Most undervalued HOFers

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by G1911

Nah, we've already rejected the concept of using math to speak to value (it can be used only to speak to what type of way a pitcher recorded his outs). One just has to practice the art of knowing pitching, in a way that they cannot define or show. I wish I had this magical intuition our other members possess, but alas, I am an idiot stuck with using math.

You use the word "math" a lot. I'm not sure you know what it means.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

You use the word "math" a lot. I'm not sure you know what it means.

True. I am the worst and stupidest man alive, I am not even aware of math even is as a concept or a word.

Now, it is still true that Perry and Ryan produced pretty similar value over their careers while being two different types of pitchers.

[Kutcher55]

He’s the only one here who understands math. Also everyone else is getting emotional, even though he’s the one who has written like 100 posts and 20,000 words on the subject today. What a total lack of self awareness.

[Kutcher55]

The argument is not without merit. I only wish you had chosen someone who wasn’t a (self professed) blatant cheater who actually took pride in his cheating. The man does not belong in the HOF not that I consider myself much of a moral arbiter.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

The argument is not without merit. I only wish you had chosen someone who wasn’t a (self professed) blatant cheater who actually took pride in his cheating. The man does not belong in the HOF not that I consider myself much of a moral arbiter.

Sincere question, was there ever a serious movement to keep him out, or even a serious objection to him while he was active? I don't recall there being any. He won two Cy Youngs, for example, and I don't recall anyone (at least in 82) saying but but there should be an asterisk blah blah.

[Kutcher55]

He made it in the third ballot with some saying the delay was due to his various shenanigans.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

He made it in the third ballot with some saying the delay was due to his various shenanigans.

Maybe there would be more scrutiny and outrage today, different mentality/tolerance level? I mean it's really hard to believe he only got caught once.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

The argument is not without merit. I only wish you had chosen someone who wasn’t a (self professed) blatant cheater who actually took pride in his cheating. The man does not belong in the HOF not that I consider myself much of a moral arbiter.

I don't know how many of the stories are true and how much was Perry blowing smoke for attention or to keep people guessing. If he did cheat frequently I would be sympathetic to an argument that he doesn't belong in the Hall.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

He’s the only one here who understands math. Also everyone else is getting emotional, even though he’s the one who has written like 100 posts and 20,000 words on the subject today. What a total lack of self awareness.

And he refuses to engage any other discussion outside the extremely limited and pedantic parameters he has set, like a petulant child. His pedantry in this is only eclipsed by his extremist abuse of a figure of speech by insisting it be taken literally. Ironically, he isn't pedantic enough to recognize the distinction between ranking a career and choosing a person as a better player.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

And he refuses to engage any other discussion outside the extremely limited and pedantic parameters he has set, like a petulant child. His pedantry in this is only eclipsed by his extremist abuse of a figure of speech by insisting it be taken literally. Ironically, he isn't pedantic enough to recognize the distinction between ranking a career and choosing a person as a better player.

I already concede that I am the worst man to ever live and the stupidest. Now, can you finally put together a coherent, logical argument not relying on your magical ability to artistically analyze pitchers free of math, that my claim that Perry and Ryan had pretty similar value over their careers is false?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

And he refuses to engage any other discussion outside the extremely limited and pedantic parameters he has set, like a petulant child. His pedantry in this is only eclipsed by his extremist abuse of a figure of speech by insisting it be taken literally. Ironically, he isn't pedantic enough to recognize the distinction between ranking a career and choosing a person as a better player.

That one is still lost on me. How can I rank A higher than B but think B is a better pitcher? Isn't the essence of the ranking to order who I think the best pitchers were? Seems non-Euclidean or something.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That one is still lost on me. How can I rank A higher than B but think B is a better pitcher? Isn't the essence of the ranking to order who I think the best pitchers were? Seems non-Euclidean or something.

My expectations are low but even I am a little surprised this is the argument they want to stick with. That ranking pitchers by their careers and choosing Perry 16th and Ryan 24th is not ranking Perry over Ryan is just... seriously lol. The response always has an advantage in the Socratic over a claim. I set the claim, they just have to get 1 argument that disproves it, with unlimited tries while I don't get to reset my claim. Surely there is a better argument against my claim than this absurdity that James' ordered rankings of the best pitchers are not ranking who is better.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

My expectations are low but even I am a little surprised this is the argument they want to stick with. That ranking pitchers by their careers and choosing Perry 16th and Ryan 24th is not ranking Perry over Ryan is just... seriously lol. The response always has an advantage in the Socratic over a claim. I set the claim, they just have to get 1 argument that disproves it, with unlimited tries while I don't get to reset my claim. Surely there is a better argument against my claim than this absurdity that James' ordered rankings of the best pitchers are not ranking who is better.

Or the SABR person who says expressly, I rank Ryan below Perry. Could he really say that yet think Ryan is better? Call me pedantic too, but I don't get it.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Or the SABR person who says expressly, I rank Ryan below Perry. Could he really say that yet think Ryan is better? Call me pedantic too, but I don't get it.

It's not pedantic, it's just a lack of nuance.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by G1911

My expectations are low but even I am a little surprised this is the argument they want to stick with. That ranking pitchers by their careers and choosing Perry 16th and Ryan 24th is not ranking Perry over Ryan is just... seriously lol. The response always has an advantage in the Socratic over a claim. I set the claim, they just have to get 1 argument that disproves it, with unlimited tries while I don't get to reset my claim. Surely there is a better argument against my claim than this absurdity that James' ordered rankings of the best pitchers are not ranking who is better.

Your understanding of math is amazing compared to your understanding of logic. (Hint: it's not good).

[G1911]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Your understanding of math is amazing compared to your understanding of logic. (Hint: it's not good).

For the third time, I am the stupidest man to ever live. You are the smartest. You are the greatest logician in human history. I am vermin. Fine.

Can you put together a coherent, logical argument not relying only your magical art you can't define that the claim I made is wrong?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That one is still lost on me. How can I rank A higher than B but think B is a better pitcher? Isn't the essence of the ranking to order who I think the best pitchers were? Seems non-Euclidean or something.

Let me give an example. Len Bias is on no one's list of the top 100 basketball players of all time. Yet if I were choosing a team and he was available, I'm picking him. Career rankings of players take far more into account than just a player's ability. I'm not saying James would choose Ryan, just that his list of career rankings doesn't answer that question.