Why Graham is Probably Right

This diary is presented in retarded ramblings/counterpoint format.

First of all, if you never saw Jim Rice play, you have to admit some degree of ignorance on the issue.

The last time I checked, the point of analysing players statistically is that you don't actually need to see them play to have an idea about how good they were. Otherwise, there's really no need for any stats at all - including MVP votes and All-Star Game appearances, as well as the esoteric stats like how many wins he was actually worth. No, I never saw Jim Rice play. Which has nothing to do with anything. As a slight aside, if your highest level of education was squeaking through 4th grade of Cuntingdon Elementary (don't worry, I won't hold it against you), you probably have to admit some degree of ignorance on the issue.

Second, setting up a premise that Jim Rice doesn't belong in the Hall and Beltre does is ridiculous because, last time I checked, Beltre was still an active player, and thus not capable of being denied induction.

I imagine a dyslexic water buffalo would have missed the mark by less. When did I call for Adrian Beltre's enshrinement into the Hall? Also, 'was still'? Maybe I was being generous with the 4th grade guess.

Third, if you want to rely on statistics, you can't cherry pick.

I can't cherry pick by picking the statistics that summarise how much a player is worth? Here is a list of of statistics that to my great dishonour that I neglected to include*:

Home Runs
Batting average
Scariness coefficient
Footspeed in furlongs per fortnight
Children rescued in daring feats of valour
Seismic base shear
MVP Votes

Either results matter or they don't. 

I can't actually find anything wrong with this sentence apart from the fact that it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. Did you need some sort of anchor to tie you closer to the ever-elusive strands of coherence in your brain?

Sure, you can claim Rice being and All Star eight times and winding up in the top five in MVP balloting six different times must be the result of sportswriter bias--even though they saw him play, and I'm guessing most people on this site never did.

Um. I could do that, or I could claim that sportswriters have a long and ignominious history of royally fucking up everything that they vote on. Turns out that journalism majors don't make great analysts. Who knew?

But look a little deeper.  Forget two RBI championships and three HR championships...maybe that was just luck.

Very clever! Making it appear that I was taking the 'luck' angle in order to dismiss my points (did I even have this many points when I wrote it?) in a condescending fashion. If you keep up the good work, you may even reach 'wit' within two or three lifetimes. 'Debate' may be a somewhat sadder story, though.

He was a top four performer in OPS four different times...and if you bother to look at  Baseball Reference for his player comps at each age of his 16 year career, ten times you'll find the names Willie Mays, Duke Snider, Billy Williams and Orlando Cepeda.

OPS overrates sluggers, as is well known by people who have any idea what the hell they're talking about. And this may astonish you, but I did(!) look at B-Ref because that's where the career win numbers are derived from. Also, when you're using their player comps to decide who is Hall of Fame worthy or not, something has gone incredibly wrong with your brain. I'd recommend a hospital trip immediately**.

Each of them is already in the Hall...I saw them all play and agree that they belong there.  (And that doesn't count the multiple year comps for Dick Allen, who might also have been a viable candidate if he hadn't been 'a bad actor with attitude'.)

Nobody gives a fuck who you saw play. That includes everyone posting regularly on the site, in case you were looking for some support.

Just for the record, I am not now nor ever have been a Red Sox fan.  But to ignorantly deny entry to a guy you never saw...who's got the truly sad.

Nobody gives a fuck which team you root for***. But to ignorantly try to spar with someone several orders of magnitude better at this than you on the back of invented arguments... is truly sad.

* Loosely listed in descending order of importance.

** I'd actually recommend cyanide first.

*** This isn't quite true: I'd rather you didn't root for the Mariners so I wouldn't have to read the hotbeds of gross idiocy that are your comments on USS Mariner.

Log In Sign Up

Log In Sign Up

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

By becoming a registered user, you are also agreeing to our Terms and confirming that you have read our Privacy Policy.

Join Lookout Landing

You must be a member of Lookout Landing to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Lookout Landing. You should read them.

Join Lookout Landing

You must be a member of Lookout Landing to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Lookout Landing. You should read them.




Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.