Rendon and Stanton were the best players in the NL this year when you factor in all three--hitting, fielding, base running plus the position they play and the ballparks they played in. Yes, that's WAR.

If you're only looking at offense, Votto is the winner.

If you're retarded and don't understand that most valuable=best, then some other player from a playoff team probably gets your vote.

most valuable + best in your opinion. Not every one shares your opinion. If the player in the league is on a last place team, how valuable was he? The team could finish last without him.

Posted by wylie715 on 10/3/2017 12:42:00 PM (view original):
most valuable + best in your opinion. Not every one shares your opinion. If the player in the league is on a last place team, how valuable was he? The team could finish last without him.

The best player in the league is always the most valuable player.

to you, maybe. As I said, your definition of most valuable is not the same as everyone else's.

It's the dictionary definition of valuable. There are a lot of people who are willfully ignorant on this subject.

I don't seen anything about the best here:

adjective

I don't see anything about making the postseason there either. The definition of "most valuable" is basically "having the greatest value." There are much more meaningful definitions if you look up "value" instead of "valuable," and the word "intrinsic" is plastered all over the definition of value. If value is intrinsic it is inherently independent of context or circumstances.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/3/2017 12:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 10/3/2017 12:42:00 PM (view original):
most valuable + best in your opinion. Not every one shares your opinion. If the player in the league is on a last place team, how valuable was he? The team could finish last without him.

The best player in the league is always the most valuable player.

So LeBron should have won about 8 straight MVP? Wilt should have had 12ish as should have Jabbar?

And, yes, I used basketball because it's such an individual sport and everyone must play O/D at the same time.

Posted by wylie715 on 10/3/2017 3:58:00 PM (view original):
I don't seen anything about the best here:

adjective

1.

having considerable monetary worth; costing or bringing a high price:

a valuable painting; a valuable crop.

2.

having qualities worthy of respect, admiration, or esteem:

a valuable friend.

3.

of considerable use, service, or importance:

valuable information.

3.
the worth of something in terms of the amount of other things for which it can be exchanged or in terms of some medium of exchange.

All else being equal (contracts, positional needs, etc), the best player in the league will be worth more in trade than any other player in the league, right?

Because he's most valuable. If player A is the best player in the league and plays for the Tigers, he's still more valuable than Player B, the Nth best player in the league, playing for the Astros.

If A and B switched places, the Astros would get better and the Tigers would get worse.

Posted by wylie715 on 10/3/2017 3:58:00 PM (view original):
I don't seen anything about the best here:

adjective

1.

having considerable monetary worth; costing or bringing a high price:

a valuable painting; a valuable crop.

2.

having qualities worthy of respect, admiration, or esteem:

a valuable friend.

3.

of considerable use, service, or importance:

valuable information.

Then Stanton should be MVP with that logic! ??

I can't believe we're having this argument again. If deciding who was the MVP is as simple as you say, why do they have a vote? If I am a multi-millionaire and someone offers me $100 its not all that valuable to me. If I have $200 to my name and some offers me $100 than that $100 is very valuable to me. Value is relative, and value is different to different people.

MVP is like porn----" I know it when I see it"

Posted by wylie715 on 10/3/2017 5:54:00 PM (view original):
I can't believe we're having this argument again. If deciding who was the MVP is as simple as you say, why do they have a vote? If I am a multi-millionaire and someone offers me $100 its not all that valuable to me. If I have $200 to my name and some offers me $100 than that $100 is very valuable to me. Value is relative, and value is different to different people.

Value is not relative. The value of your home is X, regardless of your net worth. The value of a $100 bill is $100, regardless of your net worth.

Posted by wylie715 on 10/3/2017 5:54:00 PM (view original):
I can't believe we're having this argument again. If deciding who was the MVP is as simple as you say, why do they have a vote? If I am a multi-millionaire and someone offers me $100 its not all that valuable to me. If I have $200 to my name and some offers me $100 than that $100 is very valuable to me. Value is relative, and value is different to different people.

There's no point going through this argument again. You're objectively wrong. Each $100 has exactly $100 in value. It might mean more to you, but it has identical value. If anything one could argue it has more value in the hands of the wealthy guy since he'll get better ROI on it.

They need a vote because, unlike the definition of value, what constitutes the best player is not objectively obvious. It was even less objectively obvious when the award was created than it is now, but it's still a matter of massive debate in spite of all the statistics we have at our disposal.

Posted by bronxcheer on 10/3/2017 5:57:00 PM (view original):
MVP is like porn----" I know it when I see it"

Maybe, but can you tell us what an NFL catch is? (Does anybody really know?)