Cool story bro.

This whole thread you've been basing your argument for "best" on offensive statistics, claiming that is where value comes from and that it's finite, with no room for subjectivity. If that's not your position, then congrats, you've finally proven that you'll troll on for 30 pages just because you're an argumentative *******.

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/10/2017 1:33:00 PM (view original):
Cool story bro.

This whole thread you've been basing your argument for "best" on offensive statistics, claiming that is where value comes from and that it's finite, with no room for subjectivity. If that's not your position, then congrats, you've finally proven that you'll troll on for 30 pages just because you're an argumentative *******.

No, I've used offensive statistics as an example because they are an easy shorthand. I've said, multiple times, that how someone measures best is up to them. If you want to argue that the shortstop who hit 220/300/380 was actually the best player in the NL, have at it. But if he was the best player, then he was the most valuable, regardless of the quality of his teammates.

I take back what I said about tec, YOU are the dumbest ************ in here.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/3/2017 12:25:00 PM (view original):
Rendon and Stanton were the best players in the NL this year when you factor in all three--hitting, fielding, base running plus the position they play and the ballparks they played in. Yes, that's WAR.

If you're only looking at offense, Votto is the winner.

If you're retarded and don't understand that most valuable=best, then some other player from a playoff team probably gets your vote.

This is your quote, bad_trump. It's on Pg. 4 of this thread, just in case you're tempted to label it #fakenews.

You also posted your MVP list in this thread and had Votto #1. Even after admitting Rendon and Stanton were the best players in the NL this year.

This proves 3 things:

1. You're basing your MVP vote purely on offensive production
2. You can't even adhere to your own mantra of "Best = Most Valuable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
3. You're a raging ******* who can't even remember what he's arguing 98% of the time.

Jesus christ, you're not getting any smarter, are you?

Personally, I think Votto was the best player in the NL. I think that because I don't think first base defense is measured well. If you want to argue that someone else was better, I'm willing to listen. Rendon, Stanton, Bryant, and Blackmon all have great cases.

Put that aside for a minute, because I'm not arguing that we have to rely on WAR or only give the award based on offense.

This discussion has evolved into something other than a discussion over who was the best. It's now a conceptual argument over whether or not the most valuable player can be someone other than the best player.

Please confirm that you understand.

BL statements:

1. "If you're only looking at offense, Votto is the winner?"
2. "My pick for MVP is Votto."
3. "I never said it had to be the best offensive player."

Lots of nice contradiction there. By your OWN WORDS (you know what words are, right? If not, dahs can help you out), Rendon and Stanton were the best all around players in the NL this year. But you voted for Votto, which by your own admission, is a vote that just looks at offense.

Therefore, by your own admission, "best" is not always "most valuable".

Thanks for finally coming clean and admitting what a clueless ******* you are. That must be a yuuuuuuuuuuuge weight off your shoulders, bad_trump.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/10/2017 1:46:00 PM (view original):
Jesus christ, you're not getting any smarter, are you?

Personally, I think Votto was the best player in the NL. I think that because I don't think first base defense is measured well. If you want to argue that someone else was better, I'm willing to listen. Rendon, Stanton, Bryant, and Blackmon all have great cases.

Put that aside for a minute, because I'm not arguing that we have to rely on WAR or only give the award based on offense.

This discussion has evolved into something other than a discussion over who was the best. It's now a conceptual argument over whether or not the most valuable player can be someone other than the best player.

Please confirm that you understand.

You didn't even read this did you?

I did. It's more smokescreening by you. You're trying to deflect, distract and backpedal any way you can. It's actually quite entertaining.

My posts above prove that you contradicted yourself and can't even stick to the same argument within one thread.

Stanton and Rendon were the best, but you voted for Votto. You base MVP on offense, and "best" isn't always "most valuable." Thank you for confirming what the rest of us have known all along.

You're arguing in bad faith.

I'm telling you that anyone can measure best however they see fit.

Got it? That's what I think. Please don't try to say that I think something else.

Also, once you determine best, that's the most valuable player. Please don't try to say that I think something else.

I'm not saying what you think. You said what you think. I just quoted it.

You named two players who were "best", then voted for another that you admitted was based purely on offense. Then you tried to say you never argued for offense to determine MVP.

You can't keep your own arguments straight. The posts above prove what you really think.

Check. Mate.

????

I think Votto was the best player in the NL. But that doesn't matter. You can decide on your own who you think was best.

Once you do, that player was the most valuable.

"Rendon and Stanton were the best players in the NL this year when you factor in all three--hitting, fielding, base running plus the position they play and the ballparks they played in. Yes, that's WAR. If you're only looking at offense, Votto is the winner."

You just blasted me on the last page for saying you based your vote on offense. By your own admission, that's what you did. And you didn't vote for the players that you labeled as "best". You're a flip-flopping POS who can't keep his story straight.

Keep talking yourself in circles though.

Who gives a ****? I'm not telling you how you have to measure best.

Measure it however you want.

You think I need your permission? I've been arguing this whole thread that it's up to the discretion of each voter.

I'm just proving - using your own posts - what a bumbling contradictory moron you are.

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/10/2017 2:07:00 PM (view original):
You think I need your permission? I've been arguing this whole thread that it's up to the discretion of each voter.

I'm just proving - using your own posts - what a bumbling contradictory moron you are.

Ok.

We agree that individuals can measure best how they see fit?

Is that your position du jour?

bad_trump: "Best = Most Valuable...except when it doesn't!!"