Posted by bad_luck on 10/9/2017 5:26:00 PM (view original):
Yet, here you are, outwitted.

You sure did outwit me by pointing that Joey Votto was a better player than Chase Headley.

That really put me in my place.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/9/2017 6:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/9/2017 5:26:00 PM (view original):
Yet, here you are, outwitted.

You sure did outwit me by pointing that Joey Votto was a better player than Chase Headley.

That really put me in my place.

The important part is that we agree that the better player was more valuable.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/9/2017 7:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/9/2017 6:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/9/2017 5:26:00 PM (view original):
Yet, here you are, outwitted.

You sure did outwit me by pointing that Joey Votto was a better player than Chase Headley.

That really put me in my place.

The important part is that we agree that the better player was more valuable.

BL is still drowning. Someone please save him!!!

Posted by sjpoker on 10/9/2017 7:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/9/2017 7:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/9/2017 6:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/9/2017 5:26:00 PM (view original):
Yet, here you are, outwitted.

You sure did outwit me by pointing that Joey Votto was a better player than Chase Headley.

That really put me in my place.

The important part is that we agree that the better player was more valuable.

BL is still drowning. Someone please save him!!!

Don't poke BL!! He'll outwit you, too!!!!

Posted by bad_luck on 10/9/2017 12:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 10/9/2017 11:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/9/2017 9:47:00 AM (view original):
I mean seriously, the fact that all you guys can do at this point is make personal attacks against me - that you haven't even pretended to respond to my points - isn't setting off alarms in your brain that you can't actually intelligently defend your position here?

Just curious, did this type of rhetoric work well for you in your high school debate career?

Because here, you just come off like a pretentious little *****.

I've tried to explain that you and BL think "valuable" and "value" have single, immutable, unambiguous meanings (which they don't). If you guys would admit that "value" might be in the eye of the beholder, all this ******** and personal attacks would stop (except for MikeT/BL, who seem joined at the hip).

The word has more than one meaning.

In this context, though, it's not in the eye of the beholder. It's not "value" as in moral values. It's value as in currency/real estate/assets/etc. The value of a player is absolute and not changed by how good his teammates are.

dahs and I have both mentioned this before, but you guys are thinking of value as if it were utility. Player A produces value on the field. The utility of that value varies depending on if the production is adding wins 86/87/88 or 66/67/68 to a season.

You understand the words "value" and "valuable" have different meanings as well, right? Each person gets to determine for themselves what they find valuable. Which is why the BBWAA even leaves some ambiguity in their voting requirements.

It's not all that shocking though. Going back to the WAR discussion, subjectivity is clearly a concept that makes you go into autistic fits.

Did I miss where BL declared victory? Did the long-winded Grammar Police confirm the victory?

So here's how this exchange went. The groupthink crew claimed that players on losing teams have no value. That was your argument. BL asks you to actually confirm that you believe it by asking you to compare the value of a great player on a losing team and a fairly average player on a winning team. Then you call him stupid for pointing out how colossally idiotic your original argument was.

You don't see the problem here? You guys can't even begin to defend your initial point because of how incredibly dumb it really was. And you want to put that on BL?

This feels like an argument about religion at this point. I feel like I'm debating evolution with a bunch of Creationists. In light of meaningful evidence that there is a flaw in your argument, you make tangential points and mock reputable sources (Tec continuously argues that dictionary definitions have no place in a discussion of WHAT WORDS MEAN). You can't refute any points made against you, haven't made anything resembling a logical argument at any point, but nonetheless are convinced that the people who don't agree with you are deluded and missing the point. In reality that point is that something has been built up in your minds as true for so long you can't conceive of it being untrue. It's the same thing with the relative value of walks or strikeouts. Doesn't matter how much evidence to the contrary you may be provided, strikeouts are very bad and walks are very mediocre. I guess it's because of how emotionally connected we are to sports. It's almost like a religion to a lot of people, and we don't like our views about sports to be challenged. Some people clearly can't handle it. Honestly the only person who's made a meaningful argument against "most valuable" = best is toddcommish. I disagree with his argument, but at least he tried. The rest of you haven't come close to making a coherent point anywhere in this 30+ page thread. And yet you're still all convinced I'm the one that sounds stupid. It's like I told you the Earth was not the center of the universe a few thousand years ago.

Was that LWGP confirming BL's victory? I damn sure ain't wasting my time on that short story.

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/9/2017 7:39:00 PM (view original):
So here's how this exchange went. The groupthink crew claimed that players on losing teams have no value. That was your argument. BL asks you to actually confirm that you believe it by asking you to compare the value of a great player on a losing team and a fairly average player on a winning team. Then you call him stupid for pointing out how colossally idiotic your original argument was.

You don't see the problem here? You guys can't even begin to defend your initial point because of how incredibly dumb it really was. And you want to put that on BL?

This feels like an argument about religion at this point. I feel like I'm debating evolution with a bunch of Creationists. In light of meaningful evidence that there is a flaw in your argument, you make tangential points and mock reputable sources (Tec continuously argues that dictionary definitions have no place in a discussion of WHAT WORDS MEAN). You can't refute any points made against you, haven't made anything resembling a logical argument at any point, but nonetheless are convinced that the people who don't agree with you are deluded and missing the point. In reality that point is that something has been built up in your minds as true for so long you can't conceive of it being untrue. It's the same thing with the relative value of walks or strikeouts. Doesn't matter how much evidence to the contrary you may be provided, strikeouts are very bad and walks are very mediocre. I guess it's because of how emotionally connected we are to sports. It's almost like a religion to a lot of people, and we don't like our views about sports to be challenged. Some people clearly can't handle it. Honestly the only person who's made a meaningful argument against "most valuable" = best is toddcommish. I disagree with his argument, but at least he tried. The rest of you haven't come close to making a coherent point anywhere in this 30+ page thread. And yet you're still all convinced I'm the one that sounds stupid. It's like I told you the Earth was not the center of the universe a few thousand years ago.

It's more your arrogance. And that last statement is also why people can't stand the advanced metrics crowd. You act like you're "enlightened" because you choose to value one thing over another, or choose what metrics you use to determine a player's ultimate value. We have concrete proof the Earth is not the center of the universe. When debating a subjective concept, there's no "proof". You claim we haven't proven ourselves right, you haven't proven us wrong. You even had the audacity to tell us exactly what the BBWAA had in mind when they created the MVP award. Maybe it's you who needs to take a step back and realize that your beliefs and interpretations are not concrete either.

FWIW, not everyone here has been saying that great players on losing teams have no value. That extreme statement has been the steadfast position of the resident WIS blowhard, as far as I can tell. They just have less value to losing teams than winning teams. I wouldn't vote Headley over Votto because Votto is far superior. But if I have two players with similar production, like Votto and Goldschmidt, I'm voting for the one that actually contributed to his team making the postseason.

And I'll choose the better, more valuable, player.

If people were only proven wrong when they accepted they were proven wrong nobody would know anything. Nothing would be accepted for fact because virtually everything will be challenged by somebody somewhere.

The word valuable means "having great value." Value is intrinsic. It has no context. The Latin root of the word was used exclusively for monetary worth. These facts basically disprove every argument that value depends on context. They do not prove that value is not subjective. That's a totally separate debate that BL and tec can continue having for as long as they like without getting anywhere.

Thanks, Perfessor.

The next time we need to know the Latin root of words in a baseball discussion, we'll let you know.

Brevity is your friend!!!!

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/9/2017 7:39:00 PM (view original):
So here's how this exchange went. The groupthink crew claimed that players on losing teams have no value. That was your argument. BL asks you to actually confirm that you believe it by asking you to compare the value of a great player on a losing team and a fairly average player on a winning team. Then you call him stupid for pointing out how colossally idiotic your original argument was.

You don't see the problem here? You guys can't even begin to defend your initial point because of how incredibly dumb it really was. And you want to put that on BL?

This feels like an argument about religion at this point. I feel like I'm debating evolution with a bunch of Creationists. In light of meaningful evidence that there is a flaw in your argument, you make tangential points and mock reputable sources (Tec continuously argues that dictionary definitions have no place in a discussion of WHAT WORDS MEAN). You can't refute any points made against you, haven't made anything resembling a logical argument at any point, but nonetheless are convinced that the people who don't agree with you are deluded and missing the point. In reality that point is that something has been built up in your minds as true for so long you can't conceive of it being untrue. It's the same thing with the relative value of walks or strikeouts. Doesn't matter how much evidence to the contrary you may be provided, strikeouts are very bad and walks are very mediocre. I guess it's because of how emotionally connected we are to sports. It's almost like a religion to a lot of people, and we don't like our views about sports to be challenged. Some people clearly can't handle it. Honestly the only person who's made a meaningful argument against "most valuable" = best is toddcommish. I disagree with his argument, but at least he tried. The rest of you haven't come close to making a coherent point anywhere in this 30+ page thread. And yet you're still all convinced I'm the one that sounds stupid. It's like I told you the Earth was not the center of the universe a few thousand years ago.

Imagine actually taking the time to read this thing.

Imagine thinking so much of yourself that you believe someone would take the time to read that thing.

dahs was one of those kids that would throw a hissy when he couldn't get the toy out of the cereal box. His mother said "Use your words." She's regretted that ever since.