Posted by tecwrg on 10/3/2016 9:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/3/2016 7:55:00 PM (view original):
I can't understand how the debate over whether team success has gone on for so long. It's literally answered by the BBWAA in what I would consider sufficiently unambiguous terms. Their letter to the voters reads as follows:

Dear Voter:

There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.

2. Number of games played.

3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.

4. Former winners are eligible.

5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from 1 to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot. Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration.

Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, including pitchers and designated hitters.

#1 seems clear enough to me - "value of a player to his team" is meant to be interpreted as how much that player produces on the field. There is nothing in there regarding team success except to state that the MVP doesn't need to come from a playoff team.

" It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. "

Each voter has their own opinion of value. Perhaps "value" means more for players on a successful team than for players on an unsuccessful team.

"Value" is defined. "That is, strength of offense and defense." Does that say anything about strength of team?

Posted by bad_luck on 10/3/2016 10:03:00 PM (view original):
I wouldn't argue that voters aren't allowed to consider team performance, I just think it's a stupid way to do it.

As the person who thinks that (a) Kenny Lofton should be considered for the HOF; (b) rioting and violence is an effective way to bring about social change; (c) strikeouts are no different than any other out; (d) countless other things, perhaps you should leave the judgement of what's stupid and what's not up to other people.

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/4/2016 4:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/3/2016 9:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/3/2016 7:55:00 PM (view original):
I can't understand how the debate over whether team success has gone on for so long. It's literally answered by the BBWAA in what I would consider sufficiently unambiguous terms. Their letter to the voters reads as follows:

Dear Voter:

There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.

2. Number of games played.

3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.

4. Former winners are eligible.

5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from 1 to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot. Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration.

Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, including pitchers and designated hitters.

#1 seems clear enough to me - "value of a player to his team" is meant to be interpreted as how much that player produces on the field. There is nothing in there regarding team success except to state that the MVP doesn't need to come from a playoff team.

" It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. "

Each voter has their own opinion of value. Perhaps "value" means more for players on a successful team than for players on an unsuccessful team.

"Value" is defined. "That is, strength of offense and defense." Does that say anything about strength of team?

If you don't think that's vague, I'm not sure what to tell you.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/4/2016 7:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/3/2016 10:03:00 PM (view original):
I wouldn't argue that voters aren't allowed to consider team performance, I just think it's a stupid way to do it.

As the person who thinks that (a) Kenny Lofton should be considered for the HOF; (b) rioting and violence is an effective way to bring about social change; (c) strikeouts are no different than any other out; (d) countless other things, perhaps you should leave the judgement of what's stupid and what's not up to other people.

A and C are correct. B, less so. Protesting is effective.

There's already a Hank Aaron award for best hitter.

Posted by kermit on 10/4/2016 5:17:00 PM (view original):
There's already a Hank Aaron award for best hitter.

That ain't no official award. It's partially voted on by the fans. What do they know?

If they are PSBL then they know WAR.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/4/2016 7:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/4/2016 4:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/3/2016 9:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/3/2016 7:55:00 PM (view original):
I can't understand how the debate over whether team success has gone on for so long. It's literally answered by the BBWAA in what I would consider sufficiently unambiguous terms. Their letter to the voters reads as follows:

Dear Voter:

There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.

2. Number of games played.

3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.

4. Former winners are eligible.

5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from 1 to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot. Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration.

Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, including pitchers and designated hitters.

#1 seems clear enough to me - "value of a player to his team" is meant to be interpreted as how much that player produces on the field. There is nothing in there regarding team success except to state that the MVP doesn't need to come from a playoff team.

" It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. "

Each voter has their own opinion of value. Perhaps "value" means more for players on a successful team than for players on an unsuccessful team.

"Value" is defined. "That is, strength of offense and defense." Does that say anything about strength of team?

If you don't think that's vague, I'm not sure what to tell you.

You're right. "Strength of offense and defense" is ambiguous. I can easily see how that could be construed to mean "how many games the team won."

This seems pretty clear as well:

" There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. "

Pretty clear that each voter can choose whatever criteria they wish.

What do you think "ACTUAL value" means?

value is pretty vague as well. Value as in the player helped the team win? Value as in the player made money for the team? Even when he sucked, Tim Lincecum made money for the Giants. His jersey was always very popular and games he started were "events". He certainly made money for the Giants in his suckage years. Help them win? Not so much.

Posted by wylie715 on 10/4/2016 7:21:00 PM (view original):
value is pretty vague as well. Value as in the player helped the team win? Value as in the player made money for the team? Even when he sucked, Tim Lincecum made money for the Giants. His jersey was always very popular and games he started were "events". He certainly made money for the Giants in his suckage years. Help them win? Not so much.

Actually, the ballot defines value clearly.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2016 7:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 10/4/2016 7:21:00 PM (view original):
value is pretty vague as well. Value as in the player helped the team win? Value as in the player made money for the team? Even when he sucked, Tim Lincecum made money for the Giants. His jersey was always very popular and games he started were "events". He certainly made money for the Giants in his suckage years. Help them win? Not so much.

Actually, the ballot defines value clearly.

Explain.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/4/2016 7:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2016 7:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 10/4/2016 7:21:00 PM (view original):
value is pretty vague as well. Value as in the player helped the team win? Value as in the player made money for the team? Even when he sucked, Tim Lincecum made money for the Giants. His jersey was always very popular and games he started were "events". He certainly made money for the Giants in his suckage years. Help them win? Not so much.

Actually, the ballot defines value clearly.

Explain.

"that is, strength of offense and defense."

Strength? Do they mean power hitting? And is "strength" in defense related to a strong arm, or strong footwork, or strong BO?

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/4/2016 6:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/4/2016 7:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/4/2016 4:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/3/2016 9:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/3/2016 7:55:00 PM (view original):
I can't understand how the debate over whether team success has gone on for so long. It's literally answered by the BBWAA in what I would consider sufficiently unambiguous terms. Their letter to the voters reads as follows:

Dear Voter:

There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.

2. Number of games played.

3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.

4. Former winners are eligible.

5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from 1 to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot. Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration.

Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, including pitchers and designated hitters.

#1 seems clear enough to me - "value of a player to his team" is meant to be interpreted as how much that player produces on the field. There is nothing in there regarding team success except to state that the MVP doesn't need to come from a playoff team.

" It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. "

Each voter has their own opinion of value. Perhaps "value" means more for players on a successful team than for players on an unsuccessful team.

"Value" is defined. "That is, strength of offense and defense." Does that say anything about strength of team?

If you don't think that's vague, I'm not sure what to tell you.

You're right. "Strength of offense and defense" is ambiguous. I can easily see how that could be construed to mean "how many games the team won."

Why are pitchers even considered? For their offense or defense?