Most undervalued HOFers

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Doesn't that sort of highlight the point that James' list might need a bit more nuance before you can claim it means what you claim it must mean?

No, because James defines what he's doing, he's doing overall careers giving what he thinks are appropriate weight to total stats, peak, etc. I don't have it in front of me but it's sort of like the JAWS metric. You haven't defined your terms at all, you're just throwing out a loosey goosey execcise, picking someone for a playground.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

No, because James defines what he's doing, he's doing overall careers giving what he thinks are appropriate weight to total stats, peak, etc. I don't have it in front of me but it's sort of like the JAWS metric. You haven't defined your terms at all, you're just throwing out a loosey goosey execcise.

Precisely. James defined his list as overall career. You attempted to extrapolate that to who was "better." Yet you couldn't seem to understand how one could be "better" yet have a worse career. My whole point was James' list was different than was being claimed here by the person you were arguing with.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Precisely. James defined his list as overall career. You attempted to extrapolate that to who was "better." Yet you couldn't seem to understand how one could be "better" yet have a worse career. My whole point was James' list was different than was being claimed here by the person you were arguing with.

Nobody else has defined what they meant by better. Feel free. I asked before but you batted it back. Obviously I understand that a list of career rankings need not be the same as a list of peak rankings. But again, tell me the different meaning you are ascribing to better.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Nobody else has defined what they meant by better. Feel free. I asked before but you batted it back. Obviously I understand that a list of career rankings need not be the same as a list of peak rankings. But again, tell me the different meaning you are ascribing to better.

Because how I define better isn't relevant. You were teaming up with G1911 on another poster who was making the "Ryan is better" argument. You insisted James' list meant he believed Perry was better. All I did was jump in to point out the flaw in your logic, because James' list didn't answer the "who was better" question because that wasn't what James' list was doing. So it doesn't matter how I would personally define better for me to show that there can be a definition of better that James wasn't using.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Because how I define better isn't relevant. You were teaming up with G1911 on another poster who was making the "Ryan is better" argument. You insisted James' list meant he believed Perry was better. All I did was jump in to point out that James' list did answer the "who was better" question because that wasn't what James' list was doing. So it doesn't matter how I would personally define better for me to show that there can be a definition of better that James wasn't using.

That's a horrible answer, you're smarter than that. What makes you think James had a different definition of better than his overall rankings? Why on earth would we assume he did? As I read James, he was trying to come up with a list of who he considered the best pitchers. He had a certain approach in mind to that question. Again, what possible reason is there to believe he had some different list of which pitchers were better?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That's a horrible answer, you're smarter than that. What makes you think James had a different definition of better than his overall rankings? Why on earth would be assume he did?

You're smarter than that. You were discussing better according to another user, which was different than James'. So you can't possibly say that because James made a list using his formula, that he would come to that same conclusion using a different formula (namely that of the person you were arguing with here).

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

You're smarter than that. You were discussing better according to another user, which was different than James'. So you can't possibly say that because James made a list using his formula, that he would come to that same conclusion using a different formula (namely that of the person you were arguing with here).

Is this your great technique, to parrot things back? You did it in the Goldin thread too. Packs never said he was using some specific, different meaning of better. He just kept repeating himself that Ryan was better and then retreated to how obvious it was and how everyone agreed. If he had said, well I'm defining it in terms of Ryan at his best, or Ryan in 1973, or whatever, we would not have needed any discussion. He never suggested he meant it in any sense other than overall assessment.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That's a horrible answer, you're smarter than that. What makes you think James had a different definition of better than his overall rankings? Why on earth would be assume he did?

By ranking Perry 16th and Ryan 24th, James of course could have meant that Ryan was actually the better pitcher and he would really put him over Perry.

Peter, I would like to apologize for the times I have criticized your arguments in our many debates. The worst positions any of us have ever held are vastly better than the arguments we have witnessed today.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Precisely. James defined his list as overall career. You attempted to extrapolate that to who was "better." Yet you couldn't seem to understand how one could be "better" yet have a worse career. My whole point was James' list was different than was being claimed here by the person you were arguing with.

I don't really want to get involved in this discussion, but I would like to point out that James blended career and peak values for his rankings. It's not just career.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by John1941

I don't really want to get involved in this discussion, but I would like to point out that James blended career and peak values for his rankings. It's not just career.

Correct. I pointed that out. But apparently he had some secret definition of "better" that our two friends know but can't share. This has become truly surreal.