AL MVP....Donaldson or Trout???

[Olerud363]

I really WANT Donaldson to win, but Trout is the best baseball player currently baseballing. I'm going to vote Donaldson, because I'm a huge homer.

 

Trout is undoubtedly a better player year in year out... but MVP is not the highest WAR award...

 

If Trout out WARs some lumbering sluggering 10-6 then - Then all hail the WAR! Trout is MVP!

 

If Trout out WARs a great defensive 3rd basemen, leading his team to first contention in 20 years, 10-9 - All hail Donaldson! we are not a slave to WAR1

[GD]

Mike Trout is the best baseball player on earth. In no way, shape, or form is Donaldson more deserving of the MVP title. Mike Trout is the MVP and its not even close.

 

It actually is extremely close no matter how you look at it. It'll come down to the final two months.

[Olerud363]

People saying Donaldson over Trout should be ashamed of themselves.

 

Person - "Mike Trout is the best player in baseball, barring injury he will win the MVP 10 years in a row"

 

Stangstag - "You are very smart, you can walk without shame"

 

Another Person - "Mike Trout will not win the MVP 10 years in a row, he won't even deserve it 10 years in a row, over 10 years he may win three MVPs, some years other players will have better seasons and win the MVP, some years players will be essentially be tied with Trout and win the MVP because of their unique story (and the writers don't want to give it to Trout every year). Some year some ******* slugger will drive in 150 and win it... though Trout will probably deserve it that year. That is the way it works."

 

Stangstag - "You should be ashamed of yourself, your family should be ashamed of you. Shame, Shame, Shame!!"

[Deadpool]

Now that I think about it, Pedroia won the MVP when he wasn't even the best player on his team, so let's just create the narrative that Donaldson is carrying this (f***ing incredible) team on his back, and the moron writers that vote for this will fall for it.

[Stangstag]

Now that I think about it, Pedroia won the MVP when he wasn't even the best player on his team, so let's just create the narrative that Donaldson is carrying this (f***ing incredible) team on his back, and the moron writers that vote for this will fall for it.

 

Good point. The voters are pretty dumb. There is a fair chance Donaldson wins MVP if he continues playing well and the Jays make the playoffs.

[Olerud363]

How I feel as well. I won't be upset if Trout wins, he's incredible. I know a lot of fans will claim anti-Canadian bias if JD doesn't win, though.

 

Anti-canadian bias?? The only guy to ever in an MVP for the Jays is George Bell '87. He wasn't top 10 in the league in WAR. He was fourth on his own team (after Key, Fernandez, and Clancy). So essentially this guy George Bell, like a rich man's Joe Carter (higher average, less strikeouts) a guy competing in WAR with Jim Clancy (anyone remember Clancy??) won the league MVP.

 

Mean time --

 

Allan Tramel, a batting title contending short stop with power, who led his team into the playoffs (against George Bell's Jays) doens't win the MVP. How the hell is that possible?? Tramel out-WARed bell 8-5 and led his team to the playoffs.

 

Imagine this (just to put it into 2015 terms so the kids can understand)

 

1. Nelson Cruz is still with the Orioles, he hits lots of homers and gets rbbizzzzzz

2. Troy Tulowitzki plays for the Jays for the entire season, he contends for the batting title, hits ,.340 with power and great overall stats and OUT Warzz Cruz significantly.

3. Tulowitzki helps the Jays beat the ******* Orioles out of the playoffs in the final weekend, Cruz goes home, Tulo goes to the playoffs.

4. Cruz still wins the MVP.

 

Everyone would ofcourse scream American bias... but instaead it happened in reverse... almost 30 years ago now I guess. I am old. I watched the Jays get eliminated by KC, and Detroit on little TVs back then... didn't really follow them full time until 88... just watched the sad playoffs and final days of the season.

[Olerud363]

Anyway point of the above post is this

 

WAR should be used to make sure things like George Bell over Trammel doesn't happen... but when you have three or for guys close let the "intagibles" decide it (even if you don't believe in them).

[Sammy225]

By a pure numbers stand point Trout should win but if the Angels crash and miss the playoffs and the jays win i could see them giving it to Donaldson

[z3r0s]

I'm honestly getting quite tired of these MVP arguments. Valuable is a word that can be applied too broadly. I tend to think of it as the best performance over the course of the year. A player that contributes to the most wins for his team. But I also can appreciate that its not 'bad logic' to use other perfectly valid applications of the word 'valuable' when looking at the award. Sorry Boxy, but the logic isn't bad, the language is not very specific.

 

I would vote for Trout, but I'm honestly over getting mad if he doesn't.

[Dick_Pole]

f*** all you non-homers using things like stats and logic to defend Trout. The MVP is and always has been a touchy-feely award based on a lot of factors outside a players control, including if his team makes the playoffs (or at least contends). Why should things change now? Imagine if Trout gets traded to an NL team half way through next season and puts up a 10 WAR year - 5 in each league. He wouldn't be considered an MVP candidate in either league assuming there are players who put up greater than 5 WAR seasons in both using strictly WAR data.

[KingKat]

Much the way the WAR leader is considered an MVP favourite today. The RBI leader used to be the statistical favourite (hence George Bell). This was going on as recently as 2006 when Morneau and his 130 RBIs edged out Derek Jeter's 97 RBIs for the MVP. Jeter outwarred Morneau 6.1 to 3.8 that year. Imagine that? The media despite all the ball-washing Jeter gets denied him an MVP because RIBEEEZ.

[fmradioguy]

The age-old debate is whether the award recognizes the most valuable player in the league (which is where War is a strong indicator), or whether the award should recognize the player most valuable to his respective team.

 

If you believe in the former, Trout gets the vote.

 

If you believe in the other, it isn't so clear. Based on that criteria, Trout would be hurt of the Jays make the playoffs and the Angels drop significantly out of contention. However, Donaldson would be hurt by the Jays overall offense. While Trout has Pujols to help him carry the load in that line-up, the Jays also have Bautista, Encarnacion and now Tulo.

 

Bottom-line, it's too close and too early to call. If Josh keeps up the pace of the last 2 weeks , he could be the clear winner by end of season based on either definition of "most valuable."

[Slade]

47 Games left.

 

http://rampantgames.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/let-them-fight.jpg

[KingKat]

47 Games left.

 

http://rampantgames.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/let-them-fight.jpg

 

Only good thing in the movie.

[JFD]

Donaldson because the Angels will choke.

[Sammy225]

Only good thing in the movie.

 

I am busting my brain trying to think what movie this is off of it looks so familiar

[Farm]

I am busting my brain trying to think what movie this is off of it looks so familiar

 

Godzilla

[BigCecil]

At this point its Trout but 175-200 ish PAs left and lots can happen to the teams. Love JD but way more interested in how the team does.

 

We have had our share of individual awards since 93. f*** em. Lets win some flags that fly forever.

[Boxcar]

Holy f*** Olerud

[Boxcar]

I'm honestly getting quite tired of these MVP arguments. Valuable is a word that can be applied too broadly. I tend to think of it as the best performance over the course of the year. A player that contributes to the most wins for his team. But I also can appreciate that its not 'bad logic' to use other perfectly valid applications of the word 'valuable' when looking at the award. Sorry Boxy, but the logic isn't bad, the language is not very specific.

 

I would vote for Trout, but I'm honestly over getting mad if he doesn't.

 

Yeah saying a single guy failed to launch 24 other guys into the playoffs and as such does not deserve MVP is extremely dumb logic.

[Followthelight]

Yeah saying a single guy failed to launch 24 other guys into the playoffs and as such does not deserve MVP is extremely dumb logic.

 

It is but it has always been a factor...like it or not. Maybe they need 2 awards, outstanding player and MVP.

[z3r0s]

Yeah saying a single guy failed to launch 24 other guys into the playoffs and as such does not deserve MVP is extremely dumb logic.

 

Strawman much?

[z3r0s]

Yeah saying a single guy failed to launch 24 other guys into the playoffs and as such does not deserve MVP is extremely dumb logic.

 

Another point, as a fan of the discipline of logic, I get really annoyed when people try to use the term 'bad logic' in a situation like this. It can only be described as 'bad logic' if everyone agrees what the term MVP is referring too. Its IS bad logic, if the MVP means the 'best player'. If it doesn't, it might not be. Which was the point of my post in the first place.

[BigBounceyBlueBalls]

People saying Donaldson over Trout should be ashamed of themselves.

 

I ask you this what would you rather have a bottle of J.D or a bottle of Fish after a win!!!

[Followthelight]

Strawman much?

 

Huh?

[baubau]

Only good thing in the movie.

 

What? You didn't like the movie? I mean they didn't give enough monster fights till the end, I agree. Hated when they cut off Godzilla when he arrived at Hawaii where he was facing the monster and then cut off to him chasing it again.

[z3r0s]

Huh?

 

Boxy present my argument as being a much weaker argument that is easier to discredit. A strawman argument. Its a logical fallacy.

saying a single guy failed to launch 24 other guys into the playoffs and as such does not deserve MVP is extremely dumb logic.

[Boxcar]

Strawman much?

 

I said that penalizing a player for his entire team's shortcomings was bad logic. You informed me that it was not bad logic. Thus I reinforced my point.

[Dick_Pole]

Another point, as a fan of the discipline of logic, I get really annoyed when people try to use the term 'bad logic' in a situation like this. It can only be described as 'bad logic' if everyone agrees what the term MVP is referring too. Its IS bad logic, if the MVP means the 'best player'. If it doesn't, it might not be. Which was the point of my post in the first place.

 

Most valuable in the business sense would be the guy who adds value to your team (on field play, asses in seats in the stands, merch sales etc) less how much you pay that player. Donaldson gets paid $1.7 million less than Trout this year, so he has a head start on that end.

[z3r0s]

I said that penalizing a player for his entire team's shortcomings was bad logic. You informed me that it was not bad logic. Thus I reinforced my point.

 

But this is not what I was saying, therefore its a strawman argument. My argument was that who the MVP is depends entirely on what your definition of 'valuable' is. My point is that you can't make a comment about the 'bad logic' of someone's choice for MVP unless you know what the definition of 'valuable' is in that logical equation.

 

What you are arguing with people about is their definitions, not their logic. I agree with your definition of 'valuable' in this case, but the poster in question may not have a faulty line of reasoning if their definition of 'valuable' is sufficiently different from yours.

 

How good the various definition of 'valuable' are is a whole other (and much more difficult) logical argument.