No, it’s just as stupid.

You see, voters have often made stupid mistakes…such as the two MVPs given to Juan Gonzalez.

And yes, if you think Miguel Cabrera was comparable on defense to Mike Trout, you need to step away from the computer because the drool coming out of your mouth in endangering your computer’s circuitry.

Someone like…Aaron Gleeman? Bitter much?

I support Trout for MVP, by the way. Just don’t think the piece needed the unnecessary shot.

Baseball history… ever heard of it?

Anyway, anyone ever seen so many guys in one place vehemently defend another dude? It’s really um, interesting to see all of the MT man love going on here. Must be sabermetrics in the air….

A lot of decisions made at the plate and in the field reflect circumstances that the statistics don’t necessarily show.

Possibly, but it’s also possible that they don’t. For instance, the idea of a “clutch hitter*” has been disproven multiple times, yet people still think it exists.

*to clarify, clutch hits happen; however, in a sample of a little more than 15 years only two players (Molitor and another) were shown to hit significantly better over 15 years in clutch situations than others. Good hitters hit the ball at all times, bad hitters don’t.

The difference between your opinion and Nate’s is he has facts and data to support his opinion while you’re just pulling yours out of “butt hole”. Not to mention your opinion isn’t germane to whether or not Silver is correct.

Debate has been boring since July.

Right or wrong, Cabrera will win it.

In the history of MVP, Trout losing won’t go down as robbery.

Less about new school vs old school than it is established superstar vs rookie (Again, whether it is right or wrong)

What kind of stat is: “The number of times a player gets on base by putting the ball into play, on the condition that a fielder does not approach the ball in such a way that a play could be made by normal effort divided over the number of plate appearances, minus the times a player is either given a base on balls, hit by the pitcher, hits a ball to the outfield where it is caught with a player on third base who can score following the out, or drops a bunt allowing a player to advance a base, without attempting to get a basehit” anyway? Any stat that reads (OB – BB – HBP – E) / (PA – SF – SH – BB – HBP) should be viewed with extreme caution.

Or what about the stat that counts the number of times a different player manages to score while the player is having an at bat, with the exception of the times that the player hits into a double play, excluding the times that this double play is made on a fly out, and the times that a fielder comes in the range of the ball but fails to make a play that would lead to an out with ordinary effort in the case that there are two outs on the board?

In short: Mike Trout was a better ballplayer. Your statistical monstrosity of the “triple crown” be damned!

A): I said your post below, when in that scenario, the post would appear above mine
B): By saying some events are quantifiable, you know say that I think *all events* are quantifiable?

To answer back to A…well, fair enough. But is the best thing you can defend yourself with is pointing out an error about comment placement? Because you come off like even more of a petty douchebag by doing so.

To answer B: Many things are non-quantifiable, say…the moral argument about the death penalty. But most things measured by statistics and scientific theories are quantifiable…the entire purpose for the existence of those two fields is to quantify things. You do understand what quantifiable means, yes?

Again on point B, your retort is to put words in my mouth that never existed. Is this how you win arguments? Because you clearly aren’t arguing with me. You cherry picked a couple of words, ignored other and somehow created a cartoon sketch of someone who holds opinions that I don’t have in order to win an argument with me. This is beyond pathetic. Anything I actually have to say is fair game, but you want more nuance or details about an opinion, just ask.

If you really feel the need to flame someone over the internet to make yourself feel bag about being a raging jackoff, please do me the favor of at least *pretending* to have some understanding of what the other person is saying.

And they wonder why people don’t vote…….If everyone’s vote counted, why can someone win before all the votes are counted? Just because a state takes too long to count their votes, they loose the right for their votes to count?

Through the months of August and September, Cabrera batted .332, had 18 home runs and 51 RBI. He also had an OBP of .405 and 67 hits.

Meanwhile, Trout did have more runs and stolen bases during this two-month stretch, but his average stood at just .271 with 12 homers and 25 RBI. These stats combined barely beat Trout’s outstanding July, while his batting average was over .120 lower in August and September than in July.

We don’t talk about the intangibles for Ruth or Williams. One was a drunk and a womanizer, the other basically hated everybody. But oh, those stats.