I wish a voter had put Fielder, Austin, Jackson, Martinez, Hunter, etc. before Trout.  Stupid, inconsistent voters.

Posted by trsnoke on 11/15/2013 11:17:00 PM (view original):
I wish a voter had put Fielder, Austin, Jackson, Martinez, Hunter, etc. before Trout.  Stupid, inconsistent voters.

This.

Somehow Trout is better but not more valuable than Cabrera because Cabrera's team made the playoffs. But Trout finished second, more valuable than guys like Donaldson, Longoria, and Ellsbury, whose teams made the playoffs.

Nope not inconsistent at all.

Posted by trsnoke on 11/15/2013 11:17:00 PM (view original):
I wish a voter had put Fielder, Austin, Jackson, Martinez, Hunter, etc. before Trout.  Stupid, inconsistent voters.

Austin and Jackson are the same guy noke.

Posted by rsp777 on 11/15/2013 11:01:00 PM (view original):
No, he wouldn't. And the thread is CLOSED buddy.

Just to keep the thread "consistent".......

I'm not your buddy, pal...

I'm not your pal, dude...

I'm not your dude, friend...

I'm not your friend, buddy...

I'm not your buddy, guy...

But I'm BUDDY GUY!!!



And even I think Cabrera is more VALUABLE!!!

Perhaps a case could be made for Trout if the award was "Most Bestest Player".

But it's not.  It's "Most Valuable Player".  It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to reward somebody for being "valuable" to a 78 win team.

Posted by tecwrg on 11/16/2013 8:11:00 AM (view original):
Perhaps a case could be made for Trout if the award was "Most Bestest Player".

But it's not.  It's "Most Valuable Player".  It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to reward somebody for being "valuable" to a 78 win team.

Instead you're rewarding someone for having good teammates. That makes a ton of sense.

I'm rewarding somebody who helped his team win 93 games, rather than rewarding somebody who helped his team finish under .500.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/14/2013 7:53:00 PM (view original):
From Jayson Stark (emphasis mine):

"Here's what we shouldn't be debating:

1) Whether Mike Trout is the best, most complete baseball player on this continent. If you're one of the holdouts who is keeping that sentiment from being unanimous, you need to get out of your cocoon and watch this guy play a little more closely."

 

How come you don't talk further about this article, the part where Stark said the voters got it right?

Since BL won't I will (emphasis mine):

"I also hear the Trout proponents make the point that the Cabrera supporters are ignoring Cabrera's mediocre September (when his batting average was just .278, with only two extra-base hits all month).

If Miguel Cabrera played for Mike Trout's team -- a team that finished 18 games out of first place and spent exactly one day above .500 all season -- hey, guess what?

He never would have had that mediocre September -- because he wouldn't have been playing.

He was a guy who spent that whole month (and October) battling a groin/abdomen injury that was so severe, he required surgery right after the season. And here's something I've noticed about players on losing teams who are that seriously injured:

Their teams shut them down.

There's no reason for them to battle through the pain and the limitations at the end of a lost season. So they pack it in.

But as Cabrera told us in October, once the Tigers had finally been eliminated, he felt he had to play because his team was trying to win. And he understood what his presence meant to a team that needed to keep pushing, all the way to the finish line.

Because he felt that way, he staggered through the last five weeks of the season -- and still finished with a stat line so incredible (.348/.442/.636/1.078/44 HR) that only two other right-handed hitters in the history of baseball (Jimmie Foxx and Hack Wilson) have ever matched or beaten it.

So please. Can the folks on the Trout side stop writing and/or screaming that those 23 MVP voters who cast their first-place votes for Miguel Cabrera were "wrong," or just a bunch of dopes who made a "bad" choice?"

Posted by tecwrg on 11/16/2013 11:34:00 AM (view original):
I'm rewarding somebody who helped his team win 93 games, rather than rewarding somebody who helped his team finish under .500.

You realize that even a Barry Bonds/Babe Ruth type season from a single player can't turn a 78 win team into a 93 win team, right? The difference between the Tigers and the Angels wasn't Trout or Cabrera. It was Scherzer, Sanchez, and Verlander instead of Joe Blanton, Jerome Williams, and Jared Weaver.

Posted by tecwrg on 11/16/2013 12:08:00 PM (view original):
Since BL won't I will (emphasis mine):

"I also hear the Trout proponents make the point that the Cabrera supporters are ignoring Cabrera's mediocre September (when his batting average was just .278, with only two extra-base hits all month).

Well, I, for one, am not ignoring it. It ought to be a factor, for any voter. But I also think Cabrera's September vividly defines the difference between his team and Trout's team.

If Miguel Cabrera played for Mike Trout's team -- a team that finished 18 games out of first place and spent exactly one day above .500 all season -- hey, guess what?

He never would have had that mediocre September -- because he wouldn't have been playing.

He was a guy who spent that whole month (and October) battling a groin/abdomen injury that was so severe, he required surgery right after the season. And here's something I've noticed about players on losing teams who are that seriously injured:

Their teams shut them down.

There's no reason for them to battle through the pain and the limitations at the end of a lost season. So they pack it in.

But as Cabrera told us in October, once the Tigers had finally been eliminated, he felt he had to play because his team was trying to win. And he understood what his presence meant to a team that needed to keep pushing, all the way to the finish line.

Because he felt that way, he staggered through the last five weeks of the season -- and still finished with a stat line so incredible (.348/.442/.636/1.078/44 HR) that only two other right-handed hitters in the history of baseball (Jimmie Foxx and Hack Wilson) have ever matched or beaten it.

So please. Can the folks on the Trout side stop writing and/or screaming that those 23 MVP voters who cast their first-place votes for Miguel Cabrera were "wrong," or just a bunch of dopes who made a "bad" choice?"

You didn't need to quote the entire thing. You could have just summed it up like this:

Trout was clearly the best player in baseball in 2013. But, because the rest of Trout's team sucked, Stark thinks the MVP should go to the second most valuable player in the league.

Cabrera had a 7 win season. It's likely that the Tigers would have made the playoffs without him.

So in other words, after you quoted Jayson Stark saying that Trout was the best player in MLB, you're now saying he's a fucktard.

So you quoted a fucktard to back your argument.

BRILLIANT!

Stark is absolutely a fucktard. And even that fucktard acknowledges that Trout was better than Cabrera.

How can you possibly take anything he says seriously if he's such a massive fucktard?  Wouldn't his comments about Trout be fucktarded in and of themself?

Doesn't this make you a fucktard for quoting him to back your argument?