Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2012 4:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 10/5/2012 4:12:00 PM (view original):We know the Angels won more games.
Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2012 3:58:00 PM (view original):It's an individual award. The award is "most valuable to the team he plays for." Or at least that's what a lot of people think.
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2012 3:24:00 PM (view original):We're still focusing on team goals. This is an individual award. The Tigers made the playoffs but with a record worse than the Angels (and 5 other AL teams). Did Cabrera do something for the Tigers that Trout didn't do for the Angels? Absolutely not. Bother players were awesome. But Trout was better and that the Angels didn't make the playoffs and the Tigers did has everything to do with division alignment and not the individual performances of either player.
That has nothing to do with "successful".
What is the objective of MLB teams? I sort of see it like this: Win WS - Make WS - make playoffs - win regular season games - don't die in plane crash
We know that Trout was probably* better than Cabrera.
*I'll stop being a complete ******* about it, but I'm still certain Trout was better.
How was Cabrera more valuable? I get that they made the playoffs, but using that as the basis of your argument completely ignores everything else that happened in baseball.
1) 1 game is hardly significant. It is less than 1% of a season
2) It is not known. It is your opinion. My opinion is Cabrera had a better season. Does not make either of us wrong though.
3) Cabrera is more valuable because he was more consistent throughout the season. Trout hit the rookie wall and wavered a bit. Plus, Cabrera batted over .350 in the final 3 innings. Also, since it is value to his own team, Cabrera was a more integral part of the Tigers success than Trout. After all, value is not always the same. My paycheck is more valuable to me than Bill Gates' is to him.