No support from the manager.

[happybat4]

http://m.ocregister.com/articles/mike-727239-case-mvp.html

[Stradling]

So he should change his belief because of Trout?  Or should he just say, "Trout is the best player in the game" and leave it at that?

[AngelsLakersFan]

Reminds me of the asshole local beat writer who voted for Miguel Cabrerra over Trout back in 2012 or 13. You pretty much seal the deal when your local guy votes the other way.

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

9 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Reminds me of the asshole local beat writer who voted for Miguel Cabrerra over Trout back in 2012 or 13. You pretty much seal the deal when your local guy votes the other way.

Wasn't 2012 the year Cabrera won the the triple Crown? Pretty hard to not give it to a player with that type of season regardless of where his team finishes.

[tomsred]

17 minutes ago, Stradling said:

So he should change his belief because of Trout?  Or should he just say, "Trout is the best player in the game" and leave it at that?

He has said all along that Trout is the best player in the game.  That's different from saying who is the most valuable player in a season.  I don't think it should be intended to be a completely individual award, there is a factor that says that person had a lot to do with the success of the team.  If there is no success, then it's hard to connect that portion.

[Dick B Back]

Yeah, I think these days the MVP goes to the best player on a team that doesn't suck beyond all belief.

[happybat4]

I think you have to support your player.

[AngelsLakersFan]

13 minutes ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

Wasn't 2012 the year Cabrera won the the triple Crown? Pretty hard to not give it to a player with that type of season regardless of where his team finishes.

I can't remember if it was the triple crown season or not. Either way, it's asinine to give the MVP to an inferior player just because an unrelated player in Josh Hamilton couldn't hit one more homerun that year. I don't blame the Tigers beat writer for voting for Cabrerra, but I do blame the LA guy for not voting for Trout.

[stormngt]

5 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I can't remember if it was the triple crown season or not. Either way, it's asinine to give the MVP to an inferior player just because an unrelated player in Josh Hamilton couldn't hit one more homerun that year. I don't blame the Tigers beat writer for voting for Cabrerra, but I do blame the LA guy for not voting for Trout.

Pay attention to the words "most valuable" and please distinguish the difference between those words and the words "most outstanding".  There is a big difference. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

1 minute ago, stormngt said:

Pay attention to the words "most valuable" and please distinguish the difference between those words and the words "most outstanding".  There is a big difference. 

You're right. "Most Valuable" has no meaning, and allows you to construct whatever narrative you want.

[stormngt]

Just now, AngelsLakersFan said:

You're right. "Most Valuable" has no meaning, and allows you to construct whatever narrative you want.

I beg to differ, "most valuable" has meaning the problem is it has multiple meanings.  That gives a lot of people great latitude on how to vote.

[arch stanton]

1 minute ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

You're right. "Most Valuable" has no meaning, and allows you to construct whatever narrative you want.

And that is exactly the point. It's an award given by sports writers so they have something to write about. 

[ScottT]

Stfu, fat man.

Watch Mike Trout himself say this, eventually...

It will still be horseshit.

 

[AngelsLakersFan]

17 minutes ago, stormngt said:

I beg to differ, "most valuable" has meaning the problem is it has multiple meanings.  That gives a lot of people great latitude on how to vote.

The problem is that the debate around "most valuable" is intellectually bankrupt. There is no consistency.

For Tigers fans when Cabrerra is the best player then that year the MVP should go to the best player. When he isn't but he manages a quirky statistical anomaly in his state line, then that year it should go to the guy with the quirky stat line. When neither of those happen then it should go to the best hitter on a team that won a division, and on and on. 

[ukyah]

i have to agree with OP. as a teammate, your opinion should support your teammate or just keep it to yourself.

[NrM]

31 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I can't remember if it was the triple crown season or not. Either way, it's asinine to give the MVP to an inferior player just because an unrelated player in Josh Hamilton couldn't hit one more homerun that year. I don't blame the Tigers beat writer for voting for Cabrerra, but I do blame the LA guy for not voting for Trout.

It wasn't the triple crown season. It was the year Trout won.

[Ohtaniland]

I agree with Scioscia. There is nothing valuable about a last place team. Winning another MVP will convince him even more that he doesn't belong with this group of fails. With two wild cards available Trout should've already made 2-3 playoff appearances.

[Blarg]

Just shut up,   Claude. It's not even funny anymore. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

10 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

It wasn't the triple crown season. It was the year Trout won.

Was it? Maybe it happened multiple years. It's hard to win an MVP when you aren't getting the hometown vote, though in 2014 there wasn't much competition if I remember.

[AngelsLakersFan]

11 minutes ago, CALZONE said:

I agree with Scioscia. There is nothing valuable about a last place team. Winning another MVP will convince him even more that he doesn't belong with this group of fails. With two wild cards available Trout should've already made 2-3 playoff appearances.

We should just cut him loose now, since there is nothing valuable about a last place team.

[Stradling]

19 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

The problem is that the debate around "most valuable" is intellectually bankrupt. There is no consistency.

For Tigers fans when Cabrerra is the best player then that year the MVP should go to the best player. When he isn't but he manages a quirky statistical anomaly in his state line, then that year it should go to the guy with the quirky stat line. When neither of those happen then it should go to the best hitter on a team that won a division, and on and on. 

While I agree I can also see why the guy with the triple crown would get the nod.  As for the "quirky stat line" Trout was the guy they made up those types of stat lines for. Don't you remember he was the youngest to ever do A, B, C and D in a season?  

[Ohtaniland]

22 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Just shut up,   Claude. It's not even funny anymore. 

I'm not laughing.

[mtangelsfan]

The crappy season isn't enough?  Folks want to get their panties in a bunch over this?  Too funny

[ScottT]

I'm outraged.

[AngelsLakersFan]

10 minutes ago, Stradling said:

While I agree I can also see why the guy with the triple crown would get the nod.  As for the "quirky stat line" Trout was the guy they made up those types of stat lines for. Don't you remember he was the youngest to ever do A, B, C and D in a season?  

A thousand years ago some ignorant baseball writer determined that RBIs were more important than runs scored, and that batting average was the best measure of hitting, and, has been the truth since the beginning of time, that chicks dig the long ball. Somewhere between then and now we invented college and mathematics and we were able to prove that Trout was closer to being twice the player Cabrerra was, than Cabrerra was to being even as good as Trout.

Some sports writers working for their archaic newspapers were using quirky stat lines to say Cabrerra was the MVP, where as others were using quirky stat lines to say that Trout was amongst the greatest of all time.