Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
But you're misstating the issue, in my opinion. The relevant question here is do the opinions of experts tasked with determining who should be in the Hall matter at all to the discussion? They aren't random people chosen out of the phone book, if they were, I would agree with you. I am only saying some weight should be given, they should not be completely disregarded. PS the blue sky is a bad example as it concerns a matter of fact, not opinion or belief, so opinions/beliefs there truly are meaningless.
|
The opinion of experts matters, is the deciding factor, as to who has, in fact, actually gotten in. It is not relevant to who
should be in if standards are consistent (the underlying assumption when we have most hypothetical debate about whether X belongs in the Hall, as obviously we do not have a vote). A thing is not so or reasonable because X or Y believes it. WHO supports a position lends great rhetorical and sophistic support and will usually find popular support, but it's not evidence that that position is correct or the best one to take.
"Craig Biggio is better than Ken Griffey Jr. because Bill James said so" is a bad reason. "Craig Biggio is better than Ken Griffey Jr. because the small differences all ad up to produce more valuable, as evidenced by X, Y, Z metrics" is a reasonable argument to make, using provable actual facts to construct a proper argument for the position.
An argument requires proof, evidence, reason (depending on the arbitrary or not arbitrary nature of the discussion - hard proof shows Ty Cobb had a better batting average than R.J. Reynolds, reason to make a HOF case) to make itself, not appeal to expert Y or experts Z. Experts are not inherently correct, it's not a real reason or proof of the point that group Z agrees with you or agrees with me (or in this case, us as we seem to have the same position on the issue).
Harold Baines, for our most recent ridiculous example, is not a good HOF choice because the experts said he was. He either was or was not on some grounds of reason.