Posted by MikeT23 on 11/19/2013 9:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/19/2013 9:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/19/2013 8:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2013 8:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/18/2013 8:13:00 PM (view original):
And if I had a baseball how valuable would his be?

Circumstances dictate the value.     Why can't you understand this?

I have a Molina.   You have two Poseys.    How valuable is your Posey to me?

Circumstance.

You get the no **** award. Just like if you and your friends had a baseball, you wouldn't need that kid's balls.

In this case, the circumstance is that there are 30 teams and only a couple catchers as good as Posey. So his value is high, even if you aren't willing to pay the price because you already have Molina.

But...again...this is off base. Trade value and production value aren't the same thing. Production value is all that matters in the MVP discussion.

So, if circumstance can change value, why in the hell can't you admit that it can change the meaning, or at least vary, the V in MVP?

Because we aren't talking about the same thing. You "proved" that conditions in the market (two teams no baseballs, no money; tickets to a sold out concert; 30 teams and only a couple good catchers) affect the price you pay for those things. Again, no ****.

MVP voting has nothing to do with trade value.

Production value is all that matters and that isn't affected by circumstance.

And here's the disconnect.

The production of a player on a contender and the production of a player on a .500 can be viewed as production under a specific circumstance.   Some people feel there's more VALUE in the production of a player from a contender.    While it may be only .1, which you've declared the same, it is a different circumstance.

Much like adding Longoria to the Tigers would reduce the value, by your own admission, of Fielder and Victor Martinez even though they're still the same players.

You're mixing and matching here.

The past production of a player is what it is. Cabrera's 2013 production isn't altered if Longoria happened to be sitting on the bench. Had Cabrera played a different position, it's possible that his production would have been different. But he didn't so his value is the same for 2013, regardless if who his teammates were.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/19/2013 10:36:00 AM (view original):
I need your number for "close enough".    For future reference.   Thanks in advance.

I think the accepted "it's the same" number for WAR is anything under 1.

You're sort of ignoring the point and discussing the hypothetical. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/19/2013 10:41:00 AM (view original):
You're sort of ignoring the point and discussing the hypothetical. 

We don't need a hypothetical. Cabrera had X amount of production value in 2013. That X doesn't change based in his teammates.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/19/2013 10:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/19/2013 10:36:00 AM (view original):
I need your number for "close enough".    For future reference.   Thanks in advance.

I think the accepted "it's the same" number for WAR is anything under 1.

Ouch.   Over the last 10 years, the average for #10 in WAR has been roughly 6.5.    So we're talking somewhere around 15%.    That seems like a big number.   Using a "traditional" stat, a guy who hits 30 homers has pretty much the same value as power hitter as a 25 or 35 homer guy.  

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/19/2013 10:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/19/2013 10:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/19/2013 10:36:00 AM (view original):
I need your number for "close enough".    For future reference.   Thanks in advance.

I think the accepted "it's the same" number for WAR is anything under 1.

Ouch.   Over the last 10 years, the average for #10 in WAR has been roughly 6.5.    So we're talking somewhere around 15%.    That seems like a big number.   Using a "traditional" stat, a guy who hits 30 homers has pretty much the same value as power hitter as a 25 or 35 homer guy.  

I haven't checked your numbers, but I don't see why a 25 homer guy couldn't have the same overall value as a 30 homer guy.

It's just creates a slipperly slope like Raines, Lofton, Brett Butler.    If 5.5 is somewhat similar to 6.5 and 4.5 is somewhat similar to 5.5, where does the line get drawn?    We're not talking big numbers like 98 vs 97.    We're talking 5 and 6.   15% seems like too big of a number to say "close enough". 

To put it another way, some people think producing for a contender is more valuable than producing for a loser(as you could lose just as easily without said player).   If you put that value at 15%, Cabrera blows Trout out of the water. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/19/2013 11:02:00 AM (view original):
It's just creates a slipperly slope like Raines, Lofton, Brett Butler.    If 5.5 is somewhat similar to 6.5 and 4.5 is somewhat similar to 5.5, where does the line get drawn?    We're not talking big numbers like 98 vs 97.    We're talking 5 and 6.   15% seems like too big of a number to say "close enough". 

Doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/19/2013 11:16:00 AM (view original):
To put it another way, some people think producing for a contender is more valuable than producing for a loser(as you could lose just as easily without said player).   If you put that value at 15%, Cabrera blows Trout out of the water. 

Where are you getting 15%?

Allow me to hijack the current discussion to get bad_luck's take on the 1988 NL MVP voting.

Kirk Gibson (6.5 WAR) wins somewhat easily, with 272 voting points.

Brett Butler (6.8 WAR) finishes 17th in the voting, with only 2 voting points.

Discuss.

Posted by tecwrg on 11/19/2013 12:01:00 PM (view original):
Allow me to hijack the current discussion to get bad_luck's take on the 1988 NL MVP voting.

Kirk Gibson (6.5 WAR) wins somewhat easily, with 272 voting points.

Brett Butler (6.8 WAR) finishes 17th in the voting, with only 2 voting points.

Discuss.

WAR numbers from 25 years ago aren't great. The defensive component was measured with total zone. Total zone isn't very good.

Posted by tecwrg on 11/19/2013 12:01:00 PM (view original):
Allow me to hijack the current discussion to get bad_luck's take on the 1988 NL MVP voting.

Kirk Gibson (6.5 WAR) wins somewhat easily, with 272 voting points.

Brett Butler (6.8 WAR) finishes 17th in the voting, with only 2 voting points.

Discuss.

Looking at fangraphs, they have Butler at 5.8 and Gibson at 6.2. Butler is getting a defensive boost over Gibson and he had a good year with the bat (though not as good as Gibson's). So, Gibson was about a win better than Butler, assuming the total zone metric is somewhat accurate (I wouldn't bet on it).

I don't see what the problem is.

lol pretty sure i read on page 3 that mikeT didn't want to argue with bad luck or wasn't in the mood to regardless i jumped to page 21 and its the same 3 people making posts.

Page 3 was about 6 days ago.    Moods can change.   Plus I've proven my point and watching BL squirm is kind of funny.