I have heard people saying many times (not necessarily you my dear reader and not necessarily people posting on BBTIA) that the Triple Crown doesn't mean as much now because we have shifted to a more sophisticated system of assessment that values OPS more than classic statistics such as RBI's.

I think 11 guys have won the Triple Crown since 1900? MLB.com didn't have stats for anything before 1900. Before the turn of the century two guys won the Triple Crown but I can't check their OPS.

I looked into it and NONE of the Triple Crown winners since 1900 did not also lead their League in OPS.

In fact, only in two instances did a Triple Crown winner fail to lead all of baseball in OPS.

In 1937 despite leading his league in OPS Medwick finished 4th in baseball: .06 behind the leader Lou Gehrig.

In 1933 despite leading his league in OPS Klein finished 3rd in baseball: .128 behind Fox who led the other Leauge and all of baseball with a 1.153 OPS. And guess what? In 1933 Jimmie Fox ALSO won the Triple Crown.

I understand why RBI's are looked down upon by the sabermajicians, but that doesn't change the fact that the Triple Crown is an awesome achievement.

OPS supports this, confirms this, serves this. In this instance the Tradition can't be touched by the sabers. The supremacy of the Triple Crown reigns unblemished by any new stats.

In other words, we might say that OPS is the Triple Crown's lackey. Or, if we wanted to be more thoughtful we might say that perhaps there is more continuity between traditional stats and new stats than some realize. I am not saying this to detract from the value of new stats but rather to provoke thoughts.