Posted 29 September 2012 - 06:57 PM
[quote name='thrylos98'][quote name='biggentleben'][quote name='thrylos98']MVP - too early to tell before final regular season standings
AL: Trout (Angels)/ Cabrera (Tigers) / Cano (Yankees) in that order depending who makes the post-season. eg. if the Angels and the Tigers do not make it, it is Cano. If all 3 make it, it is Trout[/QUOTE]
I hate this logic. A team does not have to make the playoffs for a player to have been the most valuable to his team in the league. The Angels, Tigers, and Yankees could all miss the playoffs or could all make it going into the last four games of the season. So, each of them was the integral piece of a contender. That's what an MVP is. If they don't make the playoffs, that doesn't fall on any of those three players.[/QUOTE]
Different strokes for different folks. If the Twins did not have Willingham for example they would have probably lost 115 games. Should he be the MVP? No. He is valuable, but not the MOST valuable (same thing with McCutchen and Wright in the NL.) It is not the "best" player, it is the most valuable player. And unless a team goes to the postseason any value any player gives to his team is bettered by another one. That's my opinion. Let's agree to disagree. And pitchers have won this award as well. I think that the game needs something analogous to the Cy Young award for the best hitter. Call it the "Babe Ruth". (in that case, my votes for the Babe Ruth award winners would have been Trout and David Wright.)[/QUOTE]
The difference being that I'm not advocating for David Wright or Andrew McCutchen for MVP. We're talking about 3 guys all on teams contending until the last week. Not one guy on a team that won 110 games whose team was clearly pushed beyond all others by his stellar season. The Yankees could miss the entire playoffs...does that make Cano less valuable? Likewise with the Tigers and Cabrera. I can understand those who say that a guy can't win it when his team is nowhere near contention, but these three are all on legit contenders. The way they're playing right now, I'd much rather play the Yankees than the Angels, yet the Angels have a better chance to be watching after next Wednesday.
It's a bit like the World Series. The World Series winner is not the best team in baseball. It's the team that won a tournament at the end of the season. Heck, the Rays might be playing the best of any team in baseball in the last 3 weeks into the season. The Cardinals took that momentum and won the tournament last year. Who's to say one of the teams playing in the BSOGPIE (Bud Selig One Game Play In Extravaganza) won't win it all? Does that mean the Braves are better than the Nationals this year? Or the A's are better than the Rangers? The best player in the playoffs gets awards, so we shouldn't base the MVP on playoff teams only. I agree that the team should be a bona fide contender, but playoffs aren't a requirement in my book.
Staff Writer for Tomahawktake.com, come check it out!
