quote:Plus, it must be tough to do, when was the last one? 1967? It is a very, very rare thing and worthy of my vote every time.
Trout- 30 HR, 48 SB. Only two players have eclipsed those numbers. Eric Davis in 1987 (37 HR, 50 SB), Barry Bonds in 1990 (33 HR, 52 SB). More rare than a Triple Crown, in fact. So, in comparing apples and oranges, Trout takes the cake there too.
Batting Average is not a good indicator of overall offensive performance because it pretends plate appearances that don't count as ABs don't exist. It also negates the impact a player has in terms of slugging and baserunner, two offensive factors. RBIs are not a good indicator of overall offensive performance because it is reliant on other players' performance, which, as I noted previously with my anti-playoff-MVP argument, cannot be directly correlated with a player's value to the team.
In order, I would rate the categories of the Triple Crown as follows in terms of importance:
1. Home Runs
2. RBIs
3. Batting Average
Home runs are important for obvious reasons. RBIs are important to a team because, yes, they generate runs. But there are many more offensive statistics that allow a team to better analyze run generation and appropriately coordinate a player's value than simply the runs he has batted in over the course of a season. For the most plain and simple example: Mike Trout is a lead-off hitter and therefore has less opportunities to drive in runs than Miguel Cabrera does. Batting average is absolutely irrelevant because, simply put, OPS is a better overall offensive production indicator.
Just because the Triple Crown categories have been deemed important in the past doesn't mean they're right. Just because Miguel Cabrera has a higher batting average, more RBIs and more home runs than Mike Trout doesn't make him a better hitter. The evidence is blatantly obvious.
I don't know how else to make this argument.
Mike Trout is the most valuable player in the American League in 2012, BY FAR.