DiMaggio is Now Number One - Page 8

Grandstander · 08-17-2007, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlb

If your team doesn't win, you're not very valuable. DD is right, you need two awards, a POTY for the guy who has the best numbers and an MVP for the guy who delivers the best performance on the best team.

I don't agree with your first sentence. How is having lousy teammates a reduction of your value? Ernie Banks never made it to the post season, shall we say that his career was without value and kick him out of the HoF?

nanwynnfan · 08-17-2007, 10:35 AM

While I can see MVP awards frequently going to players on contending teams, I can also see the Award going to a player whose outstanding performance made his awful team 10-15 games better than they's have been without him.

If you have a player with numbers like .340/.415/.610, with 42 HRs, 120 RBI and 115 RS; and he's playing on a club that goes 79-83 on the season, just think of where they'd have been without him.

I admit such a selection would be fairly rare; but total exclusion based on team standing is ridiculous.

Link below shows tawdry history of MVP awards.

History of the MVP and CY Young Awards

dlb · 08-17-2007, 11:31 AM

Quote:

How is having lousy teammates a reduction of your value?

Because winning is what matters. Having great numbers on a bad team is inconsequential.

DiamondDave · 08-17-2007, 11:38 AM

As stated... value is subjective... some attribute more value to winning... some to numbers... some to 'clutch'... some to leadership... some to the 'spotlight'.... and a separate MVP and POTY could facilitate such differing standards

Grandstander · 08-17-2007, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlb

Because winning is what matters. Having great numbers on a bad team is inconsequential.

Isn't winning a team accomplishment? Isn't the award singular?

kflo · 08-17-2007, 11:43 AM

a players value should be based on his own production, not on the production of the other 24 guys on the roster. some players are alot more situationally valuable (a closer's value tends to be reduced on crappy teams as their save opportunities are much smaller), but that is reflected in their production. baseball is very much an individual sport, moreso than any other team sport. a player controls his own at bat. his own fielding opportunities. there's less interaction. there's some, obviously, but alot is controlled by the individual. if one player simply outperforms another player, yet the outperformed player's teammates outperform the underperforming player's teammates, the underperforming (relatively speaking) player gets mvp? seems like a silly argument for mvp.

kflo · 08-17-2007, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlb

Because winning is what matters. Having great numbers on a bad team is inconsequential.

all any player can do is control his own opportunities.

WilsonC · 08-17-2007, 12:03 PM

Winning is what matters, but my view is that an individual award should go to how much a player contributes to winning, not the overall fortunes of the team. And that's the key. A player who turns a 60 win team into a 70 win team is as valuable as one who turns an 85 win team into a 95 win team. Both players were worth 10 wins to their team. The only difference is that the other 24 players on the better team combined for 25 more wins worth of value, but the individual shouldn't be penalized for that. Great numbers on a bad team do win ballgames, just as much as they do on a good team.

nanwynnfan · 08-17-2007, 12:05 PM

"all any player can do is control his own opportunities."

And that is exactly why the MVP should go to the player whose individual performance was Most Valuable in the context of his effect on team dynamics as compared with other players' individual contributions to their team dynamics.

A guy who makes an outstanding contribution to a mediocre franchise is more valuable in that context to a very good contributor to an excellent franchise.

kflo · 08-17-2007, 12:19 PM

not sure what is meant by effect on team dynamics.

nanwynnfan · 08-17-2007, 12:42 PM

A guy playing for a sub .500 club, say 79-83. who puts up numbers like:

.345/,414/.612; 42 HR; 120+ RBI; 110+ RS; 300 TB has probably created 125 runs, maybe as much as 15% of team total. Now, consider THAT franchis without him, maybe with an average player at his position. THAT is what I mean by looking at team dynamics while focusing on individual achievement.

It's not unreasonable to project that without him, that team could have gone 65-97, been an abysmal cellar-dwellar. His IMPACT makes him extremely valuable to the franchise, maybe MORE valuable in a team/league context than any other single player to his franchise.

That was the concept that prevailed in the first decade after the MVP was resurrected from the trash heap in 1931.

kflo · 08-17-2007, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

A guy playing for a sub .500 club, say 79-83. who puts up numbers like:

.345/,414/.612; 42 HR; 120+ RBI; 110+ RS; 300 TB has probably created 125 runs, maybe as much as 15% of team total. Now, consider THAT franchis without him, maybe with an average player at his position. THAT is what I mean by looking at team dynamics while focusing on individual achievement.

It's not unreasonable to project that without him, that team could have gone 65-97, been an abysmal cellar-dwellar. His IMPACT makes him extremely valuable to the franchise, maybe MORE valuable in a team/league context than any other single player to his franchise.

That was the concept that prevailed in the first decade after the MVP was resurrected from the trash heap in 1931.

would you consider him more valuable than someone who created 135 runs, maybe 13% of his teams total, on a team that won 100 games?

nanwynnfan · 08-17-2007, 01:04 PM

Let's not be silly.

My sample specifically used the term "outstanding" as opposed to "very good." Your response duels with another "outstanding" + superb franchise.

However, to stay within your context, say the guy on the 100+ win team puts up numbers like:

.307/.355/.566; 34 HR; 110 RBI' 105 RS; 250 TB. That would be 89 RC of maybe 880 RS, or 10.1%.

This is the kind of comp I meant, and specified. The latter guy would STILL win in today's climate; but I'm arguing for the sample I tossed out.

As I said, it would be rare. However, rarity should not mean that judges should be so lazy as to be inattentive to it.

kflo · 08-17-2007, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Let's not be silly.

My sample specifically used the term "outstanding" as opposed to "very good." Your response duels with another "outstanding" + superb franchise.

However, to stay within your context, say the guy on the 100+ win team puts up numbers like:

.307/.355/.566; 34 HR; 110 RBI' 105 RS; 250 TB. That would be 89 RC of maybe 880 RS, or 10.1%.

This is the kind of comp I meant, and specified. The latter guy would STILL win in today's climate; but I'm arguing for the sample I tossed out.

As I said, it would be rare. However, rarity should not mean that judges should be so lazy as to be inattentive to it.

so what are the situations where the higher RC guy doesn't deserve to win?

nanwynnfan · 08-17-2007, 03:25 PM

In my sample, the guy on the losing club created 125 runs [15% of team total] and the other guy created 89 runs [10.1% of team], so where's the debate?

08-17-2007, 10:35 AM	#107 (permalink)
nanwynnfan Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,579	While I can see MVP awards frequently going to players on contending teams, I can also see the Award going to a player whose outstanding performance made his awful team 10-15 games better than they's have been without him. If you have a player with numbers like .340/.415/.610, with 42 HRs, 120 RBI and 115 RS; and he's playing on a club that goes 79-83 on the season, just think of where they'd have been without him. I admit such a selection would be fairly rare; but total exclusion based on team standing is ridiculous. Link below shows tawdry history of MVP awards. History of the MVP and CY Young Awards Last edited by nanwynnfan; 08-17-2007 at 11:17 AM.

08-17-2007, 11:38 AM	#109 (permalink)
DiamondDave Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: MD, on the Potomac River Posts: 5,390	As stated... value is subjective... some attribute more value to winning... some to numbers... some to 'clutch'... some to leadership... some to the 'spotlight'.... and a separate MVP and POTY could facilitate such differing standards __________________ Reagan in 08... Even though he's dead, he's the better choice! Superdelegates - Because even the Democratic party knows it's base is too stupid to make really important decisions.

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.fanhome.com/forums/major-league-baseball/9352-dimaggio-now-number-one.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
FanHome » The Most Impressive Remaining Record	This thread	Pingback	09-27-2007 10:54 PM
50 Car Insurance - 50 60 car, requirements insurance car	This thread	Refback	08-20-2007 06:58 AM
FanHome	This thread	Pingback	08-12-2007 09:29 PM

08-17-2007, 11:43 AM	#111 (permalink)
kflo Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,739	a players value should be based on his own production, not on the production of the other 24 guys on the roster. some players are alot more situationally valuable (a closer's value tends to be reduced on crappy teams as their save opportunities are much smaller), but that is reflected in their production. baseball is very much an individual sport, moreso than any other team sport. a player controls his own at bat. his own fielding opportunities. there's less interaction. there's some, obviously, but alot is controlled by the individual. if one player simply outperforms another player, yet the outperformed player's teammates outperform the underperforming player's teammates, the underperforming (relatively speaking) player gets mvp? seems like a silly argument for mvp.

08-17-2007, 12:03 PM	#113 (permalink)
WilsonC Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 121	Winning is what matters, but my view is that an individual award should go to how much a player contributes to winning, not the overall fortunes of the team. And that's the key. A player who turns a 60 win team into a 70 win team is as valuable as one who turns an 85 win team into a 95 win team. Both players were worth 10 wins to their team. The only difference is that the other 24 players on the better team combined for 25 more wins worth of value, but the individual shouldn't be penalized for that. Great numbers on a bad team do win ballgames, just as much as they do on a good team.

08-17-2007, 12:05 PM	#114 (permalink)
nanwynnfan Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,579	"all any player can do is control his own opportunities." And that is exactly why the MVP should go to the player whose individual performance was Most Valuable in the context of his effect on team dynamics as compared with other players' individual contributions to their team dynamics. A guy who makes an outstanding contribution to a mediocre franchise is more valuable in that context to a very good contributor to an excellent franchise.

08-17-2007, 12:19 PM	#115 (permalink)
kflo Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,739	not sure what is meant by effect on team dynamics.

08-17-2007, 12:42 PM	#116 (permalink)
nanwynnfan Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,579	A guy playing for a sub .500 club, say 79-83. who puts up numbers like: .345/,414/.612; 42 HR; 120+ RBI; 110+ RS; 300 TB has probably created 125 runs, maybe as much as 15% of team total. Now, consider THAT franchis without him, maybe with an average player at his position. THAT is what I mean by looking at team dynamics while focusing on individual achievement. It's not unreasonable to project that without him, that team could have gone 65-97, been an abysmal cellar-dwellar. His IMPACT makes him extremely valuable to the franchise, maybe MORE valuable in a team/league context than any other single player to his franchise. That was the concept that prevailed in the first decade after the MVP was resurrected from the trash heap in 1931.

08-17-2007, 01:04 PM	#118 (permalink)
nanwynnfan Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,579	Let's not be silly. My sample specifically used the term "outstanding" as opposed to "very good." Your response duels with another "outstanding" + superb franchise. However, to stay within your context, say the guy on the 100+ win team puts up numbers like: .307/.355/.566; 34 HR; 110 RBI' 105 RS; 250 TB. That would be 89 RC of maybe 880 RS, or 10.1%. This is the kind of comp I meant, and specified. The latter guy would STILL win in today's climate; but I'm arguing for the sample I tossed out. As I said, it would be rare. However, rarity should not mean that judges should be so lazy as to be inattentive to it.

08-17-2007, 03:25 PM	#120 (permalink)
nanwynnfan Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,579	In my sample, the guy on the losing club created 125 runs [15% of team total] and the other guy created 89 runs [10.1% of team], so where's the debate?