whats his WAR though
But who was more valuable? Does being valuable to your team matter if they still suck with you?![]()

in that case the most valuable player in the NBA is Michael Carter Williams right? Because without him philly probably has zero wins. Team's net success has always benefited or hindered the decision of MVP, in all sports.That's a misnomer that people use when evaluating Value.
'
Value doesn't change because the team around you is inferior. It's not Mike Trout's fault the Tigers have superior players he isn't the GM. MVP is most valuable player, not most valuable player on a team that's good. Having great teammates isn't a skill.
First off, counting starts mean next to nothing. So RBIs, and Hits mean nothing to me. They never have. Bonds best year ever he didn't even have 100 RBIs. Irrelevant stat that has much more to do with your teammates ability to get on base and score.
They get on base at an equal clip, but Miggy has more power.
Now add on base running (ability to steal, move from 1st to 3rd on singles, advance on throws, etc), defense, speed, and it's not at all close.

Miggy hits for more power than Trout. A .100 difference in slg % and OPS cannot be ignored
Trout has overall more value because hes plays a premium position and steals bases but once that goes down his overall value will significant decline.
????? But Michael Carter Williams isn't even close to the best player in basketball or most valuable, so I don't see your argument.in that case the most valuable player in the NBA is Michael Carter Williams right? Because without him philly probably has zero wins. Team's net success has always benefited or hindered the decision of MVP, in all sports.
OPS is an overrated stats because Slugging percentage is an overrated stat. If I go 4-4 with 4 singles and you go 1-4 with a HR, we have the same slugging percentage, that shyt doesn't tell you the real story of power. Miggy has more power indeed, but it's not to the point where it makes up the gap in defense, base stealing and speed.

Are you slow my nikka?Thats because a HR is more productive than 4 singles![]()
First off, counting starts mean next to nothing. So RBIs, and Hits mean nothing to me. They never have. Bonds best year ever he didn't even have 100 RBIs. Irrelevant stat that has much more to do with your teammates ability to get on base and score.
They get on base at an equal clip, but Miggy has more power.
Now add on base running (ability to steal, move from 1st to 3rd on singles, advance on throws, etc), defense, speed, and it's not at all close.
...which year was this? when he smacked 73 hrs..he had 137 rbis..No. His best year was when he had a .609 OBP which is the most ridiculous stat of all time when you think about it. He did have 101 RBIs though so I was wrong that he didn't break the 100 RBI total mark, but regardless, the RBIs weren't what made his season historically the best of all time. It was his OBP and isolated power numbers which are out of this world...which year was this? when he smacked 73 hrs..he had 137 rbis..
the argument is you purposefully using the qualifyer of (slightly) in order to LITERALLY slight Miguel Cabrera. He is DEFINITELY the best hitter in baseball.Again, Trout is the best player in baseball, Cabrera is the best hitter (slightly). I don't see why there needs to be an argument on that. It's pretty clear.
Are you slow my nikka?
The point I'm making with that example is that if you ONLY look at someone's slugging percentage you wouldn't be able to tell who has more power. That's why it's an overrated stat. You're just proving my point even further. If I hit 4 singles and you hit a homerun in 4 at bats, and someone was to just look at our Slugging percentage they'd asset that we have equal power, when that isn't the case. Do you get it now?
