Originally Posted by Brainiac
That's twice now in this thread that you've shown a complete lack of understanding regarding what the MVP is based on. First, you mentioned that Trout was only 20 years old when the season started as one of your supporting arguments for him, as if that has ANYTHING to do with qualifications for MVP. To your credit, you didn't try to stick with that after I slapped you around for it.
But now you're completely misunderstanding that MVP is a relative term, not an absolute one. Another player's performance sure as hell DOES have bearing on whether or not a specific player is the MVP. The "M" in MVP stands for MOST valuable player. A player could put up identical numbers in back to back years and be the MVP one year but not the next. What other players do ABSOLUTELY affects any player's chance to be MVP.
Hey, we get it. You're an Angels fan and a Mike Trout fan, and you'd absolutely love to see Mike Trout win the MVP award. But as DJ's Left Nut so eloquently pointed out, Mike Trout is only slightly better than Jacoby Ellsbury was last year. He just makes a few more spectacular plays, plays in a bigger media market, and gets on the Sportscenter highlights on a regular basis. That doesn't make him the MVP. Sorry.
You slapped me around? Lmfao. Dont slap yourself on he back so damn hard. It is pretty amazing that a kid has done the things he's done in a mans game. But, really it doesn't play into MVP. I was just pointing out his age cuz it is pretty damn amazing. But, go ahead and think you slapped me around if it makes you feel better. And just because you have a different opinion about who shod,be MVP, doesn't mean I have a complete lack of understanding of the concept of MVP. There's plenty of people within the MLB and baseball magazines, writers etc that think Trout shoe be. And there are many others who think Cabrera should be. So only the ones who Cabrera should be MVP understand?