Izenhart wrote:I didn't realize the vets here laughed to themselves when discussion threads about player awards are started. My bad, guess this isn't the place to talk about baseball MVPs and such.
You can take it as some self-righteous statement and get butt hurt, or you can just acknowledge that I find it funny that I've seen the same argument for almost 10 years. I've read it over and over and over again. This is your second time participating in it. Six years from now you may feel the same way, when the topic is invariably started, and you can script it start to finish a month before it unfolds. It's not a bad thing. It's just funny, and means I've been here for what feels like eons. The same roles are there every year, just by different folks (and often the same folks). I could script it in advance. That's what's funny to me. Maybe I should've chosen a different word? I didn't realize it'd offend. Frankly, I don't really care whether I did or not. I didn't say anything offensive.
I mean look, here's the 25 page thread on the 2012 AL MVP Award
. There's a lot of good discussion. Always is. Although Mookie's contribution to it clearly won the entire thing, and summed up my sentiments pretty much perfectly -- "Miggy wins in the isFAT stat.
This discussion sucks. Too many people trying to prove they can pull out more stupid esoteric stats than anyone else. You're already posting on a fantasy baseball message board, you don't need to prove that you don't have a girlfriend."
It's clearly in good fun and not mean spirited. We've got a ton of intelligent guys (and gals?) here. But it always turns the same way, and becomes like a satire. It generally stems from people choosing to interpret someone's words in a way which was clearly unintended. And that's when people are even on the same page over whether they're discussing who they think will win the award versus who they feel is deserving of the award. In between you've got the guy who brings up 5x5 fantasy/Triple Crown stats as the crux of his argument, the guy who snarkily puts him down for using such archaic stats, the sub-argument over whether making the playoffs is/should be relevant, over whether 2nd half performance or September performance should be counted separately and how much, possibly we derail into PED discussions if any player has been linked to them, the argument over the intended definition of 'Valuable', the sub-argument over whether pitchers should be considered for the award at all, and various other angles. That's what I find funny. I feel the same way when PED discussions are generally brought up. We had 100+ threads about it back in the hay day of Barry Bonds. They were epic. But I've exhausted myself from those conversations. Just because you weren't here for them doesn't mean they didn't happen. So that's where I'm coming from. That I've read it literally nearly 10 times, and all that changes are the names of the players, the names of the posters, and whatever stats we've decided are important at the time. It's an interesting dynamic. Again, if you want to interpret what I originally said and be butt hurt about it, and feel like my statement was to stifle discussion here at the Cafe, by all means, feel free. I've spent most of the last decade participating in debate and discussion here, so that's yet another statement that I find funny.
But here's the real issue here... MVP stands for Most VALUABLE Player. What does VALUE mean?