Jimmy Rollins: HOF?

I want to know what the "eye test" is, and why I should consider it when determining a player's Hall worthiness?

 

Eye test = Because feelings.

 

Eye test, eye test, eye test. Nyah.

 

That's not what he's doing. You, and others here, have specifically stated that "eye test" is a valid factor in determining one's HOF worthiness. For example right here:

Dick has a point. Anyone who believes that ought to be able to explain what it means. What is the "eye test'?

 

It's the ... EYE TEST!

(You might get the idea that we don't care if you dislike the concept.)

 

We don't know what the concept is.

 

And I'm betting you'd really hate a certain Supreme Court justice's definition of pornography, too.

 

You think I'm this huge asshole for challenging you on this, when nothing could be further from the truth.

I don't want to win for the sake of winning. For scoring points on a message board. I truly, deeply, desperately want you and others of your ilk to understand why something like the "eye test" is a poor argument. I want journalists and ex-journalists, particularly ones that seem like nice enough fellows, to be able to make defensible arguments. That's really what this is about.

 

Obscenity.

 

Explain it to him like he is a second-grader.

 

And Dick, that's a fair statement. But here's the thing: I don't need the education. You don't need to educate me because I'm a journalist. I don't need to back everything with empirical data. (I'm sure you know what they say about statistics.) Opinion is plenty good here ... even if it doesn't score points on a message board.

It's akin to this "intellectually incurious" label that gets thrown around. If we're comfortable in our own skin, with our own views, it gains you and I nothing by you trying to educate us.

 

The downfall of the "eye test" almost directly coincides with the well-earned erosion of trust of journalists.

It was a much easier argument to make before many journalists/voters were exposed as frauds.