Posted by dahsdebater on 10/4/2017 1:10:00 AM (view original):
You're right, value and worth are not the same thing. And you somehow switched them in your head. Value is intrinsic, worth is extrinsic.

Did you know that having (monetary, intrinsic) value and having (practical, useful) value aren't the same thing? A stick has very little monetary value, but can have a very practical value if a snake is attacking you.

Posted by toddcommish on 10/4/2017 2:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/4/2017 1:10:00 AM (view original):
You're right, value and worth are not the same thing. And you somehow switched them in your head. Value is intrinsic, worth is extrinsic.

Did you know that having (monetary, intrinsic) value and having (practical, useful) value aren't the same thing? A stick has very little monetary value, but can have a very practical value if a snake is attacking you.

Especially if you speak softly

Posted by bad_luck on 10/3/2017 10:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/3/2017 10:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 10/3/2017 9:53:00 PM (view original):
In 1988 Kirk Gibson was not the best player in the league. However he was the most valuable. And he won MVP. And rightly so.

If it's not a number in a spreadsheet, PSBL can't possibly understand it.

It's why he doesn't watch the games.

I'm not arguing whether or not Gibson actually was the best, sj claimed he wasn't. If Gibson wasn't the best (by whatever way you judge "best"), he wasn't the most valuable.

Kirk Gibson meant more to the Dodgers in 1988 than any other player that year meant to his respective team. He played injured at the end. Was in the lineup every game. Changed the clubhouse atmosphere. Showed up, and took a rather mediocre team with a below average lineup, uneven pitching staff, etc, and led them to the playoffs.

The Dodgers don't make the playoffs without Gibson.

You can;'t measure that with stats.

Um I'm a Dodger fan. That team wasn't mediocre. Well...the offense wasn't great but the pitching staff was. Hershiser threw like 280 innings with a 2 something ERA. Valenzuela was like the fourth best starter. And the bullpen was lights out.

Gibson was huge as the only real threat in the lineup. And his WS homer was historic. But if Gibson wasn't the best player in the league (and I'm not arguing that), he wasn't the most valuable. A better player in Gibson's place would have lead to more wins.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 10:26:00 AM (view original):
Um I'm a Dodger fan. That team wasn't mediocre. Well...the offense wasn't great but the pitching staff was. Hershiser threw like 280 innings with a 2 something ERA. Valenzuela was like the fourth best starter. And the bullpen was lights out.

Gibson was huge as the only real threat in the lineup. And his WS homer was historic. But if Gibson wasn't the best player in the league (and I'm not arguing that), he wasn't the most valuable. A better player in Gibson's place would have lead to more wins.

Orel Hershiser should've been the 1988 NL MVP.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 10:26:00 AM (view original):
Um I'm a Dodger fan. That team wasn't mediocre. Well...the offense wasn't great but the pitching staff was. Hershiser threw like 280 innings with a 2 something ERA. Valenzuela was like the fourth best starter. And the bullpen was lights out.

Gibson was huge as the only real threat in the lineup. And his WS homer was historic. But if Gibson wasn't the best player in the league (and I'm not arguing that), he wasn't the most valuable. A better player in Gibson's place would have lead to more wins.

You can be a Dodgers fan all you want, but really, you were probably like 7-10 in 1988 so I doubt you remember anything about it. So - again - you are probably basing all your observations off of stats.

That pitching staff performed well, but most of those guys pitched WAY over their talent level.
Tim Leary - beyond mediocre
Belcher - yawn
Valenzuela - He was already below league average
Sutton - no comment needed
Howell, Pena, Orosco in the bullpen? Meh.

Again, Gibson provided things to his team that your stats can't measure. And thats what made him MVP. And he deserved it.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 10:26:00 AM (view original):
Um I'm a Dodger fan. That team wasn't mediocre. Well...the offense wasn't great but the pitching staff was. Hershiser threw like 280 innings with a 2 something ERA. Valenzuela was like the fourth best starter. And the bullpen was lights out.

Gibson was huge as the only real threat in the lineup. And his WS homer was historic. But if Gibson wasn't the best player in the league (and I'm not arguing that), he wasn't the most valuable. A better player in Gibson's place would have lead to more wins.

That may be true, but the Dodgers didn't have a better player than Gibson. Just because a better player might have been more valuable if he was on the team instead of Gibson, that does not make Gibson's value to the team any less.

Posted by edsortails on 10/4/2017 1:21:00 AM (view original):
MVP should actually be considered to be the award for the player that performed the best on the field, in relation to what his salary is.

in your opinion. If team A finishes in first place with player B but would have finished in 3rd place without him, I'd say player B was pretty valuable to his team.
If team B finishes in last place with player C and would have finished in last place without him, I don't see that he added much value to the team.
That's just my opinion. If everyone had the same opinion about what MVP meant, we wouldn't have these fun arguments about who deserved it.

MLB could fix all of this if they just do what the NFL does and have an Offensive Player of the Year Award.

Cy Young Award - Pitchers Only
Ted Williams Award - Hitters Only
MVP - eligible to anyone, for however you define "value".

Then great offensive seasons are recognized, and if you define value differently, you can still vote another player as MVP based on his contributions to his team.

Posted by wylie715 on 10/4/2017 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 10:26:00 AM (view original):
Um I'm a Dodger fan. That team wasn't mediocre. Well...the offense wasn't great but the pitching staff was. Hershiser threw like 280 innings with a 2 something ERA. Valenzuela was like the fourth best starter. And the bullpen was lights out.

Gibson was huge as the only real threat in the lineup. And his WS homer was historic. But if Gibson wasn't the best player in the league (and I'm not arguing that), he wasn't the most valuable. A better player in Gibson's place would have lead to more wins.

That may be true, but the Dodgers didn't have a better player than Gibson. Just because a better player might have been more valuable if he was on the team instead of Gibson, that does not make Gibson's value to the team any less.

It's kind of a weird argument because Gibson was probably one of the best 2 or 3 players in the NL that year. Maybe Darryl Strawberry was a hair better, but really, Gibson should have been in the MVP discussion regardless of where the Dodgers finished in the standings.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 10/4/2017 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 10:26:00 AM (view original):
Um I'm a Dodger fan. That team wasn't mediocre. Well...the offense wasn't great but the pitching staff was. Hershiser threw like 280 innings with a 2 something ERA. Valenzuela was like the fourth best starter. And the bullpen was lights out.

Gibson was huge as the only real threat in the lineup. And his WS homer was historic. But if Gibson wasn't the best player in the league (and I'm not arguing that), he wasn't the most valuable. A better player in Gibson's place would have lead to more wins.

That may be true, but the Dodgers didn't have a better player than Gibson. Just because a better player might have been more valuable if he was on the team instead of Gibson, that does not make Gibson's value to the team any less.

It's kind of a weird argument because Gibson was probably one of the best 2 or 3 players in the NL that year. Maybe Darryl Strawberry was a hair better, but really, Gibson should have been in the MVP discussion regardless of where the Dodgers finished in the standings.

without much research here are 10 players who one might say had as good a season or better than Gibson did in 1988:
Barry Larkin, Will Clark, Tony Gwynn, Kal Daniels, Darryl Strawberry, Andres Galarraga, Andy Van Slyke, Orel Hershiser, Danny Jackson and David Cone.

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/4/2017 12:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/2/2017 10:27:00 PM (view original):
Jose Altuve away from Minute Maid Park - .381/.449/.633, 13 SB, 3 CS

Nolan Arenado away from Coors Field - .283/.355/.531, 3 SB, 1 CS

With his defense, I think it's fair to say that Arenado's away line is good enough for serious MVP consideration. OTOH, I think Blackmon's away stats aren't nearly good enough to merit serious consideration.

Precisely. I never said Arenado was bad. In fact, I said he was very good. I just said I don't think he should be in the discussion for the game's best hitter.

Guess what player this is:

Split	G	GS	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	TB	GDP	HBP	SH	SF	IBB	ROE	BAbip	tOPS+	sOPS+
Home	80	80	354	316	46	91	15	0	22	55	5	3	32	51	.288	.350	.544	.895	172	6	1	0	5	1	4	.278	128	130
Away	76	76	336	314	35	72	18	1	11	40	4	1	18	64	.229	.268	.398	.666	125	11	0	0	4	2	4	.251	71	80

Posted by sjpoker on 10/4/2017 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 10:26:00 AM (view original):
Um I'm a Dodger fan. That team wasn't mediocre. Well...the offense wasn't great but the pitching staff was. Hershiser threw like 280 innings with a 2 something ERA. Valenzuela was like the fourth best starter. And the bullpen was lights out.

Gibson was huge as the only real threat in the lineup. And his WS homer was historic. But if Gibson wasn't the best player in the league (and I'm not arguing that), he wasn't the most valuable. A better player in Gibson's place would have lead to more wins.

You can be a Dodgers fan all you want, but really, you were probably like 7-10 in 1988 so I doubt you remember anything about it. So - again - you are probably basing all your observations off of stats.

That pitching staff performed well, but most of those guys pitched WAY over their talent level.
Tim Leary - beyond mediocre
Belcher - yawn
Valenzuela - He was already below league average
Sutton - no comment needed
Howell, Pena, Orosco in the bullpen? Meh.

Again, Gibson provided things to his team that your stats can't measure. And thats what made him MVP. And he deserved it.

Your analysis also proves my point that Hershiser should've been 1988 NL MVP. Where would the Dodgers be without him? He also accomplished the rare feat of earning NLCS and World Series MVP that season.

1988 Jay Howell is one of my favorite RP's in the SIM. He had an awesome year!!

Player

Team

T

IP /162

W

L

SV

ERA

WHIP

OAV

K/9

BB/9

SALARY

F/R

1

Howell, Jay

1988 Los Angeles Dodgers

R

66

5

3

21

2.08

1.00

.188

9.69

2.91

$2,748,160

C/C+

Posted by wylie715 on 10/4/2017 1:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 10/4/2017 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 10:26:00 AM (view original):
Um I'm a Dodger fan. That team wasn't mediocre. Well...the offense wasn't great but the pitching staff was. Hershiser threw like 280 innings with a 2 something ERA. Valenzuela was like the fourth best starter. And the bullpen was lights out.

Gibson was huge as the only real threat in the lineup. And his WS homer was historic. But if Gibson wasn't the best player in the league (and I'm not arguing that), he wasn't the most valuable. A better player in Gibson's place would have lead to more wins.

That may be true, but the Dodgers didn't have a better player than Gibson. Just because a better player might have been more valuable if he was on the team instead of Gibson, that does not make Gibson's value to the team any less.

It's kind of a weird argument because Gibson was probably one of the best 2 or 3 players in the NL that year. Maybe Darryl Strawberry was a hair better, but really, Gibson should have been in the MVP discussion regardless of where the Dodgers finished in the standings.

without much research here are 10 players who one might say had as good a season or better than Gibson did in 1988:
Barry Larkin, Will Clark, Tony Gwynn, Kal Daniels, Darryl Strawberry, Andres Galarraga, Andy Van Slyke, Orel Hershiser, Danny Jackson and David Cone.

I'd say the top 5 were Strawberry, Gibson, Galarraga, Clark, and Larkin. I wouldn't have a problem with any of them getting the award that year.

The point is, you can make a credible argument that Gibson was actually the most valuable and leave the hero-narrative bullshit at the door.