I hate when this awful semantic argument comes up in MVP debates. I think it's a way people use to argue for obviously wrong choices. What the hell is the point of giving someone an award if it's clear he wasn't a better play but was more valuable to his team for X, Y, Z reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with him (i.e., his team sucking).
The MVP should go to the best player that season period. Put him on any team and he would be the best and most valuable player for them. All we should care about with an award like this is picking out who the best player was. Otherwise the MVP is no better or more meaningful than the popularity contests the gold gloves are.
"John Wall will never be as good as Kyrie Irving was in his first week in the NBA" - David Falk, published February 14, 2013.
"John Wall will never be as good as Kyrie Irving was in his first week in the NBA" - David Falk, published February 14, 2013.
1. WAR is not the end all be all. There are multiple formulas which by definition means it is far from perfect.
2. Yastremskii's season was amazing for four decades before WAR was even thought of. I don't need sabremetrics to tell me that. The eye test if I was alive then would've been easy enough.
Trout is a better all-around player, that is obvious to everyone, but, he certainly wasn't adding enough wins down the stretch when the Angels needed him to lift them into the postseason. Cabrera meanwhile lit it up. Trout hit .257 and that matters. Harper won ROTY thanks to his scorching September and we needed all that production when the games mattered most.
I wont mind seeing Trout win ( i would give it to Miggy), but this is a point that i dont care about. The players are evaluated for what they did this year in the majors, no one gets a bonus for lack of games played. Perhaps if he comes up short Trout has a beef with the Angels org for keeping him down too long, but to me the fact that he did what he did in fewer games does not matter.
I think it is going to be very close, although like I said earlier, often what the baseball writers do makes no sense. I think they need to look at some people's voting records and take away some privileges.
And yes, even as an Orioles fan, it is a joke that Jones won the Gold Glove over Trout. That was awful.
What would A World Without Lawyers be like?
But half of you are saying that Cabrera deserves credit for helping his team to the playoffs, but he didn't help his team win as many games as Trout's did! Its in response to this ridiculous assertion that Miggy was more valuable because his team made the playoffs, despite the fact that they would not have made the playoffs if they were in the AL West.
If you are going to stay true to your logic, then you have to throw out that the Tigers made the playoffs. And, I agree with that. But you (maybe not you personally) can't have it both ways.
Last edited by Tulane Skins Fan; November-15th-2012 at 12:39 PM.
What would A World Without Lawyers be like?
Gone, but not forgotten... RIP RP
What would A World Without Lawyers be like?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)