Norm Chortleton (08-12-2013)
It is the Most Valuable Player award. Not the most valuable player who had his teammates also perform well enough to finish ahead of someone else in their division with crappy teams while a better player on a better team faced tougher competition and despite his team winning more games finished in third so he can't be as valuable award.
If Barry Larkin was in NYC, he would have been Derek Jeter.
You are who you play for, and it's value to your specific team. Trout changed absolutely nothing about his team. He was essentially the Angels' T-Mac. In the NFL, I *think* you have to go back to something like 1973 (OJ) to find an MVP that wasn't in the playoffs. It matters.
Rounding third and heading for home...
The best player in the league in a given year is the most valuable. By definition one can't be more valuable than the best. Writers try to make it happen all of the time though. I have no clue why, but it is crazy talk. It is illogical.
I still love how the team with the worst record gets more credit because they played in a crappy division though. I need to quit Redszone. It can't be good for me.
Mike Trout = not enough votes = 2nd place
Mitt Romney = not enough votes = 2nd place
Last edited by Norm Chortleton; 08-12-2013 at 09:04 PM.
Like Doug said, the Angels won more games than the Tigers. So what the hell do the win totals in the regular season matter in this debate?
"Since I've been with the Reds in 1989, we've never had a farm system this loaded," Bowden said. "If we were the New York Yankees and had unlimited dollars, we could have traded for Colon, (Jeff) Weaver, Rolen, (Cliff) Floyd, (Kenny) Rogers and Finley and gotten them all -- and still held onto our top five prospects. That's an amazing statement."