While Mike Trout, rookie sensation for the Anaheim Angels of Southern California somewhere near Disneyland, is a slam dunk for Rookie of the Year award in the A.L., as a Most Valuable Player candidate he's doesn't belong in the conversation.
Why, you may ask? It is more about semantics and the performance of his team than anything else.
Here in the cheap seats, we don't think anyone from a non-playoff team can be the MVP. With Trout the Angels are currently in third place in the four team AL West, 9.5 games behind the division leading Texas Rangers and 5 games ahead of cellar dwelling Seattle. The Angels are closer to the bottom than the top. Without Trout the Angels may or may not be competing with Seattle for the worst division record. Either way, they're on the wrong side of the playoff picture.
How valuable is that? And yes, this is where we play semantics. If the award were called the Most Outstanding Player, then Trout belongs in the conversation. But most valuable? I think not. He is not even the most valuable player on his own team. Of course that player has yet to be found. The most valuable player for the Angels would be the pitcher that could stop the bleeding in that hot mess of a bullpen.
Trout is having an excellent year. Putting up superb numbers, MVP type numbers. If he played on a playoff bound team. There is still time for the Angels to squeak into the expanded playoffs, but those chances are slim. Until then, leave Trout out of any MVP talk.
I would have to do some research, but I think baseball did have a Most Outstanding Player award at one time.
ReplyDelete