Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Moyer
I view the triple crown the same way I view hitting for the cycle. It's neat, it's awesome, it's rare, and it should be celebrated. It's still not as valuable as going 3-5 with 3 bombs or 4-5 with 2 bombs and 2 doubles even though those things are significantly less rare.
|
Indeed.
Hitting for the cycle is not an accomplishment, it's a statistical anomaly. Don't get me wrong, any player hitting for the cycle has had a great game. At least four hits and 10 total bases. That's a great performance. But off course a player going 3-5 with 3 bombs or 4-5 with 2 bombs and 2 doubles has had an even greater game. Getting one each of the 4 possible hits is an interesting quirk, but to put any emphasis on it and laud the player for it is exceedingly silly. Imagine a player stepping into the box having hit a HR, a triple and a double and then hitting a ball down the Rf line into the corner. Should he stop at first base to complete the cycle? Imagine that, how stupid would that be!
Same applies for the TC.
Winning the TC is not an accomplishment an sich. Again, any player winning the TC has had a great year, or at least a very good one, but to win the TC you're obviously dependent on what other players do, which is beyond your control. In theory a player A could hit .440 with 74 HR's and 192 RBI's and not win the triple crown if in the same year and the same league another player hits .441. On the other hand, in some seasons player B hitting .312 with 34 HR's and 111 RBI's might be enough to win the TC. Off course the performance by player B is dwarfed by the performance of player. Now should player B receive extra credit for winning the TC? Off course not, players should be judged by what they themselves do, what other players do should be irrelevant.
Miguel Cabrera had a great year, Mike Trout had a better year. Cabrera winning the TC is a nice quirk but completely irrelevant. It does not add or subtract anything to his
actual performance.