In my opinion, it’s not even that fun to follow baseball anymore, because you’re not allowed to have any opinions. You have to look up every opinion you’re supposed to have. "Oh, is A-Rod clutch? Let me look that up. Yes, he’s hitting .356 in the clutch. So I guess that means he’s clutch." What’s fun about it? It’s like algebra.
From the AV Club interview with Bill Simmons. So apparently, the Sports Guy doesn't like baseball anymore because the proliferation of stats means it is now much easier to show that the Sports Guy knows nothing about baseball. He enjoyed it more when he couldn't be called on his b.s. opinions, apparently.
2 months ago
Adam J. Morris
66 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
well
there are opinions, and there are facts. You are allowed to have opinions, so long as they aren’t wrong facts
Go Rice Owls!
by JBImaknee on Nov 14, 2009 9:03 PM CST reply actions 2 recs
this is just splitting hairs
but technically you could have a perfectly acceptable opinion that was also a wrong fact. but that’s not something that would really apply in sports analysis.
by Smoakin in the Boys Room on Nov 14, 2009 11:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
In a way I understand
Sports nerdery sort of distills the fun into a cold, lifeless thing.
That doesn’t mean, however, that stats are stupid, or that Bill Simmons isn’t the biggest douche on the planet.
by brettgardner on Nov 14, 2009 9:08 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Also one reason why guys like Galloway and other
sports writers constantly insult the whole idea of computer nerds in their mom’s basements. Keep your laptop out of the clubhouse, nerd! It takes a lot of the mystery out of the whole enterprise and proves that the guy behind the curtain might not be any sort of wizard at all.
Guys like Joe Posnanski bridge that gap spectacularly.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Nov 14, 2009 9:10 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Changing of the Guard
I grew-up during that very early Randy Galloway era. Sports Writing was more comical in those days. R-G lived on emotional tirades, not logic. The Rangers lost year after year in the 70’s and 80’s. I saw coverage as more entertainment based then.
To me, Fantasy Baseball sort of made the Randy (comedy) approach more obsolete.
It does seem like more people want cold hard facts.
by 3Bagger on Nov 15, 2009 9:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I find people who are less stat-oriented are usually less in to fantasy baseball.
I for one played for the first time this year, and stopped paying attention mid-season.
by philkid3 on Nov 15, 2009 10:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That article consisted of NBA talk and
ESPN talk. How boring.
"Blister please, with those wings in your spine.
Love to be with a brother of mine.
How he'd love to find your tongue in his teeth,
In a struggle to find secret songs that you keep,
Wrapped in boxes so tight, sounding only at night as you sleep." ~Jeff Mangum; Neutral Milk Hotel
by jdh90 on Nov 14, 2009 9:10 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
This is totally a baseball thing...
for Bill Simmons. How is having to look up ARod’s numbers in the clutch any different than him trying to thoroughly proclaim Bill Russel better than Wilt Chamberlain or the ‘86 Celtics better than the ’96 Bulls? The only way to even begin to do that without it being a homer diatribe is with numbers. Besides generally being a giant homer, Bill Simmons just doesn’t know anything about baseball above a casual fan level that allows him to be anything other than a homer for his favorite team and stats ruin that for him because his opinion is easily debunked.
by ghostofErikThompson on Nov 14, 2009 9:30 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Who needs
stats when there is the all important eye test!
by Schultzy on Nov 14, 2009 9:55 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Sounds like...
Bill Simmons is all pissy about a bunch of his bullshit opinions that have been proved wrong.
Too bad.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Nov 14, 2009 10:39 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I thought his answer about umpiring was funny
It makes total sense that because of the internet and the way that a bad call can be dissected, umpires have too much pressure on them nowadays, which is making them worse at their jobs? Give me a break.
by Smoakin in the Boys Room on Nov 14, 2009 11:02 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
No, you don't have to, Bill.
If you don’t feel like having an informed opinion, don’t bother. Enjoy the sport however you see fit.
But yeah, you’re probably not going to feel like talking to anyone who does like informing his or her opinion more than you.
by philkid3 on Nov 14, 2009 11:02 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Also, I'm pretty sure Adam hit the nail on the head.
Someone on another board railing against “stats” actually admitted as much once. Refreshing, actually.
by philkid3 on Nov 14, 2009 11:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And, to be honest, I disagree with very little of that paragraph.
Just the part where he says he has to be an intelligent baseball fan to be a fan at all. If you’re tired of people pointing out how you’re wrong, stop trying to talk to people who know more than you. You can still watch the sport and look at the standings every day.
But yeah, I do think sports like basketball and football are so much harder to quantify because of so many more nuances (and that is part of why I like football more, believe it or not), but that doesn’t mean you can’t just watch and enjoy baseball without looking up every fact to make sure it’s fact.
by philkid3 on Nov 14, 2009 11:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So...
Fun = Endless, mindless “You suck! No, YOU suck!” bickering back and forth, never introducing any evidence to substantiate either opinion.
Not fun = Looking things up and finding actual evidence to back up your argument and possibly convince the other party of your position or disprove his stance.
Sounds like Bill Simmons is just lazy. Or auditioning for a pundit job at FOX news.
"It's kind of a new stat that's in vogue" - Joe Buck on OPS
"...he wasn’t a good hitter, just a good middle of the order bat that hit a lot of homers." - NYTXFAN on Mark McGwire
by lonestarJon on Nov 14, 2009 11:22 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
he'd totally
ignore how clutch the democratic health care legislation is
by Smoakin in the Boys Room on Nov 14, 2009 11:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
because Fox News has been fact checked so many times and been proven wrong. Yep, totally…
"More than likely JW never played sports above the youth level. It amazes me that he seems to have no concept on the common reactions of an adult athlete or their normal interactions between each other." - laxonto
by Michael Cave on Nov 15, 2009 2:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Foley, Sanford, and Hannitty say Hi
Neftali Feliz says sit your 5 dollar ass down before he makes change...
Hi, Keith. Is this the year Edinson Volquez finally wins RoY?
by Brian Thomas on Nov 15, 2009 3:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It would seem that Bill Simmons' view would mean that JoePos has no opinions.
If that’s the case, give me the man without an opinion every day of the week.
Pro baseball has always been a dream, so this is pretty freakin’ cool out here. -- Tim Steggall, undrafted Rangers minor leaguer.
by rooster on Nov 15, 2009 12:37 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
History used to totally kick ass
before they invented books. A-holes.
"Does this effectively hide my thunder?"
by Bob Loblaw on Nov 15, 2009 12:50 AM CST reply actions 2 recs
How is that really any different than..
“Oh, does A-Rod hit well? Let me look that up. Yes, he’s hitting .295 with 40 homeruns. So I guess that means he hits well.” What’s fun about it?"
the preceding post was a great success.
by DSheppard on Nov 15, 2009 7:17 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
The Cold Joy of Stats
The validity of this point: “What’s fun about it, it’s like algebra?” That is an opinion.
Modern times have changed us all. Like the Ken Burns Baseball Doc showed so well, the MLB has always changed with the times. And right now, DATA is a huge structural part of analysis and decision making. Retailing, Movie Endings, Advertising, Quant Funds, so many things these days are like algebra!
The only sympathy I have for the Bill Simmons opinion is this…many fans (who are simply less interested in the details of game) are more left-out now.
by 3Bagger on Nov 15, 2009 9:05 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
How are they more left out, though?
Because there are fewer people to have BS discussions with? I find that a little difficult to believe as true or significant.
by philkid3 on Nov 15, 2009 10:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
BS discussions
most discussions in life have a great deal of BS.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Nov 15, 2009 12:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I had no idea Blown Saves where such a hot topic
"It's kind of a new stat that's in vogue" - Joe Buck on OPS
"...he wasn’t a good hitter, just a good middle of the order bat that hit a lot of homers." - NYTXFAN on Mark McGwire
by lonestarJon on Nov 15, 2009 6:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
One day you will be able to spell the word "were."
"Nothing we do here has a point" - Czar Morris
by Chase Irwin on Nov 16, 2009 11:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Left Out
Example. If some modest FAN likes Jeter or Michael Young, only to be beat-up in a stat-laden discussion about the merits of their defense or range, then I call that a tragedy. After all, what makes people like a player is certainly not 100% about their performance.
by 3Bagger on Nov 15, 2009 12:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Baseball
You can enjoy it without knowing – or looking up – any stats. And if you are the least bit curious about player or team performance “compared to what”, then you need to be aware of (or go find) the stats. What sticks out is that Bill Simmons’ opinion on anything does not or should not dilute anyone else’s joy of the game.
Relative goodness is the currency of discussion, argument, and bets. None of those three should actually move your needle unless you choose to participate, Bill.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912) also -
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages of making a disagreeable person keep his distance."
~Ambrose Bierce
by Ed Coffin on Nov 15, 2009 9:13 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I can empathize in the sense that you have to double-check with baseballreference.com
for nearly every opinion you have on baseball (because I’m sure he has people who live to prove him wrong, just like I do with LSB Nation) or you can look like a fool which isn’t necessarily a bad thing because it makes everybody better yet it’s kind of a pain.
Thing is, if you don’t really know something, double-check or STFU.
OT – I thumbed thru BS’s new book on basketball and it looks really good, kind of a Bill James HIstorical Abstract for roundballers. I’m letting somebody else buy it for me this Christmas.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"
by Josey Wales on Nov 15, 2009 9:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
From what I can tell...
his basketball book, if you can look past the beating it will be to read the Celtic heavy chapters, looks fantastic. I’m not really a Simmons fan but he does have interesting takes on basketball and I like the idea of tackling its history from a point of view that is entertaining.
by ghostofErikThompson on Nov 15, 2009 10:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I grew up in LA and have always loathed their existence
but you can’t deny the Celtics importance to the NBA (they squeezed a couple of titles in the 70s when Russell was gone) so I can understand why they’re featured so much in the book.
He does pay a serious tribute to Jerry West (my all-time favorite athlete) and also says that Magic Johnson was a better player (barely) than Larry Bird.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"
by Josey Wales on Nov 15, 2009 10:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I've almost gotten through it
And a Bill James Historical Abstract for roundballers is exactly what it is.
What I don’t understand is criticism of the book like it’s an actual, you know, book.
I don’t think people criticized Bill James for not writing a great book in his Historical Abstract.
Maybe I’m just an unabashed Simmons fan.
by GoDMurphy on Nov 15, 2009 11:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I just thumbed thru it but I love his "best cocaine story I'm allowed to tell"...
Spencer Haywood (who BS calls “The Broken Mirror” because of all the bad luck that followed him) passed out during stretching drills when the Lakers were practicing during The Finals. Ya see, Haywood had a big problem with the nose candy.
Paul Westhead cut him from the team right then.
Haywood hired a hit man to murder Westhead, thought better about it and called off the hit.
BS opined, “I’m almost sure that would have marred The Finals that year.”
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"
by Josey Wales on Nov 15, 2009 11:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
eh not really anything like bill james
simmons kinda looks away from stats for the most part saying basketball is the 1 sport that doesnt tell you the whole story w/stats, it’s his whole basis on why he argues russell over chamberlain (which i disagree with, curious to hear your opinion) and why he ranks the 80’s pistons so high (a big basis of the book is about this “secret” that isiah thomas had when he wa sa player)
im through 200 pages of the book, it is a good read, he is way to hard on chamberlain and doesnt give his title teams nearly enough credit (leaves the ’67 76ers out of his top 10 teams entirely and has the 71-72 lakers at 9)
by studcrackers on Nov 15, 2009 11:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wilt...
I saw the ‘68-73 version of him and he was very, very overrated. Now I was 5-10 years old at the time and the Lakers were on local tv maybe 20 times a year (no home games televised) but he was spoken of in the terms of Jordan when Wilt wasn’t really that good.
He was huge, had very few people close to his size and didn’t really move that well. He concentrated on shooting a ton of “finger-rolls” from the circle in the lane and wasn’t very good at it. When forced to shoot FTs in the clutch, terrible.
What he did do very well is rebound and defend the post so he wasn’t useless but he was a long fucking way from MJ. When I saw him, he was essentially what Shaq has been the last 5 years or so.
I will give him full credit for his performance in Game 5 of the ’72 Finals. He had something like a cracked bone in one wrist and a broken thumb on his other hand yet led the way…maybe 24 points with 20 boards and gave the Lakers their first title. It was a performance much better than what Willis Reed did in the ’70 Finals Game 7 because Wilt actually played.
The best center I ever saw was Kareem. Nobody could stop him in the 70s. He won 6 titles and was the second best player on the ’87 Laker team that won it all and he was 39 years old at the time. Wilt was a few years into retirement by the time he was 39.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"
by Josey Wales on Nov 15, 2009 11:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Lol
Now I was 5-10 years old at the time and the Lakers were on local tv maybe 20 times a year (no home games televised) but he was spoken of in the terms of Jordan when Wilt wasn’t really that good.
So, you were already a know-it-all jackass in kindergarten.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Nov 15, 2009 11:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You're trying too hard, tball
Let the game come to you.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"
by Josey Wales on Nov 16, 2009 8:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I dunno, I thought that was pretty good.
Bonus points to t ball for the implication that Josey could’ve been a ten-year-old kindergartner.
by jwiscarson on Nov 16, 2009 9:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
There was a review on Deadspin that absolutely killed the book
The reviewer was not a fan.
"Dying ain't hard. It’s living in the wake of a thorough public humiliation that’s hard.--JDT217
Internet greatness http://www.lonestarball.com/2009/11/10/1125340/will-carroll-calls-out-josey-wales
by WestTxAg06 on Nov 15, 2009 1:46 PM CST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Well said, Mr. Coffin.
And, as usual, I love the first part of your sig.
by philkid3 on Nov 15, 2009 10:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Simmons has a point...
…about too many people relying on stats to form their opinions about players. Seriously, take a step back and look at how ridiculous so many internet baseball fans are. They pridefully throw around all sorts of stat breakdowns as if it proves they’re smart. Anyone can look up a stat. Sometimes you just gotta be a fan of a guy because of the way he plays the game instead of dissecting him.
Now Simmons is still a douche and his A-Rod example sucked, but I’m just sayin’…
by Tex34 on Nov 15, 2009 10:04 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I like Bill Simmons, a lot.
He’s one of the best sportswriters out there right now and if you don’t like him, you can’t deny how influential he’s become.
His BS Report podcast is a weekly stop down for me. I don’t have any of his books (yet) but I love reading his weekly rants.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"
by Josey Wales on Nov 15, 2009 10:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Bill Simmons sucks
He’s basically the Idiot’s Guide to forming mediocre sports opinions, which is why he is prominently featured on ESPN’s main page. You should only read him if you need him to tell you what to think about a particular subject he is so familiar with [Celtics basketball]. His humor became forced a while ago and I can’t imagine someone who labels other posters “gossip queen” would dig into his pop culture grab bag.
"Nothing we do here has a point" - Czar Morris
by Chase Irwin on Nov 15, 2009 10:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I form my own opinions, Chase.
I like entertaining writing and people who have the guts to piss on conventional wisdom and do something different.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"
by Josey Wales on Nov 15, 2009 10:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I was a huge Simmons fan for a long time, but I've since cooled on him
I’ll still give him major credit for changing the sports columnist landscape, no one can deny his status as a revolutionary in that regard.
I used to read every column as soon as I saw it on ESPN.com (even if I didn’t have time to read it then, I would). I read all of his archives, I read and loved his columns even on basketball, a sport which I don’t care anything about. But I feel like, and it pains me to say this, he’s become rather stale. His columns have become basically “Sports Guy Madlibs” – throw in a reference to college buddies, talk about something Boston-related, make a pop culture reference, mention something from the 80s, add something from pseudoreality tv, mentions living in LA/celebs, and voila, you’ve got a Sports Guy column. I was the biggest Simmons fan alive for a while, but he’s not as good, or fresh, as he once was.
"Dying ain't hard. It’s living in the wake of a thorough public humiliation that’s hard.--JDT217
Internet greatness http://www.lonestarball.com/2009/11/10/1125340/will-carroll-calls-out-josey-wales
by WestTxAg06 on Nov 15, 2009 1:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You can be a fan of a guy just because you like him for some ethereal reason
See, e.g., me and Gerald Laird.
But I’ll also acknowledge that Laird isn’t exactly a great major league catcher. The stats bear that out.
by Adam J. Morris on Nov 15, 2009 10:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Bonus points for use of "ethereal" when most of
us are drinking coffee and bracing for Sunday mornin’ coming down.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"
by Josey Wales on Nov 15, 2009 10:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
one bonus point
for referencing Johnny Cash/Kristofferson.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Nov 15, 2009 12:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's Kristofferson's song all the way.
Cash sang a lot of people’s songs.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"
by Josey Wales on Nov 15, 2009 12:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
While I don't necessarily disagree, you've still got to give Cash lots of credit
His recording of that song is the seminal version, and is one of the greatest, most heart-wrenching, and most “real” (considering Cash’s exploits in his early years) country music recordings ever made. Kris wrote the song, but I don’t think it becomes as awesome without Johnny’s recording.
I feel similarly about one of my all-time favorite songs, “Desperadoes Waiting for a Train.” Guy Clark was a phenomenal songwriter and he penned a masterpiece in that song, but Jerry Jeff Walker made it. Jerry Jeff conveyed the mood of the song better than anyone else who sang it, Guy included.
"Dying ain't hard. It’s living in the wake of a thorough public humiliation that’s hard.--JDT217
Internet greatness http://www.lonestarball.com/2009/11/10/1125340/will-carroll-calls-out-josey-wales
by WestTxAg06 on Nov 15, 2009 1:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No shit
You could probably count on one or possibly two hands the country singers that only sang their own songs.
Kris is a great songwriter, but man what a godawful singer he is. The only version worth listening to is sung by JC.
Neftali Feliz says sit your 5 dollar ass down before he makes change...
Hi, Keith. Is this the year Edinson Volquez finally wins RoY?
by Brian Thomas on Nov 15, 2009 3:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, really?
Thanks, genius? Why do you think I mentioned Kristofferson, dumbass? It’s his song, but Cash had the hit with it.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Nov 15, 2009 11:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
he has a very good point
if every discussion is going to be broken down to a stat, which everyone has access to, then where’s the debate? (unless you’re going to devolve into a discussion about the formula itself, which happens pretty frequently, and then guess what – you’re having a math debate.) baseball has always been referred to as the talking sport. now it’s more like the calculator sport.
by SteveP on Nov 15, 2009 10:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
They're doing it to prove they're smart?
Or they’re doing it because they want to be as correct as possible instead of ignorant?
by philkid3 on Nov 15, 2009 10:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, this really gets me.
Also, why is it that the sports argument is some mainstay of our lives as human beings, and we will all be destroyed if we can no longer participate in stupid-assed arguments about who the greatest whatever happens to be?
I don’t think stats do that, because there’s still plenty to discuss — I often talk to my friends about luck and batted ball types — we really don’t need to solely rely on batting average, home runs, and RBI in order to have “discussions.”
by jwiscarson on Nov 15, 2009 11:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
x
Sometimes you just gotta be a fan of a guy because of the way he plays the game instead of dissecting him.
Yeah, but this is the kind of logic that leads people to thinking Marlon Byrd or David Murphy is better at baseball than Nelson Cruz. Which is dumb, and very annoying.
I’m all for being fans of guys, but you also need to be aware of how good they are in relation to other players to form realistic opinions or expectations of them. I learned this with Salty: being a fan of a sucky baseball player is not fun.
"It's kind of a new stat that's in vogue" - Joe Buck on OPS
"...he wasn’t a good hitter, just a good middle of the order bat that hit a lot of homers." - NYTXFAN on Mark McGwire
by lonestarJon on Nov 15, 2009 6:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
An opinion
need not be based on pure empirical evidence. It’s a subjective judgement based on any series of factors which may be weighted differently based on one’s own intent in expressing that opinion.
I express opinion on blogs in interest of contributing to a dialogue. I’ve little interest in argument and needing to be right or proving someone else wrong. It’s just an opinion, often based on how i have interpreted observations of specific performances or trends. Yes, I do trust my eyes. After 40+ years of observing I’m reasonably certain I know what I’m looking at. I don’t need stats or supportable evidence to state an opinion.
I may look to corroborating statistics if I intend to stake out a particular position. That’s no longer an opinion, That becomes a statement of fact that someone else may choose to support or contradict with another set of facts around the same subject. Fair enough, it’s on me to then engage the debate/argument or not.
Bottom line in my view, people have a right to their opinion whether anyone else thinks they’re misinformed or not. And it doesn’t elevate one persons stature to attempt to marginalize someone else’s viewpoint. That’s my opinion.
by poster formerly known as ncrangerman on Nov 15, 2009 10:27 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
One of the big sabermetric questions always has to do with "clutch"
and whether or not it really exists.
I have the opinion that when the chips are down and this team really needs a base hit, the player I’m choosing to get that hit is Michael Young.
Without looking it up, I assume his RISP stats were really bad this year (and several players had a higher RISP) but he’s still my choice.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"
by Josey Wales on Nov 15, 2009 10:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think a lot of the problem with those in Bill's camp is that they want their arguments to be "your word against mine."
Arguing something that can’t be supported with significant evidence means the other person can never be right, because it’s just the statement of opinions with little strong support.
If I want to claim Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning, I can be unafraid of Josey pointing out that I’m wrong. The only support he’d have against me is pretty much just his word based on his eye against mine; we’re on the same ground. But if I want to claim Ryan Howard is better than Chase Utley, he may well pull out evidence I don’t have or care to look at that is strongly defendable and pretty close to prove me wrong. The thing is, if someone prefer’s “your word against mine” to an argument where there can be an actual correct view point, it smacks to me of just wanting to argue rather than potentially learn something.
by philkid3 on Nov 15, 2009 11:05 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Combining two previous takes into one reply...
I think I see it this way. I prefer arguments that have logic. But. I’m also somewhat of a Rangers advocate. Trying to recruit people to the game. Which means, I like to encourage people to become Ranger fans. They have to start somewhere. It is not criminal for me to hear someone say “Michael Young is awesome, I love me some Michael Young.” Unfortunately, some people take such a comment and go ballistic. I understand that opinion too, but, in the end, people are expressing themselves. Some people are more thorough than others. So be it.
by 3Bagger on Nov 15, 2009 12:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Judging from some of the responses in this thread
I think part of the issue is how debates are often taken personally. And with biased opinions, there is some reality to this. An argument about how clutch A-Rod is can hinge on how artful your language is or even the level of esteem you are held to in a particular community. While they may affect the convincingness of a proposition, neither has any bearing on its truth value.
I think deferring to statistics takes a lot of the personalization out of debates. It is no longer Person A vying for supremacy over Person B. It is one set of facts against another set of facts, or sometimes just one set of facts standing alone. When someone cites a metric to attempt to prove their point, I dont see it as an attack on the person holding the other point of view, just a way to get closer to the truth.
There is also still plenty of room for argument and discussion though. Sometimes the statistics are inconclusive or sometimes it takes some clever research to get to the truth of one of those folk opinions Simmons seems so fond of.
by Smoakin in the Boys Room on Nov 15, 2009 4:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
