple Crown. Both Trout and Cabrera have had seasons that they and their teammates should be proud of and celebrate. Good for them.

  7. stex52 - Oct 1, 2012 at 3:42 PM

    It’s tough to write a column everyday, Craig. You of all people should know that. So, when the well is dry, sometimes these guys have to go stir up a dust storm where none exists.

  8. shaggylocks - Oct 1, 2012 at 3:45 PM

    I don’t need to see him play! I’ve got it right here on my computer.

  9. Kleinz 57 - Oct 1, 2012 at 3:49 PM

    If Heyman had simply begun that paragraph with “in my estimation,” he could’ve saved me fifteen seconds of my day.

  10. witeman10 - Oct 1, 2012 at 4:02 PM

    i actually kinda agree with heyman (slightly)…time to play the race card. haha i hate doing this, but a part of me just cant ignore that it’s probably true.

    as much coverage as miggy is getting, and believe me he’s getting plenty, if josh hamilton was the one threatening to win the triple crown, u know it would be getting even more attention. it would be 24/7 coverage on espn and every media outlet. espn would prolly show every single at bat by hamilton as part of some “triple crown watch” feature, interuppting watever the regular scheduled programming was each time hamilton stepped to the plate.

    but i think my point here is more that josh hamilton would get TOO MUCH coverage if he were vying for a triple crown, moreso than miggy isnt getting enough coverage. could be cuz hamilton is white, or could be his mystique and life story that has us all totally obsessed with him. I suppose if it were some other less interesting white guy like joe mauer it might be the same as miggy. orrrr would it?

    and all this coming from me, Witeman10…

    • Lukehart80 - Oct 1, 2012 at 4:24 PM

      For better or for worse, unless Derek Jeter kills someone, no baseball story is ever going to get 24/7 coverage from ESPN again.

    • historiophiliac - Oct 1, 2012 at 4:28 PM

      Although in my market, the Tigers game was not the televised Fox game Saturday and they showed an inset of Miggy at bat anyway.

      • stlouis1baseball - Oct 1, 2012 at 4:52 PM

        Well…it wasn’t the televised game because Fox is a bunch of racist…race baiters Philiac.
        There is no other explanation.

      • stlouis1baseball - Oct 1, 2012 at 5:00 PM

        I am not impressed with either (with regards to their personal struggles anyway).
        In fact, I think it reflects very badly on society in general when someone who becomes an addict gets held to an almost higher regard for becoming an addict and overcoming the addiction than a person who never became an addict to begin with.
        I have stated as much on this very site several times previously.

        But I will say you have made a very good point.
        Society in general (in my opinion) holds Hamilton in a better light than Cabrera.
        For nothing more than Hamilton’s addiction being something he has back-slid on numerous times (i.e. multiple bouts).
        Believe it or not…NOT everything has to do with a person’s skin color.
        Until we (as a society) learn this…

      • historiophiliac - Oct 1, 2012 at 5:03 PM

        That or it’s a Fox conspiracy to break me down with National League games. I regularly get stuck watching your Woodpeckers. Urgh.

        Come to think of it, we were supposed to get the Angels game but it was postponed. Hmmm.

      • stlouis1baseball - Oct 1, 2012 at 5:11 PM

        I hear you Man. What really pisses me off is I get Fox Sports Midwest as part of my Direct TV package. I watch every Cardinals pregame religiously. Then game time and…BLACK OUT.
        I am stuck in the middle of Cubs/Reds Country. But what pisses me off is I get to watch every other program on this sorry as channel. Please save the territorial rights BS.
        If it’s part of my TV package…it should part of my TV package.
        At the very least…they should show the Cardinals games when the Reds aren’t playing or immediately after the Reds game is over.
        Just something I have been dealing with for years…and I will continue to bitch about until I draw my last breath…or pay for the Baseball Package.

      • historiophiliac - Oct 1, 2012 at 5:18 PM

        This is me with the Reds or Cards game on…and the Tigers gametrax up on my computer at the same time. It reminds me of my dad watching a game on TV while listening to another on the radio back in the day.

    • stlouis1baseball - Oct 1, 2012 at 4:42 PM

      The example you use with Josh Hamilton is on point.
      But NOT because he is a cracker.
      Because he as overcome serious addiction issues, serious mental issues, serious addiction issues, serious addiction issues, back-slid, overcame them again, back-slid and overcame them again.
      Pretty much sums it up for me.

      • historiophiliac - Oct 1, 2012 at 4:53 PM

        I’m unclear on how you view Miggy’s alcohol issues in comparison. Are you saying you’re more impressed with Hamilton because he’s had multiple bouts? I’m not being sh*tty here — I’m just not sure what you’re saying.

      • 18thstreet - Oct 1, 2012 at 5:24 PM

        It’s nice that conservatives are no longer pretending to be compassionate.

        Addiction is a real disease. And thinking less of Hamilton for struggling with it isn’t that different than getting mad at people whose cancer metastasized to another part of their body.

        Go read something. It will make you smarter:

  11. itsonlyaspeedbump - Oct 1, 2012 at 4:32 PM

    I know, its like every time I turn on the TV theyre discussing the NHL lockout, and ignoring the MVP discussion.

    Also wish we could have got some more time devoted to the NFL referee situation before it ended. I mean, what was THAT about?

  12. takingbovadasmoney - Oct 1, 2012 at 5:26 PM

    Slightly more news coverage now than in 1967.

  13. weaselpuppy - Oct 1, 2012 at 7:04 PM

    Thank you , but Austin Jackson already IS one of the very best defensive CF in baseball…..

  14. sdsockers - Oct 2, 2012 at 2:45 AM

    Cabrera might well win the “Triple Crown”, but Trout is the MVP, due to his immensely better fielding and base running.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. B. Crawford (2794)
  2. C. Correa (2540)
  3. Y. Puig (2492)
  4. G. Stanton (2446)
  5. G. Springer (2372)
  1. H. Pence (2290)
  2. J. Hamilton (2171)
  3. M. Teixeira (1962)
  4. H. Ramirez (1935)
  5. J. Fernandez (1910)