Posted by MikeT23 on 1/14/2014 1:18:00 PM (view original):

Would you have felt better if Glavine got 76% and Mussina got 55%?

Posted by mfahie on 1/14/2014 1:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/14/2014 1:18:00 PM (view original):

Would you have felt better if Glavine got 76% and Mussina got 55%?

I think I understand your question, because the final result is Glavine in and Mussina out, which is identical to the result now. But I would definitely feel better about the voting, because it would seem to reflect that a larger percentage of people looked deeply enough to notice that Mussina and Glavine are more or less equal pitchers.

The thing I don't like is the feeling that I care more about really getting it right than the average voter. This may not be true, but it's the feeling I have.

That's sad but correct. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/14/2014 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/14/2014 1:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/14/2014 1:09:00 PM (view original):

Yeah, I'm not very impressed by what the GP finds to be HOF-worthy.   But you gotta sell tickets to something.

That's two different arguments.

I'm not concerned with Cooperstown's tourism revenue. I don't really care too much if a physical Hall of Fame even exists.

I'm only concerned with which players we honor as the best of all time.

I'll refer to my post about why the HOF was created.    A HOF with no visitors does not create revenue. 

That said, I think there's a better way to fill it.   The fact that Lebatard even had a vote to **** around with indicates that the voters aren't exactly the best of the best.  But they're given the authority to vote on the best of the best.    

Posted by tecwrg on 1/14/2014 1:59:00 PM (view original):
According to you.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/14/2014 2:16:00 PM (view original):
If it had 10 votes on it, it was trash. 

Posted by tecwrg on 1/14/2014 2:30:00 PM (view original):
Umm, OK.

So when you make a statement along the lines of "anybody who voted for Glavine for the Hall of Fame, but did not vote for Mussina is an idiot", we should just infer that you are stating that as merely your humble opinion, and not as what you think is a cold hard fact?

Because you often present your arguments as if they are indisputable, cold hard facts.  And anybody who doesn't regard them as indisputable fact is an  . . . well, you know.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/14/2014 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/14/2014 2:16:00 PM (view original):
If it had 10 votes on it, it was trash. 

Really?

Clemens
Bonds
Thomas
Maddux
Glavine
Bagwell
PIazza

That gets you to 7. Is it really tough to think 3 more out of a group that includes Mussina, Biggio, Schilling, Martinez, Palmeiro, Trammell, and Raines belong?

Posted by bad_luck on 1/14/2014 2:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/14/2014 1:59:00 PM (view original):
According to you.

I'm starting to see a patern here.

Someone logs on to a web forum, writes down their opinion, and you get offended, not necessarily by what they say but by the fact that they stated the opinion.

At first I thought, "huh, I must not have been clear that my opinion as stated here was just my opinion and not some statement of fact meant to confuse people who don't understand that what I'm typing is just my opinion." Have I, at times, engaged in some "that's a fact" hyperbole? Yes, but I think it's fairly clear that opinions are what I'm delivering.

Just to be safe, I've stated explicitly that the things I write here are just my opinion. On top of that I often preface my opinion with statements like, "I think that" or "I'd go with," etc.

And yet, once again, here you are, pointing out that what I said was just my opinion.

Which is weird since...yeah, according to me. The guy who typed out his opinion in an online web forum. I'm starting to wonder if you have some sort of condition or malfunction.

The same behavior is apparent in your own arguments. We (you, me, mike, burns, and several others) will enter into a discussion regarding the hall of fame. Someone may disagree with your opinion and you will reply back with a statement like "so and so is actually in the hall of fame, right? So you must be wrong." Again, which is weird because there's no need to argue about who is an isn't actually in the hall of fame. We all have computers with internet connections.

I guess I don't really have a grand summation or recommended course of action for you. Other than, you know, I find it weird that you log on to a web forum and then act offended and/or surprised when people post their opinions.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/14/2014 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mfahie on 1/14/2014 1:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/14/2014 1:18:00 PM (view original):

Would you have felt better if Glavine got 76% and Mussina got 55%?

I think I understand your question, because the final result is Glavine in and Mussina out, which is identical to the result now. But I would definitely feel better about the voting, because it would seem to reflect that a larger percentage of people looked deeply enough to notice that Mussina and Glavine are more or less equal pitchers.

The thing I don't like is the feeling that I care more about really getting it right than the average voter. This may not be true, but it's the feeling I have.

Yeah, that's basically what I was getting at. 

You may.  I just addressed that a moment ago.  You get dumbasses like Lebatard giving his vote away when the objective is to enshrine the best.   Is Lebatard one of the best?   Unlikely but he's asked to pick the best from another group.