Originally Posted by DSpivack
I get your point, but I'm not seeing what affect that has, or should have, on an MVP award in any one given season. If Trout hits .280 the rest of his career, or hits .320, I don't see how that retroactively changes what he did in 2012. As for Cabrera, you could argue that 2012 was his worst season of the past 3; I don't think that's an argument for or against him deserving the MVP award in 2012, it just shows what a great hitter he is and what a great career he has had thus far. I just don't see how Trout is any more or less valuable for the 2012 Angels based on what he does in seasons that have yet to occur.
And there we're back to the vague definition. Is it most valuable to his team, or most valuable as viewed by baseball? In other words, if you were to throw all the players into a giant draft, do you think Trout or Cabrera would be the #1 draft choice? That's how I view "most valuable," and why I don't think you have to have been on a winning team to be considered. And if Trout simply disappears, then in retrospect, he won't have been very valuable at all.