|
|
Post by swarm on Oct 5, 2012 9:59:21 GMT -5
Were the Giants really "better" than New England in 2007? They beat them when it counted, but...really? Were the 83-win Cardinals really the best team in baseball when they won the Series in '06? Playoffs are usually about who's hot at the right time, not who the best team is. I do not ever agree with this argument. Were the Giants better than the Pats? Were the Cards really the best? YES. 100 times YES. Isn't that was a CHAMPIONSHIP means? If not, why hold any playoff systems at all? "The better team didn't win" argument spawned from fans to insecure to admit their team lost. Period. It's an excuse. I'm a huge Patriots fan, and I've never once ever played that card. Well, I don't think those criteria apply to RG3. The Big 12 that year was better than every other conference except the SEC and it may actually have been deeper than the SEC even without an Alabama or LSU at the top. And Baylor did have TCU on the schedule that year in addition to playing everyone else in the conference. That's true that 4 teams (including Baylor) finished in the top 25, but Baylor lost to 2 of those teams (K State and Ok State). TCU is another one of those teams that benefits from a weak schedule in a weak conference. That is the argument we are using against the Tigers, right? As a more extreme example, strength of schedule did cost Steve McNair a Heisman that he probably deserved based purely on ability. But he played in D2. A D2 player will and should never win the Heisman. There are more intradivision games in baseball than in football (percentage-wise) and the Patriots beat plenty of other teams put in front of them. I believe the same argument can be made here for the Tigers, which is why I used them as my example. The Tigers own a winning record vs. the East and a winning record in inter-league play. They own a winning record vs. the A's who you say is far better. They have winning record ties 5-5 with Baltimore, another playoff team. Their record is also tied with Trout and the Angels at 5-5. They did lose the H2H series vs. the Yankees and Rangers, but still picked up a handful of wins there too. To summarize, the Tigers got a lot of their wins in the division, but they won enough games against good teams outside of it too. I think it's reaching at best, trying to calculate an MVP based on the teams overall schedule. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2012 11:44:39 GMT -5
MIKE TROUT was the most valuable player to his team, no doubt. Triple Crown does not automatically equal MVP.
|
|
|
|
Post by stu on Oct 5, 2012 12:08:08 GMT -5
Sabremetrics win the day Tim.  Trout for MVP. |
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Oct 5, 2012 12:31:45 GMT -5
MIKE TROUT was the most valuable player to his team, no doubt. Triple Crown does not automatically equal MVP. I don't think anyone will argue that Miguel Cabrera isn't also the most valuable player to his team, no doubt. Maybe not last season (Verlander) but most certainly this season. If the Triple Crown does not automatically equal MVP, then neither does looking strong according to some new age stat equation. In other words, I don't Rahl ratings Sabermetrics to tell me Cabbie has the best card in the game is the 2012 MVP. Especially during the clutch down the stretch when the Tigers were 3 games down and the whole world had written them off. Cabrera went OFF and now the Tigers are in the playoffs. That's got to count for something too if all that other jazz does. |
|
|
|
Post by TDalton on Oct 5, 2012 14:06:49 GMT -5
I'm hoping the controversy caused by the Cabrera vs. Trout debate will lead the voters to skip them both and vote for Cano and Jeter.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2012 14:56:47 GMT -5
Either is well deserved IMO.
|
|
