AL mvp....

[RollyInRaleigh]

Just give Trout the dougdirt MVP award, make it unanimous, and be done with it.

[dougdirt]

IF someone wins the Most Valuable Player award who wasn't actually the most valuable player and you don't get the outrage over it, I simply do not know what to tell you.

[westofyou]

IF someone wins the Most Valuable Player award who wasn't actually the most valuable player and you don't get the outrage over it, I simply do not know what to tell you.

Outrage over a baseball award??

Yeah, ranks right up there with war and pestilence on my outrage scale.

Everyone together.... on three.... Zoilo Versalles!

[Patrick Bateman]

IF someone wins the Most Valuable Player award who wasn't actually the most valuable player and you don't get the outrage over it, I simply do not know what to tell you.

Who got the MVP literally effects none of us in any way.

Look, the average baseball writer, and perhaps average baseball fan views baseball differently than you do. Maybe your views are more indicative of true talent level, maybe they aren't. Regardless, the fact that the average baseball writer doesn't agree with you neither credits, nor discredits your baseball acumen. The MVP is simply a collective opinion of a handful of people that I don't know.

I honestly don't comprehend how it is even possible to be outraged about this. I could try my hardest all day long and I still would not care. I bet Trout cares less than you do.

[dougdirt]

Outrage may be strong. But I am bothered by rationale that says Miguel Cabrera had a better season than Mike Trout did. I simply can't make sense of it.

[RollyInRaleigh]

Everyone realizes now that you are outraged because Mike Trout didn't win the AL , Doug. Most people aren't. Just my opinion but I think you're more than a tad over the top on this one.

[Always Red]

There would have been much more outrage (not around here apparently) had the Triple Crown winner from the AL team that went to the World Series not won the MVP.

such drama.

[RedsBaron]

Outrage over a baseball award??

Yeah, ranks right up there with war and pestilence on my outrage scale.

Everyone together.... on three.... Zoilo Versalles!

A few more MVP winners whose selection was undeserved:

Mickey Cochrane 1934
Charlie Gehringer 1937
Joe Gordon 1942
Marty Marion 1944
Jim Konstanty 1950
Hank Sauer 1952
Yogi Berra 1955
Jackie Jensen 1958
Maury Wills 1962
Willie Stargell 1979
Don Mattingly 1985
Andre Dawson 1987
George Bell 1987
Dennis Eckersley 1992
Mo Vaughn 1995
Juan Gonzalez 1996
Juan Gonzalez 1998
Ivan Rodriguez 1999
Miguel Tejada 2002

[CySeymour]

In the end, these awards are more marketing tools then actual acknowledgement of achievement.

[PuffyPig]

Outrage may be strong. But I am bothered by rationale that says Miguel Cabrera had a better season than Mike Trout did. I simply can't make sense of it.

There is nothing in the MVP criteria which suggests that the award goes to the best player. In fact, if they simply wanted it to go to the best player, they could have easily said so.

So, I'm not sure why you are bothered so much by the granting of an award to a player that may not be the best player when the award is not given based on that criteria.

Maybe it should be. Maybe it that's how the voters should interpret it. But they don't and usually haven't in the entire history of the vote. So, the vast majority of voters disagree with your interpretation.

[dougdirt]

Sigh. The idea that the person who is the best isn't the most valuable is how we get poor votes in the first place.

[klw]

Verducci's rationale:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...#ixzz2Ch3SmWZC

On Aug. 23, Trout was the presumptive MVP who led Cabrera by 19 points in batting average and 35 points in OPS. Both played on teams on the outside of a playoff spot: the Angels were 2 ½ games out of the wild card and the Tigers were 1 ½ games out of the AL Central lead.
Here's what happened after that:
Trout:.269/.369/.455 (.824 OPS), 6 HRs, 11 RBIs
Cabrera: .343/.394/.686 (1.080 OPS), 13 HRs, 34 RBIs
The Angels missed the playoffs while the Tigers won the AL Central.
That's not close. Trout had no April to speak of -- spending all but three games of it in the minors -- and now he also had far less value from the pennant race than Cabrera to put on his side of the scale.

He does not offer an opinion if we need to monitor Trout next year to make sure his throws in from the outfield do not increase too much from this year's total.

[Kc61]

Sigh. The idea that the person who is the best isn't the most valuable is how we get poor votes in the first place.

Traditionally, there has been a distinction between the "player of the year" and the "most valuable player."

In determining "value" voters frequently look at team results.

The concept is that, if you play for a poor team, your "value" is limited because your performance didn't move the team above a mediocre level.

Now, once in awhile a player is SO outstanding that he wins the MVP despite his team not doing well. Just from memory, I think Ernie Banks won the award twice and his team wasn't very good. Not sure Barry Bonds' team was good every year he won.

In recent years, since divisional play, it's almost a given that the MVP will play for a playoff team.

So there is a historical context here. Team performance generally must reach a certain level before a player will be considered. Generally, that is, not every single year.

I like the current MVP voting simply because of this historical context. Certain unwritten rules apply. Generally, you must be on a playoff team unless you have been truly great. Pitchers have a tougher time winning because they have the Cy Young Award. Offense seems to be more important than defense usually.

And sometimes a player on a winning team will win with very good offensive numbers - but not tremendous numbers - because of a perceived special intangible role in promoting a team to excellence. Like Dustin Pedroia or arguably Jimmy Rollins recently.

It's a unique award with unique factors. I kind of like that. While I enjoy advanced statistics, everything doesn't have to come from a statistical model. Sometimes subjective factors come into play and that's not a bad thing.

[Johnny Footstool]

The phrase "in my opinion" should be used more on RZ

It's not that hard

That should be understood, though. We should all be mentally adding that phrase before we read anything posted on RZ, or the internet in general.

[dougdirt]

Traditionally, there has been a distinction between the "player of the year" and the "most valuable player."

In determining "value" voters frequently look at team results.

The concept is that, if you play for a poor team, your "value" is limited because your performance didn't move the team above a mediocre level.

Now, once in awhile a player is SO outstanding that he wins the MVP despite his team not doing well. Just from memory, I think Ernie Banks won the award twice and his team wasn't very good. Not sure Barry Bonds' team was good every year he won.

In recent years, since divisional play, it's almost a given that the MVP will play for a playoff team.

So there is a historical context here. Team performance generally must reach a certain level before a player will be considered. Generally, that is, not every single year.

I like the current MVP voting simply because of this historical context. Certain unwritten rules apply. Generally, you must be on a playoff team unless you have been truly great. Pitchers have a tougher time winning because they have the Cy Young Award. Offense seems to be more important than defense usually.

And sometimes a player on a winning team will win with very good offensive numbers - but not tremendous numbers - because of a perceived special intangible role in promoting a team to excellence. Like Dustin Pedroia or arguably Jimmy Rollins recently.

It's a unique award with unique factors. I kind of like that. While I enjoy advanced statistics, everything doesn't have to come from a statistical model. Sometimes subjective factors come into play and that's not a bad thing.

I know how guys vote, I just think that they are incredibly wrong when they vote in a way that isn't for the player who was the best one in the league.