Posted by wylie715 on 10/10/2017 7:21:00 PM (view original):
how much value did a good player add if his team loses? Not as much as a player with basically the same stats on a winning team. The main point of the game is winning, right?
What is your logic here? Players don't win and lose games. Even pitchers credited with wins and losses don't really win or lose on their own (see 1987 Nolan Ryan). Teams win and lose games as a group. I don't see the logic that says that a player is more or less valuable based on the quality of his teammates.
There are 2 different scenarios here. A few days ago, somebody (don't remember who) argued that Gibson deserved to win the MVP in 1988 because he "inspired" his teammates to win. If your belief is that Gibson improved his teammates' performance, then add that to his hitting, running, and fielding in determining his value. He's adding something to the team. It makes sense for that to count. On the other hand, what I will never agree with is the argument that you and JTP were making earlier that, if its a close race, you pick the guy from the better team. Unless he's also the GM and he picked his teammates, their performance has no bearing on his achievements. Mike Trout has been around for parts of 7 seasons. In that time the Angels have made 1 postseason and didn't win a game. In the 7 years before Trout arrived, the Angels made 5 postseasons and 2 ALCSes. Is that Trout's fault? He's been the best player in baseball since he arrived in the league, and it's really not very close. It just so happens that the rest of the team got worse around the time Trout arrived. I don't see why that should reflect negatively on him
unless you believe he caused the regression of his teammates.