Originally Posted by dougdirt
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.
There are actually plenty of ways, especially since both terms are subjective.
There was time way back when catchers were assumed to be the most valuable players on the team. Catchers won or placed very high in the MVP voting year after year, even when they didn't have the stats that the "best" players had. A strong argument can be made that this theory is accurate.
Here's just one example of where the "best" player isn't the most valuable.
Player A leads the league in OBP, SLG and is solid fielder at an important position. However, he's terrible in the clutch that year. He only drives in 65 runs and his teammates are terrible at driving him in, he only scores 65 runs. He also hits into double plays or strikes out in nearly all high leverage situations, he makes key errors in crucial situations that lead to numerous losses for his team, and in important games against his teams rival he goes into terrible slumps. Most of his home runs and RBI's come in games which are already blowouts.
Sure it's an extreme example, but it's a real one that could actually happen. In fact, I would bet dollars to donuts that something like it already has a few times in MLB history.
The point is, it's actually very easy to imagine how the "best" player isn't the most valuable player.