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.

My point is, and has been, that the instructions are vague.

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.

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.

Exactly. If you want to argue, for example, that Mookie Betts was better than Mike Trout this season and therefore most valuable, go for it.

But if your argument is that Trout was better but Betts was more valuable because the Red Sox were good and the Angels were bad, you're an idiot.

Can you be valuable on a last-place team?

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?

Posted by toddcommish on 10/5/2016 1:08:00 PM (view original):
Can you be valuable on a last-place team?

Yes. You can be most valuable and be on a last place team. ****, you can have the greatest season of all time and still be on a last place team.

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.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2016 11:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/5/2016 11:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2016 11:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/5/2016 11:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2016 11:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2016 10:56:00 AM (view original):
Sure. But, if pitchers contribute a "whole lot more run prevention than anybody else", it seems to me that you'd see more pitchers winning, or at least top 3, in MVP voting. Unless, of course, you believe scoring is more important than preventing scoring.

Nonetheless, I'll get to the point. The MVP voting guidelines that some believe are "crystal clear" are anything but. They're vague. I'm not sure if that was intentional but there's a reason they vote rather than refer to one stat, let's say WAR, to determine who wins.

The ballot doesn't lay out how you should determine the players with the best offense and defense, it specifically says that's up to the voter. But it is clear that voters should vote for the player who they think is the strongest on offense and defense.

You keep referring to "the ballot". Does it say something different than the cover letter that dahs posted?

I'm referring to the letter that comes with the ballot, the same one dahs posted.

If that's all you're going by, then it's nowhere near "clear".

"Value" can mean different things to different people. And "rule" #3 potentially throws a wrench into the mix.

But they define value: strength of offense and defense.

And "strength of offense and defense" is not a concrete thing.

Unless you want to argue that MVP should just go to the guy with the highest WAR.

In which case, why even vote?

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2016 1:00:00 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.

Exactly. If you want to argue, for example, that Mookie Betts was better than Mike Trout this season and therefore most valuable, go for it.

But if your argument is that Trout was better but Betts was more valuable because the Red Sox were good and the Angels were bad, you're an idiot.

What if your argument is that Betts and Trout had roughly equivalent seasons, so the fact that Mookie contributed to his team winning a division sways the vote in his favour?

Like I said earlier, I'm not in favour of saying "Screw that guy. His team didn't make the playoffs." But if two players are reasonably close statistically, I don't think it's the least bit unreasonable to see where their teams finished and how each contributed to that success.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/5/2016 1:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2016 11:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/5/2016 11:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2016 11:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/5/2016 11:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2016 11:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2016 10:56:00 AM (view original):
Sure. But, if pitchers contribute a "whole lot more run prevention than anybody else", it seems to me that you'd see more pitchers winning, or at least top 3, in MVP voting. Unless, of course, you believe scoring is more important than preventing scoring.

Nonetheless, I'll get to the point. The MVP voting guidelines that some believe are "crystal clear" are anything but. They're vague. I'm not sure if that was intentional but there's a reason they vote rather than refer to one stat, let's say WAR, to determine who wins.

The ballot doesn't lay out how you should determine the players with the best offense and defense, it specifically says that's up to the voter. But it is clear that voters should vote for the player who they think is the strongest on offense and defense.

You keep referring to "the ballot". Does it say something different than the cover letter that dahs posted?

I'm referring to the letter that comes with the ballot, the same one dahs posted.

If that's all you're going by, then it's nowhere near "clear".

"Value" can mean different things to different people. And "rule" #3 potentially throws a wrench into the mix.

But they define value: strength of offense and defense.

And "strength of offense and defense" is not a concrete thing.

Unless you want to argue that MVP should just go to the guy with the highest WAR.

In which case, why even vote?

Of course it isn't concrete. Like I said before, if you want to argue that player A was better than player B and deserves the award, go for it.

But if youre voting for player A even though you think B was better, you're an idiot.

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.

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.

Explain how I'm missing the concept of value.

Another prime example of PSBL making himself the Ultimate Arbiter of Everything.