Most undervalued HOFers

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

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

Explain the difference please.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Explain the difference please.

I did above. You conveniently ignored it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I did above. You conveniently ignored it.

Posts coming in fast and furious did not see it. I don't see how that logic possibly applies to two guys who pitched 20 plus years. Explain to me how I could rank Ryan below Perry but think Ryan was a better pitcher.

[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 G1911

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?

For the 5th time, I was not debating your ridiculously limited point of career value stats. It's a stupid exercise that you have insisted on because you are incapable of actually discussing the comparisons of the players.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

For the 5th time, I was not debating your ridiculously limited point of career value stats. It's a stupid exercise that you have insisted on because you are incapable of actually discussing the comparisons of the players.

So after your day of fits and insults, you can't even disagree with the actual claim I made, and you are pissed off because I didn't make a different claim that you want to argue against, and so I am stupid.

This board lol

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by G1911

So after your day of fits and insults, you can't even disagree with the actual claim I made, and you are pissed off because I didn't make a different claim that you want to argue against, and so I am stupid.



This board lol

Ironically, after a day of fits and insults, you still refuse to answer my question: you can pick one of the two to go out and win a game for you, who are you picking?

Do you seriously not see your own hypocrisy in this?

(By the way, I do disagree with your assertion)

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

As to "Who would you rather have on your team?", let's look at it from the position of a GM.

Chronologiacally, Perry's time with a team that ever came close to being in contention to win a WS occurred mostly before Ryan's career began to find its footing, so Perry would be the only choice for those particular seasons if we're using a true timeline. Additionally, Ryan's record with his lone WS championship team was very minuscule and not an accurate representation of what people would come to expect from him after he had a few more season under his belt, so I wouldn't wish to use that in my consideration, either. That's fair, isn't it?

For the years where Ryan and Perry were productive at the same time, neither man was pitching for good teams for the most part. Now, if anyone else wishes to go back and review every single season of both Ryan's and Perry's teams from 1971 onward, be my guest, but in several of these situations, the GM had to have known that their teams wouldn't be in contention to win the WS. Now, I wish to reiterate that I am only speaking of seasons where these pitchers' careers ran alongside each other and when they both played for lousy-to-average teams. Yes, Ryan's teams found some moderate success a handful of years, while Perry did have that one season with the 1980 Yankees.

What always matters above all to a GM? Money. How does my team bring in more asses to fill the seats? With ridiculously fast and hard pitching and the possibility of the fans witnessing some magic. We're not getting anywhere this season, so that difference of a few percent between Perry and Ryan is far less consequential from the vantage point of an obvious non-contender.

The fans bring emotion to the table. They want to be entertained. They bring the money, and money matters most to the continued existence of a team. If there's no shot at the coveted WS purse and additional revenue, we're going to have to do our best to profit in other ways. If those factors can't be included in these types of discussions, then we are not looking at the full picture. Baseball is not solely number crunching. If math is all that can be included in such a discussion, there have to be SABR forums that would be a better fit. The discussion of baseball without considering emotion just does not make any sense to the vast majority of people.

[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.