TitanLegend Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 Just now, mse326 said: How is that relevant to which has more value? The $50 is indisputably more valuable than the $20. That can't be argued. Because the $50 doesn't do as much for the rich guy as the $20 does for the poor guy. It's value to the person(team) is different. The Pats don't need Brady as much as the Seahawks need Wilson. He is more valuable to his team. He is the most valuable player to his team in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 Just now, TitanLegend said: Because the $50 doesn't do as much for the rich guy as the $20 does for the poor guy. It's value to the person(team) is different. The Pats don't need Brady as much as the Seahawks need Wilson. He is more valuable to his team. He is the most valuable player to his team in the NFL. Do you honestly think that is what the award is/should be for. Why in the world do you want to honor that as opposed to player that had the best year/provided the most value in general? It also makes no sense to make an individual award team dependent. And how do we even know how the teams would do without the player? Do you know for sure how the team would do with their respective backups? Was Bledsoe actually negative value to the 2001 Pats when he played since Brady was better? And if we are going to take that to the extreme should their salary be taken into account? Someone how may be slightly more valuable to the team but costs $20M/yr as opposed to someone just behind costing $10M/yr. That $10M surely went somewhere that then provided so value. Do you consider that when deciding who provided more value? If not, why not? Surely what you provide compared to your cost is relevant to value. That is Economics 101. Everyone is looking for surplus value. If someone provides $20M of value and gets paid $20M they are net neutral but someone who provides $19M in value but gets paid $10M is a $9M surplus. That seems more valuable by your definition since we consider the team. The way you look at it is untenable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWATcha Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 6 minutes ago, mse326 said: How is that relevant to which has more value? The $50 is indisputably more valuable than the $20. That can't be argued. I get the logic behind this, but it's a flawed example and probably not the best. That's like saying "A zebra has indisputably more stripes than a camel". Well duh, camels don't have stripes, just like $20 can never be worth more than $20, which will always be less than $50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 Just now, SWATcha said: I get the logic behind this, but it's a flawed example and probably not the best. That's like saying "A zebra has indisputably more stripes than a camel". Well duh, camels don't have stripes, just like $20 can never be worth more than $20, which will always be less than $50. So where is the flaw? More valuable is always more valuable regardless of what is around it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pats#1 Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 9 hours ago, Darth Pees said: Are we assuming it's the same defense as is right now? Because that defense isn't winning anything by themselves. No defense wins anything by themselves. An average QB wouldn't be able to replicate what Russell Wilson is doing for the Seahawks, however he would be able to have a decent game here and there, and paired with a good defense, that would win some games. The seahawks aren't a winless team without Wilson. 7 hours ago, SWATcha said: Maybe, maybe not. That defense has been pretty inconsistent this year and they've been plagued with injuries. Wilson IS the Seahawks right now. I seriously believe without Wilson, the Hawks are picking top 5 this year. Shaky O-line, no run game. Every Seahawks game I've watched is Wilson running for his life and making plays out of nothing or making plays off of broken plays. If nothing else it's made all of Seattle's games pretty damn entertaining! Wilson would run for his life behind a good OL as well, it's what he loves to do, it's why he bails on the pocket so early so often....that's not saying he isn't doing some amazing stuff out there, his athletic abilities and playmaking skills are great. An average QB throughout the season, paired with a very good defense for a large portion of that season, would win a couple games IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asciimo Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 the reward is meaningless in its true sense. it would only be about who plays on the worse team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFlaccoSeagulls Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 Quote Wilson would run for his life behind a good OL as well, it's what he loves to do, it's why he bails on the pocket so early so often.... This is just objectively false. Furthermore, pretending any average QB could win games behind that OL is laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWATcha Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 28 minutes ago, mse326 said: So where is the flaw? More valuable is always more valuable regardless of what is around it. Yes, but, you're assigning static value to a dynamic situation. If Brady is the only $50, than by literal definition, he would ALWAYS be MVP and there could be no other. Even if, hypothetically, that $50 throws 20 TDs and 20 Ints, and the $20 throws 40 TDs and 5 Ints............... $50 still > $20, but was it really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 1 minute ago, SWATcha said: Yes, but, you're assigning static value to a dynamic situation. If Brady is the only $50, than by literal definition, he would ALWAYS be MVP and there could be no other. Even if, hypothetically, that $50 throws 20 TDs and 20 Ints, and the $20 throws 40 TDs and 5 Ints............... $50 still > $20, but was it really? What? The dollar value in the analogy is based on how they perform in a given year not a general assignment. That should be pretty obvious. The point is that the person who provides more value generally is always more valuable than someone who may have had a bigger (falsely called value) effect on their teams chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pats#1 Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 8 hours ago, Darth Pees said: This is just objectively false. Furthermore, pretending any average QB could win games behind that OL is laughable. We see average QBs win games with bad teams every season. We get it, you like Wilson....so do I, the guys awesome, but he also isn't a superhero/perfect. He absolutely makes life on his offensive line harder than it needs to be. That's not saying they aren't bad, they are. Without Wilson, the Seahawks still aren't the worst team in the league, and they don't go winless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFlaccoSeagulls Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 5 hours ago, Pats#1 said: We see average QBs win games with bad teams every season. We get it, you like Wilson....so do I, the guys awesome, but he also isn't a superhero/perfect. He absolutely makes life on his offensive line harder than it needs to be. That's not saying they aren't bad, they are. Without Wilson, the Seahawks still aren't the worst team in the league, and they don't go winless. Wilson accounts for 80+% of their offense, and 90+% of their touchdowns. An average QB would get killed behind that OL and considering they don't have any run game to speak of and a defense that's struggling to stop the pass and generate pressure, it's hard to imagine them winning even 3 games without Wilson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWATcha Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 14 hours ago, mse326 said: The point is that the person who provides more value generally is always more valuable than someone who may have had a bigger (falsely called value) effect on their teams chance. So, in your opinion, what quantifies "value" in this situation (MVP)? What is your definition/criteria for judging "Most Valuable"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter2_1 Posted December 13, 2017 Author Share Posted December 13, 2017 That conversation at the end of page 2 and top of this page is just a difference in definition of value. One is thinking gross value, one is thinking relative value. I have to say, I meant relative value in the OP - but different interpretations are good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 1 hour ago, SWATcha said: So, in your opinion, what quantifies "value" in this situation (MVP)? What is your definition/criteria for judging "Most Valuable"? The player who had the best year. If you had the best year you provided the most value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Hunter2_1 said: That conversation at the end of page 2 and top of this page is just a difference in definition of value. One is thinking gross value, one is thinking relative value. I have to say, I meant relative value in the OP - but different interpretations are good! The issue is you can't fence sit like that on different definitions of value but call one of them "True." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.