Comments on: Vested interests are always the last to see change http://itsaboutthemoney.net/archives/2012/11/16/vested-interests-are-always-the-last-to-see-change/ The official Yankee blog of ESPN's Sweetspot Network Mon, 24 Nov 2014 04:22:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.1 By: friend http://itsaboutthemoney.net/archives/2012/11/16/vested-interests-are-always-the-last-to-see-change/comment-page-1/#comment-49065 Sun, 18 Nov 2012 20:05:41 +0000 http://itsaboutthemoney.net/?p=31945#comment-49065 Nuts! Not "your". Rather "you're".

]]>
By: friend http://itsaboutthemoney.net/archives/2012/11/16/vested-interests-are-always-the-last-to-see-change/comment-page-1/#comment-49063 Sun, 18 Nov 2012 20:04:29 +0000 http://itsaboutthemoney.net/?p=31945#comment-49063 Well, I think your exaggerating now, but setting that aside, this type of consideration is precisely what would be necessary for making a quantitative judgement of value, as specifically called for in the instructions for voting on MVP. Returning to my original point, sabermetric advocates are using weak arguments as characterized by tunnel vision related to performance. The absence of value from the calculations is a material flaw in the reasoning.

]]>
By: Brien Jackson http://itsaboutthemoney.net/archives/2012/11/16/vested-interests-are-always-the-last-to-see-change/comment-page-1/#comment-49037 Sun, 18 Nov 2012 11:24:08 +0000 http://itsaboutthemoney.net/?p=31945#comment-49037 Yeah, I understand. What you’re talking about is the marginal value of each win. It’s an often used concept for evaluating, say, free agent signings and such, but I just don’t see how you can really apply it to awards voting except, as I said, on the extreme ends of the W-L spectrum. As it is here, it’s basically just another way of saying that Miggy was more valuable because the Tigers made the playoffs, but if you apply it with some rigor and not just to compare Miggy to Trout, you would have to conclude that *ANY* 3+ win player on the Tigers/Yankees and any *2+ win* player on the A’s was more valuable than Trout. So, just to pick an example, this standard would have us declare that Jonny Gomes should finish ahead of Trout in MVP balloting because his 2.1 fWAR had more marginal value than Trout’s 10.7.

]]>
By: friend http://itsaboutthemoney.net/archives/2012/11/16/vested-interests-are-always-the-last-to-see-change/comment-page-1/#comment-49031 Sun, 18 Nov 2012 06:06:48 +0000 http://itsaboutthemoney.net/?p=31945#comment-49031 "the last thing you should do is hand out the award to a player …"

You would be correct if I were arguing subjectively as you describe. However, If you were to calculate the actual value of the 88 wins, that would in turn give you a proper value for the contribution of the one player (when applied to his WAR). Then if you were to calcuate the actual value of the 89 wins, that would in turn give you a proper value for the second player. Finally, you would be able to make an apples-to-apples comparison, based on a numerical calculation, not simply using terms like "much weaker".

]]>
By: Brien Jackson http://itsaboutthemoney.net/archives/2012/11/16/vested-interests-are-always-the-last-to-see-change/comment-page-1/#comment-49024 Sun, 18 Nov 2012 02:27:17 +0000 http://itsaboutthemoney.net/?p=31945#comment-49024 I don’t know, that seems very vague for my tastes. I mean, it would be one thing to discount a player on a 70 win team (or even a 110 win team) on the basis that the marginal value of their wins was quite low, but to take a player on an 88 win team’s wins as much more value than that of a player on an 89 win team because the former’s division was *much* weaker than the latter’s just strikes me as a self-evidently poor way of determining an MVP. Granting for the sake of argument that the two players are very close in their respective cases, I would think the last thing you should do is hand out the award to a player *because* he unarguably faced a lower level of competition than his competitor.

]]>