2013 MLB Regular Season running thread

Without Cabrera, Tigers don't make the playoffs. Without Trout...Angels (who didn't make the playoffs) still don't make the playoffs.

 

RBIs are extremely less important. It's a team-dependent stat. Upton, for example, is probably the front-runner as of now for the NL MVP. He has a grand total of 16 RBI, tied for seventh in the NL, because his brother and Heyward haven't gotten on base for him.

 

What he's saying is that, since you suck at arguing, any point you argue is inherently hindered by your presence. You could argue the sky is blue and I'd have to double-check.

 

That argument is almost as bad as any that NDJ is making.

 

A) That isn't a sign of value. Giancarlo Stanton can still, hypothetically, be one of the most valuable players in baseball if his team still sucks.
B) The Angels won one more regular season game than the Tigers.
C) Cabrera was a liability in the field, Trout was a stud offensively and defensively.
D) Fangraphs and B-R value both have Trout about three wins more valuable in 2012.

 

OK. Then, in this instance, can you read this argument alone without thinking of past arguments I've made.

 

Miles from actual English.

 

One got to the postseason. And one didn't.

That seems to be pretty important in a "most valuable" discussion when comparing two players.

 

With Miguel Cabrera, the Tigers finished 88-74. With Mike Trout, the Angels finished 89-73. Technically, the Angels finished 83-59 with Trout, since they waited until the end of April to promote him.

 

Last I checked, there are quite a few other players on each team who have an effect on the outcome.

 

I'm not saying its all that matters.

But comparing two players, I'd say it's worth considering.

 

There is a big advanced stats movement coming to hockey, and the debates are very reminiscent of the early baseball debates.

Anyways can we get back to Strasburg and Harper being terrible?