Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2016 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2016 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/5/2016 12:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 10/5/2016 12:48:00 PM (view original):
and how do you define "strength of offense and defense"? Is a guy who hits .240 with 30 HRs and 100 RBIs more valuable that a guy with a .375 OBP, 50 steals and 100 runs scored? If so, why? Is a SS with great range more valuable than an OF with a great arm? If you say the voter gets to decide, than it is not clear. It is vague. If it was clear there would be nothing to decide.

This is kind of the point. This is how the instructions are designed to be subjective and unclear. Over the past few decades a startlingly large number of stupid voters have instead chosen to often frame the MVP debate between a player who had a clearly superior season for a 70-win team and a player who had a clearly inferior season for a 95-win playoff team. To me, it is fairly clear that the ballot writers never intended such a debate. The debate should be about what makes a player valuable, what contributions were more impressive, what wins baseball games. There's still plenty of ambiguity there.

"what wins baseball games"

What if your team doesn't do much of that winning thing?

Then your team wasn't very good. That doesn't mean you weren't most valuable.

So do I have to quote his entire declaration?

"The debate should be about what makes a player valuable, what contributions were more impressive, what wins baseball games."


That sounds like a guy from a winning team. Not some guy who hit .330/41/118.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2016 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2016 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2016 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/5/2016 12:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 10/5/2016 12:48:00 PM (view original):
and how do you define "strength of offense and defense"? Is a guy who hits .240 with 30 HRs and 100 RBIs more valuable that a guy with a .375 OBP, 50 steals and 100 runs scored? If so, why? Is a SS with great range more valuable than an OF with a great arm? If you say the voter gets to decide, than it is not clear. It is vague. If it was clear there would be nothing to decide.

This is kind of the point. This is how the instructions are designed to be subjective and unclear. Over the past few decades a startlingly large number of stupid voters have instead chosen to often frame the MVP debate between a player who had a clearly superior season for a 70-win team and a player who had a clearly inferior season for a 95-win playoff team. To me, it is fairly clear that the ballot writers never intended such a debate. The debate should be about what makes a player valuable, what contributions were more impressive, what wins baseball games. There's still plenty of ambiguity there.

"what wins baseball games"

What if your team doesn't do much of that winning thing?

Then your team wasn't very good. That doesn't mean you weren't most valuable.

So do I have to quote his entire declaration?

"The debate should be about what makes a player valuable, what contributions were more impressive, what wins baseball games."


That sounds like a guy from a winning team. Not some guy who hit .330/41/118.

Nope. A guy hitting .330/.420/.550 contributes more to wining, even on a bad team, than a guy hitting .290/.370/.490 does on a great team.

(Assuming same PA, defensive value, etc)

Do you understand what a "win" is?

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2016 1:39:00 PM (view original):
Do you understand what a "win" is?

Do you understand how baseball works?

One player, even the greatest player of all time, can't turn a 65 win team into a 90 win team.

I do.

One team scores more runs than the other and wins. Teams that win a lot make the playoffs. Players contribute to those wins.

What part is confusing you?

I'm not confused. Are you confused?

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2016 1:44:00 PM (view original):
I'm not confused. Are you confused?

Is it just me, or does he sound like Martin Short in the SNL "60 Minutes" sketch?

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2016 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2016 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2016 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/5/2016 12:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 10/5/2016 12:48:00 PM (view original):
and how do you define "strength of offense and defense"? Is a guy who hits .240 with 30 HRs and 100 RBIs more valuable that a guy with a .375 OBP, 50 steals and 100 runs scored? If so, why? Is a SS with great range more valuable than an OF with a great arm? If you say the voter gets to decide, than it is not clear. It is vague. If it was clear there would be nothing to decide.

This is kind of the point. This is how the instructions are designed to be subjective and unclear. Over the past few decades a startlingly large number of stupid voters have instead chosen to often frame the MVP debate between a player who had a clearly superior season for a 70-win team and a player who had a clearly inferior season for a 95-win playoff team. To me, it is fairly clear that the ballot writers never intended such a debate. The debate should be about what makes a player valuable, what contributions were more impressive, what wins baseball games. There's still plenty of ambiguity there.

"what wins baseball games"

What if your team doesn't do much of that winning thing?

Then your team wasn't very good. That doesn't mean you weren't most valuable.

So do I have to quote his entire declaration?

"The debate should be about what makes a player valuable, what contributions were more impressive, what wins baseball games."


That sounds like a guy from a winning team. Not some guy who hit .330/41/118.

Maybe if you're an idiot. Every baseball team in the modern MVP era (1931-present) has won at least 37 games. If you ignore strike-shortened seasons, only one team has won fewer than 40 games and only 16 have won fewer than 50. Every player has an opportunity to contribute to wins. I guarantee you that a guy who hit .330/41/118 contributed greatly to winning.

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/5/2016 1:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2016 1:22:00 PM (view original):
In that case you should drill down and decide which player you think was better. Not give one guy a bonus because he got to play with Price and Porcello instead of Weaver and Lincecum.

I think you're missing the concept of value.

Take it up with the commissioner and tell him to change MVP to the Ted Williams Award for the best offensive player.

I think you are missing the concept of value.

"Value," properly defined, is an intrinsic property. "Worth" is an extrinsic property - IE, in proper English, if something becomes more scarce, its worth increases, but its value remains the same. So the same player doing the same thing is inherently of the same value on any team, even though his worth may change.

Of course, in reality, if you put a player on a different team, he may produce differently. Remove lineup protection and a hitter will tend to hit less, though he may walk more and see his OBP go up a bit. But if anything, you would say that a player on a good team should be expected to put up better numbers. You should hold them to a higher standard if you're going to differentiate.

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/5/2016 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2016 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2016 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2016 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/5/2016 12:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 10/5/2016 12:48:00 PM (view original):
and how do you define "strength of offense and defense"? Is a guy who hits .240 with 30 HRs and 100 RBIs more valuable that a guy with a .375 OBP, 50 steals and 100 runs scored? If so, why? Is a SS with great range more valuable than an OF with a great arm? If you say the voter gets to decide, than it is not clear. It is vague. If it was clear there would be nothing to decide.

This is kind of the point. This is how the instructions are designed to be subjective and unclear. Over the past few decades a startlingly large number of stupid voters have instead chosen to often frame the MVP debate between a player who had a clearly superior season for a 70-win team and a player who had a clearly inferior season for a 95-win playoff team. To me, it is fairly clear that the ballot writers never intended such a debate. The debate should be about what makes a player valuable, what contributions were more impressive, what wins baseball games. There's still plenty of ambiguity there.

"what wins baseball games"

What if your team doesn't do much of that winning thing?

Then your team wasn't very good. That doesn't mean you weren't most valuable.

So do I have to quote his entire declaration?

"The debate should be about what makes a player valuable, what contributions were more impressive, what wins baseball games."


That sounds like a guy from a winning team. Not some guy who hit .330/41/118.

Maybe if you're an idiot. Every baseball team in the modern MVP era (1931-present) has won at least 37 games. If you ignore strike-shortened seasons, only one team has won fewer than 40 games and only 16 have won fewer than 50. Every player has an opportunity to contribute to wins. I guarantee you that a guy who hit .330/41/118 contributed greatly to winning.

OK.

Let's say Mr.330/41/118 went 0-237 in those 50 wins. Is he contributing to wins?

I guess not, but given that nobody has ever had a season remotely like that, I think we can ignore your bullshit scenario.

I don't think many, if any, serious MVP candidates in history have had worse numbers in losses than in wins. That's a split available on BBR and virtually everyone has better stats in wins.

Given that Trout is the big MVP candidate from a bad team this year, here are his numbers:

Split	G	GS	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	TB	GDP	HBP	SH	SF	IBB	ROE	BAbip	tOPS+	sOPS+
in Wins	73	72	320	244	94	97	19	2	19	66	15	5	68	52	.398	.531	.725	1.257	177	2	5	0	3	10	4	.443	152	194
in Losses	86	85	361	305	29	76	13	3	10	34	15	2	48	85	.249	.360	.410	.770	125	3	6	0	2	2	6	.311	56	150

In the interest of completeness, here is Arenado:

Split	G	GS	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	TB	GDP	HBP	SH	SF	IBB	ROE	BAbip	tOPS+	sOPS+
in Wins	74	74	333	293	75	98	17	4	27	95	2	1	31	40	.334	.393	.696	1.090	204	8	2	0	7	6	2	.305	131	150
in Losses	86	85	363	325	41	84	18	2	14	38	0	2	37	63	.258	.333	.455	.789	148	9	0	0	1	4	3	.281	72	154

And Freeman:

Split	G	GS	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	TB	GDP	HBP	SH	SF	IBB	ROE	BAbip	tOPS+	sOPS+
in Wins	67	67	303	247	59	92	23	2	17	54	4	1	48	59	.372	.479	.688	1.167	170	5	5	0	3	11	1	.431	141	172
in Losses	91	91	390	342	43	86	20	4	17	37	2	0	41	112	.251	.338	.482	.821	165	7	5	0	2	7	4	.321	69	163

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/5/2016 2:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/5/2016 1:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2016 1:22:00 PM (view original):
In that case you should drill down and decide which player you think was better. Not give one guy a bonus because he got to play with Price and Porcello instead of Weaver and Lincecum.

I think you're missing the concept of value.

Take it up with the commissioner and tell him to change MVP to the Ted Williams Award for the best offensive player.

I think you are missing the concept of value.

"Value," properly defined, is an intrinsic property. "Worth" is an extrinsic property - IE, in proper English, if something becomes more scarce, its worth increases, but its value remains the same. So the same player doing the same thing is inherently of the same value on any team, even though his worth may change.

Of course, in reality, if you put a player on a different team, he may produce differently. Remove lineup protection and a hitter will tend to hit less, though he may walk more and see his OBP go up a bit. But if anything, you would say that a player on a good team should be expected to put up better numbers. You should hold them to a higher standard if you're going to differentiate.

I'm not a smoker. Let's say someone gives me $1,000 worth of cigars or cigarettes. They have worth, but they're of no value to me. A $500 TV is infinitely more valuable to me, even though it has less worth.

I don't disagree with the point you're trying to make, but the presence of the word "value" opens up the debate to look at how a player performed within the context of his team, considering it's a team sport.

If a pitcher wins 20 games for a team that wins 75, that's an impressive feat, but it's not as valuable as a closer who goes 53/53 on a team that makes the playoffs by a game.

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/5/2016 2:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/5/2016 2:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/5/2016 1:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2016 1:22:00 PM (view original):
In that case you should drill down and decide which player you think was better. Not give one guy a bonus because he got to play with Price and Porcello instead of Weaver and Lincecum.

I think you're missing the concept of value.

Take it up with the commissioner and tell him to change MVP to the Ted Williams Award for the best offensive player.

I think you are missing the concept of value.

"Value," properly defined, is an intrinsic property. "Worth" is an extrinsic property - IE, in proper English, if something becomes more scarce, its worth increases, but its value remains the same. So the same player doing the same thing is inherently of the same value on any team, even though his worth may change.

Of course, in reality, if you put a player on a different team, he may produce differently. Remove lineup protection and a hitter will tend to hit less, though he may walk more and see his OBP go up a bit. But if anything, you would say that a player on a good team should be expected to put up better numbers. You should hold them to a higher standard if you're going to differentiate.

I'm not a smoker. Let's say someone gives me $1,000 worth of cigars or cigarettes. They have worth, but they're of no value to me. A $500 TV is infinitely more valuable to me, even though it has less worth.

I don't disagree with the point you're trying to make, but the presence of the word "value" opens up the debate to look at how a player performed within the context of his team, considering it's a team sport.

If a pitcher wins 20 games for a team that wins 75, that's an impressive feat, but it's not as valuable as a closer who goes 53/53 on a team that makes the playoffs by a game.

So Andre Ethier is more valuable than Mike Trout?