DMN's Evan Grant votes for Michael Young as AL MVP

No, you're trying to position someone who believes that Michael Young could credibly draw support for AL MVP as someone who must not believe in any kind of science or math. It's a ridiculous reach. That you're straying so far off the point of the actual discussion -- which is about the AL MVP vote of one guy -- tells me you're struggling to make your case.

 

How am I straying from the topic of discussion? You're the one that insisted I explain why I trust statistics that have withstood testing while expressing skepticism about "experts" that have no actual proof, but can assure me they watch and know the game and therefore their judgment should be trusted (and viewed as a reasonable justification for their decision).

 

Well, he did offer statistics, stats that saberheads bandy about. You just didn't happen to like them.

 

Can you point us to the statistics that "prove" which player was more valuable in a manner similar to the statistics that prove climate change is occurring?

 

No. Someone offered up Young's performance in such situations as evidence of his worthiness.

I offered up Cabrera's similar numbers in the same situations.

Why?

Because Cabrera is a player who had better numbers overall and also played for a first-place team. I think that harms the argument that Young deserved the award because of his performance in clutch situations.

P.S. Why do you take it so personally when someone disagrees with you? I didn't call you or anybody else a "goober." I simply think you are wrong in supporting this vote.

 

Fine, it's a difference of opinion, each of you using numbers in attempts to supporting your argument. That's a long way from saying, which you and others similarly ilked are, that it's as absurd as saying the sun rises at night to think that Young could be the MVP.

 

I do think that. My opinion is that there is no way that Michael Young was the most valuable player in the American League last year. To me, putting him first, at least without more evidence than Mr. Grant has provided so far, is indefensible. That is my opinion, and I am going to defend it to the fullest.

 

Just like one could argue about the definition of "value" one could argue about the definition of "climate change". But I also assume you're OK with the assumption that some of those definitions must be unreasonable. That is, they include certain variable that having nothing to do with "value" in any objective sense. Sabermetrics, as I understand it, is intended to weed out the meaningful variables from the non-meaningful ones. Of course, around the edges, there will be disagreements about which weighting of meaningful variables is best. But there will still be a generally acceptable set of variables and range of weightings.

 

One could argue? I see two people who can argue anything.

 

And it all gets back to the basic principle that writers should not be voting on awards. We're there to cover the players, not to pin blue ribbons on them.

 

I agree, and I started this mess.