SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
The Big Bad Mookie Betts Thread
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 1, 2016 8:41:02 GMT -5
Just came to post it. Disregards some of Betts's baserunning value, and I think the defensive difference is more real than they give credit for (although Trout plays CF), but the OBP difference is just too much to overlook for me. Maybe if Mookie were around .400, but Trout just has a huge lead in "not making outs." That said, I have a tough time calling a guy on a terrible team "valuable." But given that he's really the only reason to go to an Angels game, maybe his value is in singlehandedly keeping afloat a franchise whose talent base, other than him, has been mismanaged into oblivion. Someone, anyone, please look up "Valuable" in the dictionary and tell me what part of that definition doesn't apply to Mike Trout. I'll wait.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Oct 1, 2016 9:48:40 GMT -5
This is slightly OT but: Bottom of the 9th, Game 7 of the WS and you're down by 1 run 2 outs,bases loaded and you get to choose the hitter? A. Mike Trout B. Mookie Betts C. Big Papi
Now tell me who's the MVP.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
Member is Online
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 1, 2016 11:43:25 GMT -5
Just came to post it. Disregards some of Betts's baserunning value, and I think the defensive difference is more real than they give credit for (although Trout plays CF), but the OBP difference is just too much to overlook for me. Maybe if Mookie were around .400, but Trout just has a huge lead in "not making outs." That said, I have a tough time calling a guy on a terrible team "valuable." But given that he's really the only reason to go to an Angels game, maybe his value is in singlehandedly keeping afloat a franchise whose talent base, other than him, has been mismanaged into oblivion. Someone, anyone, please look up "Valuable" in the dictionary and tell me what part of that definition doesn't apply to Mike Trout. I'll wait. Which is more valuable on a desert island, $1000 in cash or $900 worth of food? Didn't have to look it up. The entire problem is that value can be either absolute or contextual. Trout has the most absolute value, but his value in the context of the season was negligible. Nobody noticed the Angels' season as it was, so it's hard to argue that their winning 73 games instead of 63 made any difference. There should be two awards. The award for most contextual value is an interesting one. The award for most absolute value, which is to say, best player, should be more prestigious. Name it after Ted Williams. Have one award for both leagues. Have a gold, silver, and bronze to make it interesting in eras where there is a Trout or Mays who's winning it every year. Splitting the award would encourage more examination of clutch stats in determining the guy who actually had the most contextual value. Altuve, who has been awful in the clutch all year, would have never been on the radar for MVP, just as a silver medalist for the Williams.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Oct 1, 2016 11:53:35 GMT -5
Aren't you confusing value with usefulness? $1000 is still more valuable than $900 of food, but it's not as useful. When they start handing out the most useful player award I think Mookie is a perfect fit.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
Member is Online
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 1, 2016 13:22:31 GMT -5
Aren't you confusing value with usefulness? $1000 is still more valuable than $900 of food, but it's not as useful. When they start handing out the most useful player award I think Mookie is a perfect fit. No, I'm not. "Value" primarily means the subjective and/or contextual worth. We often apply it to things that have no measurable worth at all (What do you value? The safety of my family, then my reputation). The meaning of "literal worth" is secondary. If I have a gold coin in my hand, the most unambiguous question I can ask is "how much is this worth?" and not "how valuable is this?" Note the existence of the variant, "how much is this worth to you?" A collector who is missing only this coin from his collection would pay more for it, even though the coin has the same worth, because he values it more. The contextual nature of "valuable" even applies to straight finance. If you asked a wealthy person "which of your assets is most valuable," that is not asking him which is worth the most, and he may well name the asset whose liquidity and flexibility has allowed him to deal with unexpected financial situations rather than the one with the most paper value.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 1, 2016 13:41:50 GMT -5
Aren't you confusing value with usefulness? $1000 is still more valuable than $900 of food, but it's not as useful. When they start handing out the most useful player award I think Mookie is a perfect fit. Words of advice from the Russian muse in one of my all-time favorites, Local Hero:
|
|
|
Post by threeifbaerga on Oct 1, 2016 14:34:23 GMT -5
This has turned into a fun thread and this argument definitely doesn't happen every single year for every single sport since the beginning of "the MVP award".
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 1, 2016 15:43:32 GMT -5
Can someone tell me why it's a bad idea to give Trout the MVP award WITHOUT talking about the world "valuable"?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 1, 2016 15:50:49 GMT -5
Aren't you confusing value with usefulness? $1000 is still more valuable than $900 of food, but it's not as useful. When they start handing out the most useful player award I think Mookie is a perfect fit. No, I'm not. "Value" primarily means the subjective and/or contextual worth. We often apply it to things that have no measurable worth at all (What do you value? The safety of my family, then my reputation). The meaning of "literal worth" is secondary.If I have a gold coin in my hand, the most unambiguous question I can ask is "how much is this worth?" and not "how valuable is this?" Note the existence of the variant, "how much is this worth to you?" A collector who is missing only this coin from his collection would pay more for it, even though the coin has the same worth, because he values it more. The contextual nature of "valuable" even applies to straight finance. If you asked a wealthy person "which of your assets is most valuable," that is not asking him which is worth the most, and he may well name the asset whose liquidity and flexibility has allowed him to deal with unexpected financial situations rather than the one with the most paper value. Ok, since no one else did it: Ok, so does Mike Trout satisfy every possible interpretation of "valuable"? No. Does he fit MANY of them? Yes. Inarguably.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Oct 1, 2016 16:11:24 GMT -5
I'm not much on awards. Like to see a best player and MVP. Yes ,I'm old school, I don't think a last place team can have an mvp, Dawson/ Cubs. Trout is the best player in the game ,but his team could finish where they are without him.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 1, 2016 16:36:13 GMT -5
Someone, anyone, please look up "Valuable" in the dictionary and tell me what part of that definition doesn't apply to Mike Trout. I'll wait. Which is more valuable on a desert island, $1000 in cash or $900 worth of food? Didn't have to look it up. The entire problem is that value can be either absolute or contextual. Trout has the most absolute value, but his value in the context of the season was negligible. Nobody noticed the Angels' season as it was, so it's hard to argue that their winning 73 games instead of 63 made any difference. There should be two awards. The award for most contextual value is an interesting one. The award for most absolute value, which is to say, best player, should be more prestigious. Name it after Ted Williams. Have one award for both leagues. Have a gold, silver, and bronze to make it interesting in eras where there is a Trout or Mays who's winning it every year. Splitting the award would encourage more examination of clutch stats in determining the guy who actually had the most contextual value. Altuve, who has been awful in the clutch all year, would have never been on the radar for MVP, just as a silver medalist for the Williams. But why are you on a deserted island? This is baseball. You can take that $1000 in cash and buy $1000 of food. Or trade Trout for Mookie + more.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
Member is Online
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 1, 2016 17:01:31 GMT -5
Which is more valuable on a desert island, $1000 in cash or $900 worth of food? Didn't have to look it up. The entire problem is that value can be either absolute or contextual. Trout has the most absolute value, but his value in the context of the season was negligible. Nobody noticed the Angels' season as it was, so it's hard to argue that their winning 73 games instead of 63 made any difference. There should be two awards. The award for most contextual value is an interesting one. The award for most absolute value, which is to say, best player, should be more prestigious. Name it after Ted Williams. Have one award for both leagues. Have a gold, silver, and bronze to make it interesting in eras where there is a Trout or Mays who's winning it every year. Splitting the award would encourage more examination of clutch stats in determining the guy who actually had the most contextual value. Altuve, who has been awful in the clutch all year, would have never been on the radar for MVP, just as a silver medalist for the Williams. But why are you on a deserted island? This is baseball. You can take that $1000 in cash and buy $1000 of food. Or trade Trout for Mookie + more. To be clear, I have no preference for the way you interpret the word. I am defending the traditional interpretation of the word by the BBWA as reasonable, and hence defending the confusion as to what the award is supposed to be for as legitimate. The BBWA is not being stupid or arbitrary when they factor in what the team did. They are being speakers of the English language.* And anyone who has read me knows that I do not do a lot of defending of the BBWA; their track record of voting for the HOF, for instance, crosses the line from incompetence to shameful. I mean, Ron Santo retired as the second best 3B in history and they couldn't even induct him while he was alive. Did you know that when he became eligible, Arky Vaughan, who had been the second greatest SS of all time, got 1 vote from 264 voters? The BBWA gets a lot wrong, but they're in a no-win position here. There needs to be two awards, or we'll argue about this forever, and there's no right answer.*An even better version of my thought experiment: A man is rescued from a desert island and asked, of all the things that washed up with you, which was the most valuable? He may say the food or the signal flares, but he's not going to mention any cash or coins. This is the sense most BBWA writers make of the word, and, for once, they are not being stupid.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 1, 2016 17:15:11 GMT -5
Value is relative. You may as well say 'what if baseball changed all the rules and became football, who is more valuable between Mookie and Trout?' But we're talking about baseball where value is only based on how good of a baseball player is. The Angels are not a deserted island. They are able to trade Trout if they want to. And the Red Sox would not be able to trade Mookie straight up for him even though Trout is making 50 times as much.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Oct 1, 2016 18:42:38 GMT -5
It's true that Trout and Betts aren't tradeable one for one, except that as pointed out Trout makes 50 times as much so on a $/WAR basis Mookie is clearly the most valuable player in the league and no one is even close.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 1, 2016 19:30:07 GMT -5
*An even better version of my thought experiment: A man is rescued from a desert island and asked, of all the things that washed up with you, which was the most valuable? He may say the food or the signal flares, but he's not going to mention any cash or coins. This is the sense most BBWA writers make of the word, and, for once, they are not being stupid.Strong disagree. I think there's a decent linguistic argument that they're being stupid and a VERY strong practical argument that they're being stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Alonzo on Oct 1, 2016 20:04:20 GMT -5
The MVP award still lacks definition. If it's merely best player of the year, then Trout is running away with the award and would be on to win his 5th straight award. And I wouldn't have an issue with it. But in my opinion MVP is tied to how the team is performing. Is it fair for the player? No, it's not. Does it have to be? Nope. It's not different than the best regular season teams rarely end up winning the world series. It wouldn'r be unfair if the Cubs don't win the WS this year, even though everyone knows that they have been the best team and best roster on paper.
For the record, I think Betts wins it, because voters tend to like players putting on numbers on very good/great teams. As I said, I'd vote that way as well, but I wouldn't dispute anyone over voting for Trout by argueing that he's the best total package in baseball.
|
|
|
Post by fourstripes on Oct 1, 2016 20:40:39 GMT -5
This is slightly OT but: Bottom of the 9th, Game 7 of the WS and you're down by 1 run 2 outs,bases loaded and you get to choose the hitter? A. Mike Trout B. Mookie Betts C. Big Papi Now tell me who's the MVP. Bottom of the 9th, game 7 of the WS and you're up by 1 run, 2 outs, bases loaded and you get to choose the outfield? A. Mike Trout B. Mookie Betts C. Big Papi does this influence your choice?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Oct 1, 2016 22:09:18 GMT -5
Just came to post it. Disregards some of Betts's baserunning value, and I think the defensive difference is more real than they give credit for (although Trout plays CF), but the OBP difference is just too much to overlook for me. Maybe if Mookie were around .400, but Trout just has a huge lead in "not making outs." That said, I have a tough time calling a guy on a terrible team "valuable." But given that he's really the only reason to go to an Angels game, maybe his value is in singlehandedly keeping afloat a franchise whose talent base, other than him, has been mismanaged into oblivion. Someone, anyone, please look up "Valuable" in the dictionary and tell me what part of that definition doesn't apply to Mike Trout. I'll wait. Where is the value in finishing with 73-74 wins in 4th instead of 64 and last? Trout is valuable in that he's the only thing keeping them from being truly, egregiously awful. The question is, to what extent does that provide "value" to the team? It's actually theoretically hurting them by keeping them from a premier draft position. You're also ignoring the qualifier "most," which depends on how you quantify value. Is Trout the biggest contributor both in terms of percentage and net total wins to his team? Yes. But what is more valuable to a TEAM: finishing first in the division and making the playoffs (instead of in 4th and out of the playoffs, behind your biggest rival), or finishing in fourth place instead of last, and missing out on a top-3 draft pick because you did? Most outstanding? Trout. Most VALUABLE? That's debatable, and Betts has a very good case.
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Oct 1, 2016 22:12:06 GMT -5
This is slightly OT but: Bottom of the 9th, Game 7 of the WS and you're down by 1 run 2 outs,bases loaded and you get to choose the hitter? A. Mike Trout B. Mookie Betts C. Big Papi Now tell me who's the MVP. Mike Trout, but that doesn't tell you who the MVP is.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Oct 1, 2016 22:18:13 GMT -5
Aren't you confusing value with usefulness? $1000 is still more valuable than $900 of food, but it's not as useful. When they start handing out the most useful player award I think Mookie is a perfect fit. "Value" is intrinsically tied to usefulness. Put two people on a desert island, and they'll ignore $10,000,000 in cash after three or four days and kill eachother over $50 in food. Money only has value as a means to acquire goods. It's only value, in this case, is to keep a fire going. And context determines usefullness.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Oct 1, 2016 22:20:33 GMT -5
This is slightly OT but: Bottom of the 9th, Game 7 of the WS and you're down by 1 run 2 outs,bases loaded and you get to choose the hitter? A. Mike Trout B. Mookie Betts C. Big Papi Now tell me who's the MVP. Mike Trout, but that doesn't tell you who the MVP is. I'd take Ortiz, but it still doesn't tell me who the MVP is. All it tells me is who the person I think is most likely to hit in a clutch situation is. And if the game goes to extra innings and my guy hits his usual clutch bomb, I better hope he doesn't need to play defense. Oh yeah...defense...
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
Member is Online
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 1, 2016 23:56:19 GMT -5
*An even better version of my thought experiment: A man is rescued from a desert island and asked, of all the things that washed up with you, which was the most valuable? He may say the food or the signal flares, but he's not going to mention any cash or coins. This is the sense most BBWA writers make of the word, and, for once, they are not being stupid.Strong disagree. I think there's a decent linguistic argument that they're being stupid and a VERY strong practical argument that they're being stupid. The BBWA has been historically clueless about the analytic side of the game -- many of them have very clearly viewed walks by hitters as a negative, because all they looked at was career hit totals -- but they have all been native English speakers. By definition, words mean what people think they mean. Almost to a man, they have taken the V in MVP to mean "valuable in context of the team season." The historical voting record could not be more clear on that. This is a pointless argument. Both sides are entirely correct.* We need two awards. If I were a voter, I would leave both Trout and Betts off my ballot as a protest -- and also because I could not in good conscience vote for either one. It's unfair to Trout to vote for Betts when Trout was the better player. But it's also unfair to vote for Trout when Betts is the MVP according to the longstanding and entirely defensible tradition of what the award means. *The funny thing is, the other thing I'm wrapped up completely now is the movie Memento (after seeing it for the 8th or 10th time, depending on whether you count the chronological edit), which works the same way. Whose wife had diabetes? There are two answers, and the point is that both are correct; it's up to the viewer to decide which one they like better. People arguing for one over the other as "right" are missing the point.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Oct 2, 2016 2:57:48 GMT -5
MVP award talks are annoying.
I stopped caring about the MVP award when they took it away from Pedro in 1999.
I suggest that everyone else do the same.
I'd be perfectly fine if Trout wins the MVP and Mookie wins a ring anyways.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Oct 2, 2016 8:51:52 GMT -5
Mike Trout, but that doesn't tell you who the MVP is. I'd take Ortiz, but it still doesn't tell me who the MVP is. All it tells me is who the person I think is most likely to hit in a clutch situation is. And if the game goes to extra innings and my guy hits his usual clutch bomb, I better hope he doesn't need to play defense. Oh yeah...defense... Correct, it's Ortiz because he has done it so often on the big stage (neither Trout nor Betts have had the chances.....yet). ANd then you have both of them to go in for defense later.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Oct 2, 2016 12:48:47 GMT -5
Nick Cafardo had an interesting comment on the Trout vs Betts M.V.P. Debate. Opined that if there were a Player of the Year" award, Trout would have his vote. But considering Betts' contribution actually had an impact on his team and its position in the pennant race, Mookie had his vote.
|
|
|