[PARAM]

There are many different opinions on the MVP award. Some believe a guy on a second tier club can be the MVP. Some believe it's gotta be a guy who helps his team make the postseason. I'm mixed. I believe if a guy plays on a 2nd tier team and blows the competition away by unimagined levels, he should be in the conversation. But I'll take the guy who has provided an actual value that translated into his team accomplishing good things. And still sometimes it's not clear cut.

In 2011 Justin Verlander won the MVP for the 95 win Detroit Tigers. Would they have been as good without him? Absolutely not. But Michael Young hit .338 for the 96 win Texas Rangers, driving in 106 runs while playing first base, second, third and shortstop. To me he was far more valuable than Verlander. But I'm also of the belief a starting pitcher has the Cy Young Award and shouldn't be the MVP. Of course there have been exceptions. Gibson and his 1.12 ERA in 1968. McLain and his 31 wins in the same year.

It's been 32 years since Andre Dawson won the award for the last place Cubs. Was he more valuable than Cardinals shortstop Ozzie Smith? The Giants Will Clark? The Mets Keith Hernandez? Dawson played 153 games, hit 49 homers, drove in 137 runs and batted .287. Awesome year. And without him the Cubs finish....last. Take those other guys off their respective teams and they probably aren't as good as they were.

Mike Trout is awesome. The best player in the game. But that doesn't make him the most valuable. Are the Twins in first place without Nelson Cruz? Are the Yankees blowing away the AL East field without D.J. LeMahieu (or Gio Ushela for that matter)? To me "value" has to be tied to the end result. What's more valuable to a guy stranded in the wilderness, his $5000 Rolex or his free pack of matches? Sure the Angels probably aren't 19.5 games out without Trout. They're probably 30 games out. But with Trout all they are is the 9th best team out of 15.

So Trout will win the MVP because the voters have little imagination and still believe it belongs to the best player and not the one who has made the biggest difference for his team's success. But besides Trout, who should be the A.L. MVP?

[snackdaddy]

I tend to agree. With name Valuable in it, how valuable are you if your team isn't winning? Maybe there should be a player of the year like in the NFL. One for position players and one for pitchers. Then award the MVP to a player on a winning team. I don't recall any NFL player winning it if their team goes 8-8 and misses the playoffs. They don't give MVP's to the World Series losers.