1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

2013 MLB Hall of Fame Screechfest

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by MisterCreosote, Nov 28, 2012.

  1. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    I think they introduce biases that far outweigh their usefulness.
     
  2. BB Bobcat

    BB Bobcat Active Member

    Exactly. That proves that voters don't put too much emphasis on "Fame."

    How bout Kirby Puckett vs. Bernie Williams, though?
     
  3. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    The problem isn't that voters put too much emphasis on fame.

    It is that they selectively put emphasis on fame.
     
  4. BB Bobcat

    BB Bobcat Active Member

    That's like saying no one should drink because some people abuse alcohol.

    Yes, you can rely too heavily on "intangibles" and make poor decisions. But you don't have to. There is a proper amount of weight to give such things, just like there's a an appropriate amount of alcohol you can drink.
     
  5. BB Bobcat

    BB Bobcat Active Member

    Dick, let me know when you have the formula figured out so I can just plug in the numbers. It'll save me a lot of time.
     
  6. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Nothing about my mom's basement? Come on. If you're going to bring it, bring it all the way.

    I just said I'd vote for Curt Schilling partly on the strength of his postseason performance.

    I said that a player's peak matters.

    I acknowledge that this isn't an exact science.

    But I certainly reject waterytart's "a-guy-from-Des-Moines-walks-into-Enron-Field" evaluation, which was seemingly presented as all he needed to really know.
     
  7. waterytart

    waterytart Active Member

    One more time:

    A fan's reaction doesn't qualify anyone. But if I were evaluating Craig Biggio, my disbelief that anyone ever gave two hoots about seeing him play for the first time would disqualify him. For stats to be enough, they have to leave no room for debate.
     
  8. BB Bobcat

    BB Bobcat Active Member

    I think watery tart had a point about Biggio. But he didnt make it the right way.

    The reason I didn't vote for him is because of the way he compiled his statistics, which is just a measurable way of saying "he wasn't great," which is not too far from what waterytart said.
     
  9. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Really?

     
  10. waterytart

    waterytart Active Member

    Yes, really. If he'd been great, there would have been hoots given. But then, you knew that.
     
  11. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    So, to recap: Excitement is unquantifiable, as are electricity, attraction, imagination and fame - but don't exist in St. Louis or Boston in any case. Dwight Gooden wasn't famous enough to stay on the Hall of Fame ballot, despite playing in New York, because he was perhaps too famous for doing drugs. Which would in fact make him infamous. Dizzy Dean did no drugs, won fewer games and lived in St. Louis - but is in the Hall of Fame. DiMaggio's numbers aren't as good as Musial's, but the Marilyn Monroe multiplier has made him many times more famous, to which Ted Williams says "Fuck Jim Bunning and his piece of shit slider." No hoots were given.



    Indeed.
     
  12. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    If the summary of your post is, "What were we arguing about again?" then I concur.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page