Most undervalued HOFers

[packs]

It’s a mathematical equation that gives results. That doesn’t infer anyone’s opinion about the results and I would doubt there are many people if any who would agree Palmer is the inferior pitcher.

[G1911]

James did, in actual fact, select Perry over Ryan. Whether one agrees with that choice or not is an opinion, which can be debated. The fact that it happened is not an opinion, and is not debatable. Pretending James did not select Perry over Ryan is just blatantly lying.

One can admit the actual demonstrable fact, that James did in actual fact select Perry over Ryan, without arguing that this choice is one they agree with. One can reasonably argue for Ryan, it does not require lying about the record. Over the top claims quickly proven to be factually false never help an argument.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

It’s a mathematical equation that gives results. That doesn’t infer anyone’s opinion about the results and I would doubt there are many people if any who would agree Palmer is the inferior pitcher.

I agree most people would think Palmer is better. But that is different from saying the developers of the equations don't believe in them. These are very different propositions.

Not to justify Reuschel over Palmer, because I would probably take Palmer myself although I haven't studied it, I've certainly read people's views that Palmer benefited disproportionally from having some of the best defenses in history playing behind him. Have not seen any detailed analysis though.

[packs]

If James developed his rankings on statistical parameters and not what he thinks about each player then no, he didn’t choose anyone over another anymore than the BR parameters did. BR presents a list of its data-run conclusions and does not offer any inference about what an individual person thinks.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

If James developed his rankings on statistical parameters and not what he thinks about each player then no, he didn’t choose anyone over another anymore than the BR parameters did. BR presents a list of its data-run conclusions and does not offer any inference about what an individual person thinks.

James' list is what he thinks about each player, with hundreds of pages written alongside his listing in numerical order of he selects over who. A list of players sorted by WAR is not the same thing and has absolutely nothing to do with James list, which his total evaluation. Stop lying.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

James' list is what he thinks about each player, with hundreds of pages written alongside his listing in numerical order of he selects over who. A list of players sorted by WAR is not the same thing and has absolutely nothing to do with James list, which his total evaluation. Stop lying.

The very reason people develop statistical analyses is because they believe that traditional subjective rankings are inadequate. So to say they don't believe the results of their analyses is senseless. Might one find isolated extreme examples where the developers would agree that their model didn't yield the right result? It's possible, any model has limitations. But your whole, oh that's just a ranking, it doesn't have anything to do with who the developers think is better schtick just makes no logical sense at all.

[packs]

Right so theres Jim Palmer and Rick Reuschel and according to BR the choice isn’t even close as Reuschel is 11 spots higher. But I wonder how many people would prefer him on their team.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Right so theres Jim Palmer and Rick Reuschel and according to BR the choice isn’t even close as Reuschel is 11 spots higher. But I wonder how many people would prefer him on their team.

I don't understand the BR models well enough to know why Reuschel comes out higher than the traditional assessment. I suspect it's a combinaton of things. I always wonder the same thing about Grich.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The very reason people develop statistical analyses is because they believe that traditional subjective rankings are inadequate. So to say they don't believe the results of their analyses is insane. Might one find isolated examples where the developers would agree that their model didn't yield the right result? It's possible, any model has limitations.

James even called out in his ranking comment for Ryan that he gets this high only because James believed a starting basis of zero was the appropriate thing to use - and that if measured against league average instead that Ryan would suffer significantly in the rankings. The implication was that he was slotting Ryan about as high as he could justify possible, a bias to him.


It's not hard to acknowledge that Perry and Rayn are pretty similar for career value but to argue that you would take Ryan. It does not require a long series of absolute lies and pretending using math (which is invalid unless you originally wrote the equation, as we have learned) is a problem lol. The Ryan fans could easily and reasonably pick their guy, but have steadfastly refused to even approach the realm of the reasonable or discernible reality.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

If James developed his rankings on statistical parameters and not what he thinks about each player then no, he didn’t choose anyone over another anymore than the BR parameters did. BR presents a list of its data-run conclusions and does not offer any inference about what an individual person thinks.

Obviously you have no familiarity with James' book.