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.
But it isn't called the best player award. It's called Most Valuable Player and that wasn't a mistake. It is by design an award whose basis of merit is always changing.
I see Mike Trout as an exceptional baseball player. He has pending MVP awards... But in 2012 he basically did what Miguel Cabrera did but not as well, however stole a lot more bases. I'd agree he's a more well-rounded player, but without Miggy the Tigers don't make the post season. The 2012 Angels without Trout is pretty moot in my eyes. And to me, that holds much less value. I apologize for using that word so much but I have to. What is your reasoning for choosing Trout?
"Most Valuable" - to whom/what? To some it seems to be the stat book, or his team. But by winning the Triple Crown, in Miggy's case, was valuable to all of baseball, not just himself or his team.