Why would you give it to Trout who is on a mediocre team? Because they are gonna win 74 games instead of 67?
Well actually it's Trout statistically. But not by a big enough margin to be forced to select him. That's the point of this thread, shouldn't it be the best player on one of the best teams? And oddly enough the top two candidates are ex LSU players. The other being LaMahieu of the Yankees. It should be out of those two players.
In the 80's Andre Dawson won the MVP playing for the last place Cubs. Steve Carlton won 25 games and the Cy Young playing for the last place Phillies.
First off it's Bregman. Trout has a decided advantage with WAR, 8.3 vs 6.8 for Bregman. Trout OPS is 1.086 Bregman is .990
wasn’t there a school of thought argument about most outstanding player vs most valuable player and how they were different things some years ago among sportswriters or am I imagining that?
Here's your answer. If the V is for value, then Trout was worth more wins to his team. Now, if those wins only made a bad team mediocre, is that his fault? I can't get with the logic of deciding an individual award on the basis of how good his teammates were.