Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacoheadley
I'm sorry, I just don't see the point of including something that is basically pure luck, and has no reflection on how good the player is at all. I would much rather give the MVP to the guy who had the best season, not the one who was fortunate enough to get the most game winning RBIs in a year.
|
Your statements clearly show that you believe the MVP should go to the player with the most ability, not to the player with the most value. I believe the opposite, that the MVP should go to the player who did stuff, regardless of whether he is any good or not.
P.S. FYI, not to begin an argument, but just to show my inclinations, my biggest problems with WAR (for its intended purpose) is that 1) The defensive measurements are so imprecise that they make the overall WAR nearly useless and 2) The offensive portion seriously over values base running in my opinion. If you want to argue this, I will, but we should start a different thread (not that I desire to argue this, BTW. I don't really care if anyone evaluates ballplayers the same as me.)
P.S.P.S. The measurement of changing win probabilities is a neat idea, but suffers from the fact that changing your team's probability from .100 to .200 is the same as changing it from .400 to .500. RE24 is also intriging, but it is still context neutral; i.e. an event in the bottom of the ninth in a 10-0 game is the same as an event in a 1-0 game. Besides the fact that you are accepting someone else's calculations for the value of the events; I have not studied either in great detail, so I can't say whether I agree with that portion of their methodology or not. But I have used a similar style of player evaluation for over 20 years and like it a lot.