 It just comes down to philosophy of what you mean by valuable. I was getting into it on Twitter all night last night. They throw out the war, even if they don't bring up war. He's the best player in baseball. Nobody is going to doubt. Nobody is going to question the trout is the best player in baseball. He is. But most valuable, all right? The Angels are six games under 500, right? Whatever it is. If they take Trout out, they finish 20 games under. They're irrelevant either way. But if you take LeMayou away from the Yankees, maybe the Yankees are unquestionably the division winner. Maybe they're battling Tampa for first place. Maybe if you take Devers away from the Red Sox, instead of being four out of the wild card, they're 12 out, and they're irrelevant. I just look at the team. Now, the counter is, well, the Angels are never good, so that means the trout would never win the MVP. But I do think I'm going to lean towards a guy that is contributing to a team that's doing something rather than the guy that's contributing to a team that's under 500. So if you were voting, you would take the literal V for what it is, the most valuable. I don't think a lot of riders do that. They're going to take the guy that had the best season. And that's why I think people love awards, right? They do. We debated on sports radio. Why can't you have two awards, one for the MVP and one for the best player in the game? Now, a lot of times it'll be the same guy. But there'll be times, and I think this year is a perfect example, give Mike Trout the best player in baseball award, and then give LeMayhew or Devers or whoever else you think is on a better team, the most valuable player. What'd be wrong with that? It's hard to give it to a guy that's on a losing team. Now, guys have won on a losing team before, but they either had historic numbers, like Stanton did the other year with 59 home runs, or there really isn't anybody else to give it to. I mean, we've got candidates. You have to say that Devers and LeMayhew are legitimate contenders. Well, very much so, but they're not gonna win. No, I get it, but that doesn't mean I can't be upset about it. I'll bet you an expensive steak dinner. I agree with you, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them. Okay, but I'm just saying. It's not an argument on whether he's gonna win or not. It's an argument on whether he should. I don't want Yankee fans being distraught if DJ LeMayhew's had a phenomenal season, doesn't win the MVP. He's not gonna win it. It's gonna be Mike Trout. It's such the classic, it's same with the All-Star game. It's such a sports argument to get upset that your player didn't make the All-Star game or didn't win an award. And then five minutes after it's over, you completely forget about it. Like, what does it matter? The Yankees win the World Series. You get to care of LeMayhew won the MVP or not. He wasn't even a Yankee last year. He won't care. I can understand you getting upset if it was like Jeter or somebody that's a forever Yankee. Like, I understand you getting upset, but you realize like five minutes after the season's over or they announced the award, he's gonna get over it. It doesn't matter.