LOL.

BL will agree to disagree.

And then he'll argue for 36 pages about why he's right and everybody else is wrong.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/10/2017 8:09:00 PM (view original):
LOL.

BL will agree to disagree.

And then he'll argue for 36 pages about why he's right and everybody else is wrong.

That's the sign he's lost. Notice how his tone changed a few pages ago when I posted his contradictory statements. He tries to act all civil and like he's meeting you halfway.

To me, a player is either the best player in the league or he isn't. What his teammates do doesn't change that.

Voting for someone who isn't the best player makes no sense.

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?

What is your logic here? Players don't win and lose games. Even pitchers credited with wins and losses don't really win or lose on their own (see 1987 Nolan Ryan). Teams win and lose games as a group. I don't see the logic that says that a player is more or less valuable based on the quality of his teammates.

There are 2 different scenarios here. A few days ago, somebody (don't remember who) argued that Gibson deserved to win the MVP in 1988 because he "inspired" his teammates to win. If your belief is that Gibson improved his teammates' performance, then add that to his hitting, running, and fielding in determining his value. He's adding something to the team. It makes sense for that to count. On the other hand, what I will never agree with is the argument that you and JTP were making earlier that, if its a close race, you pick the guy from the better team. Unless he's also the GM and he picked his teammates, their performance has no bearing on his achievements. Mike Trout has been around for parts of 7 seasons. In that time the Angels have made 1 postseason and didn't win a game. In the 7 years before Trout arrived, the Angels made 5 postseasons and 2 ALCSes. Is that Trout's fault? He's been the best player in baseball since he arrived in the league, and it's really not very close. It just so happens that the rest of the team got worse around the time Trout arrived. I don't see why that should reflect negatively on him unless you believe he caused the regression of his teammates.

I don't believe we are discussing grammar or the Latin roots of words. So why are you posting again, Perfessor?

Long posts upset tec because he can't read.

Posted by DougOut on 10/10/2017 6:47:00 PM (view original):

THIS!!!! This explains BL to a T!!!!

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/10/2017 9:06:00 PM (view original):

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?

What is your logic here? Players don't win and lose games. Even pitchers credited with wins and losses don't really win or lose on their own (see 1987 Nolan Ryan). Teams win and lose games as a group. I don't see the logic that says that a player is more or less valuable based on the quality of his teammates.

There are 2 different scenarios here. A few days ago, somebody (don't remember who) argued that Gibson deserved to win the MVP in 1988 because he "inspired" his teammates to win. If your belief is that Gibson improved his teammates' performance, then add that to his hitting, running, and fielding in determining his value. He's adding something to the team. It makes sense for that to count. On the other hand, what I will never agree with is the argument that you and JTP were making earlier that, if its a close race, you pick the guy from the better team. Unless he's also the GM and he picked his teammates, their performance has no bearing on his achievements. Mike Trout has been around for parts of 7 seasons. In that time the Angels have made 1 postseason and didn't win a game. In the 7 years before Trout arrived, the Angels made 5 postseasons and 2 ALCSes. Is that Trout's fault? He's been the best player in baseball since he arrived in the league, and it's really not very close. It just so happens that the rest of the team got worse around the time Trout arrived. I don't see why that should reflect negatively on him unless you believe he caused the regression of his teammates.

Just imagine taking the time to read this? Id have to be taking one long ****.

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/10/2017 8:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/10/2017 8:09:00 PM (view original):
LOL.

BL will agree to disagree.

And then he'll argue for 36 pages about why he's right and everybody else is wrong.

That's the sign he's lost. Notice how his tone changed a few pages ago when I posted his contradictory statements. He tries to act all civil and like he's meeting you halfway.

Agreed. He suddenly goes from arrogant and confrontational to conciliatory.

If somebody can tell me why Andre Dawson won the MVP on a last place team I'd love to hear that. Value includes intangibles, included among said intangibles are wins and losses. The Cubs still finished last, so what exactly was Dawson's value that particular year? Keeping them from losing 120 games?

Posted by sjpoker on 10/10/2017 9:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/10/2017 9:06:00 PM (view original):

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?

What is your logic here? Players don't win and lose games. Even pitchers credited with wins and losses don't really win or lose on their own (see 1987 Nolan Ryan). Teams win and lose games as a group. I don't see the logic that says that a player is more or less valuable based on the quality of his teammates.

There are 2 different scenarios here. A few days ago, somebody (don't remember who) argued that Gibson deserved to win the MVP in 1988 because he "inspired" his teammates to win. If your belief is that Gibson improved his teammates' performance, then add that to his hitting, running, and fielding in determining his value. He's adding something to the team. It makes sense for that to count. On the other hand, what I will never agree with is the argument that you and JTP were making earlier that, if its a close race, you pick the guy from the better team. Unless he's also the GM and he picked his teammates, their performance has no bearing on his achievements. Mike Trout has been around for parts of 7 seasons. In that time the Angels have made 1 postseason and didn't win a game. In the 7 years before Trout arrived, the Angels made 5 postseasons and 2 ALCSes. Is that Trout's fault? He's been the best player in baseball since he arrived in the league, and it's really not very close. It just so happens that the rest of the team got worse around the time Trout arrived. I don't see why that should reflect negatively on him unless you believe he caused the regression of his teammates.

Just imagine taking the time to read this? Id have to be taking one long ****.

Not sure how it got so popular to advertise that you have the attention span of a gnat. No wonder you have no idea how the English language actually works. Most of the finer points tend to come from reading actual literature.

Oh goodie!! Perfessor Dahs is back to lecture us about language!!!!

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/10/2017 10:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 10/10/2017 9:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/10/2017 9:06:00 PM (view original):

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?

What is your logic here? Players don't win and lose games. Even pitchers credited with wins and losses don't really win or lose on their own (see 1987 Nolan Ryan). Teams win and lose games as a group. I don't see the logic that says that a player is more or less valuable based on the quality of his teammates.

There are 2 different scenarios here. A few days ago, somebody (don't remember who) argued that Gibson deserved to win the MVP in 1988 because he "inspired" his teammates to win. If your belief is that Gibson improved his teammates' performance, then add that to his hitting, running, and fielding in determining his value. He's adding something to the team. It makes sense for that to count. On the other hand, what I will never agree with is the argument that you and JTP were making earlier that, if its a close race, you pick the guy from the better team. Unless he's also the GM and he picked his teammates, their performance has no bearing on his achievements. Mike Trout has been around for parts of 7 seasons. In that time the Angels have made 1 postseason and didn't win a game. In the 7 years before Trout arrived, the Angels made 5 postseasons and 2 ALCSes. Is that Trout's fault? He's been the best player in baseball since he arrived in the league, and it's really not very close. It just so happens that the rest of the team got worse around the time Trout arrived. I don't see why that should reflect negatively on him unless you believe he caused the regression of his teammates.

Just imagine taking the time to read this? Id have to be taking one long ****.

Not sure how it got so popular to advertise that you have the attention span of a gnat. No wonder you have no idea how the English language actually works. Most of the finer points tend to come from reading actual literature.

::yawn::

Posted by rsp777 on 10/10/2017 10:12:00 PM (view original):
If somebody can tell me why Andre Dawson won the MVP on a last place team I'd love to hear that. Value includes intangibles, included among said intangibles are wins and losses. The Cubs still finished last, so what exactly was Dawson's value that particular year? Keeping them from losing 120 games?

I always thought it was to reward him for fighting collusion. No one talks about that.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/10/2017 9:25:00 PM (view original):
Long posts upset tec because he can't read.

if that were true, wouldn't short posts upset him just as much?