Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 11:05:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 1/13/2014 10:58:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 10:39:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 1/13/2014 10:24:00 AM (view original):
I don't think I'm on the wrong side of those arguments, obviously. Why do you think you're always on the wrong side of the argument?
Yet reality (i.e. HOF election results, MVP voting, etc) seem to deviate from your view of the world.
Why do you think that is?
I don't think anyone's arguing whether or not a player is or isn't actually in the Hall of Fame. If your argument is that we should defer to the wisdom of the BBWAA and save ourselves from any critical thinking, then you have problems that I can't help you with.
My argument is that for the most part, with some recent exceptions (Dawson, Rice, Blyleven), the BBWAA is doing a fair job, no matter what anybody thinks of the process that's being used.
They're certainly doing better than you would be doing if you were in change of selecting inductees. We'd have a bloated HOF full of above average players.
If I was arguing that Glavine was significantly better than Mussina (one belongs in the Hall of Fame and the other is just "above average"), I'd want to deflect away from the actual argument as quickly as possible, too.
I continue to find it hilarious that you reject stats like WAR (always) and OPS+ (Bernie Williams and Rick Monday) but you are happy to accept something as clearly flawed as pitcher wins (EDITED, obviously I got a little ahead of myself while I was typing).
Answer one question and we can stop arguing about this:
Since you love to appeal to authority so much, which stat do you think MLB front offices are more likely to use in their player evaluations, Pitcher Wins or WAR?
1/13/2014 11:38 AM (edited)