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.