[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

It isn't binary -- that is, either opinions are dispositive or they are completely irrelevant. I see a middle ground where one can give them weight if appropriate. Of course, the opinion ultimately has to stand of its own accord, but to my mind, expert qualification to express the opinion under some circumstances adds weight if there are competing positions. We do this every day in civil litigation.

And sure, you can find examples where experts were off the mark. But that doesn't invalidate the general proposition that expert opinions are generally entitled to some weight, it's nothing more than trying to invalidate a proposition via an example at the very bottom of the slippery slope.