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.

That was a sweeeeet snag he made with the infield in though!

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.

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.

There is no context to value.

Again, analogies are a terrible way to make a point, but you live in a house that has a value of $500,000. You love that house. It's all you can afford and you wouldn't be able to afford to buy another house if you sold it. (Add in whatever context you want to add - your mom died and left you the house...you built it with your own hands...you get laid by supermodels every night because you own the house...whatever).

Your neighbor's house has a value of $1,000,000. He hates the house. He has 35 other houses he likes better. Every night he spends in the house causes him to wake up with a migraine headache and a rash on his balls.

Your neighbor's house is still more valuable than your house.

Player A hits a home run every plate appearance for a team that finishes 35 games out of the playoffs. Player B hits a single every plate appearance for a team that finishes in first place by exactly one game. Player A is still more valuable.

Does anyone VALUE winning?

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2017 11:18:00 AM (view original):
Does anyone VALUE winning?

Who does more to help you win, the best player or the second best player?

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2017 11:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2017 11:18:00 AM (view original):
Does anyone VALUE winning?

Who does more to help you win, the best player or the second best player?

If you don't win, does it matter how well someone played?

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2017 11:18:00 AM (view original):
Does anyone VALUE winning?

Yes, that's why Joey Votto cannot win the 2017 NL MVP award, and Stanton really isn't a good candidate either.

It's between Goldschmidt, Arenado, and Blackmon.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2017 11:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2017 11:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2017 11:18:00 AM (view original):
Does anyone VALUE winning?

Who does more to help you win, the best player or the second best player?

If you don't win, does it matter how well someone played?

You didn't answer the question.

Which player does more to help you win, the best or the second best?

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.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2017 11:18:00 AM (view original):
Does anyone VALUE winning?

Charlie Sheen and Herm Edwards.

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.

Again with the water...you'd give everything you own for one in certain situations but a bigger glass would still be more valuable in those same situations.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/5/2017 6:42:00 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.

You're walking down the beach one day, and you come across what looks to be a shiny bottle sticking out of the sand. You pick it up, rub it to clean off the sand, and a genie pops out. The genie thanks you for freeing him from the bottle and grants you one wish, but it can be only be used under the following circumstance and with one of two choices:

You'll be signed by a major league baseball team and be allowed one and only one ML plate appearance. You can choose between:

1) You can hit a walk-off two run homer on the final day of the baseball season to put your team into the playoffs.

2) You can hit a grand slam with your team ahead 10-0 in the ninth inning in a mid-September game when your team is 17 games behind in the standings and eliminated from playoff contention.

Which would you choose? And why? Please use the word "value" in your answer.

BL?

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2017 11:53:00 AM (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.

Again with the water...you'd give everything you own for one in certain situations but a bigger glass would still be more valuable in those same situations.

LOL.

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.