MVPs: TROUT, BRYANT

[KCRfan1]

Bryant and Trout are both VERY fine players.

I felt Betts was the more deserving MVP candidate than Trout. Boston doesn't win the division without the season Betts had. Trout, well the Angles still lose 88 games with or without him.

Trout may the best in the game, but wasn't the most valuable, Betts was. Two different things.

[nebboy]

I think they got it right this year. Both deserving.

[nat]

The Angels wouldn't have lost 88 games without Trout, they would have lost 98. Good job voters. They got this one right.

[Baseball Rarities]

Yes, they got it right this time. IMHO, Trout is more valuable to the Angels, than Betts is to the Red Sox.

[Econteachert205]

Mike trout is so valuable in his career he has led the angels to how many post season victories? Oh yeah, zero. MVP was Cory kluber. Where would the Indians have been without him? 88 or 98 losses who cares?

[nsaddict]

Put me in the Betts camp. Without him I don't think they even make the post season. And the Angels end up 21 games behind the Rangers. In my opinion, hard to go with a guy almost finishing in the cellar as a team unless his stats were way above and beyond others in the running, which was not the case. Quite a bit said about the Cy Young voting too.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

Mike trout is so valuable in his career he has led the angels to how many post season victories? Oh yeah, zero. MVP was Cory kluber. Where would the Indians have been without him? 88 or 98 losses who cares?

No offense, but that's a ridiculous argument. Baseball is not basketball. LeBron can carry a team on his back. Not the case in baseball. The Hall of Fame is full of amazing players who were saddled with terrible teams their whole career.

I would argue that it's far far harder to achieve the numbers Trout has on a string of bad teams. If he was on a stacked team like the Cubs or Red Sox he'd see a lot better pitches and who knows what insane numbers he'd rack up.

Trout will end his career I think as one of the absolute best baseball players of all time. I'm not an Angels or even an AL fan, but facts are facts.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

No offense, but that's a ridiculous argument. Baseball is not basketball. LeBron can carry a team on his back. Not the case in baseball. The Hall of Fame is full of amazing players who were saddled with terrible teams their whole career.

I would argue that it's far far harder to achieve the numbers Trout has on a string of bad teams. If he was on a stacked team like the Cubs or Red Sox he'd see a lot better pitches and who knows what insane numbers he'd rack up.

Trout will end his career I think as one of the absolute best baseball players of all time. I'm not an Angels or even an AL fan, but facts are facts.

THIS, but....

I think the issue and discussion comes from the award name itself. Should it go to the Most VALUABLE Player or the BEST player of the year?