Most undervalued HOFers

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

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.

What was he referring to then? His best single game? His best single year? His best three years? His best five? If it was so obvious, you must know?

[Peter_Spaeth]

BTW the easiest thing for Packs to have done was simply to disagree with James' analysis on the merits. Fine, everyone has an opinion. But instead, he offered the weird proposition that a ranking of pitchers was somehow different from the question of which pitchers were better. And then he compounded it by claiming no one thought Perry was better. That's how we got here. And I am yet to understand it.