Why does the Triple Crown seem underhyped?

A few odds and ends:

1) Granderson didn't realize he was only one HR behind Cabrera - Girardi was already taking guys out and Granderson suggested they give a rookie an at-bat. He said after the game that he would have hesitated if he had known he was that close to Cabrera, because he didn't want to give the impression that he did it for his friend. Knowing Granderson, I believe that.

2) If Granderson had hit a 44th homer, there wouldn't have been an asterisk on Cabrera's Triple Crown - Yaz tied Killebrew in homers in 1967, as have other winners.

3) Cabrera talks to the media constantly - he just doesn't get used on TV because of his accent. His English has gotten much better while he's been in Detroit, but he's hard to understand if you aren't used to it. It certainly doesn't work well on camera.

4) He's obviously had some issues with alcohol, but on a day-to-day basis, he's good to deal with and he's incredibly popular among players and managers. Go on Twitter tonight and see the number of congratulatory tweets he's gotten from opponents.

5) WAR is a very useful framework and great for looking at players in a vacuum. I don't think it is ideal for MVP selections because it intentionally strips context, and they still don't have a defensive component that works.

 

You boys gotta clear the stage so MankyJimy and MankyTrout can go mano a mano ...

 

I'm actually pretty excited that a triple crown finally happened during my lifetime...

As far as the triple crown stats vs. sabremetric stats, I think there is plenty of room for both camps... When I covered baseball, I loved talking to the longtime seamheads who just oozed baseball knowledge, but probably cringe every time they hear about OPS or WAR.

That said, if OPS and WAR keep younger people interested in the sport, there really isn't a downside to that.

 

This needs to happen.

 

Is this possible?

Maybe it was always underhyped.

 

All those goddamn Red Sox beat writers cared about in 1967 was OPS and WAR.

 

I'm sure BuckWeaver could attest to this, as well, but in my own research (which pales in comparison to his), I've frequently been amazed at the accomplishments that today get gallons of ink/pixels that, in a prior generation, barely made a ripple. I'm talking 3,000th hit. 500th home run. Those sort of accomplishments.

One of the most shocking revelations in Jonathan Eig's book on Jackie Robinson's first season with the Dodgers is how undercovered his first game was by both local and national media. No one even blinked.

 

I'm pretty sure I remember reading that Branch Rickey intentionally tried to keep Robinson's debut under wraps.

 

Not an identical situation as it was the end of a career rather than a specific numerical accomplishment, but in terms of attention paid to notable events, the attendance for Ted Williams' final game, in which he hit the home run mythologized by John Updike, was only 10,454. That's always amazed me (and remember, 1960 was still in the era when football wasn't seen as having overtaken baseball as "America's game").

 

Wimp. You have to pick a side!

No doubt that Yaz was personally caught up in what was probably my favorite pennant race of all time but there was plenty of discussion (at least for the limited media of 1967) about the Triple Crown at the time. I was rooting for the Twins, and particularly Killebrew. (During the difficult later part of the '60s for the Yankees, I would always pick a team to root for in August and September when Horace Clarke and the boys had been eliminated.) Minnesota had a one-game lead entering a season-ending, two-game series at Fenway that the Red Sox swept with Lonborg beating Dean Chance on Sunday. Killebrew homered in the Saturday game to tie Yaz at 44. The Tigers and Angles were also involved right until the end that year. Great stuff.

 

That's something I didn't know. I don't think I expected people to be sitting on the roof of the stadium to see it or anything, but I expected more than that. Of course, I just did a bit of research and found that Boston was 65-89 in 1960, good for 7th place in the American League. That might've had something to do with it.

 

Baseball's "golden era" is a sepia-toned myth.