Just becaue you think that "the player judged most valuable to his team" equates exactly to "the best player in the league" doesn't make it so. Especially when the majority of voters think otherwise.
If the name of the award is Most Valuable Player, then I can't understand any rationale that suggests it should be given to anyone who wasn't the best player.
(1) They called it something different;
(2) Under normal interpretation rules, you can assume they meant something different;
(3) The vast majority of voters have interpreted it in accordance with how it was described, being something different;
(4) Yet you think the whole world is different?
I think it's is impossible for someone who is not the best player to be the most valuable. Period.
Journalists love narrative. Cabrera was the better story. Case closed.
For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible
As an aside, I thought one of the worst MVP votes during the past decade was A-Rod in 2003. He accumulated a bunch of stats for a team that spent the entire season deep in the basement. In fact it was a big second half compiled while his team was totally irrelevant that won him the award. And my reaction to it remains unchanged, so what?
Yes, he was an excellent player, but he had a pressure-free season. He had a spectacularly unimportant season, one that impacted the back of his baseball card far more than real life.
Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong
I'm witchcrafting everybody.
At least A-Rod had a dominant WAR. Dawson wasn't even in the top 10.
"I prefer books and movies where the conflict isn't of the extreme cannibal apocalypse variety I guess." Redsfaithful
I personally think Williams got a bigger shaft in '42 and maybe even a bigger shaft in '47 than Trout did this year. I'd have voted for Trout but there's more romance in giving it to Cabrera though. Strip all of the romance from baseball and its not as compelling.