All Forums > SimLeague Baseball > MLB > Cabrera won MVP
11/20/2013 5:15 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/20/2013 4:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/20/2013 4:54:00 PM (view original):
The donation is worth $50.
Mike Trout's WAR was 10.

The $50 does not help me reach my goal. It has little value to me.
Mike Trout's WAR of 10 does not help the Angels reach their goal of making the playoffs.  He does not have that much value to them.

The $50 would help Joe, who missed his goal by $10.  The $50 would have been significantly more valuable to Joe than it was to me.
Mike Trout's WAR of 10 would have helped the Texas Rangers, who just missed the playoffs.  He would have been significantly more valuable to the Rangers than he was to the Angels.

"Actual value to the team." to the team. to the team. to the team.
Mike Trout was worth 10 wins to the Angels. Trout would have been worth 10 wins to any team. No player in the league was worth more than Trout.

Worth and value are the same thing.

 
There is is again!  The "WAR, ************!!!" argument.

Never saw it coming, especially after he's been denying his love of WAR.
11/20/2013 5:17 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/20/2013 5:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/20/2013 5:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/20/2013 5:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/20/2013 5:03:00 PM (view original):
And how valuable would those 10 wins have been to the Angels?  And to the Rangers? ....TO THE TEAM

Worth and value can mean the same thing in certain circumstances.  But they are 2 different words for a reason.
Those 10 wins are worth 10 wins. To the Angels, Mets, Cubs, Yankees, Orioles, Blue Jays, Rangers, Astros, Marlins, Braves...
Yes, it's not what I'm asking.
You asked how valuable those 10 wins were to the Angels and Rangers.

The answer is 10 wins. Trout's value was 10 wins.

 
To anyone who isn't clinically insane, those 10 wins would be MUCH more valuable to the Rangers than they were to the Angels.

 
11/20/2013 5:19 PM
Value often means "importance."  Worth doesn't really have that meaning.
11/20/2013 5:26 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/20/2013 5:19:00 PM (view original):
Value often means "importance."  Worth doesn't really have that meaning.
Upon further reflection, i guess it does.  But you're taking it in a different way.

- "How much is Mike Trout worth to you?"
- "10 WAR."
- "No, how much $ would you spend to have him on your team this year?"

Because he's more valuable, or worth more, to the Rangers than the Angels, the Rangers would likely have paid more for his services.
 
11/20/2013 5:30 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/20/2013 5:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/20/2013 5:07:00 PM (view original):
Is it because that $10 doesn't hold the same value to you?
Is $10 always worth less than $20 because I don't want to suck dick?

I know plenty of people that suck dick for free. Does that mean that they have no need for money?

 
Love and affection are their price tags.

How much would it be worth for you to suck a dick?
11/20/2013 5:30 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/20/2013 5:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/20/2013 5:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/20/2013 5:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/20/2013 5:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/20/2013 5:03:00 PM (view original):
And how valuable would those 10 wins have been to the Angels?  And to the Rangers? ....TO THE TEAM

Worth and value can mean the same thing in certain circumstances.  But they are 2 different words for a reason.
Those 10 wins are worth 10 wins. To the Angels, Mets, Cubs, Yankees, Orioles, Blue Jays, Rangers, Astros, Marlins, Braves...
Yes, it's not what I'm asking.
You asked how valuable those 10 wins were to the Angels and Rangers.

The answer is 10 wins. Trout's value was 10 wins.

 
To anyone who isn't clinically insane, those 10 wins would be MUCH more valuable to the Rangers than they were to the Angels.

 
 Christ.

I'll let Posnanski respond to this:


No, actually, I think “most valuable” and “best” are just about perfect baseball synonyms. The most valuable player is the best player. The best player is the most valuable one. Sure, I have read countless times about “valuable” being a magical word imbued with intangibles and leadership qualities and heart and grit and all sorts of other things that “best” simply does not cover. I believed them too. Heck, in my early days as a columnist, I probably even wrote some of those columns. I don’t buy it now.

Funny thing, even four or five years ago, I got into a mild argument with Bill James about what “valuable” really means. Bill had used a poker analogy — his point was that in basic Texas hold ‘em poker the ace of spades is ALWAYS more valuable than the seven of diamonds. Always. The seven never wins when matched up with the ace. Two sevens loses to two aces. An ace-high straight or flush always beats a seven-high straight or flush. If you and someone else have the same two pair, a fifth card ace beats a fifth-card seven every single time.

Bill was making the point that we know — absolutely know — that an ace is more valuable than a seven. And yet sometimes, because of the arrangement of the cards, a seven of diamonds may SEEM more valuable than an ace of spades. Let’s say the seven of diamonds comes in as the last card and it completes a winning straight or finishes a victorious flush. That’s a huge moment. The winner celebrates. The loser complains to bored spectators for the rest of his or her life. And you would think the seven was the most valuable card in the deck.

But Bill’s point was that the ace of spades is still more valuable than the seven. It just happened to be in a losing hand.
Well, back then I mostly agreed with Bill, but a small part of me could not escape the hypnotic powers of ALL THOSE COLUMNS telling me that valuable was something other than best. I said, OK, the overall point is true, but could you not argue that for THAT ONE HAND the seven of diamonds is more valuable than the ace? After all, the ace would not have finished the straight or the flush. So the seven, in that one hand, is more valuable.

And he responded with something that still makes sense to me: If the seven completes a straight or a flush then it is no more valuable than any other card in that hand. It’s only an illusion of timing — the seven of diamonds coming as the last card — that makes it seem more valuable. And no matter how you dress it up or how many good cards you put around it, the seven of diamonds still ain’t an ace of spades.

11/20/2013 5:33 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/20/2013 5:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/20/2013 5:19:00 PM (view original):
Value often means "importance."  Worth doesn't really have that meaning.
Upon further reflection, i guess it does.  But you're taking it in a different way.

- "How much is Mike Trout worth to you?"
- "10 WAR."
- "No, how much $ would you spend to have him on your team this year?"

Because he's more valuable, or worth more, to the Rangers than the Angels, the Rangers would likely have paid more for his services.
 
What if we did it this way:

All players are free agents available for one year contracts. All teams have an equal amount to spend on all 25 men on their roster. Who gets the biggest contract?

I'm betting it's Trout.


 
11/20/2013 5:35 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/20/2013 5:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/20/2013 5:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/20/2013 5:19:00 PM (view original):
Value often means "importance."  Worth doesn't really have that meaning.
Upon further reflection, i guess it does.  But you're taking it in a different way.

- "How much is Mike Trout worth to you?"
- "10 WAR."
- "No, how much $ would you spend to have him on your team this year?"

Because he's more valuable, or worth more, to the Rangers than the Angels, the Rangers would likely have paid more for his services.
 
What if we did it this way:

All players are free agents available for one year contracts. All teams have an equal amount to spend on all 25 men on their roster. Who gets the biggest contract?

I'm betting it's Trout.


 
You obviously think there's only one way to build a team.   If I was building to win a playoff series, I'm taking a **** ton of pitchers before I even get to Trout.
11/20/2013 5:36 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/20/2013 5:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/20/2013 5:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/20/2013 5:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/20/2013 5:19:00 PM (view original):
Value often means "importance."  Worth doesn't really have that meaning.
Upon further reflection, i guess it does.  But you're taking it in a different way.

- "How much is Mike Trout worth to you?"
- "10 WAR."
- "No, how much $ would you spend to have him on your team this year?"

Because he's more valuable, or worth more, to the Rangers than the Angels, the Rangers would likely have paid more for his services.
 
What if we did it this way:

All players are free agents available for one year contracts. All teams have an equal amount to spend on all 25 men on their roster. Who gets the biggest contract?

I'm betting it's Trout.


 
You obviously think there's only one way to build a team.   If I was building to win a playoff series, I'm taking a **** ton of pitchers before I even get to Trout.
You're missing the point.

 
11/20/2013 5:53 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/20/2013 5:36:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/20/2013 5:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/20/2013 5:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/20/2013 5:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/20/2013 5:19:00 PM (view original):
Value often means "importance."  Worth doesn't really have that meaning.
Upon further reflection, i guess it does.  But you're taking it in a different way.

- "How much is Mike Trout worth to you?"
- "10 WAR."
- "No, how much $ would you spend to have him on your team this year?"

Because he's more valuable, or worth more, to the Rangers than the Angels, the Rangers would likely have paid more for his services.
 
What if we did it this way:

All players are free agents available for one year contracts. All teams have an equal amount to spend on all 25 men on their roster. Who gets the biggest contract?

I'm betting it's Trout.


 
You obviously think there's only one way to build a team.   If I was building to win a playoff series, I'm taking a **** ton of pitchers before I even get to Trout.
You're missing the point.

 
The point where you're the only person who can truly define value?    Yeah, I missed that one.  

You said "one year contract".   That means I don't give a **** about age.   I want value.  I find value in those who can help me win the most in the post-season,  Of course, I have to get there first but I don't really give a **** about who looks good in his uni.   I need production and I value a guy who can pitch 3 times in a seven game series more than an OF who'll get less than 30 PA.
11/20/2013 6:05 PM
You're still missing the point.
11/20/2013 6:09 PM

Obviously because I'm not slobbering on Trout's **** BL-style.    I'd be more than happy to let you **** away 1/5th of your cap on Trout while I grab a couple of quality for the same price.   It only takes one to make a stupid deal.    Ask the Angels about Pujols.   Then ask the Cards how they've fared without him.

11/20/2013 6:10 PM
Yep, still missing it.
11/20/2013 6:12 PM
The question isn't "what's the smartest way to build a baseball team?"

In that case, signing the most valuable guy, depending on his price, may not be the smartest move.


 
11/20/2013 6:15 PM
The question is, all else being equal, who would teams pay the most to have on a one year contract. I think it's Trout. You don't seem to disagree with that.
of 35
All Forums > SimLeague Baseball > MLB > Cabrera won MVP

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999- WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.