Bregman for MVP

[Angelsjunky]

Hey, don't shoot the messenger.

https://www.mlb.com/news/alex-bregman-case-for-al-mvp

I will say that if Trout doesn't come back strong, he's going to lose the MVP to Bregman. 

[kevinb]

Eventually winning matters. Trouts the best player on the planet. But finishing 30 games behind the first place team in the division means something. How valuable is someone if all the WAR in the world doesn’t actually equate to wins. The entire point of this sport is to win and to play games that matter in September and while it’s not his fault he’s on a putrid team Eppler put together. You can’t fault writers or voters for choosing someone on a team that’s winning. At the end of the day if I had to put money on it. Trout would be who I had to win the MVP. Maybe one year Eppler and co will put a team around him that these conversations will stop being a thing. 

[Glen]

I don't think he's lost it yet, but he will by the end of the season.  We'll be playing a lot of teams that still want to win and they won't pitch to him that much. His numbers will flatline the rest of the month.

[Pancake Bear]

2 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Hey, don't shoot the messenger.

https://www.mlb.com/news/alex-bregman-case-for-al-mvp

I will say that if Trout doesn't come back strong, he's going to lose the MVP to Bregman. 

Bregman at least has sort of an argument. LeMahieu has his Yankee uniform, which some writers and fans apparently feel is enough.

[arch stanton]

Do they take into consideration that never once does Trout get to face the Angels' pitching staff?

[Angel Oracle]

Trout and Bregman do pretty much face the same pitching, being in the same division, except that Bregman got to feast on Halos pitching and Trout didn’t.

[Stradling]

7 hours ago, Kevinb said:

Eventually winning matters. Trouts the best player on the planet. But finishing 30 games behind the first place team in the division means something. How valuable is someone if all the WAR in the world doesn’t actually equate to wins. The entire point of this sport is to win and to play games that matter in September and while it’s not his fault he’s on a putrid team Eppler put together. You can’t fault writers or voters for choosing someone on a team that’s winning. At the end of the day if I had to put money on it. Trout would be who I had to win the MVP. Maybe one year Eppler and co will put a team around him that these conversations will stop being a thing. 

Ok how valuable is Bregman when his team would win 98 games without him?

[kevinb]

1 hour ago, Baghdad Strad said:

Ok how valuable is Bregman when his team would win 98 games without him?

Would they? Who knows? Also I don't know why you are surprised by this I have said this in previous years. I think winning matters you can disagree with me but I have been consistent year after year. 

[Jay]

1 hour ago, Baghdad Strad said:

Ok how valuable is Bregman when his team would win 98 games without him?

I think you can make the same argument with any team. Angels are shitty with Trout or without.

 

[floplag]

His entire argument is basically based on the fact that his team is winning, and ours isnt.  The rest of the bullets are either a toss up or favor Trout. 
Which is to say things that have nothing to do with the players performance any more than wins do for a pitcher in general.   Using a team metric to evaluate one player on it is kinda silly... BUT, i get why many people want to do this as there is some logic to it.
The door does swing both ways though, the Astros would still be winning without him in the same way that the angels would still be losing without Trout, in the end its meaningless but people still want to count it because its what wins world series over any stats. 

[kevinb]

6 minutes ago, RBM said:

 

Richard Justice is a hack and and needed to find something to write about. Even then, he still qualified his rubbish with his 5th sentence.

"In MLB.com's most recent survey of its reporters and editors, Trout got all 38 first-place MVP votes."

Here's the deal, put Bregman on the Angels and Trout on the Astros. Which team gets better? 

 

The article is simply making a case for Bregman. It’s a talking point nothing more nothing less

[Jay]

1 minute ago, RBM said:

Here's the deal, put Bregman on the Angels and Trout on the Astros. Which team gets better? 

This is a good point and I think all the stats including WAR will back this up.

However for the purpose of the MVP award, an argument can be made that the Astros are in a race with NYY for home-field advantage in the playoffs. Maybe a more compelling argument could be made if the A's were nipping on their heels in the division but the loss of Bregman would have an impact on the Astros at this point in the season. So that makes him very valuable to the Astros. If the Angels were to lose Trout the impact would be negligible.

 

[Jay]

2 minutes ago, RBM said:

Agreed. But if Trout were on the Astros your scenario would  be even worse for them. Bottom line, losing Trout would be worse than losing Bregman.

Statistically yes, but the loss of either would be severe to a playoff team in September.

 

[Jay]

I vote for Trout of course.

 

[m0nkey]

I don’t care as much about the MVP as I did a few years ago. There’s no definition given to the voters as far as what “most valuable” means, it’s all subjective, so if a voter wants to give it to a guy who made the playoffs, its his right. 

[Dtwncbad]

If the criteria actually was winning, then players on losing teams would not be eligible.

But we know that all players, even on lousy teams, are eligible.

Trout is eligible despite his team sucking.  That’s a fact.

Trout is a better player having a better year period.

Case closed.

[Jay]

I think voters can also consider which player finishes strong in the season and which one fades.

But still, Trout's performance this year outweighs most of those other factors, IMO.

I might be biased though.

 

[ScottT]

Hot take alert!

Well, it would be if Richard Justice actually thought Bregman should be MVP. Hr didn't actually say that, did he?

[Dtwncbad]

10 minutes ago, Jay said:

I think voters can also consider which player finishes strong in the season and which one fades.

But still, Trout's performance this year outweighs most of those other factors, IMO.

I might be biased though.

 

The reality is voters can consider anything they want.  That’s part of the problem.

[Second Base]

Richard Justice sucked long before this article. And we go through this every year. It isn't even the MVP award anymore. It's which player other than Trout can we give this award to?

They do this every single freakin' year.

The years that Trout has won the MVP aren't years where he was the best. He's there best every year. No, the years where Trout wins MVP are the years where no one else comes close enough.

It's completely unfair to Trout, that the media every year simply goes out of their way to pick someone other than him just to generate news. 

Trout should have 5 MVP awards by now.

[Claude]

3 hours ago, Baghdad Strad said:

Ok how valuable is Bregman when his team would win 98 games without him?

How many games would the Angels win without Trout?  65?

I’ve said many times that Trouts greatness masks what his team is without him. Last night was a perfect example.  

But no worries because Cole is going to fix all that. Your disregard for talented players that don’t play for the Angels is just dumb. You couldn’t even compliment Bregman for the season he’s having. We all know Trout is having the best season in baseball and should be the MVP.  But geez, put down your Angels Rally Monkey every now and then. There are other great players in MLB. We could certainly use Bregman in our lineup. 

Edited September 11, 2019 by Calzone 2

[floplag]

2 hours ago, Jay said:

This is a good point and I think all the stats including WAR will back this up.

However for the purpose of the MVP award, an argument can be made that the Astros are in a race with NYY for home-field advantage in the playoffs. Maybe a more compelling argument could be made if the A's were nipping on their heels in the division but the loss of Bregman would have an impact on the Astros at this point in the season. So that makes him very valuable to the Astros. If the Angels were to lose Trout the impact would be negligible.

 

Negligible in what sense?  Would it impact the playoff race, no, but you could argue we would be much worse and might be in line for a top 5 draft pick.
Watching this team right now i wonder if we are actually as close as i hoped we would be, we legit just look terrible, i wonder if one or two starters really makes us anything for '20 at times. 

[Jay]

10 minutes ago, floplag said:

Negligible in what sense?  Would it impact the playoff race, no, but you could argue we would be much worse and might be in line for a top 5 draft pick.
Watching this team right now i wonder if we are actually as close as i hoped we would be, we legit just look terrible, i wonder if one or two starters really makes us anything for '20 at times. 

So you're saying we're better off without Trout. Interesting point.

 

[Stradling]

NARRATIVES

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

2 hours ago, RBM said:

Here's the deal, put Bregman on the Angels and Trout on the Astros. Which team gets better? 

Bregman's HRs drop in  Angels stadium, while Trout will rake in Minute Maid...