If I'm such a *******, why are you BEGGING me to engage with you?

**** off, clown.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/5/2017 12:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/5/2017 10:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/5/2017 10:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 11:28:00 PM (view original):
A two run homer is never more valuable than a grand slam.

I love how whenever you're trying to make a point, you look at things in a vacuum and think that you're fooling people.

Is a grand slam worth more runs than a two run homer? Absolutely it is. And no one is arguing otherwise.

The question on the table was, which is more valuable: a 2-run homer when you're down 2-1, or a grand slam when you're up 10-0? Given that SPECIFIC CONTEXT, the 2-run homer is more valuable.

I know you'll try to deflect and say "a grand slam is more valuable - 4 runs is more than 2 runs. DUH!!!" But for once, consider context in your argument. You might not look as inept if you do.

If only the word value was not, by definition, free from context. Again, try checking a dictionary. You might not look as inept if you do.

Alas, according to BL in a different thread some time ago, value is indeed dependent upon context.

While arguing that wealthy people should be taxed more than poor people, he justified that with marginal value. In fact, "marginal value" became his favorite phrase for a couple of days. I think he messed his pants a little every time he typed the phrase in that thread.

BL argued that rich people should be taxed more than poor people, because every dollar a millionaire makes over his $1m salary every year has less marginal value than the dollars the $20k a year guy makes over his $20k.

BL (and you) can't have it both ways.

I never tried to have it that way.

The correct phrase he was looking for there, in economic terms, is "marginal utility."

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2017 2:31:00 PM (view original):
If I'm such a *******, why are you BEGGING me to engage with you?

**** off, clown.

Why do you beg everyone to engage you?

Stop projecting, you halfwitted tool.

Yep, I never said "marginal value" in that thread.

Posted by toddcommish on 10/5/2017 12:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 10/4/2017 2:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/4/2017 1:10:00 AM (view original):
You're right, value and worth are not the same thing. And you somehow switched them in your head. Value is intrinsic, worth is extrinsic.

Did you know that having (monetary, intrinsic) value and having (practical, useful) value aren't the same thing? A stick has very little monetary value, but can have a very practical value if a snake is attacking you.

BadLuck and Dahs conveniently ignored this post, because it pointed out how ******* stupid they are.

I ignored this post because it's stupid. You're confusing utility and value.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2017 2:43:00 PM (view original):
Yep, I never said "marginal value" in that thread.

Changing your story/position yet again. Everyone in here is shocked.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2017 11:49:00 AM (view original):
I didn't answer because this is the same tired argument that happens every season.

A glass of water is a glass of water. Sitting on your table in the living room, it has the same value as the one in the kitchen. You're not giving anyone anything for it. But, in certain situations, you'd give everything you own for that glass of water. Webster's definition does not change that fact.

So some people believe the "best" player must contribute to winning to be the "most valuable". Because, as I understand it, the name of the game is winning games. I get Cy Youngs going to great pitchers on losing teams. It has nothing to do with value. But throw "Most Valuable" on a team game into the equation and the formula changes.

Now you and dahs can keep quoting the dictionary, others can argue 1988 MVPs, but I'll continue to believe that the MVP must come from a team in contention in September. Hitting 189 homers for a 60-102 team does not create value for me. Or a lot of people.

What bothers me the most about this whole argument is that it's always the same people arguing that "valuable" requires playing on a winning team who also perpetually cite MVP voting when discussing HOF candidates. So it's basically their (your) argument that you need to play on good teams to be considered for the HOF. In basketball where LeBron James can turn a 25-win team into a 55-win team, maybe that makes sense. But in baseball, it's absurd. Walter Johnson made 6 career postseason starts and went 3-3. But since he was a pitcher, he can still win the Cy Young, and still qualifies for the HOF? But the batting equivalent would never win an MVP if everyone voted as you would, and then he'd never get into the HOF if those voters voted as you would. That's bullshit.

Who do you think deserved the MVPs in '58 and '59 that Ernie Banks won for sub-.500 teams? It's already harder to succeed when you're the only dangerous hitter in your lineup. You want to further punish the guys by discounting what they are able to accomplish through adverse circumstances?

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2017 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2017 1:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2017 12:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2017 12:24:00 PM (view original):
Now you're talking about leverage. We can talk about that, but the best players don't always have the highest leverage scores. You wouldn't argue that we should give the MVP to the 25th guy off the bench who gets a key pinch hit in the bottom of the 9th, would you?

I'm asking a simple question.

Which homer has more "marginal value"?
1. April homer for a team that finishes 61-101
2. September homer that clinches a playoff spot

BL?

I simply want to know if one homer has more value than the other.

Both homers have the same value.

You do recognize that anyone, in baseball, who understands baseball, or even knows what a baseball is, would take #2 over #1, right? I know you can't answer differently but I think you know you're full of ****.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2017 2:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2017 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2017 1:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2017 12:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2017 12:24:00 PM (view original):
Now you're talking about leverage. We can talk about that, but the best players don't always have the highest leverage scores. You wouldn't argue that we should give the MVP to the 25th guy off the bench who gets a key pinch hit in the bottom of the 9th, would you?

I'm asking a simple question.

Which homer has more "marginal value"?
1. April homer for a team that finishes 61-101
2. September homer that clinches a playoff spot

BL?

I simply want to know if one homer has more value than the other.

Both homers have the same value.

You do recognize that anyone, in baseball, who understands baseball, or even knows what a baseball is, would take #2 over #1, right? I know you can't answer differently but I think you know you're full of ****.

Please see my double off the wall/strikeout example for a pitcher. Preferring one very specific outcome in one very specific situation doesn't alter the definition of value.

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/5/2017 2:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2017 11:49:00 AM (view original):
I didn't answer because this is the same tired argument that happens every season.

A glass of water is a glass of water. Sitting on your table in the living room, it has the same value as the one in the kitchen. You're not giving anyone anything for it. But, in certain situations, you'd give everything you own for that glass of water. Webster's definition does not change that fact.

So some people believe the "best" player must contribute to winning to be the "most valuable". Because, as I understand it, the name of the game is winning games. I get Cy Youngs going to great pitchers on losing teams. It has nothing to do with value. But throw "Most Valuable" on a team game into the equation and the formula changes.

Now you and dahs can keep quoting the dictionary, others can argue 1988 MVPs, but I'll continue to believe that the MVP must come from a team in contention in September. Hitting 189 homers for a 60-102 team does not create value for me. Or a lot of people.

What bothers me the most about this whole argument is that it's always the same people arguing that "valuable" requires playing on a winning team who also perpetually cite MVP voting when discussing HOF candidates. So it's basically their (your) argument that you need to play on good teams to be considered for the HOF. In basketball where LeBron James can turn a 25-win team into a 55-win team, maybe that makes sense. But in baseball, it's absurd. Walter Johnson made 6 career postseason starts and went 3-3. But since he was a pitcher, he can still win the Cy Young, and still qualifies for the HOF? But the batting equivalent would never win an MVP if everyone voted as you would, and then he'd never get into the HOF if those voters voted as you would. That's bullshit.

Who do you think deserved the MVPs in '58 and '59 that Ernie Banks won for sub-.500 teams? It's already harder to succeed when you're the only dangerous hitter in your lineup. You want to further punish the guys by discounting what they are able to accomplish through adverse circumstances?

OK, please find a single post where I mentioned MVP awards when discussing the HOF.

I only ask because of this incredibly retarded statement: "So it's basically their (your) argument that you need to play on good teams to be considered for the HOF."

I don't mind arguing with you but, if you're going to put words in my mouth, please be prepared to back them up. Or STFU. I'd prefer the latter since I know you won't find my requested example.

What did I miss?

Posted by bronxcheer on 10/5/2017 3:41:00 PM (view original):
What did I miss?

Just b_l and Mike, so nothing that matters or might be interesting.

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/5/2017 2:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 10/5/2017 12:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 10/4/2017 2:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/4/2017 1:10:00 AM (view original):
You're right, value and worth are not the same thing. And you somehow switched them in your head. Value is intrinsic, worth is extrinsic.

Did you know that having (monetary, intrinsic) value and having (practical, useful) value aren't the same thing? A stick has very little monetary value, but can have a very practical value if a snake is attacking you.

BadLuck and Dahs conveniently ignored this post, because it pointed out how ******* stupid they are.

I ignored this post because it's stupid. You're confusing utility and value.

I'm not confusing anything. It's crystal clear to everyone except you and some high school debater.

I'm even trying to give you an out by pointing out that you're focused on one type of value, while just about everyone else is focused on a different type of value.

There ARE different types of value. That's why there are multiple definitions in the dictionary.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2017 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 10/5/2017 1:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/5/2017 10:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/5/2017 10:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 11:28:00 PM (view original):
A two run homer is never more valuable than a grand slam.

I love how whenever you're trying to make a point, you look at things in a vacuum and think that you're fooling people.

Is a grand slam worth more runs than a two run homer? Absolutely it is. And no one is arguing otherwise.

The question on the table was, which is more valuable: a 2-run homer when you're down 2-1, or a grand slam when you're up 10-0? Given that SPECIFIC CONTEXT, the 2-run homer is more valuable.

I know you'll try to deflect and say "a grand slam is more valuable - 4 runs is more than 2 runs. DUH!!!" But for once, consider context in your argument. You might not look as inept if you do.

If only the word value was not, by definition, free from context. Again, try checking a dictionary. You might not look as inept if you do.

You are wrong. Value is relative.

If we were talking about ethics or morals, you'd be correct. But we aren't.

We're talking about assets. And while the term "relative value" exists in econ, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

EDIT:

Here's what relative value means when referencing MLB players:

Player A produces 50 offensive runs. Is that valuable? I don't know. The absolute value of his production is 50 runs. To know if that is good or not, we need to know what everyone else produces. That gives us the relative value of 50 runs.

So, if other players produce 100 runs offensively, we know the relative value of 50 is low. If other players produce 10 runs offensively, the relative value of 50 runs is high.

"Value" is an agreed upon human construct. Animals too but I won't go down that route. If you are talking about the specific gravity of Uranium, then I suppose its absolute.

But when you are talking about 'value of money' or 'value of glasses of water' or 'value of players to their team', thats all abstract and its all relative to the person who is discussing it.

Is a run a run? Yes. And in the abstract, one run is the same as any other run. But when you are discussing 'MVP' its not in a vacuum. Its relative the other circumstances around it. And 'Most Valuable in League' or 'Best Player in League' is still something which has no absolute value. Can it be somewhat measured by your questionable uber stats? Perhaps. But again, those fancy stats are flawed, and they are still human constructs.

So yeah, value is relative.

Posted by bronxcheer on 10/5/2017 3:41:00 PM (view original):
What did I miss?

bad_trump is projecting his own flaws on to others again.