Posted by bad_luck on 10/10/2017 2:53:00 PM (view original):
Just so we're clear, I'm still not arguing that you have to measure best a specific way.

But.

Once you do decide that player A was better than player B.

Player A is more valuable.

Always.

"Always".

That's where you dive headfirst into the rat hole.

In EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT.

It's ok if absolutes scare you, tec. The adults can handle it.

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

Posted by wylie715 on 10/10/2017 12:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/9/2017 7:39:00 PM (view original):
So here's how this exchange went. The groupthink crew claimed that players on losing teams have no value. That was your argument. BL asks you to actually confirm that you believe it by asking you to compare the value of a great player on a losing team and a fairly average player on a winning team. Then you call him stupid for pointing out how colossally idiotic your original argument was.

You don't see the problem here? You guys can't even begin to defend your initial point because of how incredibly dumb it really was. And you want to put that on BL?

This feels like an argument about religion at this point. I feel like I'm debating evolution with a bunch of Creationists. In light of meaningful evidence that there is a flaw in your argument, you make tangential points and mock reputable sources (Tec continuously argues that dictionary definitions have no place in a discussion of WHAT WORDS MEAN). You can't refute any points made against you, haven't made anything resembling a logical argument at any point, but nonetheless are convinced that the people who don't agree with you are deluded and missing the point. In reality that point is that something has been built up in your minds as true for so long you can't conceive of it being untrue. It's the same thing with the relative value of walks or strikeouts. Doesn't matter how much evidence to the contrary you may be provided, strikeouts are very bad and walks are very mediocre. I guess it's because of how emotionally connected we are to sports. It's almost like a religion to a lot of people, and we don't like our views about sports to be challenged. Some people clearly can't handle it. Honestly the only person who's made a meaningful argument against "most valuable" = best is toddcommish. I disagree with his argument, but at least he tried. The rest of you haven't come close to making a coherent point anywhere in this 30+ page thread. And yet you're still all convinced I'm the one that sounds stupid. It's like I told you the Earth was not the center of the universe a few thousand years ago.

I don't recall anyone saying that players on losing teams have NO value. Of course they have value. Personally, I'd value a good player on a team that wins the WS more than I'd value a great player on a team that finishes 3rd in the division. Maybe I missed something, but isn't the point of the game to win? Therefore isn't a player who helps your team win more valuable that a player who helps your team finish in last place?

A) mike said it
B) a player who does more to help you win is more valuable than a player who does less to help you win. That's the point. Joey Votto does more to add wins than, for example, Paul Goldschmidt.

what Mike says has no relationship to reality. He also said Lincoln was the worst president ever, or something like that.

I agree with what someone else said. If a player has stats that are far and away the best in the league (which I don't think Votto has) than he should probably be the MVP. If all the candidates are relatively close, you need to look at intangibles. I know, there's no way to measure intangibles. The voter has to do the best he can in a case like that.

Poor stupid BL. Wheres Doug with his Cartman cat meme?

Posted by wylie715 on 10/10/2017 6:10:00 PM (view original):

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

Posted by wylie715 on 10/10/2017 12:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/9/2017 7:39:00 PM (view original):
So here's how this exchange went. The groupthink crew claimed that players on losing teams have no value. That was your argument. BL asks you to actually confirm that you believe it by asking you to compare the value of a great player on a losing team and a fairly average player on a winning team. Then you call him stupid for pointing out how colossally idiotic your original argument was.

You don't see the problem here? You guys can't even begin to defend your initial point because of how incredibly dumb it really was. And you want to put that on BL?

This feels like an argument about religion at this point. I feel like I'm debating evolution with a bunch of Creationists. In light of meaningful evidence that there is a flaw in your argument, you make tangential points and mock reputable sources (Tec continuously argues that dictionary definitions have no place in a discussion of WHAT WORDS MEAN). You can't refute any points made against you, haven't made anything resembling a logical argument at any point, but nonetheless are convinced that the people who don't agree with you are deluded and missing the point. In reality that point is that something has been built up in your minds as true for so long you can't conceive of it being untrue. It's the same thing with the relative value of walks or strikeouts. Doesn't matter how much evidence to the contrary you may be provided, strikeouts are very bad and walks are very mediocre. I guess it's because of how emotionally connected we are to sports. It's almost like a religion to a lot of people, and we don't like our views about sports to be challenged. Some people clearly can't handle it. Honestly the only person who's made a meaningful argument against "most valuable" = best is toddcommish. I disagree with his argument, but at least he tried. The rest of you haven't come close to making a coherent point anywhere in this 30+ page thread. And yet you're still all convinced I'm the one that sounds stupid. It's like I told you the Earth was not the center of the universe a few thousand years ago.

I don't recall anyone saying that players on losing teams have NO value. Of course they have value. Personally, I'd value a good player on a team that wins the WS more than I'd value a great player on a team that finishes 3rd in the division. Maybe I missed something, but isn't the point of the game to win? Therefore isn't a player who helps your team win more valuable that a player who helps your team finish in last place?

A) mike said it
B) a player who does more to help you win is more valuable than a player who does less to help you win. That's the point. Joey Votto does more to add wins than, for example, Paul Goldschmidt.

what Mike says has no relationship to reality. He also said Lincoln was the worst president ever, or something like that.

I agree with what someone else said. If a player has stats that are far and away the best in the league (which I don't think Votto has) than he should probably be the MVP. If all the candidates are relatively close, you need to look at intangibles. I know, there's no way to measure intangibles. The voter has to do the best he can in a case like that.

And I don't have a problem with that.

If you think player A was the best player in the league because his intangibles push him past another player, cool. Vote for him for MVP.

My problem is when guys say something along the lines of, "player A was the best player in the league, but his team finished 10 games out, so I'll vote for player B for MVP (even though he's a lesser player) because his team made the playoffs."

but you just said how someone judges the best player is up to them. Maybe be I judge a player by whether or not his team wins.

Posted by wylie715 on 10/10/2017 6:23:00 PM (view original):
but you just said how someone judges the best player is up to them. Maybe be I judge a player by whether or not his team wins.

I guess that's what I'm arguing against. Decide which player was better based on what the player did, not his teammates.

You know and I know that even the greatest player in the history of baseball having his best season can't deliver the 85 or 90 wins needed to make the playoffs.

Yes, I know that. And is his stats are that much better than everyone else's he should win. But if the stats are close, I'll give a guy on a winning team a little more consideration than a guy on a losing team. Personally I think Charlie Blackmon mad slightly better stats than Votto. But its close.

Posted by wylie715 on 10/10/2017 6:47:00 PM (view original):
Yes, I know that. And is his stats are that much better than everyone else's he should win. But if the stats are close, I'll give a guy on a winning team a little more consideration than a guy on a losing team. Personally I think Charlie Blackmon mad slightly better stats than Votto. But its close.

This is not a gotcha or bad faith question, I'm genuinely curious:

I'll give a guy on a winning team a little more consideration than a guy on a losing team

Why?

Have you not been paying attention?

Posted by tecwrg on 10/10/2017 7:03:00 PM (view original):
Have you not been paying attention?

Of course he hasn't.

Haven't YOU been paying attention?

I mean, it's been stated multiple times by multiple people throughout this thread that some people place more "value" on players from successful teams than players from unsuccessful teams.

Why are you pretending that this hasn't been said? Multiple times.

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?

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?

I disagree with the premise that the amount of value provided by a player varies depending on the quality of his teammates. Obviously, we aren't going to agree on this.