Nov 14, 2012, 10:47 AM EDT
Before he was a household name in the political world Nate Silver wrote about baseball and used his projection skills for batting averages and ERAs instead of electoral college votes.
Now that the election is over Silver took a break from politics to analyze the American League MVP race between Miguel Cabrera and Mike Trout, and in a lengthy, well-written, numbers-driven piece for the New York Times he argues that Trout should win the award.
Silver presents most of the same numbers and makes most of the same arguments that various other sabermetrically inclined writers have been doing for the past month, but the words probably carry a little more weight coming from him and I’d be curious to find out how many readers were swayed by his article when they might otherwise have brushed aside the same ideas from someone without so much cachet.
- John Hart to be named Braves President of Baseball Operations 2
- No, Ned Yost didn’t “out-manage” Bruce Bochy. His players played better 47
- At least Hunter Strickland entertained us last night 28
- Royals even up World Series with 7-2 Game 2 victory 37
- Craig Kimbrel wins Trevor Hoffman Award; Greg Holland gets Mariano Rivera Award 7
- World Series, Game 2: Giants vs. Royals lineups 10
- HBT Daily: Are the Royals doomed, doomed, doomed? 11
- Giants inhaling the air of superiority after Game 1 7
- So, if you’re not a fan of the Royals or Giants, who ya got? (129)
- Erroneous Narrative Alert: no, the Giants are not a “gritty,” anti-stats organization (121)
- Pedro Martinez has some opinions about who the new “face of baseball” is (112)
- PANTY RAID! Homeland Security agents confiscate unlicensed Kansas City Royals underwear (105)
- “The Kansas City Royals Are the Future of Baseball” — someone actually said that. (93)