Why does the Triple Crown seem underhyped?

All of the above.

RBIs tell something. Wins tell something. OPS tells something. OPS+ tells something. Even WAR tells something though not nearly what it has been purported to tell. And, I know I'm stupid here, but clutch stats tell something.

It doesn't mean any of those things will be repeated next year, but it does say a lot about what kind of year a guy had.

 

'68 was the year pitchers dominated everything. Denny McLain won 31 and Bob Gibson had that record 1.12 ERA. The next year they lowered the mound to bring hitting back into the game.

 

Very true. Didn't think about it from that perspective. I was thinking more along the lines of the DH in the American League giving most of the hitters more chances to get at-bats and RBI opportunities.

 

Duh. Ever hear of the dead-ball era and how it ended with the help of some guy named Ruth?

 

DH didn't come in until 1974 -- after the last Triple Crown.

 

OK. I just thought it an interesting stat is all. Didn't know if people out there in sj land might have a theory as to why not.

 

To me at least the main reason that Cabrera is not getting more press is that he doesn't have a national "public persona". I can't remember the last time I saw a Cabrera interview. I have no sense at all about his personality. Is he a low key fun guy or is he intense?

 

A few years ago his wife called the cops at 6 a.m. because he was just coming home and there was some sort of domestic incident. By all reasonable calculations he played the follow-up game stone drunk. He went 0 for 11 that weekend as the Tigers fell out of contention. He has also gone farther from skinny to fat in the public eye than anyone since Elvis.

I don't think intense about baseball is the way I'd describe him.

 

1973.

 

Don't forget that he was out drinking that night with the opposing manager.

 

Oh my God, I did forget that. Makes it so much better. That is a damn good laugh for the day, thanks.

 

Do we have to explain to those demographics how hitting a lot of home runs, driving in a lot of runs and getting more hits per at-bats (batting average, don't you know?) are good things? If we do, then they're burying themselves under their geek-assed standards of what makes a good ballplayer or not.
I'll take the guy who has more homers and RBI, and a higher average THAN ANYONE over a rookie who right now has 14 fewer homers and 56 fewer RBI. Could give a rat's ass what kind of nerdy stat you come up with on Mike Trout. He's not the ballplayer Cabrera has been this season.
And I suppose Cabrera's team already winning its division and Trout's team in third place shouldn't have anything to do with this conversation?