N.L. MVP for 2011

[filihok]

Originally Posted by WakaFlocka

Again, you're using some pointless percentage to justify a guy that plays less than 35 games a year as MVP of the league. You're also punishing a position player because he can only hit 4 times a game, never mind that the position plays everyday, plays the field, and has an impact on both sides of the game. Your percentages mean nothing. You can come up with any percentage you like. You cannot compare someone that plays everyday with someone that only plays 1/5 of his team's games. That would be like comparing Dwyane Wade when he plays in 80 games to his 2 seasons where he played in 51 games each. If you're not even playing in majority of your team's games, you shouldn't be eligible for MVP. Your punishing position players because of the position they play.

Two main flaws here.

One. You are defining the game as the base unit for measurement. The base unit of measurement is the plate appearance. Starting pitchers effect more plate appearances than position players do.

Second, the more grievous error.

You think that choosing Verlander over Melky automatically makes him more valuable? Who would you take from scratch, Verlander or B.J. Upton? I can play that game too. You're not making any sense.

First, you didn't answer my question. Who would you take?
I would take the more valuable player. The player that is going to contribute more to my team winning games.

Do you accept that some starting pitchers help a team win more than some starting position players? Do you think that every position player is more valuable that every starting pitcher?

Would my ability to play RF 162 games a year while catching maybe 20 flyballs, getting hit by a few pitches and striking out 700 times be more valuable than Justin Verlander?

I hope that you would say 'no'.

If you said no, then you agree that some starting pitchers are more valuable than some every day players. If you agree that some starting pitchers are more valuable than some everyday players then you can't use playing time as the only measure of value-which is what you have done.

[Grandstander]

WakaFlocka

Because the formula doesn't take into account how much these players play.

It indeed does take playing time into account.

It is obvious that you have no familiarity with the elements or purpose of a statistic such as WAR, and as I noted earlier, you are instantly ready to condemn it from your position of ignorance, for no reason other than it contradicts something that you have incorrectly decided must be true.

That sort of thinking...or absense of thinking to be more accurate, is why I suggested you become familiar with the classic flaw in your approach...the dragon in the garage argument.

Apparently you either did not read the link which I provided, or did not understand it if you did read it.

Finally, with regard to your style of argument, when I was in Jr. High we had a classmate named Gus who wound up lending his name to a sociological concept as a consequence of his behavior. Whenever you insulted Gus in any manner, his response, without fail, was "No, you." That was it, every time..."No, you." If someone said "Gus, you need to lose some weight" Gus could be counted upon to say "No, you need to lose some weight!" If you said "Gus, you really ought to shower more often", Gus would shoot back "No! You need to shower more often."

This of course became a running joke in the school and to "Gus" someone was to take whatever they said and say it about the speaker.

It has been decades since I had a reason to think about Gus....but now I wonder....you aren't he by any chance, are you?