Originally Posted by pimpchief (Post 8969912)

I want to see a royal do it first.

Originally Posted by Carlota69 (Post 8969899)

LMAOLMAOLMAOLMAO
Dude, he hits n the lead off spot. You know, talesetter, run scorer?
And he has murdered in that position plus it 80+RBIs and 30HR. What a ricilous thing you just said..LMAOLMAOLMAO

Originally Posted by MIAdragon (Post 8969925)

what is this talesetter you speak of?

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 8969918)

ROFL


You will be dead before you see a Royal do it.

Originally Posted by Carlota69 (Post 8969899)

LMAOLMAOLMAOLMAO
Dude, he hits n the lead off spot. You know, talesetter, run scorer?
And he has murdered in that position plus it 80+RBIs and 30HR. What a ricilous thing you just said..LMAOLMAOLMAO

Originally Posted by Brainiac (Post 8969822)

I get tired of hearing people say RBIs don't count or that they're not important, or that they're just the product of being in a good lineup with runners on base in front of you. Baseball is a team game. If you're going to dismiss RBIs simply because somebody else has to get on base in front of the hitter, then you also have to dismiss runs scored because somebody had to drive the runner in. While you're at it, you have to dismiss stolen bases because by itself a stolen base doesn't lead to a run. And as long as we are arbitrarily dismissing things, we might as well dismiss the great plays in center field that rob the opposing teams of home runs, because they don't directly lead to runs for the player's team, and you can't win games without scoring runs.

See how ridiculous that is?

Now that you've dismissed all of the statistics that require help from another player in order for a run to score, the only stat you're left with is home runs.

Who's leading the league in home runs again? Oh yeah, it's Miguel Cabrera.

Hey, I get it. Mike Trout is an exciting player, and he had a historically great rookie season. He's a 5-tool player with a combination of speed and power reserved for the all-time greats like Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays. About a month ago I assumed Mike Trout would be MVP, and there was no doubt in my mind he deserved it.

However, Miguel Cabrera put on a hell of a charge at the end of the season when it mattered the most. It's just Mike Trout's bad luck that he had his great rookie season the same year somebody else won the Triple Freaking Crown. When somebody wins the Triple Crown and his team wins their division, there's no way in hell you can award the MVP to someone whose team finished out of the playoffs. Mike Trout is a close #2 choice, but he's still #2.

If Mike Trout wins the MVP award, they should change the name of the award to Most Popular Player.

Originally Posted by whoman69 (Post 8970760)

It hasn't happened since 1967, 1937 in the National League. Of course I'm wanting to see that. I am not buying the arguments that someone that wins the triple crown can lose the MVP.

Originally Posted by Valiant (Post 8971477)

This.. I always hear in sports the MVP is for players that got their teams to excel and made the playoffs.. Cabrera took Detroit to the playoffs.. Trout did not, absolute stud though..

There should be no way Trout wins it unless the coast bias kicks in and as you say, the most popular player gets it..

Originally Posted by NJChiefsFan (Post 8971489)

Ted Williams lost the MVP when he did it in 1942 and 47 per the trivia I just saw in the Yankees game. Granted, the impact of Cabrera doing it after so long is pretty powerful.

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 8969918)

ROFL


You will be dead before you see a Royal do it.

Originally Posted by NJChiefsFan (Post 8971489)

Ted Williams lost the MVP when he did it in 1942 and 47 per the trivia I just saw in the Yankees game. Granted, the impact of Cabrera doing it after so long is pretty powerful.

Originally Posted by Carlota69 (Post 8971493)

Wait...so Miggy should get it cuz Detroit is in the playoffs and the Angels aren't? Even though the Angels have a better record and play in a much tougher division?