Originally Posted by struggles_mightily
You explicitly quoted my post; disagreed with it in a surly and dismissive fashion; and described my comments as "dumb." That's fine. But it is also definitely constitutive of "arguing."
{I don't know how to break up the quotes as you do, so I'll reply in brackets.
The bit you were quoting there was in response to my reply of "No." 'No' is not an arguement.}
Arbitrary limits, I think, are usually worse than investigations which seek to utilise all of the available data and (say) to exclude as few people as possible a priori from receiving an award.
{And why is trying to exclude as few people as possible a priori a good thing?}
The negative effect of this particular limit is that it removes from contention for baseball's highest award players who may nevertheless have been dominant for long periods of time. That, I would say, is a bad thing.
{I think you'll need to define what 'a long period of time' is. Six years isn't; twenty years is; ten years — maybe, depending upon other factors. Ten years IS a definition, though it's pretty obviously one you don't agree with.}
If you prefer, I could have referred to "the numerical aspects of baseball." You know what I mean.
{Apparently you don't know what I mean. I'll cover that below.}
It's neither great nor terrible. It's ultimately irrelevant since my contention (as my last post said) was not that "all numbers regarded as significant in baseball are multiples of ten."
{Your contention was that ten was chosen because we use the decimal system. Since this seems to be the only (or one of a vanishingly few) instance in which ten is OFFICIALY used in baseball, I don't see how you can conclude that its appearance here is anything other than a statistical fluke. (Use enough numbers for enough things, and if those numbers are chosen randomly 10% of them will be factors of ten.)}
I can't believe that you're genuinely confused as to the point I was making. You argued that baseball is "a game of threes." I showed that many numbers taken to be significant in baseball are multiples of ten. This is all a side issue, in any case.
{This is the point I was refering down to from two above. I can't believe that you don't see the difference between numbers written into the rules of the game (or the hall) and numbers used by fans to discuss the game. I do agree that it's a side issue.}
As long as we can agree that base-10 numerical systems place an extra importance upon multiples of ten, we've established as much as is necessary for me to make my point.
{We can agree on that, but I still see it as making my point. American football is a game which could be fairly argued is heavily dependent upon the decimal system. Baseball is not. Ice hockey and basketball are also games with practically no dependence upon the decimal system, but notice is still taken by fans of how many games it takes a player to reach 50 goals, or how many triple-double games a player accumulates over a career. Those observations have nothing to do with their respective games; they speak only about the people who observe and comment on the games.}
Setting arbitrary limits is neither the only nor the best way to do this. A better place to start would be removing players like Travis Jackson, Phil Rizzuto and Rube Marquard. Another way might be to dismantle the Veterans Committee. Those two things also have the advantage of, unlike the ten-year rule, not potentially excluding deserving players.
{I never said it was the only way. It simply sets the bar that must be jumped so that every Tom, Dick and Harry doesn't get on the ballot. What system would you use for removal? (Note that I'm not arguing against your choices for removal.) Some years ago the Veterans' Committee was restructured, and since then it's been much more selective (frequently accused now of being overly selective) in adding members to the hall, so while abolishment would've been attractive twenty years ago, reform has made it unneccessary.}
Do you think that extensive studies were carried out before the ten-year rule was instituted? Or do you think that, maybe, it just sort of sounds right and is a nice round number? I'd be genuinely interested in any data you have re: the proportion of Major Leaguers who have particular career lengths.
{I have no idea whether studies were conducted before the ten year rule was instituted. I can see no particular reason to believe that the five years wait to get on the ballot, the fifteen years of primary eligibility or whatever the length of wait between the end of primary and the beginning of secondary eligibility are not arbitrary, but ten years' minimum service has SOME logic to justify it, so I can't dismiss it as arbitrary without evidence to support its arbitrariness. The coincidence of the decimal system does not constitute evidence. If all four of those periods were ten years I could see strength in your position.
As to your last point, according to "Men At Work" by George F. Will, one fourth of ballplayers make it to ten years' service, which is a nice, round number. (I can't find the page now, but his specific reference was that half of all players don't make it to their third season, but half of those who do make it that far make it to ten. Note that he wrote this in 1989, so it may or may not have relevance in the period the hall requirement was being established.) Since research was done to establish minimum qualifications for plate appearances for batting title and innings pitched for E.R.A. title, it's at least as possible that the ten year requirement was calculated as it is that it was arbitrary, which was my point.}
Your knowledge of what a "reductio ad absurdum" is matches your ability to spell it: i.e. lacking heavily in both areas. In any case, I've always always always argued that talent and longevity need both to be considered.
{You have me on the misspelling of 'absurdum'. 'Reducto' in place of 'reductio' was a typo. And since I've also always argued that both talent and longevity need to be considered, I'm wondering why we're arguing. I'm finding it amusing, but I've been admonished not to ascribe motivation to you.}
Yep, that's what I'm all about -- electing guys who made Player of the Week one time. "Measur[ing] every guy's longevity against his ability"... and then just saying "nah, screw it" and voting for anyone who has a 1 AB, 1 HR career line because, hey, nice slugging percentage.
{That's the reductio in absurdum, similar to your example of a player who hits a million homers in one season. Funny, you didn't think your own example was a ludicrous one to put forward….}
EDIT: Simple, targeted question that should get us back on track: why ten years?
|