If you're sick of MVP talk, don't read.

[Swampdog]

The great thing (or the problem with, depending on your perspective) about MVP discussions is that no one can even agree to what most "valuable" means. Some say its just the best player in the league...others say its the player that has the most value to his particular team...others seem inclined to the view that it is the best/most valuable player, but only on a good team...and so on. Its no wonder that there is such a wide discrepancy in the voting. It's like asking a question that people don't really understand, and then getting a great potpourri of responses.

After a couple of decades of pondering the MVP debate, it seems to me that the most valuable player is the one that is the most difficult to replace. What makes a lot of things valuable is the scarcity of it. I know that this is an oversimplification, and I will probably regret typing it, but I dont feel so good and I cant sleep.

[michaelg123789]

yeah i totally agree

[HoustonGM]

Some say its just the best player in the league...others say its the player that has the most value to his particular team...

Which I think is the same thing.

After a couple of decades of pondering the MVP debate, it seems to me that the most valuable player is the one that is the most difficult to replace. What makes a lot of things valuable is the scarcity of it. I know that this is an oversimplification, and I will probably regret typing it, but I dont feel so good and I cant sleep.

Agreed 100%.

[Swampdog]

The best player is not the player who has the most value to his team. I mean, it COULD be the same player, but it certainly does not have to be. Keeping in mind the point about the player having the most value being the most difficult to replace.

[HoustonGM]

The best player is not the player who has the most value to his team. I mean, it COULD be the same player, but it certainly does not have to be. Keeping in mind the point about the player having the most value being the most difficult to replace.

For me, all 3 terms are interchangeable. The player that provides the most value is the most difficult to replace and is thus the best player.

[Swampdog]

In reality, that just isnt the case though.

[HoustonGM]

In reality, that just isnt the case though.

How so?

Value, as you said, involves taking scarcity into account. The hardest player to replace is therefore the most valuable, as I think you said. I'm just simply saying that that player is, therefore, the best...as in, the best player to have on your team.

[ohms_law]

"The best" is the whole crux of the argument, anyway. The best what, exactly? The best home run hitter? Best on base hitter? The Best strikeout pitcher? There are a whole raft of categories to be the best in, and even the best of the best players rarely sweep multiple categories within a single season.

Scarcity is certainly a component of all of this. For example, beign the best home run hitter in the 90's carries less value then being the best home run hitter in the 1920's, simply because more power is available in the 1990's then was available in the 1920's. That's actually the largest weakness of WARP, now that I think about it...