White Sox Interactive Forums
Talking Baseball

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Talking Baseball
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 10-04-2013, 10:30 AM
happydude happydude is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago-South Shore
Posts: 2,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
Value is not a relative term. Value is value. Let's say you have two people and you ask them to empty their pockets, to see who has the largest single bill. Guy A has 21 bucks on him, a 20 and a single. Guy B has 30 in change and singles. The $20 bill is still the largest (most valuable) bill between the two, even if Guy B has collectively more money.



No, that's horse****, if the MVP was supposed to be the Best Player on the Best Team, they would have worded it that way. It's called the Most Valuable Player. There's nothing in that title that suggests a player's team has to be good. It only addresses the player. It doesn't matter if the best player in the league is on the team that finished 1st or worst, the best player in the league, by definition, has the most value.

Where sports is concerned, value is in the eye of the beholder, apparently, since in any given year there may be tons of disagreement about who is the most valuable. This is in stark contrast to the example you offered which would lead to no disagreement whatsoever.

And if the MVP was supposed to be The Guy Who Has The Best Overall Stats Including Defense And Baserunning, they would have worded it THAT way. The fact remains that, given comparable stats, the voters tend to favor the guy on the most successful team and I think that's the way they should continue to do it.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-04-2013, 10:38 AM
Boondock Saint Boondock Saint is online now
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Joliet
Posts: 19,113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by happydude View Post
Where sports is concerned, value is in the eye of the beholder, apparently, since in any given year there may be tons of disagreement about who is the most valuable. This is in stark contrast to the example you offered which would lead to no disagreement whatsoever.

And if the MVP was supposed to be The Guy Who Has The Best Overall Stats Including Defense And Baserunning, they would have worded it THAT way. The fact remains that, given comparable stats, the voters tend to favor the guy on the most successful team and I think that's the way they should continue to do it.
That's a load of crap. What do you think is more valuable in general, a guy with slightly better offensive numbers, but can't run the bases well and has limited defensive ability because he can't/won't stop drinking booze and eating while making $20m a year, or a guy with slightly worse offensive numbers, but is a major stolen base threat and plays stellar defense at one of the most important defensive positions on the field while making the league minimum? It's a really simple answer. You take the 5 tool blue chipper with no alcohol abuse problems every time. That's what's most valuable to your team.
__________________
Rock over London. Rock on, Chicago.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-04-2013, 10:49 AM
happydude happydude is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago-South Shore
Posts: 2,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boondock Saint View Post
I find it incredibly amusing that in one thread, people are arguing that Chris Sale deserves more Cy Young consideration because the team around him didn't give him any help, then in another thread, people are arguing that Mike Trout doesn't deserve more MVP consideration because the team around him didn't give him any help.
This is only inconsistent if one believes that the factors for the award are identical. I think it can be consistently argued that the Cy Young Award is strictly an evaluation of one player's individual performance primarily using his stats and, therefore, it may be relevant to what extent an important stat like won-lost was negatively impacted by his teammates. The MVP, however, takes into account what effect the player's individual performance has on the overall success of his team which would lead to a diminishment of Mike Trout's impact and thus his MVP bonafides.

That being said, I personally cringe at the idea of awarding a guy with an upside down won-lost record a Cy Young.

I think both players are worthy of consideration for those respective awards but that neither should win.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-04-2013, 10:50 AM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 54,176
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by happydude View Post
Where sports is concerned, value is in the eye of the beholder, apparently, since in any given year there may be tons of disagreement about who is the most valuable. This is in stark contrast to the example you offered which would lead to no disagreement whatsoever.

And if the MVP was supposed to be The Guy Who Has The Best Overall Stats Including Defense And Baserunning, they would have worded it THAT way. The fact remains that, given comparable stats, the voters tend to favor the guy on the most successful team and I think that's the way they should continue to do it.
That's more to do with the fact that people who vote on these awards are ****ing morons

Derek Jeter has how many Gold Gloves?

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-04-2013, 10:54 AM
Boondock Saint Boondock Saint is online now
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Joliet
Posts: 19,113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by happydude View Post
This is only inconsistent if one believes that the factors for the award are identical. I think it can be consistently argued that the Cy Young Award is strictly an evaluation of one player's individual performance primarily using his stats and, therefore, it may be relevant to what extent an important stat like won-lost was negatively impacted by his teammates. The MVP, however, takes into account what effect the player's individual performance has on the overall success of his team which would lead to a diminishment of Mike Trout's impact and thus his MVP bonafides.

That being said, I personally cringe at the idea of awarding a guy with an upside down won-lost record a Cy Young.

I think both players are worthy of consideration for those respective awards but that neither should win.
Why should the rest of the team be at all a factor in the most valuable player voting? If you want to argue that defense and baserunning shouldn't be a factor because it isn't explicitly mentioned in the title of the award, then you can't factor in the rest of the team because the title of the award explicitly does single out the individual. But really, this whole semantics debate that gets brought up every single season in every single sport about what MVP actually means is completely idiotic. The MVP award goes to the best individual player, period. And that's Mike Trout.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-04-2013, 10:59 AM
happydude happydude is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago-South Shore
Posts: 2,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boondock Saint View Post
That's a load of crap. What do you think is more valuable in general, a guy with slightly better offensive numbers, but can't run the bases well and has limited defensive ability because he can't/won't stop drinking booze and eating while making $20m a year, or a guy with slightly worse offensive numbers, but is a major stolen base threat and plays stellar defense at one of the most important defensive positions on the field while making the league minimum? It's a really simple answer. You take the 5 tool blue chipper with no alcohol abuse problems every time. That's what's most valuable to your team.
First, I find it unfortunate that both you and doublem seem to have some difficulty expressing your disagreement without prefacing it with some type of derogatory comment. Expressions like "that's bull****", "that's a load of crap", etc. don't at all strengthen your position in any particular discussion.

Secondly, if the answer was so simple the discussion would not likely be occurring here or elsewhere. Unless your real position is that those who disagree with you and your comrades are somehow less intelligent than you merely because they don't share your views.

Finally, your position seems to be that because Trout can do more he's worth more. Maybe he is and maybe he isn't. In a micro sense he is; 5 tools is better than 4 or whatever the case may be. In a macro sense considering the impact of his many skills on his team, ultimately one cannot help but to look at results. There, he comes up short.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-04-2013, 11:10 AM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 54,176
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boondock Saint View Post
Why should the rest of the team be at all a factor in the most valuable player voting? If you want to argue that defense and baserunning shouldn't be a factor because it isn't explicitly mentioned in the title of the award, then you can't factor in the rest of the team because the title of the award explicitly does single out the individual. But really, this whole semantics debate that gets brought up every single season in every single sport about what MVP actually means is completely idiotic. The MVP award goes to the best individual player, period. And that's Mike Trout.
Yes
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10-04-2013, 11:15 AM
Boondock Saint Boondock Saint is online now
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Joliet
Posts: 19,113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by happydude View Post
First, I find it unfortunate that both you and doublem seem to have some difficulty expressing your disagreement without prefacing it with some type of derogatory comment. Expressions like "that's bull****", "that's a load of crap", etc. don't at all strengthen your position in any particular discussion.

Secondly, if the answer was so simple the discussion would not likely be occurring here or elsewhere. Unless your real position is that those who disagree with you and your comrades are somehow less intelligent than you merely because they don't share your views.

Finally, your position seems to be that because Trout can do more he's worth more. Maybe he is and maybe he isn't. In a micro sense he is; 5 tools is better than 4 or whatever the case may be. In a macro sense considering the impact of his many skills on his team, ultimately one cannot help but to look at results. There, he comes up short.
1) I said that's a load of crap because it is a load of crap. The people who make these convoluted arguments about what MVP actually means are only doing it because they're trying to misshape and alter what it means so that it fits the guy they want to win better. MVP is for the best player. It's really that simple. It's not best player on the best team, or best player with X number of years of experience, or best non-pitcher, or best non-DH, or anything else. Just who's the best.

2) I wasn't attacking you when I said that, either. I just think that argument's horrible and worn out.

3) The thing is that Trout and Cabrera have comparable results from an individual standpoint, which should tilt things more in favor of Trout, when you consider how much help Cabrera gets from the rest of his lineup.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 10-04-2013, 11:16 AM
happydude happydude is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago-South Shore
Posts: 2,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boondock Saint View Post
Why should the rest of the team be at all a factor in the most valuable player voting? If you want to argue that defense and baserunning shouldn't be a factor because it isn't explicitly mentioned in the title of the award, then you can't factor in the rest of the team because the title of the award explicitly does single out the individual. But really, this whole semantics debate that gets brought up every single season in every single sport about what MVP actually means is completely idiotic. The MVP award goes to the best individual player, period. And that's Mike Trout.
The reality is that sometimes this is the case and sometimes it isn't. The results over the years in all sports, not just baseball, suggest this isn't true. It may be your opinion that it should be true but that's another matter.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10-04-2013, 11:25 AM
Boondock Saint Boondock Saint is online now
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Joliet
Posts: 19,113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by happydude View Post
The reality is that sometimes this is the case and sometimes it isn't. The results over the years in all sports, not just baseball, suggest this isn't true. It may be your opinion that it should be true but that's another matter.
This has a lot to do with the fact that the awards are voted for by previously mentioned idiot journalists. It's like the one guy who didn't vote for LeBron to win MVP last season because that guy knows he gets paid to get eyes on his articles, and what's gonna get more eyes than "Here's why I'm the one guy who didn't vote for LeBron"?

I bet MVP voting gets a lot more consistent if you leave it up to the players and managers.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 10-04-2013, 11:36 AM
happydude happydude is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago-South Shore
Posts: 2,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boondock Saint View Post
1) I said that's a load of crap because it is a load of crap. The people who make these convoluted arguments about what MVP actually means are only doing it because they're trying to misshape and alter what it means so that it fits the guy they want to win better. MVP is for the best player. It's really that simple. It's not best player on the best team, or best player with X number of years of experience, or best non-pitcher, or best non-DH, or anything else. Just who's the best.

2) I wasn't attacking you when I said that, either. I just think that argument's horrible and worn out.

3) The thing is that Trout and Cabrera have comparable results from an individual standpoint, which should tilt things more in favor of Trout, when you consider how much help Cabrera gets from the rest of his lineup.

You seem to be suggesting that part of the evaluation should include the relative abilities of the players around Trout or Cabrera and what impact they may have had on those guys' output but SHOULD NOT include what impact Trout or Cabrera's performances may have had on the team overall. In both instances, we're forced to guess.

I believe that, historically, the MVP award analysis has included an evaluation of a player's impact on his team's overall performance and I agree with this approach. I believe that the easiest and most quantifiable way of evaluating a team's performance is simply by looking at how well they did over the course of a season versus their opposition. And, therefore, where two players put up similar numbers the player on the more successful team is more deserving of the designation of "most valuable".

This year, and last, that player is Cabrera.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 10-04-2013, 11:43 AM
happydude happydude is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago-South Shore
Posts: 2,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boondock Saint View Post
This has a lot to do with the fact that the awards are voted for by previously mentioned idiot journalists. It's like the one guy who didn't vote for LeBron to win MVP last season because that guy knows he gets paid to get eyes on his articles, and what's gonna get more eyes than "Here's why I'm the one guy who didn't vote for LeBron"?

I bet MVP voting gets a lot more consistent if you leave it up to the players and managers.
Perhaps. But these groups have axes to grind and biases to acquiesce to just like the journalists.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 10-04-2013, 01:44 PM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 54,176
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by happydude View Post
The reality is that sometimes this is the case and sometimes it isn't. The results over the years in all sports, not just baseball, suggest this isn't true. It may be your opinion that it should be true but that's another matter.
Yes, the discussion is who we think the MVP should be. I think Trout should win, hands down, but I have a feeling that Cabrera will win because people continue to punish individuals for their team's efforts. Especially in baseball. You can make strong cases how being surrounded by better players makes basketball, football, or soccer players better because those are much more team games, but baseball is the ultimate game where the sum is equal to the addition of it's parts; it is a very individual game.

And yes, I understand that value is relative, but that's when you're comparing different things. If you were dying of thirst, obviously, you would value a bottle of water more than the $2 it costs at a gas station. If you were the world's biggest White Sox fan, you'd probably pay more for a brick from Old Comiskey Park than a regular baseball fan. But when you're discussing the MVP Award, it's all the same goal - how to build the best baseball team, and the best way to do that is to assemble the best players, ergo, the best player is, by definition, the most valuable.

The only way I can see that not working is if a team won by such an unusual way that it skewed how they won. Take, for instance, the '05 White Sox who, by any account, had a pretty below average offense and won almost exclusively thanks to their pitching and defense. That's a relatively unusual way to win because most winning teams are so much more balanced. Perhaps, in those rare cases, exceptions can be made, but generally speaking, an individual award should go to a player based on his individual merit and nothing else.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 10-04-2013, 03:27 PM
happydude happydude is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago-South Shore
Posts: 2,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
Yes, the discussion is who we think the MVP should be. I think Trout should win, hands down, but I have a feeling that Cabrera will win because people continue to punish individuals for their team's efforts. Especially in baseball. You can make strong cases how being surrounded by better players makes basketball, football, or soccer players better because those are much more team games, but baseball is the ultimate game where the sum is equal to the addition of it's parts; it is a very individual game.

And yes, I understand that value is relative, but that's when you're comparing different things. If you were dying of thirst, obviously, you would value a bottle of water more than the $2 it costs at a gas station. If you were the world's biggest White Sox fan, you'd probably pay more for a brick from Old Comiskey Park than a regular baseball fan. But when you're discussing the MVP Award, it's all the same goal - how to build the best baseball team, and the best way to do that is to assemble the best players, ergo, the best player is, by definition, the most valuable.

The only way I can see that not working is if a team won by such an unusual way that it skewed how they won. Take, for instance, the '05 White Sox who, by any account, had a pretty below average offense and won almost exclusively thanks to their pitching and defense. That's a relatively unusual way to win because most winning teams are so much more balanced. Perhaps, in those rare cases, exceptions can be made, but generally speaking, an individual award should go to a player based on his individual merit and nothing else.
I believe Cabrera should win but I think Trout has an EXCELLENT chance of winning this year. Last year, he had two things other than his team's performance working against him that aren't present this year.

For one, Miguel Cabrera won the Triple Crown. I imagine that even voters more inclined to view things the way you, BDS, asindc, and Dspivack view them felt enormous pressure to give in to the historical implications of Miggy's awesome feat.

Secondly, Trout was a rookie. I can imagine that some voters were reluctant to give the nod in a close race to an unproven commodity who could, in the future, prove to be a flash in the pan. That concern is not present this go around.

Trout is very worthy of the award and hats off to him if he wins. I just think it should go to Cabrera for the reasons I stated earlier.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 10-05-2013, 12:10 AM
MISoxfan MISoxfan is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 896
Default

A $50 bill in a wallet with 8 singles still has more value than a $20 bill with 8 tens even if that wallet only has $58 instead of $100. I don't see why "most valuable" means the team has to be better.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:30 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.