Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 8:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 10/4/2017 7:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 3:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/4/2017 3:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 10/4/2017 1:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 10/4/2017 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 10:26:00 AM (view original):
Um I'm a Dodger fan. That team wasn't mediocre. Well...the offense wasn't great but the pitching staff was. Hershiser threw like 280 innings with a 2 something ERA. Valenzuela was like the fourth best starter. And the bullpen was lights out.

Gibson was huge as the only real threat in the lineup. And his WS homer was historic. But if Gibson wasn't the best player in the league (and I'm not arguing that), he wasn't the most valuable. A better player in Gibson's place would have lead to more wins.

That may be true, but the Dodgers didn't have a better player than Gibson. Just because a better player might have been more valuable if he was on the team instead of Gibson, that does not make Gibson's value to the team any less.

It's kind of a weird argument because Gibson was probably one of the best 2 or 3 players in the NL that year. Maybe Darryl Strawberry was a hair better, but really, Gibson should have been in the MVP discussion regardless of where the Dodgers finished in the standings.

without much research here are 10 players who one might say had as good a season or better than Gibson did in 1988:
Barry Larkin, Will Clark, Tony Gwynn, Kal Daniels, Darryl Strawberry, Andres Galarraga, Andy Van Slyke, Orel Hershiser, Danny Jackson and David Cone.

I'd say the top 5 were Strawberry, Gibson, Galarraga, Clark, and Larkin. I wouldn't have a problem with any of them getting the award that year.

The point is, you can make a credible argument that Gibson was actually the most valuable and leave the hero-narrative bullshit at the door.

If one were to look, would one discover that these were the top 5 players in WAR in the NL in 1988?

Is that where you got this list from?

They are not.

According to Fangraphs, Van Slyke led the NL in WAR in 1988. Ozzie Smith and Brett Butler were #4 and #5. I haven't seen the BR rankings.

Which WAR was this? I get confused by all of them.

Easy confusion seems like a theme for you.

Posted by sjpoker on 10/4/2017 8:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 8:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 10/4/2017 7:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 3:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/4/2017 3:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 10/4/2017 1:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 10/4/2017 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 10:26:00 AM (view original):
Um I'm a Dodger fan. That team wasn't mediocre. Well...the offense wasn't great but the pitching staff was. Hershiser threw like 280 innings with a 2 something ERA. Valenzuela was like the fourth best starter. And the bullpen was lights out.

Gibson was huge as the only real threat in the lineup. And his WS homer was historic. But if Gibson wasn't the best player in the league (and I'm not arguing that), he wasn't the most valuable. A better player in Gibson's place would have lead to more wins.

That may be true, but the Dodgers didn't have a better player than Gibson. Just because a better player might have been more valuable if he was on the team instead of Gibson, that does not make Gibson's value to the team any less.

It's kind of a weird argument because Gibson was probably one of the best 2 or 3 players in the NL that year. Maybe Darryl Strawberry was a hair better, but really, Gibson should have been in the MVP discussion regardless of where the Dodgers finished in the standings.

without much research here are 10 players who one might say had as good a season or better than Gibson did in 1988:
Barry Larkin, Will Clark, Tony Gwynn, Kal Daniels, Darryl Strawberry, Andres Galarraga, Andy Van Slyke, Orel Hershiser, Danny Jackson and David Cone.

I'd say the top 5 were Strawberry, Gibson, Galarraga, Clark, and Larkin. I wouldn't have a problem with any of them getting the award that year.

The point is, you can make a credible argument that Gibson was actually the most valuable and leave the hero-narrative bullshit at the door.

If one were to look, would one discover that these were the top 5 players in WAR in the NL in 1988?

Is that where you got this list from?

They are not.

According to Fangraphs, Van Slyke led the NL in WAR in 1988. Ozzie Smith and Brett Butler were #4 and #5. I haven't seen the BR rankings.

Which WAR was this? I get confused by all of them.

Easy confusion seems like a theme for you.

Uh oh. Someone's butthurt. Wheres Doug with his car meme?

Shame your fancy stats can't quantify intangibles.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/4/2017 9:16:00 PM (view original):
I like how BL and dahs have deemed themselves the experts and sole definers of what defines the "value" part of MVP.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 9:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/4/2017 9:16:00 PM (view original):
I like how BL and dahs have deemed themselves the experts and sole definers of what defines the "value" part of MVP.

It's not us, it's the English language. In terms of baseball players, no individual season can be more valuable than the best individual season.

You're welcome to disagree with what constitutes best.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/4/2017 9:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 9:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/4/2017 9:16:00 PM (view original):
I like how BL and dahs have deemed themselves the experts and sole definers of what defines the "value" part of MVP.

It's not us, it's the English language. In terms of baseball players, no individual season can be more valuable than the best individual season.

You're welcome to disagree with what constitutes best.

Wrong.

You don't get to decree that "most valuable" is "best season".

That's why you're considered the clown of these forums.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/4/2017 9:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 9:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/4/2017 9:16:00 PM (view original):
I like how BL and dahs have deemed themselves the experts and sole definers of what defines the "value" part of MVP.

It's not us, it's the English language. In terms of baseball players, no individual season can be more valuable than the best individual season.

You're welcome to disagree with what constitutes best.

Wrong.

You don't get to decree that "most valuable" is "best season".

That's why you're considered the clown of these forums.

Posted by sjpoker on 10/4/2017 10:01:00 PM (view original):
God...

One players production may be more important to his team than another players production to a different team even if the second player was more productive than the first. It's relative.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 10:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 10/4/2017 10:01:00 PM (view original):
God...

One players production may be more important to his team than another players production to a different team even if the second player was more productive than the first. It's relative.

Except value isn't relative.

Posted by sjpoker on 10/4/2017 10:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 10:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 10/4/2017 10:01:00 PM (view original):
God...

One players production may be more important to his team than another players production to a different team even if the second player was more productive than the first. It's relative.

Except value isn't relative.

In fact it's really simple. Does value exist outside of human consciousness? It does not. It's relative.