Dustin Pedroia Deserved Major League Baseball's A.L. MVP Award in 2008.
Debate Rounds (3)
The criteria that will be used for this debate are hitting, fielding, baserunning, and durability, which will be measured with statistics.
This round is merely an introduction; however, my opponent can still post an argument if he/she wishes to do so.
Dustin Pedroia: http://www.baseball-reference.com...
A.L. (American League): http://en.wikipedia.org...
MVP (Most Valuable Player) award: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Major League Baseball: http://en.wikipedia.org...
deserve: to be worthy of, qualified for. (1)
Lastly, to avoid fiddling with semantics, I'd like to point out that for this debate, the terms "better" and "more valuable" are synonymous, and by accepting, my opponent agrees to this.
(1) = http://dictionary.reference.com...
Thus, we can assume it was "I believe that Dustin didn't deserve Major League Baseball's A.L. MVP award in 2008."
As I am PRO, I will show that I do believe that Dustin didn't deserve Major League Baseball's A.L. MVP award in 2008.
I will commence in round II.
<"My opponent failed to accurately highlight his resolution.">
Simply because I didn't say "Resolved: Dustin Pedroia Deserved Major League Baseball's A.L. MVP Award in 2008," doesn't necessarily mean that there are any inaccuracies present. In essence, just because it doesn't seem accurate to my opponent doesn't mean it that's, indeed, the case. I worded the topic clearly; what I meant for this debate was very, very obvious.
Either way, the topic clearly reads "Dustin Pedroia Deserved Major League Baseball's A.L. MVP Award in 2008," I took con, and I said I don't think he deserved it, so a little deductive reasoning shows the position I'm taking in this debate is con to Pedroia deserving the MVP; if my opponent doesn't understand that, then tough; however, I doubt he misunderstood -- he's just trying to twist this debate into something it isn't -- but the aforementioned facts make the intent clear; I'm in negation of Pedroia deserving the MVP.
Despite my opponent trying to employ a semantics trap, I'm still going to go ahead with the argument I planned on using. If he wants to make this debate into an inane battle of word choice, then whatever -- but it'd be much better if he didn't do that, and makes an argument that Pedroia deserved the A.L. MVP in 2008.
I believe that Joe Mauer deserved the 2008 A.L. MVP, seeing as he was the best player in the American League; Dustin Pedroia, in my estimation, and as I clearly stated in my opening post, isn't deserving.
I'll now explain the statistics I'll be using; they're not very well known, and I feel they're quite sophisticated.
The first statistic measure the value of total offense (hitting and baserunning) -- I had a hand it formulating it. It's called "EqAp." EqA as defined by Baseball Prospectus:
"Equivalent Average. A measure of total offensive value per out, with corrections for league offensive level, home park, and team pitching. EQA considers batting as well as baserunning, but not the value of a position player's defense. The EqA adjusted for all-time also has a correction for league difficulty. The scale is deliberately set to approximate that of batting average. League average EqA is always equal to .260. EqA is derived from Raw EqA, which is (H + TB + 1.5*(BB + HBP + SB) + SH + SF) divided by (AB + BB + HBP + SH + SF + CS + SB). REqA is then normalized to account for league difficulty and scale to create EqA."
EqAp is normalized EqA. What I do is take a player's EqA, divide it by the EqA for his position, and multiply by 100. I adjust for position because positional value isn't taken into account in any of the readily available statistics you'll see in the internet; however, I think it needs to be taken into account -- if a catcher hits .300/.400/.500, it's more valuable than a first basemen who puts up the same line, because those numbers are much rarer, and thus, more valuable, from a catcher.
For defense, I'm going to use combination of statistics that are found on the site www.thehardballtimes.com. For Mauer, I'll be using CS%; for the other players, I'll be using RZR and OOZ.
RZR = revised zone rating.
"Revised Zone Rating is the proportion of balls hit into a fielder's zone that he successfully converted into an out. Zone Rating was invented by John Dewan when he was CEO of Stats Inc. John is now the owner of Baseball Info Solutions, where he has revised the original Zone Rating calculation so that it now lists balls handled out of the zone (OOZ) separately (and doesn't include them in the ZR calculation) and doesn't give players extra credit for double plays (Stats had already made that change). We believe both changes improve Zone Ratings substantially. To get a full picture of a player's range, you should evaluate both his Revised Zone Rating and his plays made out of zone (OOZ). You can read more about the Revised Zone Ratings in this article."
OOZ: "Out Of Zone, or the total number of outs made by a fielder on balls hit outside of his zone."
Lastly, I'll be using PA%, which is, as quoted from www.baseballprospectus.com: <"Percentage of total team plate appearances accumulated by one player. PA% = (Player's PA) / (Team's PA)">
I use this because playing time is a significant factor in the value one contributes to his team; the more you play, the more chances you get to make some sort of contribution to your team.
Pedroia's EqAp is 113; Mauer's is 125. A very significant advantage for Mauer.
Now, Pedroia's PA% is 11.3%; Mauer's is 10.0%, which is an advantage for Pedroia.
But how about defense? Pedroia was a good second basemen throughout the 2006 regular season; His RZR was .826, which is good for sixth in baseball at his position; his OOZ was 37, which is eighth. However, Mauer's CS% is 26.1%, which was second in the A.L., and seventh in Major League Baseball. Mauer's defense gets the slight edge, because a good defensive catcher carries more value than a good defensive second basemen.
Mauer has significant advantages in offense and defense, despite Pedroia playing more. Thus, by the criteria for this debate, Joe Mauer was the better player, and was therefore, more valuable, which means he was deserving of the Most Valuable Player award.
It wasn't obvious. The thing at the top is a title. It only says what your debate is about. It's reasonable to assume that the first sentence you posted in the argument, standing alone, was your resolution.
The resolution is "I believe that Dustin didn't deserve Major League Baseball's A.L. MVP award in 2008."
Now, I will admit that there're two ways I could have gone with this. I said that taking Pro means that I, molinjir, believes that Dustin didn't deserve the award. That's probably unfair though, because then we aren't even debating.
So, I did misinterpret the resolution. When you said "I believe," that universally means that "patsox834 believes." Thus, what I am truly trying to show is that YOU, patsox834, believes that Dustin Pedroia didn't deserve the award.
Now, the only evidence I need to use is right in front of everyone's eyes, and it is the most reliable as its existence affirms its own validity. patsox834's argument shows that he doesn't believe Dustin Pedroia deserved the award.
Therefore, in taking the Pro position of the resolution "patsox834 believes that Dusitn didn't deserve Major League Baseball's A.L. MVP award in 2008," I am supposed to show that patsox834 believes... etc. It's all right there. He doesn't believe Pedroia deserved the award. He thinks Mauer deserved it. 
I have affirmed the resolution.
The debate is about the following: "Dustin Pedroia Deserved Major League Baseball's A.L. MVP Award in 2008."
And I took con. Knowing that I'm "con" to that topic ("what the debate is about), this means that I don't think Dustin Pedroia deserved the A.L. MVP in 2008, which contradicts the argument pro is trying to make about my position being that Pedroia deserved it. So, in essence, the above quote actually helps me.
Seriously, taking all that into account, it wouldn't take Gregory House nor Sherlock Holmes to deduce what this debate is about.
<"It's reasonable to assume that the first sentence you posted in the argument, standing alone, was your resolution.">
Why? Why is it reasonable to assume that's my resolution when it contradicts the position I've taken in the debate? The title is "Dustin Pedroia Deserved Major League Baseball's A.L. MVP Award in 2008," which is, as my opponent said, what the debate is about. I then took con, which means I disagree with the title. Knowing this, how in the world is it at all reasonable to *assume* my first sentence is the resolution? It isn't. It really doesn't even make sense; it's a bad attempt at a semantical argument.
<"Now, I will admit that there're two ways I could have gone with this. I said that taking Pro means that I, molinjir, believes that Dustin didn't deserve the award. That's probably unfair though, because then we aren't even debating.">
...yeah? This only helps me, as well. In fact, the part where my opponent says "then we aren't even debating" seems contradictory to the position he's trying to take up, which is that I wasn't clear with the intent of this debate. If one supposed "way" you could've taken it would make it so that we aren't debating, then wouldn't the other option be the viable choice, since this is, indeed, a debate?
This is a debate, which means something is intended to be debated. If one position you could've taken would make it so that we aren't debating, then shouldn't that tell you the intent rather easily...?
Knowing that I'm con to what the debate is about, and that the way my opponent is trying to take this argument would mean "we aren't even debating," my actual position in this debate clear.
<"patsox834's argument shows that he doesn't believe Dustin Pedroia deserved the award.">
Right, which is kinda what I was going for in starting this debate.
<"Therefore, in taking the Pro position of the resolution "patsox834 believes that Dusitn didn't deserve Major League Baseball's A.L. MVP award in 2008," I am supposed to show that patsox834 believes... etc. It's all right there.">
No, this is simply a frivolous distortion of the debate I was looking for -- as I've shown, the intent I had in starting this debate is clear, so my opponent is really reaching here.
Anyway, on the grounds that my opponent misconstrued the purpose of the debate, and that he hasn't provided an argument to counter my *actual* position, please vote con.
I refrained from enclosing the above sequence of characters within brackets or marks to signify quotation in order to maintain the hilarious absurdity that dwells in the seemingly innocuous 6-letter stream.
"The debate is about the following: 'Dustin Pedroia Deserved Major League Baseball's A.L. MVP Award in 2008.'"
The topic is a differing entity from the resolution. You selected the Con position with regards to the resolution, and I have illustrated what the resolution was, in actuality.
I have negated my opponent's sole argumentative discourse.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.