Posted by MikeT23 on 10/4/2012 11:52:00 AM (view original):
Now, to put that into the context of this discussion, the MVP is given to the Most VALUABLE Player not the player with the best stats.   Maybe they're the same guy, maybe they aren't.

trout was  more "valuable" than Cabrera on individual performance alone (hitting+defense+base running).  but Cabrera is clearly more valuable to the Tigers than trout is to the Angels.

Posted by loudawg10 on 10/4/2012 12:24:00 PM (view original):
i think the arguement centers on the fact that bad luck doesnt think that how important a player is to his team should be considered in the conversation of most valuable player. he seems to think that it should be based on each individual players "value" regardless of how important that player is to his team.

there is nothing wrong with either...it all depends on how you view the award.

trout was  more "valuable" than Cabrera on individual performance alone (hitting+defense+base running).  but Cabrera is clearly more valuable to the Tigers than trout is to the Angels.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/4/2012 12:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/4/2012 11:52:00 AM (view original):
Now, to put that into the context of this discussion, the MVP is given to the Most VALUABLE Player not the player with the best stats.   Maybe they're the same guy, maybe they aren't.

Isn't WAR intended to be an objective way of assessing a player's value to his team?

Mike Trout's value is 10.7 wins above a replacement level CF.
Miguel Cabrera's value is 6.9 wins above a replacement level 3B.

Isn't 10.7 greater than 6.9?

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2012 11:53:00 AM (view original):
But teams don't just have one player. And the award isn't most valuable player to the poorest team.

There is no way that side by side, a mint condition sentra is more valuable than a mint condition ferrari.

Valuable is relative to the situation.

If you're buying my Nissan or Gates' Ferrari, you know which one you'll pay more for.    That doesn't mean I'll sell my Nissan for less.

You know why?   It's more VALUABLE to me than Gates' Ferrari is to him.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2012 12:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by loudawg10 on 10/4/2012 12:24:00 PM (view original):
i think the arguement centers on the fact that bad luck doesnt think that how important a player is to his team should be considered in the conversation of most valuable player. he seems to think that it should be based on each individual players "value" regardless of how important that player is to his team.

there is nothing wrong with either...it all depends on how you view the award.

trout was  more "valuable" than Cabrera on individual performance alone (hitting+defense+base running).  but Cabrera is clearly more valuable to the Tigers than trout is to the Angels.

If you were starting a team from scratch and could choose either player's 2012 year for your team, which would you choose? (Assume you'd get a league average player at the position you don't choose)

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/4/2012 12:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2012 12:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by loudawg10 on 10/4/2012 12:24:00 PM (view original):
i think the arguement centers on the fact that bad luck doesnt think that how important a player is to his team should be considered in the conversation of most valuable player. he seems to think that it should be based on each individual players "value" regardless of how important that player is to his team.

there is nothing wrong with either...it all depends on how you view the award.

trout was  more "valuable" than Cabrera on individual performance alone (hitting+defense+base running).  but Cabrera is clearly more valuable to the Tigers than trout is to the Angels.

If you were starting a team from scratch and could choose either player's 2012 year for your team, which would you choose? (Assume you'd get a league average player at the position you don't choose)

Cabrera.    I want the guy jacking homers, getting hits and driving in runs.   I'll find a fast guy with a good glove to play CF.  Hell, I might even get lucky and get a Granderson.   Either way, lots of fast guys with good gloves.  One Cabrera.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/4/2012 12:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/4/2012 12:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/4/2012 11:52:00 AM (view original):
Now, to put that into the context of this discussion, the MVP is given to the Most VALUABLE Player not the player with the best stats.   Maybe they're the same guy, maybe they aren't.

Isn't WAR intended to be an objective way of assessing a player's value to his team?

Mike Trout's value is 10.7 wins above a replacement level CF.
Miguel Cabrera's value is 6.9 wins above a replacement level 3B.

Isn't 10.7 greater than 6.9?

WAR is a stat.    Please see:   "the MVP is given to the Most VALUABLE Player not the player with the best stats"

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/4/2012 1:05:00 PM (view original):
I think it's close enough to debate.  The simple fact that his team achieved a pre-season goal whereas Trout's team fell short only helps Cabrera's case.

Do you understand the meaning and context of valuable yet?

Posted by tecwrg on 10/4/2012 1:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/4/2012 12:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/4/2012 12:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/4/2012 11:52:00 AM (view original):
Now, to put that into the context of this discussion, the MVP is given to the Most VALUABLE Player not the player with the best stats.   Maybe they're the same guy, maybe they aren't.

Isn't WAR intended to be an objective way of assessing a player's value to his team?

Mike Trout's value is 10.7 wins above a replacement level CF.
Miguel Cabrera's value is 6.9 wins above a replacement level 3B.

Isn't 10.7 greater than 6.9?

WAR is a stat.    Please see:   "the MVP is given to the Most VALUABLE Player not the player with the best stats"

WAR is a stat that objectively quantifies value.  With VALUE being the root of the world VALUABLE.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2012 1:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/4/2012 1:05:00 PM (view original):
I think it's close enough to debate.  The simple fact that his team achieved a pre-season goal whereas Trout's team fell short only helps Cabrera's case.

Do you understand the meaning and context of valuable yet?

Absolutely. Trout was more valuable this year. Based on, you know, things he did on the baseball field.

Not based on things he couldn't control like how bad the White Sox finished the year and how his teammates were better than Cabrera's teammates.