Wouldn't argue, because I have zero idea how they define value, or if they really even mean it. As opposed to just "best."
Or, for that matter, what criteria they use for the Hall. Totally clueless.
Well, for the Hall, there's a lot that goes in, but it's mostly writer / veteran's committee subjectivity. It can also transcend stats, like in the case of Phil Rizzuto, or Jim Rice being forced in.
For MVP, defining "value" has always been a bit vague....Some view it as the "most valuable to their team" (which is subjective in it's own right), some look at it as "best player", some say "if player X was not on the team....they'd stink)....stuff like that. I generally don't like awards that are influenced by what team a player plays on....sometimes you have outstanding players who are on shitty teams. Not their fault.
Personally, I think MVP should be the best overall player in the league. I would use a combo of regular stats, advanced metrics and the eye test.
