Most undervalued HOFers

[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.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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. If he had, we would not have needed any discussion.

Seriously? Are you going to suggest when packs said "better" he didn't mean better as defined by him, but someone else?

This is truly an insane thread. The logic here is bizarre.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Seriously? Are you going to suggest when packs said "better" he didn't mean better as defined by him, but someone else?

This is truly an insane thread. The logic here is bizarre.

Again, he never said how he defined it, or that he was defining it other than in an overall career sense. You are the one who has problems with logic. To refresh, his proposition, which you apparently echoed, is that one's ranking of pitchers is somehow different from one's assessment of which pitchers are better. I have heard nothing justifying that yet.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Again, he never said how he defined it, or that he was defining it other than in an overall career sense. You are the one who has problems with logic.

Whatever, man. It was obvious he was not referring to career value. If you thought he was, you were clearly mistaken. It's not my problem with logic, but your problem with reading comprehension.

This is such a stupid discussion. I'm out.

[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.