Ripping off ESPN -> Trout vs Cabrera MVP Topic

Some people think players on winners are more valuable.  Go figure. 
11/15/2012 7:30 PM
Mike Trout was just a red herring
11/15/2012 8:18 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Agreed. Sometimes there are awards where, even though you think one person should get it over the other, you can't deny that both are just as deserving. Even if someone thinks Trout should have won, there's no way they can claim he was robbed.
11/15/2012 11:03 PM
Posted by Jtpsops on 11/15/2012 11:03:00 PM (view original):
Agreed. Sometimes there are awards where, even though you think one person should get it over the other, you can't deny that both are just as deserving. Even if someone thinks Trout should have won, there's no way they can claim he was robbed.
Well said. I think Trout should have won, but there's no denying that Cabrera had an MVP-type year too.
11/15/2012 11:59 PM
That's sort of the problem.   While you can argue "your guy", it doesn't seem necessary to downgrade the other player but we do it.   For instance, when both teams were battling for a playoff spot, Cabrera stayed steady or hit better while Trout faded a bit. 
11/16/2012 8:32 AM
Wait...if this thread is truely ripping off ESPN, there would be a minimum of three Tim Tebow references per page...
11/16/2012 8:39 AM
Well, if Tebow had played baseball instead, there would be no MVP discussion.    He'd win the next 10, retire at 35, become President of the United States, change term limits and declare himself King of the US for the next 45 years. 
11/16/2012 8:42 AM
The last point I'll make about this...a lot (not all) of people who are arguing Carbera have an argument of "TRIPLE CROWN DERRRR."  Where if Trout had 3 more hits, or Granderson had 2 more homers, these people would suddenly find Cabrera less valuable.  Which doesn't make a ton of sense.
11/16/2012 9:17 AM

If I hadn't discovered ***** and alcohol in my teens, I'd have been a much better ballplayer and maybe I'd have been in the discussion for MVP 20 years ago.

Probably not but "IF" has no place in the discussion.

11/16/2012 9:19 AM
Why would someone view Cabrera as significantly less valuable if Curtis Granderson hit an extra home run every 3 months? Yes, i know, "if", but this isn't a far-fetched possibility.  
11/16/2012 9:22 AM
There is a mystique that goes with seldom accomplished tasks.    The guy that throws a perfect game isn't a better pitcher than he was yesterday.   They guy that hits for the cycle isn't a better hitter than he was yesterday.   Yet both are viewed in a different light(at least for a few days/weeks).   The Triple Crown is one of those rare accomplishments.   If someone wins the TC in each of the next three years, it would become a "So what?  Someone does that every year" accomplishment.
11/16/2012 9:27 AM
I get that.  I just wish those people would vote for who they thought was the most valuable player instead.
11/16/2012 9:39 AM
Maybe they did.  Maybe the TC was just a crowning achievement.
11/16/2012 9:47 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/16/2012 9:47:00 AM (view original):
Maybe they did.  Maybe the TC was just a crowning achievement.
That's fair, if that's the case.  I know it is for you.  But I know that it's not true for everyone.
11/16/2012 9:48 AM
◂ Prev 1...35|36|37|38|39...42 Next ▸
Ripping off ESPN -> Trout vs Cabrera MVP Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2016 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.