HOF makes first rule change in 30 years. Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
So I was watching this show called "Brain Games".  It was detailing how men/women think.   Seems women are a lot more wordier/descriptive than men.   IOW, men can say what they need to say, and understand the other men, with a lot less words than women.

I think you have too many women genes.

I didn't read all that, people tend to get ignored when they start with "This is a stupid argument" but I will address what I read(which was very little).  There's nothing, anywhere on earth, that says "X-number of 3B must be in the HOF".   For those of us who only want the best of the best, there are far too many "Hall of Famers" already.   Not sure what else needs to be said. 
7/30/2014 5:56 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/30/2014 5:56:00 PM (view original):
So I was watching this show called "Brain Games".  It was detailing how men/women think.   Seems women are a lot more wordier/descriptive than men.   IOW, men can say what they need to say, and understand the other men, with a lot less words than women.

I think you have too many women genes.

I didn't read all that, people tend to get ignored when they start with "This is a stupid argument" but I will address what I read(which was very little).  There's nothing, anywhere on earth, that says "X-number of 3B must be in the HOF".   For those of us who only want the best of the best, there are far too many "Hall of Famers" already.   Not sure what else needs to be said. 
I'll give you the children's book version of what dahs said (since that's what you need, apparently).

History has established a standard for Hall of Famers. We aren't arguing about what the standard is. We're arguing if Beltre meets or exceeds the standard.

He exceeds it. Clearly.
7/30/2014 6:10 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (1)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
No nobody's allowed to question or challenge the standard?
7/30/2014 6:33 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
You can, it's just a completely different argument.

Beltre exceeds the current standard for Hall of Fame third basemen.
7/30/2014 6:39 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 7/30/2014 6:33:00 PM (view original):
No nobody's allowed to question or challenge the standard?
Well, yeah, but only if they agree with BL or dahs.    Otherwise, no.
7/30/2014 6:45 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
As I said, you ramble on like a woman.    Surely you have some testosterone in your body that will allow you to be just a tad briefer.   And, as I said, if you start with "That's stupid", "You're stupid" or pretty much anything with "stupid" as your opening, I'm not bothering.
7/30/2014 6:58 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (1)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
Posted by dahsdebater on 7/29/2014 3:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/29/2014 3:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by stinenavy on 7/29/2014 3:11:00 PM (view original):
My point is that a long career that is mostly average with a few peak years does not a HOFer make.


Where is this written?
Two posts above yours.  The one that you quoted.
Sorry, we didn't realize that you established the rules for what qualifies a player for the Hall of Fame.  My understanding was that there were no explicit instructions for this, and it was at the discretion of each individual voter to determine what made a player worthy or unworthy.

Fortunately, most of them aren't stubborn enough that they'd rather say "maybe Sandy Koufax wasn't a Hall of Famer" than abandon their absurdly stupid original argument.

This is what you said yesterday at 3:28pm:

"My understanding was that there were no explicit instructions for this, and it was at the discretion of each individual voter to determine what made a player worthy or unworthy."

This is what you said today at 6:49pm:

" Unless you're prepared to authorize a vote to remove current Hall of Famers, you have to abide by the established standards."

Sounds like somebody is waffling.

What will you say tomorrow?



7/30/2014 7:09 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

"at the discretion of each individual voter" or "have to abide by the established standards" 

HMMMM.........
7/30/2014 8:07 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

Hell, I'll break it down even further.

"Discretion" and "abide" are practically synonyms.

7/30/2014 8:17 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Or antonym.  I'm too lazy to look it up.   But they have the opposite meaning. 
7/30/2014 8:27 PM
◂ Prev 1...9|10|11|12|13...15 Next ▸
HOF makes first rule change in 30 years. Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.