[Mondogarage]

[ QUOTE ]
WTF are you trying to say? Opinions in 99% of 2p2 threads don't mean a damn thing in the grand scheme of things. So what? You posted your opinion that you would vote Rice into the HOF, but would not vote Tim Raines or Burt Blyleven. Other people have asked you why, and when you have presented subpar arguments, provided very clear data showing that Raines was a better player throughout his career.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, no one's asked me about Blyleven, and why I didn't vote for him, but that's okay, I won't quibble about your misquoting and misinterpretation quite as much as you stress about why I won't make a vote based solely on EqA.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, and I stand by my statement that Gossage and Rice are the only people on this year's ballot that I think merit inclusion in the HOF.

I suggested (and still do) that Raines falls just short, imo, so he doesn't get my vote. He probably stands a reasonable chance of getting in, but I'm pretty much 100% positive he's not getting in on the first ballot.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep coming back to this, but it is completely irrelevant to this thread. We aren't talking about who the BBWAA will vote in. We're talking about who we would vote in personally. So I don't understand why you keep coming back to this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's easy -- because I can completely understand why others would vote for him. To me, it's a close call, and I can envision him getting in at some point after a few years, but maybe just squeaking in. In other words, I don't think he's a HOFer, but I can accept him getting voted in, unlike if, say, Gary DiSarcina got voted in, which would be ludicrous. Raines going into the HOF would not be ludicrous, and it's not silly to mention that while I do not think he belongs, I can see where enough others think he does, that it ends up taking place.

One benefit of not being able to understand that reasonable minds can differ is being able to actually accept that just because another person's thought process and logic isn't exactly like yours doesn't make them stupid. If you can't accept that, then there's really very little reason for anyone who does not believe exactly as you, to engage in discussion with you. You may think that my position being based somewhat on subjective factors is "flawed", but that does not at all invalidate my reasoning in the least, not as long as you don't have the sole say so in what a voter may consider.

[ QUOTE ]
I really wish you would state why you continually avoided and overlooked the very convincing evidence in the Raines/Rice EQA graph. This is very clear proof that not only was Raines a better player during their peak years, but that he was better through the life of both of their careers.

[/ QUOTE ]

My argument is, essentially, that EqA is hardly the sole determinant in filling out a HOF ballot, but is one consideration. My argument is that HOF is not solely an objective standard. Your argument seems to be that anyone who doesn't place at least as equal a weight on a somewhat esoteric metric as they do on any other factor is nonsensical.

If I'm incorrect on assessing what the basis of your argumetn is, answer me this...how many actual HOF voters do you think are even looking at EqA in making their votes? And lest you mistake my point, I am not saying anyone should vote for someone because of what a voter looks at or not...I just want your opinion on what % of actual HOF voters will even look at EqA graphs before voting.

From the HOF website, "Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

That seems to leave room for a LOT of subjectivity, do you not agree?