LOL @ BL.

So desperate to argue.

Such a sad person.

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/11/2017 5:09:00 PM (view original):
To his team's success, yes. Because Player A's team didn't have any success. It's hard to contribute to something that doesn't exist.

And, once again, you're giving the individual award out to the player with the best teammates.

tec has become dougout jr, an irrelevant noisemaker worthy of being blocked.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/11/2017 5:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/11/2017 5:09:00 PM (view original):
To his team's success, yes. Because Player A's team didn't have any success. It's hard to contribute to something that doesn't exist.

And, once again, you're giving the individual award out to the player with the best teammates.

I don't recall giving the award to a Dodger

Posted by tecwrg on 10/11/2017 5:09:00 PM (view original):
LOL @ BL.

So desperate to argue.

Such a sad person.

+1 point for using gender neutral terms

Posted by sjpoker on 10/10/2017 9:35:00 PM (view original):

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

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

^^This

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/11/2017 12:09:00 PM (view original):
"As I see it, there are 2 differences between these two players. Difference #1, player A is marginally better. Difference #2, player B's teammates are substantially better. Neither player A nor player B had anything to do with picking those teammates, maintaining their health and conditioning, setting the lineups and rotation, etc. Player A did not contribute to that better team beyond his 7.3 wins contributed. He is not contributing any additional value by having better teammates. That's 100% out of his hands."

You're missing the point. Replace Player A with an average player, his team wins fewer games and they still miss the playoffs. Nothing has really changed. Replace Player B with an average player and his team fails to win the division and maybe misses the playoffs altogether.

Player B had a major impact on the success of his team. Player A's team wasn't successful, so his performance really had no impact. I'm not discounting stats. A great statistical season is impressive no matter what. But I don't think it's ridiculous to factor in each player's impact on their team's overall success. There is value in that.

Like I said, I see the MVP as a player award. It's not a team award. It's not given to the best player from the team that wins the league. It's an individual award. And as I said in the original post, I want it to be about what happened on the field, not what happened in the GMs office. I don't see how having a better GM, wealthier owner, better manager, or whatever advantages Player B had makes him "more valuable." If we could actually synthesize production on the field into a single number that was guaranteed to be accurate, and player A amassed 7.5 wins to player B's 7.3, I give the award to Player A every single time. Again, how is it to Player B's credit that he has better teammates? I want awards to be deserved. They should be crediting players for what they've done. How is having good teammates an achievement?

If anything, we tend to vilify players who leave small-market teams in free agency to join bigger teams with better teammates. But then somehow that decision makes them more worthy of being awarded baseball's most prestigious award?

This logic also says that, in general, being drafted by the Yankees makes you more valuable than being drafted by the Padres. That doesn't sound absurd to you? That something so utterly out of the player's control is a defining factor in his award-worthiness in spite of all the things within his control, the years of preparation and development and adjustments to get to the Major League level and excel there?

And, logically, had the BBWAA known people would try to twist the word valuable so that they could argue that the MVP was actually a lesser player on a good team, they certainly would have called the award something like Most Outstanding Player.

It makes zero sense to give the MVP award to a player who wasn't actually the best.

No one is making it out to be a team award - that's all you and BL. The production of a player who's contributions get his team to the playoffs is more valuable than the equal/slightly greater production of a hitter who's team still loses with him. Not sure why you can't grasp that.

Using 2017 specifically, Joey Votto has vetoed trades in the last couple years. It's not like anyone is forcing him to stay with a ****** team - he's chosen to be there.

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/11/2017 7:00:00 PM (view original):
No one is making it out to be a team award - that's all you and BL. The production of a player who's contributions get his team to the playoffs is more valuable than the equal/slightly greater production of a hitter who's team still loses with him. Not sure why you can't grasp that.

Using 2017 specifically, Joey Votto has vetoed trades in the last couple years. It's not like anyone is forcing him to stay with a ****** team - he's chosen to be there.

Because it's not either player's production that was the difference maker, it was the production of their teammates.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/11/2017 6:59:00 PM (view original):
And, logically, had the BBWAA known people would try to twist the word valuable so that they could argue that the MVP was actually a lesser player on a good team, they certainly would have called the award something like Most Outstanding Player.

It makes zero sense to give the MVP award to a player who wasn't actually the best.

You and dahs are so arrogant. So far you’ve both told us what the BBWAA’s original intentions were. I’m so glad you were both at those meetings so you can clarify for us.

And great players help make their teammates better.

Oh look! It's a Dahs/BL circle jerk.

Let's get ridiculous.

Player A played on a team that went 100-62. He missed 2 of the losses but played every other game.

In every win he went 0-4.
In every loss he went 4-4 with a homerun.

So he hit .375/.375/.650ish with 60 home runs.

But he didn't actually help his team win a single game.

Player B played on a team that went 70-92 and missed he playoffs by 14 games. He put up slightly worse numbers but his production was distributed normally throughout the season. He certainly helped his team win games.

Who was more valuable?

dahs sez "The one who used the most words!!!!"