Originally Posted by hoopster3977
Cabrera, for sure. He could be the first legitmate Triple Crown winner since Frank Robinson in 1966. I don't count Yaz's in 1967 due to being tied in Hr's with Killebrew in 1967.
And if he lost the triple crown by a hr or rbi, is his argument less worthy? Triple Crown is a cool feat, but by itself does not make a statement about how good ones season was (although you can assume it was very good).
Bonds didn't win the triple crown in his steroid heyday because he was walked all the time (so no RBI). I guess cabreras season is/was better than Bonds?