Posted by burnsy483 on 11/20/2013 8:29:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/20/2013 7:51:00 PM (view original):You keep wanting to go back to an "all things are equal" argument. I agree that that's how Id vote for MVP but value means different things to different people in this particular circumstance. A worse player can have more value to one team than a better player to another.
All players are free agents available for one year contracts. In this bizarro scenario, teams know ahead of time that they will get the exact 2013 production from each player.
Who gets paid the most?
If you want me to say Trout here, I'll say Trout.
My entire point is that a less valuable player cannot be the most valuable player.
You keep saying, "well, other people don't see it that way." Fine, but as we've seen with other issues (the age of the earth, for example), the mere existence of a point of view doesn't grant validity to that point of view.
In my opinion, awarding the MVP to a player who wasn't the best because he was surrounded by better teammates than the guy who was the best is a stupid thing to do. Feel free to disagree. Feel free to argue. Feel free to call me an *******.