Posted by Jtpsops on 10/9/2017 7:54:00 PM (view original):

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.

Ayyy, we finally have coherent thoughts back in this thread. You can always count on someone not named Mike, Tec, or BL to do that

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/9/2017 8:54:00 PM (view original):
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.

Most of Dahs posts are longer than Ted Kaczynski's manifesto.

Dahs = the Unadebater?

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/9/2017 8:03:00 PM (view original):
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.

Absolute BS.

If there’s a fire, Bob might grab his picture of his dead grandmother because it’s valuable to him. Is a picture of Bob’s dead grandmother valuable to you or me? Not at all. The photo has no intrinsic value.

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.

I don't recall anyone saying that players on losing teams have NO value. Of course they have value. Personally, I'd value a good player on a team that wins the WS more than I'd value a great player on a team that finishes 3rd in the division. Maybe I missed something, but isn't the point of the game to win? Therefore isn't a player who helps your team win more valuable that a player who helps your team finish in last place?

Posted by wylie715 on 10/10/2017 12:36:00 PM (view original):

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.

I don't recall anyone saying that players on losing teams have NO value. Of course they have value. Personally, I'd value a good player on a team that wins the WS more than I'd value a great player on a team that finishes 3rd in the division. Maybe I missed something, but isn't the point of the game to win? Therefore isn't a player who helps your team win more valuable that a player who helps your team finish in last place?

Exactly. Though I don't think it should be all about winning - there should be a balance. If there is a player who is far and away the best in the league, I think he should get it regardless. But if there are several guys who are close or if there's any debate on who the MVP should be, it's more than fair to use postseason vs losing team as a way to sort them out.

Posted by wylie715 on 10/10/2017 12:36:00 PM (view original):

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.

I don't recall anyone saying that players on losing teams have NO value. Of course they have value. Personally, I'd value a good player on a team that wins the WS more than I'd value a great player on a team that finishes 3rd in the division. Maybe I missed something, but isn't the point of the game to win? Therefore isn't a player who helps your team win more valuable that a player who helps your team finish in last place?

A) mike said it
B) a player who does more to help you win is more valuable than a player who does less to help you win. That's the point. Joey Votto does more to add wins than, for example, Paul Goldschmidt.

And yet Goldschmidt's team won 25 more games. Hmmm...

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/10/2017 1:03:00 PM (view original):
And yet Goldschmidt's team won 25 more games. Hmmm...

Is that really a head-scratcher or did Goldschmidt have significantly better teammates?

Posted by bad_luck on 10/10/2017 1:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/10/2017 1:03:00 PM (view original):
And yet Goldschmidt's team won 25 more games. Hmmm...

Is that really a head-scratcher or did Goldschmidt have significantly better teammates?

I'm sure he did. I'm not saying Goldie adds 25 more wins than Votto. But what are you basing your belief that Votto added more wins on? WAR?

1. WAR is subjective bullshit.
2. You continue to imply that statistics are the only way a player brings value to his team. Goldie's teammates speak more highly of him than Votto's do. Not a stretch to think that Goldie is more helpful and elevates his teammates more than Votto does. I'm sure a team would consider those off-field contributions to be valuable.

It doesn't have to be WAR. Use any measurement you like. And it doesn't have to be Votto/Goldschmidt. The better player in the comparison did more to help his team win than the lesser player did to help his team win.

For example, if you want to argue that Goldshmidt's production + intagibles did more to help his team win than Votto's production + intangibles, fine.

Goldschmidt is more valuable.

I think that's a tough argument because intangibles are, by definition, impossible to measure, but whatever. You're making the argument that Goldschmidt was better, which makes him the more valuable player.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/10/2017 1:21:00 PM (view original):
For example, if you want to argue that Goldshmidt's production + intagibles did more to help his team win than Votto's production + intangibles, fine.

Goldschmidt is more valuable.

I think that's a tough argument because intangibles are, by definition, impossible to measure, but whatever. You're making the argument that Goldschmidt was better, which makes him the more valuable player.

I think this is where the disconnect is. You continually rant about statistics and win probability added, etc., etc., etc., and use that to make your case. And people in this thread have been arguing that the best offensive player isn't always the one most valuable to his team. You and dahs strongly disagreed with that.

I think Votto was the best offensive player this year. But I don't think he brought more value to his team than Goldschmidt. If you want to take that and make the leap that "You think Goldschmidt is more valuable, therefore you think Goldschmidt is the best, therefore best = most valuable!", go for it. It doesn't change the fact that through this entire thread, you've been basing your "best" argument on offensive statistics. THAT is what people have been arguing against. Best numbers doesn't automatically = most valuable.

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/10/2017 1:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/10/2017 1:21:00 PM (view original):
For example, if you want to argue that Goldshmidt's production + intagibles did more to help his team win than Votto's production + intangibles, fine.

Goldschmidt is more valuable.

I think that's a tough argument because intangibles are, by definition, impossible to measure, but whatever. You're making the argument that Goldschmidt was better, which makes him the more valuable player.

I think this is where the disconnect is. You continually rant about statistics and win probability added, etc., etc., etc., and use that to make your case. And people in this thread have been arguing that the best offensive player isn't always the one most valuable to his team. You and dahs strongly disagreed with that.

I think Votto was the best offensive player this year. But I don't think he brought more value to his team than Goldschmidt. If you want to take that and make the leap that "You think Goldschmidt is more valuable, therefore you think Goldschmidt is the best, therefore best = most valuable!", go for it. It doesn't change the fact that through this entire thread, you've been basing your "best" argument on offensive statistics. THAT is what people have been arguing against. Best numbers doesn't automatically = most valuable.

What the holy **** are you talking about???

Where did I say anything about win probability added?

I never said it had to be the best offensive player, just the best player. However you want to measure that.

Again, best player = most valuable. How you measure best is up to you.

And yes, there's a disconnect, but its physical location is somewhere between your eyes and your brain, where the words on the page get changed to something they are not.