Originally Posted by Bob Roarman
I think there are two different arguments going on here: who was the best player in baseball and who was the MVP. They aren't always the same, at least not to me.
Agreed. If a player has a monster year and his club still performs poorly then how much "value" did said player ultimately have in a team sport where team accomplishments have the greater focus? Trout's team could not have been said to have performed poorly but they aren't still playing while Cabrera's team is.
Additionally, both teams had an opportunity to make the playoffs going into the final month and Cabrera put that Tigers team on his back and carried them the whole month with his bat while Trout continued to play well but nowhere near as well as Cabrera, at least offensively. That's the kind of late push that comes to my mind when I consider what the MVP Award should mean.
All things being equal, and it can be argued they are since both players had otherworldly years, my vote would go to the guy whose team gets in the playoffs. The "x player is in a tougher division" argument is not persuasive to me; it essentially suggests that a particular team would have done better or worse under a separate circumstance which is just speculation.