Originally Posted by MrRedLegger
I'm not saying you're wrong. Mike Trout was then and still is an anomaly. But IMO, Trout's value to his team seems clouded. It amounted to nothing of "value" - that is, for the team's sake. ROY is great, but the Angels finished 7th in the AL (albeit in a tougher division)
Some may disagree, but not winning MVP due to a playoff absense is IMO not a snub. It's far from it. Miggy and Co. won their division and turned that into a WS appearance.
Again, this is all based on an evolving definition of "most valuable"
See what you said there, you said Miggy and Co. The award isn't for Co. It is for the first guy. Trout was better than Miggy was. Heck, his team even won more games.
To me, there is absolutely no definition of "most valuable" in which the best player isn't the one who provided the most value. How people twist the term "most valuable" beyond "best" is mind numbing when I try to think about it. There is literally no way in which one who is the best is not providing the most value.