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.

LOL. I remember that.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2017 9:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 10/5/2017 6:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 10:13:00 PM (view original):

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.

If that's true, then there are situations where a $10 bill is more valuable than a $20.

Are there?

If I'm at the table and I'm up 5 grand, if I'm getting up and tipping the dealer $20 is pretty trivial. It doesn't hold a lot of value to me at that point.

When I was at a down time in my life and didn't have a lot of money, $10 was five meals.

The $10 at that point was worth 30 times the $20 that I tip the dealer with.

But when you were down in life, $20 was still more valuable than $10.

Looks like BL is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/5/2017 11:55:00 AM (view original):

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?

Your question doesn't address value.

Here's why.

You find a genie bottle etc. The genie gives you two scenarios:

1) Bottom of the ninth, two outs, runner on first. Win and go to the playoffs. Lose and you're done. Your team is pitching. The pitcher gives up a double off the wall and the runner is thrown out at home, game over, you're in the playoffs.

2) Bottom of the ninth, two outs, runner on first. Win and nothing, you're six games out. Lose and nothing, it's the last game of the season. The pitcher strikes the batter out.

No one would ever choose 2. Also, no one would ever argue that allowing a double off the wall was more valuable than striking a hitter out.

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

Posted by tecwrg on 10/4/2017 10:41:00 PM (view original):
You hit a three run home run in the bottom of the 8th with your team leading 10-0.

I hit a three run home run in the bottom of the 8th with my team losing 2-0.

Which home run has more value?

Both home runs are worth 3 runs. In either situation would you rather have a solo home run? No. Exactly. 3 run homers are always more valuable than solo homers.

there you go again with worth and value. yes, both home runs are worth 3 runs, but the 3 run homer that puts your team ahead in the bottom of the 8th inning is more valuable than the 3 run homer that increases your team's lead to 13 runs in the bottom of the 8th. Ask any manager anywhere which homer they would prefer to have and I doubt you'll find one who would value the one that puts his team up 13 - 0 over the one that gives his team the lead.
As far as 3 run homers always being more valuable than solo homers, I'd value a solo walk off homer in the bottom of the 9th more than a 3 run homer that gives my team a 13 - 0 lead in the top of the ninth. If you say any differently, you're even stupider than I thought.

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.

See how there are two words in that phrase? Value (noun) and marginal (adjective). Adjectives modify nouns. Modify means "make changes to."

"Marginal value" means something different than "value" by itself.

I can't believe I had to give a second-grade grammar lesson.

Could a homer for a losing team have less "marginal value" when compared to a homer that puts another team in the playoffs?

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?

And what about Altuve? The Astros won the west by 20+ games. No individual player can ever swing +/- 20 games, it just isn't possible. Should we disqualify him from MVP discussion? The Astros would have won the west without him.

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

It seems like, in mike/tec/sj/whoever world that a player is only the MVP if he falls into a narrow category of players who:

Are really good
Have really good teammates
But the teammates can't be too good

And I'm pretty sure I said marginal utility not marginal value in whatever thread tec is talking about.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2017 12:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/5/2017 11:55:00 AM (view original):

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?

Your question doesn't address value.

Here's why.

You find a genie bottle etc. The genie gives you two scenarios:

1) Bottom of the ninth, two outs, runner on first. Win and go to the playoffs. Lose and you're done. Your team is pitching. The pitcher gives up a double off the wall and the runner is thrown out at home, game over, you're in the playoffs.

2) Bottom of the ninth, two outs, runner on first. Win and nothing, you're six games out. Lose and nothing, it's the last game of the season. The pitcher strikes the batter out.

No one would ever choose 2. Also, no one would ever argue that allowing a double off the wall was more valuable than striking a hitter out.

Refusing to answer the question. Shocking.

A two run homer is never more valuable than a grand slam.
10/4/2017 11:28 PM

Sounds like you would choose the "more valuable" grand slam.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2017 12:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/5/2017 11:55:00 AM (view original):

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?

Your question doesn't address value.

Here's why.

You find a genie bottle etc. The genie gives you two scenarios:

1) Bottom of the ninth, two outs, runner on first. Win and go to the playoffs. Lose and you're done. Your team is pitching. The pitcher gives up a double off the wall and the runner is thrown out at home, game over, you're in the playoffs.

2) Bottom of the ninth, two outs, runner on first. Win and nothing, you're six games out. Lose and nothing, it's the last game of the season. The pitcher strikes the batter out.

No one would ever choose 2. Also, no one would ever argue that allowing a double off the wall was more valuable than striking a hitter out.

Why is it when someone presents you with an "A or B" question, you always come back with a scenario of your own that twists the argument and in no way reflects what you were being asked?

Put it this way: Let's say a team is up 10-0 in the 9th inning of the penultimate game of the season and tied for a playoff spot. Player A hits a grand slam and they win 14-0. In the last game of the season, the team is up 3-2 and Player A is up in the 9th with a runner on second and two outs. He strikes out, and the team misses the playoffs.

Someone asks the manager "Bob, if you had the option of having Player A strikeout in the first game instead of hitting that grand slam, and then hitting his homer in the 9th inning of game 2 instead, would you do it?"

Do you think any manager in that situation would say "Hell no! Don't ask stupid questions. That grand slam was more valuable than the two-run homer"?

Posted by tecwrg on 10/5/2017 12:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2017 12:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/5/2017 11:55:00 AM (view original):

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?

Your question doesn't address value.

Here's why.

You find a genie bottle etc. The genie gives you two scenarios:

1) Bottom of the ninth, two outs, runner on first. Win and go to the playoffs. Lose and you're done. Your team is pitching. The pitcher gives up a double off the wall and the runner is thrown out at home, game over, you're in the playoffs.

2) Bottom of the ninth, two outs, runner on first. Win and nothing, you're six games out. Lose and nothing, it's the last game of the season. The pitcher strikes the batter out.

No one would ever choose 2. Also, no one would ever argue that allowing a double off the wall was more valuable than striking a hitter out.

Refusing to answer the question. Shocking.

A two run homer is never more valuable than a grand slam.
10/4/2017 11:28 PM

Sounds like you would choose the "more valuable" grand slam.

A grand slam is always more valuable than a two run homer.

So that's what you would choose?

LOL.

Case closed.