ST Alpha - "That's my point. We don't discount Ruth's home runs, why then would you discount Oh's?" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 153

In response to "no, it's recognizing that different circumstances change the implication of those numbers." by Reagen

That's my point. We don't discount Ruth's home runs, why then would you discount Oh's?

Posted by musubi Jun 5 '10, 09:07

the only fair reason is that they were not done in MLB. Yet somehow Will then argues that Ichiro's hits *should* count, but Oh's shouldn't. That is *not* logically consistant.

Responses:

because the advantage those fields granted Oh did not grant the same advantage to Ichiro. -- nm - Reagen Jun 5, 09:08 29
- That's a false assertion. Look at the record books, balls weren't flying out of those stadiums. Oh did what others couldn't. Just like Ruth. - musubi Jun 5, 09:12 28
  - so the park size *doesn't* matter to Ichiro's numbers? - Reagen Jun 5, 09:15 27
    - Everything matters. That's why ignoring one set of number and not the other, just cause you want Ichiro to have a record, but not Oh - musubi Jun 5, 09:17 26
      - to repeat myself, it's recognizing that different set of circumstances rule different numbers. - Reagen Jun 5, 09:20 17
        
        I'm fine with that. Will is recognizing *some* differences, but not others, just cause he wants Ichiro to have a record, but not Oh. - musubi Jun 5, 09:31 16
        
        It's all about legitimacy. I don't consider Oh's to be as weighty/comparable to Aaron/Bonds for the reasons discussed. - Will Hunting Jun 5, 09:33
        
        What he is saying, I believe, is that not all those records would carry equal legitimacy. -- nm - TFox Jun 5, 09:32 14
        
        If that's what he's saying, great. But he specifically discounted Oh's professional record. (nm) - musubi Jun 5, 09:33 2
        
        And now he's repeated that point 3 times, so I'm fairly sure that he doens't consider them all legit. (nm) - musubi Jun 5, 09:34 1
        
        right, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have the record. he does. it's on wikipedia. i can look it up and see that. - TFox Jun 5, 09:36
        
        Right. Zero people have suggested giving him the MLB record. -- nm - Reagen Jun 5, 09:33 10
        
        No Will thinks that there is a "professional hits" record that Ichiro should own. But Oh can't be the "professional" HR record holder. - musubi Jun 5, 09:36 9
        
        He can be the pro HR leader, I can think that's a less meaningful record. - Will Hunting Jun 5, 09:38
        
        no, he *is* the record holder. but the record is less meaningful than the other record. -- nm - TFox Jun 5, 09:37 7
        
        That's nonsense. Either it's a legit record or it's not. - musubi Jun 5, 09:39 6
        
        Barry Bonds as MLB HR leader is exactly as legit as Hank Aaron was. yes or no? - Reagen Jun 5, 09:41 5
        
        Yes. Bonds is the HR record holder. (nm) - musubi Jun 5, 09:41 3
        
        Do you find yourself actually having the same level of caring for 762 as you do 755? - Will Hunting Jun 5, 09:45 2
        
        like, here's the thing - I didn't actually know what Bonds' #s, but I still know 755. -- nm - Reagen Jun 5, 09:46
        
        I don't care about either all that much. They're records. - musubi Jun 5, 09:46
        
        win -- nm - TFox Jun 5, 09:41
      - isn't this the lifeblood of sabermetrics? ignoring numbers that don't mean much, and paying attention to other numbers that do? -- nm - TFox Jun 5, 09:18 7
        
        It's rigourous examination of all numbers and determining which mean the most. Not just saying, small parks, so those homers don't count. (nm) - musubi Jun 5, 09:26 2
        
        Sure, but if we can't use obvious facts because we don't have a more inscrutable and abstract fact to support it is... something. - TFox Jun 5, 09:28 1
        
        Inscrutable abstract facts? Whatever dude. - musubi Jun 5, 09:41
        
        This is what gets me. The ink that gets spilled over proving what people might have done, and this is the bridge too far? -- nm - Reagen Jun 5, 09:21 3
        
        Where is the ink spilled proving what people might have done? - musubi Jun 5, 09:26 1
        
        no one's done the work on Oh's # (that I'm aware of). It could be done. The work on Ichiro's #s is simpler. -- nm - Reagen Jun 5, 09:29
        
        we can retroactively figure a league-independant VORP for this guy, but can't say "home runs that wouldn't reach the wall in America are iffy". -- nm - TFox Jun 5, 09:22

Post a message top

That's my point. We don't discount Ruth's home runs, why then would you discount Oh's?

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.