Can Mike Trout field?

[BluegrassRedleg]

What does his team have to do with his value?

Was Jhonny Peralta more valuable than Trout? He was also on the Tigers first place team (who had a worse record than the Angels).

Means a lot. Always has. The Tigers are not in first without Miguel Cabrera. The Angels are still in third without Mike Trout. It could be argued that his value was minimal in reality.

[dougdirt]

Means a lot. Always has. The Tigers are not in first without Miguel Cabrera. The Angels are still in third without Mike Trout. It could be argued that his value was minimal in reality.

It means absolutely nothing. If Mike Trout were on the Tigers, they would have finished in first and if Cabrera were on the Angles, they would have finished in third.

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.

[dougdirt]

I feel better now.

[Norm Chortleton]

It means absolutely nothing. If Mike Trout were on the Tigers, they would have finished in first and if Cabrera were on the Angles, they would have finished in third.

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.

You probably should drop a note to the voters and educate them about that, because they never vote that way.

[dougdirt]

You probably should drop a note to the voters and educate them about that, because they never vote that way.

Plenty of people have. Most of them don't listen. They should let the GM's vote on the MVP Award.

[Norm Chortleton]

Plenty of people have. Most of them don't listen. They should let the GM's vote on the MVP Award.

So they can politicize it the way managers have sometimes done with Gold Glove awards?

[BluegrassRedleg]

It means absolutely nothing. If Mike Trout were on the Tigers, they would have finished in first and if Cabrera were on the Angles, they would have finished in third.

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.

Ifs and buts and candy and nuts.

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.

[dougdirt]

Ifs and buts and candy and nuts.

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.

It only matters because the writers try to make it about something that it isn't.

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.

[Norm Chortleton]

Plenty of people have.

Just not enough to, you know, actually affect the outcome. With your reasoning, Mitt Romney is our current president.

[dougdirt]

Just not enough to, you know, actually affect the outcome. With your reasoning, Mitt Romney is our current president.

I have no idea how or why this comparison was made, but leave politics to the forum designed for it.

[Norm Chortleton]

I have no idea how or why this comparison was made, but leave politics to the forum designed for it.

I said the voters, as a whole, never give the MVP based on your criteria. You said a minority of the voters do vote using your criteria. My comparison was to show that in MVP voting, just like political elections, you need the majority of votes to win.

Mike Trout = not enough votes = 2nd place
Mitt Romney = not enough votes = 2nd place

[Tom Servo]

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?

[BluegrassRedleg]

By definition one can't be more valuable than the best.

Sure one can. The best guy at Apple could be more valuable the best guy at Dell, no matter how good the latter might be.

Then again, Cabrera is Apple in this argument.

[BluegrassRedleg]

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?

Already explained it. The Tigers don't make the playoffs without Cabrera. The Angels' lot in life stays the same, with or without Trout.

[Norm Chortleton]

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?

Win totals don't. Place in the standings do. Right or wrong, it's always been that way. Just like pitchers are rarely ever considered, even if they are the most valuable players.

This debate is as old as the award itself. Your point of view is reasonable, but has been rejected by the voters. They almost always go with the best player from the best team unless someone else has a season that is far, far superior.