Quote:
Originally Posted by struggles_mightily
Awesome argument.
|
I wasn't arguing, I was answering. You were arguing, and now you've sucked me into it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by struggles_mightily
A) You're both ignoring the most obvious factor (base 10) and my larger point (arbitrary limits are bad).
B) I wasn't aware that my reasoning was "every significant number in baseball lore is a multiple of ten." My reasoning is a) 10 years is only used for this particular measure because of base 10 and b) any arbitrary limit is inherently unsound.
C) Also, in dismissing part a) of this reasoning, it's probably not a great idea to bring up two numbers that are 10x.5 and 10x1.5.
D) Yep, the lone example of multiples of ten being cared about in baseball lore. Absolutely no-one considers significant the numbers 100 for team wins or losses in a season or RBIs for a player season; 200 and 300 for wins in a pitcher's career; 300, 400 and 500 homers for a player's career; or 2,000 and 3,000 hits for a player's career. No-one talks about 20-20-20 guys or values 20 wins for a pitcher's season.
E) Anyway, the main issue here is not the size of the limit. It's that arbitrary restrictions are bad. Eight years, nine years, ten years, eleven years, whatever. There is no reason to set these reductive cut-off points. The more weird laws one creates in order to determine HoF entry, the more frequently it's possible to just say "well, them's the rules!" without thinking about stuff.
F) Edit: Not that it really matters, but the number of strikes in an at-bat and outs in an inning are really base-4 systems, since there are four possible values in the radix (0, 1, 2, 3).
|
A) I wasn't ignoring base 10; I was tearing it down. And arbitrary limits aren't bad in and of themselves. They set benchmarks that make the honor worth more.
B) Who was talking about baseball lore?
C) It's probably also not a great idea to bring up numbers that are 10x .9 amd 10x 1.1.
D) Once again, where did this 'baseball lore' stuff come from? Is a 20-20-20 season a criterion for entry into the hall? Is 300, 400 or 500 homers? You're trying to cloud the issue by bringing in extraneous stuff and hoping I'll be confused into thinking it's relevant. (Not to say I didn't do the same thing; the difference is that I'm not falling for it.)
E) I covered most of this in A). There's a very good reason to set reductive cut-offs, that being to limit the number of players who get in. Arbitrary limits do need to be reviewed occasionaly to see if they're still relevant. I'd say that the present day increase in number of players with long careers would justify an increase to a twelve year minimum.
Your arguement sounds suspiciously similar to that of defense attorneys who ask juries to acquit due to their client's unfortunate childhood. Irrelevant. If they committed the crime, they should do the time.
Which isn't to say the hall shouldn't take into account relative superiority vs. era, but theera must be of substantial length, else with your redutio ad absurdium you'll end up electing players because they made Player of the Week.
F) Now you're being silly. By that arguement, if Western Civilization used base eight the arbitrary requirement to enter the hall would still be 10 years, since 10 in base eight is 8 in base ten.
Personally, I think the heat is making you cranky, and you're looking for someone to keep you awake until you cool off.