David Wright got screwed

[sylar]

[ QUOTE ]


Well, MH > DW either way, and the voters agree with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

the point that this thread convincingly makes is that voters are stupid. having you agree with them (or vice versa) is a strike against you.

[metsandfinsfan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Well, MH > DW either way, and the voters agree with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

the point that this thread convincingly makes is that voters are stupid. having you agree with them (or vice versa) is a strike against you.

[/ QUOTE ]

no maybe it means that some people agree with the criteria that the voters use -- doesnt make them or us stupid just because we disagree with you

[sylar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Well, MH > DW either way, and the voters agree with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

the point that this thread convincingly makes is that voters are stupid. having you agree with them (or vice versa) is a strike against you.

[/ QUOTE ]

no maybe it means that some people agree with the criteria that the voters use -- doesnt make them or us stupid just because we disagree with you

[/ QUOTE ]

1) you don't know what i think about MH vs DW, or about NL MVP in general, so why do you assume that you disagree with me?

2) conlin's writings in particular prove that he is a village idiot (and not just because he voted rollins), so let's not use "well, he agrees with me" as an argument. it doesn't make you necessarily stupid, but it's can be a strike against you.

3) it seems to me that it's inconsistent at best, if you criticize the criteria in one vote, but support it in the other. not you personally, but there are plenty MVP threads that talk about someone getting robbed because the voters have sucky criteria. let's not rejoice if the faulty criteria correctly ranks MH over DW (or vice versa) once.

[dkgojackets]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
vhawk, i dunno. the mvp award is a regular season award, so its actually 1st-4th, and not 1st-4th (in each league). giving the mvp award to a player on a team that doesnt make the playoffs is like giving the world series mvp to a player on the losing team imo.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why couldn't the most valuable player in the WS be on the losing team?

[/ QUOTE ]

again, because baseball is a team game, your goal is to win

[/ QUOTE ]

So youre saying that he could put up the exact same numbers every year and yet his value would fluctuate depending on who pitches for the mets?

That makes sense not.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wright was the best all-around player in the NL in 2007.

That's all.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's called "Most Valuable Player". Not "best all-around player."

Of the top 10 vote-getters, three were paid less than DW. Per baseball-reference.com:

Wright finished 4th, and earned $1.25M in 2007
Fielder finished 3rd, and earned a paltry $415K
Howard finished 5th, and earned $900K
Hanley finished 10th, and earned $402K

I know it's the MLB, and $800K is peanuts, but one could argue that at least Fielder and Howard were more "valuable" than Wright, who was paid 3 times as much money.

Rollins and Holliday were a close 1, 2. Rollins earned $8M, and Holliday earned $4.4M.

There are several ways to define the "MVP" award, and most of them suck. The award should be terminated.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the kind of non-standard reasoning I can honestly get behind. When I think value, this is what goes through my mind. Its not IMPOSSIBLE for guys like Arod to be the best value but its pretty hard.

You'd have to make some amendments though, you'd have to establish some kind of minimum salary or service time, because otherwise its guys like Arod and Pujols trying to compete with every single rookie and 1 year service time guy who has a pretty decent bustout year. they make 20 times as much money, they arent going to provide twenty times as much value very often.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
vhawk, i dunno. the mvp award is a regular season award, so its actually 1st-4th, and not 1st-4th (in each league). giving the mvp award to a player on a team that doesnt make the playoffs is like giving the world series mvp to a player on the losing team imo.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why couldn't the most valuable player in the WS be on the losing team?

[/ QUOTE ]

again, because baseball is a team game, your goal is to win

[/ QUOTE ]

So youre saying that he could put up the exact same numbers every year and yet his value would fluctuate depending on who pitches for the mets?

That makes sense not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? If he can put up 40 HR for 10 million, that is more valuable to his team than putting up 40 HR for 18 million, on just about any team except the Yankees. Because now they have 40 HR and a free 8 million to spend on more wins.

EDIT: Oops I thought you were saying something you werent. My bad.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
vhawk, i dunno. the mvp award is a regular season award, so its actually 1st-4th, and not 1st-4th (in each league). giving the mvp award to a player on a team that doesnt make the playoffs is like giving the world series mvp to a player on the losing team imo.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why couldn't the most valuable player in the WS be on the losing team?

[/ QUOTE ]

again, because baseball is a team game, your goal is to win

[/ QUOTE ]

Which side are you arguing? Baseball being a team game is the best possible argument AGAINST what you are saying.

[moayer]

[ QUOTE ]
One of those sportswriters, Bill Conlin of the Philadelphia Daily News, got into a email battle with the blog Ashburn Alley, . In the exchange, Conlin finished with this comment:

[ QUOTE ]
The only positive thing I can think of about Hitler’s time on earth–I’m sure he would have eliminated all bloggers. In Colonial times, bloggers were called “Pamphleteers.” They hung on street corners handing them out to passersby. Now, they hang out on electronic street corners, hoping somebody mouses on to their pretentious sites. Different medium, same MO. Shakespeare accidentally summed up the genre best with these words from a MacBeth soliloquy: “. . .a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. . .”

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

gold

[Pudge714]

vhawk,
The problem with using salary is it means every MVP would be under 25.

[dkgojackets]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
vhawk, i dunno. the mvp award is a regular season award, so its actually 1st-4th, and not 1st-4th (in each league). giving the mvp award to a player on a team that doesnt make the playoffs is like giving the world series mvp to a player on the losing team imo.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why couldn't the most valuable player in the WS be on the losing team?

[/ QUOTE ]

again, because baseball is a team game, your goal is to win

[/ QUOTE ]

So youre saying that he could put up the exact same numbers every year and yet his value would fluctuate depending on who pitches for the mets?

That makes sense not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? If he can put up 40 HR for 10 million, that is more valuable to his team than putting up 40 HR for 18 million, on just about any team except the Yankees. Because now they have 40 HR and a free 8 million to spend on more wins.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a lot different than what I was saying. I was talking about value contributed to the team in the traditional sense of the award, not production per dollar. Obviously if a player puts up the exact same numbers but makes a different amount of money his relative "value" changes.