Miguel Cabrera: Developing Predator

This began with an observation: Since 2008 — covering the bulk of the reliable PITCHf/x era — Miguel Cabrera has swung at just under 47% of pitches with the bases empty, and just over 53% of pitches with a runner or runners on. Now, in that span, 130 different players have faced at least 10,000 pitches. Out of all of them, Cabrera has the biggest positive difference in swing rate. As it happens, Derek Jeter has the biggest negative difference in swing rate, but maybe that’s a different article. Cabrera has swung more with men on; and at bats with men on are more important at bats.

I wanted to dig deeper.

The next step was to break things down by year, to see if there might be a developing trend or a steady pattern. As is often the case, I have to express my gratitude for the existence of Baseball Savant. This table suggests one thing:

Year None On Runner(s) On Difference
2008 47% 54% 8%
2009 47% 55% 7%
2010 44% 54% 10%
2011 45% 52% 6%
2012 46% 53% 6%
2013 50% 52% 2%

As shown in the table, Cabrera increased his swing rate with the bases empty in 2013, and he somewhat lowered his swing rate with runners on. He posted the lowest difference of his recent career, and that’s where I just about stopped digging. But part of me wanted to keep plugging away, and, see, Baseball Savant has this tool that allows you to isolate pitches in and out of the PITCHf/x strike zone. Are you in the mood for some more tables?

Let’s look at the same table as above, but this time, let’s only consider pitches inside the PITCHf/x strike zone:

Year None On Runner(s) On Difference
2008 60% 74% 14%
2009 65% 77% 12%
2010 71% 81% 10%
2011 73% 80% 7%
2012 68% 77% 9%
2013 77% 84% 8%

Each year, with runners on, Cabrera has been considerably more aggressive swinging at strikes. Even last year, despite what was suggested by the first table. So why don’t we look at the same table again, only this time, let’s only consider pitches outside of the PITCHf/x strike zone:

Year None On Runner(s) On Difference
2008 38% 42% 3%
2009 36% 41% 5%
2010 30% 40% 10%
2011 31% 38% 7%
2012 34% 39% 5%
2013 35% 35% 1%

In every season, Cabrera has been more aggressive swinging at balls, too, with runners on. So he’s just swung more often in general, which makes some sense, given that swings with runners on can do more damage than swings with nobody on. But now look at last year. Focus exclusively on last year. With runners on, Cabrera increased his swing rate at strikes by 7.6 percentage points. With runners on, he increased his swing rate at balls by 0.7 percentage points. Cabrera was more aggressive, but in a controlled and disciplined way.

Last season, with nobody on, Cabrera’s Z-Swing%/O-Swing% ratio was about 2.2. That’s right around his recent established average. With runners on, however, his ratio was about 2.4. That’s the best we’ve seen out of him, at least since we started having access to this sort of data. Here’s the short, plain-English explanation: In Miguel Cabrera’s most important at bats last year, he improved his selectivity, swinging at more hittable pitches without also swinging at less hittable pitches.

A potential consequence of that? This might be confusing correlation and causation, but last year, with men on, Cabrera slugged .733, with an isolated slugging percentage of .366 and a wRC+ of 222. All of these were career-best marks, by far. With the bases empty, he was also very good, but he was very good in a typical Miguel Cabrera kind of way. He slugged .549, and put up a 163 wRC+. The difference for Cabrera was plate appearances with men on, and that’s where he demonstrated some never-before-seen disciplined aggressiveness.

What sorts of adjustments might Cabrera have made? Let’s leave behind the runner/no-runner splits. Take a look at this chart, from Brooks Baseball. There are 11 boxes in which — during the PITCHf/x era — Cabrera has slugged at least .500. Two years ago, he swung at 66% of pitches in those boxes. Last year, he swung at 72% of pitches in those boxes. That suggests Cabrera has become more aware of his strengths.

We can also take a different approach. Two years ago, Cabrera swung at 58% of pitches over the middle or more inside. He swung at 37% of pitches over or beyond the outer third. Between 2008 and 2012, those rates were 59% and 38%. Last year, Cabrera swung at 64% of pitches over the middle or more inside and 36% of pitches over or beyond the outer third. Cabrera’s specialty is driving pitches more in than out, and if he has a weakness, it’s making solid contact with pitches away and off the plate. He’s been able to swing at more of the good stuff without also swinging at more of the bad stuff. Two years ago, Miguel Cabrera won the Triple Crown. Last year, Cabrera showed signs of improvement.

They say there isn’t a pitch Cabrera can’t destroy, that he has hands-down the best plate coverage in baseball. That’s probably true. But there are certain pitches he tends to destroy more often than others. Last season, Cabrera swung at more of the pitches that, historically, he’s punished. He didn’t simultaneously increase his swing rate at pitches he has more trouble with. He most showed off his improved eye with runners on base, when he could do the most damage. Cabrera was a nightmare for pitchers before last year, and then he took a step forward.

I don’t know how much of this is sustainable, and I don’t know how Cabrera’s going to be pitched in the future. I’m looking forward to seeing what these numbers look like in eight months. But it used to be said that Cabrera had the best eye in baseball. There’s evidence that, last year, it got even better.



Print This Post



Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.


Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Daniel
Guest
Daniel
2 years 7 months ago

Very cool. Great stats. Great article.

WormFace
Guest
WormFace
2 years 7 months ago

You should have written the different article about Jeter. People like Jeter (even Boston fans). He is a class act.

Miggy on the other hand..

Wouldn’t surprise me if this drunk driving arsehole was also a sex predator. And a big F U to Buick for using drunky to endorse their cars.

Cyrus
Guest
Cyrus
2 years 7 months ago

Wrong church for this.

WormFace
Guest
WormFace
2 years 7 months ago

What does church have to do with this?

Cybo
Guest
Cybo
2 years 7 months ago

Hahaha what an idiot!

Where’s this guy and his soap box in all the other threads? Miggy is hardly the only player to have had “off field” issues. Puig quickly comes to mind.

Queue “Whats soap have to do with this?” comment.

Special Juan Lagares
Guest
Special Juan Lagares
2 years 7 months ago

Back to the HardBallTalk comment section for you!

Jeremy T
Guest
2 years 7 months ago

Nah, this garbage would get rightfully mocked over at HBT, too.

Glue of the Dodger-Sox trade
Guest
Glue of the Dodger-Sox trade
2 years 7 months ago

Wy not Nick Punto? He’s scrappy. Even Boston fans think so.

WormFace
Guest
WormFace
2 years 7 months ago

Because the first paragraph of the article mentions Derek Jeter, not Nick Punto.

Glue of the Dodger-Sox trade
Guest
Glue of the Dodger-Sox trade
2 years 7 months ago

The title also mentions a predator. Someone who has the biggest NEGATIVE differential seems more like prey.

In this article focused on more aggressive swing patterns with runners on, Punto is more relative than Jeter. Since, you know, Jeter is antithesis and all..

John Elway
Member
2 years 7 months ago

GLUE???!!!???!!!

Seabiscuit
Guest
Seabiscuit
2 years 7 months ago

GLUE?!?!?!

Secretariat
Guest
Secretariat
2 years 7 months ago

Oh no!

Wait…oh neigh!!!

Barbaro
Guest
Barbaro
2 years 7 months ago

Aw shoot!

Miguel Cabrera
Guest
Miguel Cabrera
2 years 7 months ago

You don’t know me…

WormFace
Guest
WormFace
2 years 7 months ago

What is the % chance that Miguel Cabrera takes a swing at an officer when he is sober vs. drunk? I’m guessing it is more than a 6% increase.

Ziggy
Guest
Ziggy
2 years 7 months ago

As dumb as all your other comments are – and, trust me, they are dumb – this one actually made me laugh a little.

Billy
Guest
Billy
2 years 7 months ago

Look, it’s fair to criticize Miggy’s drunk driving incident since most of us can agree that drinking and driving is a bad idea. I think most reasonable people understand that trying to be a good human being is valuable.

But bringing up people’s moral shortcomings / strengths completely out of left field, especially when the information we have on these individuals is relevant but hardly all-encompassing, comes off as overly judgmental (and there’s a likelihood that it is). It’s not bad to try and remind people that character matters. But we have to pick out spots to do so carefully, lest the message lose it’s effect and people dismiss it.

Bip
Member
Member
Bip
2 years 7 months ago

I think it’s worth remembering when Hall of Fame voting rolls around again that many players have done things that are unequivocally worse than taking steroids. The people who take the “character clause” so seriously look silly when they forget that.

That said, I don’t feel it’s necessary to treat Cabrera like some sort of criminal, especially on an all-baseball no-narrative site like this. Cabrera is an incredible baseball player and that deserves recognition.

Jeremy
Guest
Jeremy
2 years 7 months ago

He wasn’t arrested for drunk driving, bruh. Just for drinking scotch in the front seat of his broken-down Range Rover. You mad?

opus 131
Guest
opus 131
2 years 7 months ago

This is the most vile comment I have read in a long time. The man has his demons, as do we all. All evidence indicates that he is conquering them. He is a very appealing and decent human being, and one of the most enjoyable athletes to watch in my long experience. To call you a worm is to disparage worms.

Brian
Guest
Brian
2 years 6 months ago

WormFace. You disgust me. Miggy is a big teddy bear, very popular with teammates and well liked in the community. The guy has made some mistakes. We all have. Honestly, who takes the time to sit and write such a hateful little comment. Seriously. You are depressing me. I’m depressed.

Cyrus
Guest
Cyrus
2 years 7 months ago

Please compare to Barry Bonds!

Spencer Dean
Guest
Spencer Dean
2 years 7 months ago

I don’t think the data go back far enough.

Fredchuckdave
Guest
2 years 7 months ago

Bonds comparisons are always interesting but I don’t think Cabrera is quite at that level yet; not to say he couldn’t be. Maybe he’ll post 50 IBB nextyear.

psualum
Guest
psualum
2 years 7 months ago

Bonds is the greatest baseball player that ever played imo, I wonder where people would have ranked him if not for the steroid allegations compared to Ruth/Aaron/Mays/etc

Bip
Member
Member
Bip
2 years 7 months ago

There is really no way to dispute this. Bonds’ raw numbers only really compare to Ruth’s, and I’d bet anything that the quality of competition that Bonds faced is much, much better than when Ruth was playing. When Bonds entered the league, the league K rate was 15.4%, and when he retired it was 17.1%. The same numbers for Ruth are 7.8% and 8.3%.

Tomcat
Guest
Tomcat
2 years 7 months ago

^Bip
There is a way to dispute this, and you even brought it up. You could easily make an argument for Ruth, who has more WAR (168.4 v. 164.1) in much less games (2503 v. 2986) and who also added 14.3 WAR from pitching. You could make the different era argument, but it’s not so objective in value to render the difference moot.

RC
Guest
RC
2 years 7 months ago

Your disputing it using WAR is simply begging the question. BIP is saying that WAR comparisons between eras are not useful, and I agree.

Basically, the replacement level in Ruth’s ERA was a farmer who could throw and run a bit, and played some highschool ball. IE, the equivalent of what your average mens softball team is.

The replacement level in Bond’s ERA was a guy who had been brought up playing baseball since 5 or 6 years old, had taken tens if not hundreds of thousands of swings at live pitching, and been involved in highly specialized training and physical programs.

It’s entirely possible that if you shot a replacement level player back in time 100 years, he’d be as good as Ruth, if not better.

As an example of this sort of thing, the record for the Mile was 4:12 when Babe Ruth played ball. Now highschool kids regularly run those sort of times, and the record is a good 40 seconds faster.

Better training, better nutrition, better understanding, better athletes.

Jackie T.
Member
Member
Jackie T.
2 years 7 months ago

Begging the question: I do not think it means what you think it means.

Hank G.
Guest
Hank G.
2 years 7 months ago

As an example of this sort of thing, the record for the Mile was 4:12 when Babe Ruth played ball. Now highschool kids regularly run those sort of times, and the record is a good 40 seconds faster.

In a world where 30 = 40, sure.

Better training, better nutrition, better understanding, better athletes.

I really doubt that the nutrition and training that Ruth got was markedly inferior to what players get today. He spent most of his youth in an institution, probably getting plain but nutritious meals. He certainly was exposed to much less junk food than what is available today.

He played a remarkable amount of baseball (often multiple games per day) while there in a season that was much longer than the major league season. The young Ruth was lean and muscular and was noted for his baseball “instincts”.

Bip
Member
Member
Bip
2 years 7 months ago

RC: You’re forgetting what I believe to be the actual #1 factor responsible for the huge increase in the skill of professional athletes: Bigger pool of potential major leaguers.

Case in point: Bonds would not have been allowed to play against Ruth in Ruth’s time. Aside from the players who have been added due to integration, there is also much more international scouting. In addition, many players in Ruth’s time were not paid all that well even by the standards of the era. Many if not most had jobs during the offseason. Some players likely could not afford to afford to attempt to become big leaguers. Now, that is a much more uncommon problem.

Bip
Member
Member
Bip
2 years 7 months ago

Hank: Your argument that Ruth was in very good shape actually helps the argument that Bonds is better. If Ruth was in good shape, then you can’t really say that Bonds’ numbers benefitted greatly from modern technology (well… let’s shelve that one for now).

Surely though, the typically 1920’s athlete was nowhere near as well conditioned as the typical 1990’s athlete was. The point was that Ruth played against worse players in worse condition than Bonds did, and therefore, Ruth’s numbers were boosted because he was hitting worse pitching.

RC
Guest
RC
2 years 7 months ago

“Begging the question: I do not think it means what you think it means.”

No, it means exactly what I think it means. His argument assumes its conclusion as a premise.

bjsworld
Guest
bjsworld
2 years 7 months ago

These comparisons of era are almost always pointless.

Ruth Pros = Less professional teams, the only “real” professional sport, the dream of every kid was to play MLB

Ruth Cons = No integration, no foreign talent, smaller pool of potential players

I don’t think it cuts very strongly in one direction vs another. Excluding blacks and Latins is huge … but so is baseball losing athletes to football, basketball, soccer, and hockey. In Ruth’s day EVERY boy played baseball. In today’s era baseball participation is down.

Ruth’s era was a one and done time. If you suffered a major injury your career was likely over. Today kids are getting TJ surgery in high school. Players in Ruth’s era didn’t have the advancements that we enjoy today when it comes to nutrition, strength and conditional training. Today, anyone can walk into GNC and get the latest that science has to offer at virtually no cost. Players in Ruth’s era traveled in trains and buses, kept horrible schedules and slept in fleabag hotels. Today’s players travel in luxury in private planes, limousines, and stay in 5 star hotels.

At the end of the day I don’t see Ruth struggling as a player in today’s ERA. Frankly, the biggest difference might be that a guy like Ruth may not have played baseball at all. At 6’2, 220, and given his physical ability, would it really surprise anyone if he was more attracted to football or basketball as a kid in today’s world?

RC
Guest
RC
2 years 7 months ago

” At 6’2, 220, and given his physical ability, would it really surprise anyone if he was more attracted to football or basketball as a kid in today’s world?”

He wouldn’t have been fast enough to play football at that size, and hes not nearly tall enough for basketball.

At 6’2 220, you have to basically be Ellsbury-fast to play football. (RB/CB/S/WR is what you’re looking at)

Swinginforthefences
Guest
Swinginforthefences
2 years 7 months ago

This is such a tired argument. You CAN’T accurately compare these two players but people still try. One thing about league strike out rates: The game was different in Ruth’s time. Batters were much more focused on putting the ball in play. Today many hitters have the all or nothing mentality, hit a home run or strike out trying.
Oh and you shouldn’t hate Puig for getting speeding tickets. You should hate him, however, if you are not a Dodger fan.
Go Dodgers!

opus 131
Guest
opus 131
2 years 6 months ago

One thing about the Babe, though. He was a premiere pitcher before they sent him to the outfield. It would be as if Michael Jordan had started his career as a power forward and led the league in rebounds and blocked shots before they told him to get away from the post and shoot a bit more. Ruth was unique.

Ian
Guest
Ian
2 years 7 months ago

I’d love to see what those tables would like if the subject were changed to Joey Votto.

Cybo
Guest
Cybo
2 years 7 months ago

Me too!

fly eli and tony plush
Guest
fly eli and tony plush
2 years 7 months ago

votto:

http://www.brooksbaseball.net/h_profile.php?player=458015&gFilt=&pFilt=FA|SI|FC|CU|SL|CS|KN|CH|FS|SB&time=month&minmax=ci&var=swing&s_type=2&startDate=03/30/2007&endDate=02/27/2014&balls=-1&strikes=-1&b_hand=-1

the tabs on the left can get you to slg/ba/ etc.

MK
Guest
MK
2 years 7 months ago

Lots of things to ponder from this article. Is the pitch type he swings at changing at all? Does he swing at a particular pitch outside the zone?

Alec Denton
Member
Member
2 years 7 months ago

I wonder if his swing rate at outside pitches also decreased in connection with his abdominal injury, which visually appeared to reduce his ability to stretch out swings over the plate.

Bip
Member
Member
Bip
2 years 7 months ago

Wasn’t that only affecting him from September onwards? When did it happen?

Jon L.
Guest
Jon L.
2 years 7 months ago

I was also curious how the September injury affected these numbers. Clearly a player like Cabrera would change his approach to suit the change in his abilities, and this may muddy the stats underlying his improvement the first 5 months.

Phillies' Front Office
Member
Phillies' Front Office
2 years 7 months ago
Mike Green
Guest
Mike Green
2 years 7 months ago

You pitch him way inside and hope that he aggravates his back while twisting to get out of the way. That would be Bob Gibson’s approach, anyways.

Za
Guest
Za
2 years 7 months ago

Except he hits pitches a nearly two feet off the plate inside out of the park. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-2013-season-in-inside-home-runs/

psualum
Guest
psualum
2 years 7 months ago

pitch outside and hope he hurts his abdominal?

WormFace
Guest
WormFace
2 years 7 months ago

Throw at his head.

Nickname Damur
Guest
Nickname Damur
2 years 7 months ago

Okay, say an actual major league pitcher somehow reads this and takes your advice. He throws at Cabrera and kills him. Question: are you an accessory after the fact and can you be prosecuted? Just curious.

Nickname Damur
Guest
Nickname Damur
2 years 7 months ago

Or would that be before the fact? I.e., couldn’t it be said that you are some sort of Moriarty-esque shadow-dwelling instigator? So what I’m getting at is: how moral is that?

Anon21
Guest
Anon21
2 years 7 months ago

No. See Brandenburg v. Ohio. No imminence, no criminal liability.

scott
Guest
scott
2 years 7 months ago

All hail WormFace!

WormFace
Guest
WormFace
2 years 7 months ago

:D

Oh Beepy
Guest
2 years 7 months ago

“I’ve had pretty good success with Stan (Musial) by throwing him my best pitch and backing up third.” – Carl Erskine.

This is how I feel most pitchers regard a Miggy at-bat.

Also, holy shit, WormFace, go away. We get that you’re offended by his drunk driving, most people I know have lost friends to drunk driving and couldn’t agree more, but how exactly you think that means that he should be omitted from baseball analysis that doesn’t come to a negative conclusion about him, well, I just don’t know.

RC
Guest
RC
2 years 7 months ago

I feel like the numbers in a lot of these charts aren’t strong enough to actually show any sort of trend. 8-7-10-6-6-2 isn’t necessarily a trend.

The 2 is interesting, but the rest of it is just random-walk fluctuation.

Bip
Member
Member
Bip
2 years 7 months ago

True. It depends on how much this deviates from the same stats of other players. If almost all other players had negative values, for instance, then that would suggest that random chance does not produce values like Cabrera has, meaning he is definitely doing something differently (or pitchers are pitching him differently).

ankle explosion hr celebration
Guest
ankle explosion hr celebration
2 years 7 months ago

you must remember that the 6 is coming from a huge sample of pitches. Those are indeed significant differences in approaches, although perhaps you are right in that they weren’t undertaken consciously. Nevertheless, I’d bet anything that the decreasing trend in swing rate is statistically significant.

Ruben Amaro Jr.
Member
Ruben Amaro Jr.
2 years 7 months ago

How’s this

Last three years: Avg 5
Previous three years: Avg 8

RC
Guest
RC
2 years 7 months ago

“Nevertheless, I’d bet anything that the decreasing trend in swing rate is statistically significant.”

Why?

We’re talking a single year of roughly 2400 pitches, breaking that roughly in half to 1200 (only pitches in or out of the zone), breaking that roughly in half again (runners on vs not – 600 pitches in each column)… and then comparing the two columns.

You know what 1% of 600 pitches is? 6 pitches. But we don’t have enough significant digits to know its even 1%, it could be .6%, which is 3-4 pitches.

The fact that we’re subtracting one column from the other exacerbates things, because pitches are double counted. If Cabrera takes 400 pitches, and swings at 200, you get a dif of 200. If he changes one swing, you get 399-201, or a dif of 198.

So its entirely possible that going from 7%, to 6%, is a difference of swinging at 1 or 2 pitches differently over a whole season.

So, yeah, I’d take that bet.

ankle explosion hr celebration
Guest
ankle explosion hr celebration
2 years 7 months ago

I think you are making a math error somewhere in there.
But, let’s say your number is correct, 2400 pitches > 1200 pitches in the zone > 600 pitches with runners on, 600 with runners off.

If you just run a 2×2 contingency table test like Fisher’s Exact, the difference in swing rates for inside vs. outside the first year in the table is significant at p = .0188 (47% vs. 54%).

Now, the question I think was whether the decreasing trend in differences in swing rates is significant. I ran simple linear regressions for each of the tables. For the first table (all pitches) the p-value was .09, so not significant but close, perhaps worth considering. For pitches in the zone, the trend was significant (p = .02761); and for pitches outside, it wasn’t (not surprisingly, cause it doesn’t look linear). So it looks like statistically he’s has swung less at pitches in the zone over time (according to a very unsophisticated method), but not outside the zone.

dude
Guest
dude
2 years 7 months ago

In every season, Cabrera has been more aggressive swinging at balls, too, with runners on.

How does a decrease from 42% to 35% between the years of 2008 and 2013 lead you to that conclusion?

With runners on, he increased his swing rate at balls by 0.7 percentage points.

Are your numbers in that table backwards?

bobabaloo
Guest
bobabaloo
2 years 7 months ago

“with runners on”

dude
Guest
dude
2 years 7 months ago

Look at the chart again.

david
Guest
david
2 years 7 months ago

I really enjoyed this article because it reminded me of Albert Belle…especially the “predator” part. The Indians broadcasters were talking about this in the spring game yesterday in regards to Joey Votto, and fans displeasure in his approach with RISP.

james wilson
Guest
james wilson
2 years 7 months ago

Being a Red Sox fan, I am reminded that if Cabrera had two legs working for him in October the Tigers would have advanced to the WS. The guy is a beast. Hopefully his drinking will advance to game day or the Boston’s won’t get past Detroit this year.

tyke
Guest
tyke
2 years 7 months ago

“Hopefully his drinking will advance to game day”

like the red sox?

Pre
Guest
Pre
2 years 7 months ago

I wonder about the quality of the balls that he has faced with runners on. As he has grown from an awesome hitter to a historic one, does this result in more wasted pitches against him? More bounced curves, more obvious balls based on pitchers altering mechanics or aiming further off the plate?

Anecdotally, those are the kind of things that happen when a dangerous hitter is at the plate with runners on, would be interesting to see if the data matched it.

Cool Lester Smooth
Guest
Cool Lester Smooth
2 years 7 months ago

What has his comparative RE24 been?

Miggy
Guest
Miggy
2 years 7 months ago

what i do, home run?

WormFace
Guest
WormFace
2 years 7 months ago

Jeff Sullivan, I am sorry. Your article was both well written and interesting. My above comments about Miguel Cabrera took away some attention that could have been used for further discussion and/or praise. I’ll try not to be a dick in the future.

I still don’t like Migeul Cabrera. And I don’t like how he won two MVP awards instead of Trout.

Doctor
Guest
Doctor
2 years 7 months ago

So you bring up past issues, urge for pitchers to hit him in the head because a bunch of other people voted for him to win MVP?

WormFace
Guest
WormFace
2 years 7 months ago

Not because of the MVP awards, but because he is a pompous dick who deserves to be ridiculed.

The Truth
Guest
The Truth
2 years 7 months ago

worm face, worms for brains, You pompous dickbag,

Cabrera is an ultimate team player, Tigers sign Fielder and Cabrera says to let him go from 1st base to 3rd, He Asked Leyland if he would let him,
When Fielder gets traded he lets them know if they want him at 1st base, he will go back there.
He is always talking team first, giving credit to the other players,

He has Not made any regrettable mistakes since that episode in 2011. Miguel Cabrera is the best hitter in baseball, not the best all-around player, that would most likely be trout. Best Hitter Period…..

Have you ever done something like that??????
and you didn’t get caught, everybody makes mistakes.
Cabrera owned up to his as a public figure.
You on the other hand skulk and slither around hiding behind your computer and bringing up the past that has been all but forgotten by baseball fans everywhere with this future first ballot hall of famers incredible run of batting titles 3 in a row, last to do that by a righty batter was Rogers Hornsby, a Triple Crown, the first in 45 years, and one of a handful of players with back to back MVP Awards.

don’t rip the player because your guy finished second, Trout will win his share of them soon. Miggy lost to hamilton when Cabrera should have won.

The whole league, all the players admire and respect Cabrera for what he has accomplished, including the fans.

RC
Guest
RC
2 years 7 months ago

“Have you ever done something like that??????”

I don’t think many of us have gotten in our lamborghini shitfaced, driven drunk, drunk from the bottle in front of the police while still behind the wheel, and then gotten off with just probation – probation that allows him to leave the state at will. I don’t think many of us would have had the option to just call the MLBPA limo service instead.

I agree with Wormface that hes a pompous dick. That being said, this is a stats site, and whether or not Miguel Cabrera is a pompous dick is kind of off topic, and not interesting.

Mouhamad Zareef
Guest
Mouhamad Zareef
2 years 7 months ago

Doesn’t this just prove what we already know? That Miguel Cabrera is really, really, REALLY good at baseball??

Jimbacco
Guest
Jimbacco
2 years 7 months ago

Wow….cat believe some of this stuff I’m reading. when attacking a mans character whom you only have second hand analysis as to the type of person he is, you should probably keep your mouth wide open to insert foot. Especially when your ‘educated’ opinion is COMPLETELY off base with the people who speak about knowing the man…

Pompous??? Seriously???? He’s widely considered to be one of the most humble and thankful people in the game. But just ignore those opinions that differ from yours even though you’re outnumbered by a WIDE margin…

Haters gonna hate and the interwbz is obviously the place to do it. Can’t get caught in your glass house when you’re anonymous.

Poach
Guest
Poach
2 years 6 months ago

Great article! But, does this imply that Cabrera is “clutch”? That is, if the data is stat. sig. and supports the claim that Cabrera, through his own ability/approach/selectivity, is able to perform differently (e.g. higher SLG/ISO/wRC+) with runners on, does this make him the first player we’ve ever identified who can actually “turn it on” in more important situations?

That’s certainly what statements like “In Miguel Cabrera’s most important at bats last year, he improved his selectivity, swinging at more hittable pitches without also swinging at less hittable pitches” sound like.

wpDiscuz