Most undervalued HOFers

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

The same one I made that you refuse to respond to: that I don't give two craps about career value metrics, but I'll take Ryan over Perry 7 days a week and twice in Sunday if I'm picking a team on the playground. You are welcome to argue about career metrics with the wall, since you want to so badly.

Still waiting for this mysterious list of insults I made about your claim...

For what purpose are you picking the team? To win one game? For a season? The next 10 years? Are you picking him at his peak? At the average of his 5 year peak? At a level that would be representative of his overall career? Your hypo doesn't mean anything unless you define your terms? 1973 Ryan? 1993 Ryan? Somewhere in between?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

For what purpose are you picking the team? To win one game? For a season? The next 10 years? Are you picking him at his peak? At the average of his 5 year peak? At a level that would be representative of his overall career? Your hypo doesn't mean anything unless you define your terms? 1973 Ryan? 1993 Ryan? Somewhere in between?

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?

[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?

[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.