Yes but 2o home runs and the worst batting average in history doesn’t have a lot of value for wins does it?
Does it have more value than anyone with less than 20 home runs?
If a guy batts 400 and has many many doubles and triples but only ten home runs do you really think the guy with 20 home runs and a billion strike outs has more value?
You can’t see the Forrest through the trees
Bro your example is so extremely one sided lmao just look at mlb past MVPs and you will see you need power numbers to atleast have a chance most of the time. Other times its good hitting catchers, very high BA, or overall great hitting numbers that wins it. Something like 5 players in the last 20 years to win it with less then 30 hr.
Come on man seriously your example is so left field it's funny and you calling me out.. You sounds more like you whinging now man then anything logical hahha.
For real who you take for your team as a hitter? mike trout or DJ lamathieu, Mookie Betts or Micheal conforto, Dom Smith or Jose Abreu, Solano or turner, tapia or seager, Machado or fletcher. Seriously you don't see how a guy with power and plus hitting brings more value then a guy with no power and only plus hitting.
If I was to use your extreme example it would be who is more valuable a guy who hits 20 hr with a billion strikout or a guy who hits single with a billion strikeout. In that scenario again the hr guy is moar valuable because he still abke to create runs and that's why goal scorer in general are more valuable then pass first guys. It's why Toronto is asking mitch to shoot more and become more of a scoring threat. If ya gonna argue atleast do it in good faith my man and not with all these extreme anology.