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
  #46  
Old 10-05-2013, 04:49 PM
TheVulture TheVulture is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,023
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MISoxfan View Post
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.
Not if admission is $60.
__________________
A bad idea is better than no idea at all- Hawk
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-05-2013, 05:45 PM
asindc's Avatar
asindc asindc is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 7,510
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheVulture View Post
Not if admission is $60.
Now you're asking a different question.
__________________
"I have the ultimate respect for White Sox fans. They were as miserable as the Cubs and Red Sox fans ever were but always had the good decency to keep it to themselves. And when they finally won the World Series, they celebrated without annoying every other fan in the country." Jim Caple, ESPN (January 12, 2011)


"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the (bleeding) obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." George Orwell
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 10-05-2013, 05:46 PM
asindc's Avatar
asindc asindc is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 7,510
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MISoxfan View Post
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.
Excellent analogy, btw.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 10-05-2013, 09:57 PM
RealMenWearBlack RealMenWearBlack is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Des Plaines/Chicago(IIT)
Posts: 606
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheVulture View Post
Not if admission is $60.
If you knew one wallet had $50 and one had $20 and nothing else to differentiate the value of the wallets, would you prefer the wallet with $50 or $20? The bills in each case add value to the wallets, but the wallets have zero impact on the value of the bills.

Further, if you were to have 8 $1 bills, you'd be much further away from being admitted if you had an additional $20 bill rather than a $50 bill.

Last edited by RealMenWearBlack; 10-05-2013 at 10:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 10-06-2013, 08:10 PM
fusillirob1983 fusillirob1983 is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Evergreen Park, IL
Posts: 1,310
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
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?

This post is basically what I've been thinking the last 10 minutes as I've been reading this thread, except for the addition the Ben Wyatt GIF, which significantly exceeds the expectations of my brain. Great post.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 10-06-2013, 10:09 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 16,152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MISoxfan View Post
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.
I used to eat at a restaurant took a $1 bill with two zeros written after the 1 in ballpoint pen and made change for an $18-plus meal as if the bill were worth $100. The bill looked OK to the waitress, who didn't look closely enough to see that it had George Washington's face. Maybe if the bill had been surrounded by 20s, it wouldn't have looked so valuable. True story from actual police records, by the way.

A standout player with great stats on a losing team isn't playing with the same pressure to help his team win as a play on a contending team. Being an MVP isn't about putting up the best numbers, or at least it didn't used to be. Being an MVP should be about winning. That's why it's called the MVP instead to the offensive player of the year, something there are separate awards for.

Having a great offensive season that is a big reason a team plays for a championship is not the same thing as having a great offensive season for a losing team. Unfortunately watching baseball is no longer as fashionable as looking at players' numbers.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10-07-2013, 07:12 AM
SephClone89 SephClone89 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oswego, IL
Posts: 5,935
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
I used to eat at a restaurant took a $1 bill with two zeros written after the 1 in ballpoint pen and made change for an $18-plus meal as if the bill were worth $100. The bill looked OK to the waitress, who didn't look closely enough to see that it had George Washington's face. Maybe if the bill had been surrounded by 20s, it wouldn't have looked so valuable. True story from actual police records, by the way.

A standout player with great stats on a losing team isn't playing with the same pressure to help his team win as a play on a contending team. Being an MVP isn't about putting up the best numbers, or at least it didn't used to be. Being an MVP should be about winning. That's why it's called the MVP instead to the offensive player of the year, something there are separate awards for.

Having a great offensive season that is a big reason a team plays for a championship is not the same thing as having a great offensive season for a losing team. Unfortunately watching baseball is no longer as fashionable as looking at players' numbers.
Please explain to me how it being called "MVP" suggests that it should be "about winning."

It's precisely by watching Trout, not just by glancing at the "back-of-the-baseball-card" numbers, that shows you that he's the best player in baseball.

Do you take pride in taking the most obstinate position possible and passive-aggressively taking shots at everyone who you feel "doesn't actually watch baseball" just because they come to different conclusions than you?
__________________
Attendance Records

2014: 4-8 plus Fenway and HOF weekend
2013: 4-6 plus St. Louis and Milwaukee
2012: 7-4
2011: 6-4 plus NYC parks and Minnesota
2010: 5-6
2009: 2-4 plus Pittsburgh

"Genius is not replicable. Inspiration, though, is contagious, and multiform and even just to see, close up, power and aggression made vulnerable to beauty is to feel inspired and (in a fleeting, mortal way) reconciled."
--David Foster Wallace, () "Roger Federer as Religious Experience"
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10-07-2013, 07:36 AM
SI1020 SI1020 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Deep in the heart of Dixie
Posts: 4,371
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by happydude View Post
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.
I completely agree with you that the voters tend to vote the way you say, but disagree that is the way it should be.

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.
I do not wish to single out any specific posters but you are correct. This sort of thing happens too often here. While I disagree with your thinking on MVP voting I appreciate the way you present your arguments here and elsewhere. FWIW Trout would get my vote this year if I had one. If all the players suddenly became free agents and I had first pick I'd choose Trout in a nanosecond. He's had a second great year in a row and deserves the MVP for 2013.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 10-07-2013, 10:42 AM
asindc's Avatar
asindc asindc is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 7,510
Idea

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
I used to eat at a restaurant took a $1 bill with two zeros written after the 1 in ballpoint pen and made change for an $18-plus meal as if the bill were worth $100. The bill looked OK to the waitress, who didn't look closely enough to see that it had George Washington's face. Maybe if the bill had been surrounded by 20s, it wouldn't have looked so valuable. True story from actual police records, by the way.

A standout player with great stats on a losing team isn't playing with the same pressure to help his team win as a play on a contending team. Being an MVP isn't about putting up the best numbers, or at least it didn't used to be. Being an MVP should be about winning. That's why it's called the MVP instead to the offensive player of the year, something there are separate awards for.

Having a great offensive season that is a big reason a team plays for a championship is not the same thing as having a great offensive season for a losing team. Unfortunately watching baseball is no longer as fashionable as looking at players' numbers.
Forget the numbers (actually, that is part of Keri's point in his column). The official criteria for MVP explicitly states that a player's team's success is not to be considered. As noted before, the fact that it has been in the past only speaks to the incompetence of the voters than any merits in that approach.

Your analogy doesn't fit in this case because Trout is worth much more than $1. Using Trout's and Cabrera's worth as an examples, the waitress would have accepted a $50 bill (Trout) that has been altered to look like a $500 bill (ARod) while passing up a two unaltered $20 bills (Cabrera). Using a player's team's success as a standard, every regular in Detroit's lineup should get more votes than Trout. In fact, voting should be easier. Just rank each team by wins and then each player on each team. I wonder if we could apply this standard retroactively and award the 2005 MVP to Pauly.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 10-07-2013, 11:59 AM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 16,152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SephClone89 View Post
Please explain to me how it being called "MVP" suggests that it should be "about winning."

It's precisely by watching Trout, not just by glancing at the "back-of-the-baseball-card" numbers, that shows you that he's the best player in baseball.

Do you take pride in taking the most obstinate position possible and passive-aggressively taking shots at everyone who you feel "doesn't actually watch baseball" just because they come to different conclusions than you?
This isn't an obstinate position. It's the traditional position. The most valuable player in a league in just about any sport has always been the player who was most instrumental in leading his team to success. Jim Konstanty and Zolio Versallies were MVPs, headscratchers only if you look at their numbers without having watched their seasons. Dick Allen was an MVP because he carried the White Sox who fell short with the league's second best record despite recent (and unknown at the time future) years of mediocrity. But ultimately it becomes circular because Dick Allen's season was about doing things to win a lot of games. The exceptions have come when players have had seasons so overwhelmingly superior a season in relation to the rest of the league, generally with the Cubs. No one needed statistical arguments, abstract or not, to vote for Ernie Banks or Andre Dawson.

The MVP isn't a matter of looking at Nate Colbert on the early Padres and his relative value to the rest of his last place team. You could make the argument that in the early 1970s, no player (except the 1972 Dick Allen or the 1973 Dick Allen, as proven by what happened to the team after he went down) was more valuable to his team than Nate Colbert, who indeed was the $50 bill in the lineup full of 1s. I heard people make that argument with rhetoric that would be more widely accepted today. But Nate Colbert in his career never got a first-place vote for MVP.

Baseball ultimately is about winning. Performance on a winning team is often different than performing on a losing team. The Angels were supposed to win in large part because of Trout. They didn't. It wasn't his fault that they didn't. But if he had led that team to contention, people would have seen him as an MVP candidate.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-07-2013, 12:24 PM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 53,935
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
This isn't an obstinate position. It's the traditional position. The most valuable player in a league in just about any sport has always been the player who was most instrumental in leading his team to success. Jim Konstanty and Zolio Versallies were MVPs, headscratchers only if you look at their numbers without having watched their seasons. Dick Allen was an MVP because he carried the White Sox who fell short with the league's second best record despite recent (and unknown at the time future) years of mediocrity. But ultimately it becomes circular because Dick Allen's season was about doing things to win a lot of games. The exceptions have come when players have had seasons so overwhelmingly superior a season in relation to the rest of the league, generally with the Cubs. No one needed statistical arguments, abstract or not, to vote for Ernie Banks or Andre Dawson.
"That's the way we've always done things."

Totally justifiable
__________________
2014 Obligatory Attendance & Record Tracker

0-5

LAST GAME: August 4 - Twins 16, Sox 3
NEXT GAME: I don't know, but I'll be sure to warn you when I know
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 10-07-2013, 01:07 PM
happydude happydude is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago-South Shore
Posts: 2,834
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SI1020 View Post
I completely agree with you that the voters tend to vote the way you say, but disagree that is the way it should be.

I do not wish to single out any specific posters but you are correct. This sort of thing happens too often here. While I disagree with your thinking on MVP voting I appreciate the way you present your arguments here and elsewhere. FWIW Trout would get my vote this year if I had one. If all the players suddenly became free agents and I had first pick I'd choose Trout in a nanosecond. He's had a second great year in a row and deserves the MVP for 2013.
I appreciate your commentary. Generally speaking, many tend to believe that their opinions are, in fact, truths; and therefore those who don't share those opinions must be "wrong" and need to be told so in harsh terms.

As for the discussion at hand, I'd probably prefer Trout over Cabrera in the majority of instances as well. But for me, that doesn't make him MVP this year.

The thing is, there are many who seem to believe that my way of thinking is somewhat outdated and unenlightened. Maybe. But the alternative they seem to be proposing, which amounts to going across the board and giving the award to the player who "wins" the most categories doesn't seem appropriate either. Because its not the "best player" award or the "guy who had the best year" award or, closer to the view I espouse, the "guy who had a great year on a good team" award. Its something that is largely undefined.

The utilization of dollar values seems to be a poor analogy to me as well. Why? Because the value of any single bill has already been predetermined by the government and agreed to by consumers and merchants alike; we all are simply acting in accordance with that agreement. Here, there has been no similar determination and agreement as to the value of either of these players. Unless one's position is that more skills necessarily equates to a higher value. If that be the case it can be stated quickly and simply. Still, it remains only an opinion.

As much as we want to introduce some level of objective determination into every single thing, sometimes its not possible and other times its not appropriate. Here I think it is neither.

Unless the BBWAA decides to change the voting criteria to something more narrowly defined these types of discussions will never cease. And I hope they don't because I believe they are a positive thing when conducted thoughtfully and respectfully.

Last edited by happydude; 10-07-2013 at 01:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10-07-2013, 03:28 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 16,152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
"That's the way we've always done things."

Totally justifiable
And certainly not obstinate, if you want to put the point in context.

I'm not going to argue that Nellie Fox didn't deserve the MVP in 1959 because the voters were less enlightened.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 10-07-2013, 06:11 PM
mzh mzh is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
And certainly not obstinate, if you want to put the point in context.

I'm not going to argue that Nellie Fox didn't deserve the MVP in 1959 because the voters were less enlightened.
This is neither here nor there, but many advanced metrics (about which I am fairly neutral) say that Fox was very close to if not the best player in the league that year, regardless of the Sox success. Bill James wrote a piece about it, IIRC.
__________________
Obligatory Attendance Record:
3-3
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 10-07-2013, 07:58 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 16,152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mzh View Post
This is neither here nor there, but many advanced metrics (about which I am fairly neutral) say that Fox was very close to if not the best player in the league that year, regardless of the Sox success. Bill James wrote a piece about it, IIRC.
Bill James fudged with the advanced metrics to fit the argument because you really couldn't argue that in 1959 that Fox was the AL MVP, although Aparicio (a .257 hitter) got the first-place votes Fox didn't. Mantle was a much bigger run producer, using James' advanced-but-not-advanced-enough-to-show-Fox-should-have-been-MVP metrics. And I haven't seen anyone argue those more advanced metrics in arguing for Trout to be this season's MVP.

The bottom line is that with Trout, the Angels had a losing record, finishing behind Texas and Oakland ahead of Houston and Seattle, despite being expected by pretty much everyone to contend. Without Trout, the Angels would have had a lousing season, behind Texas and Oakland and ahead of Houston and Seattle. That is only an MVP season if you don't care about winning.

Meanwhile, the arguments that are being made for Trout are the same ones that could have been made in arguing that Fox wasn't the most valuable player in 1959. Except the margins aren't as wide as they were in 1959. And not even Bill James have ever seemed to believe that wasn't true.
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 04:28 AM.




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.