Originally Posted by AvesIce51
Many times things aren't proven wrong and the fight goes on. For example someone saying that Rich Aurilia is a better 1B than Hatteberg. Someone might feel very strong about Hatteberg, then a rebuttle is that Aurilia has more range. Hatte picks better though, Aurilia positions himself better....these types of things can't be proved. Even some stats that are used in hitting situations and stuff still create arguments.
If all opinions could be solved, they wouldnt be opinions, they would be facts, or wrong.
My take is that far more often it's someone using the word "opinion" as a shield against the facts that have been presented to them. Numerous times in the past week
I've run into posters making claims that are simply contrary to some rather basic evidence and instead of using that evidence to alter their opinion they've griped that they should be allowed to have an opinion without having numbers thrown at them. Sorry, but (and this is a made-up example) if you want to claim the Reds are the best triples hitting team in history and there's a quick and easy numerical test that proves you wrong, then it's for you to recognize that they keep score in baseball and that your perception doesn't trump what's actually happened.
This gets back to some of the topics that might be fodder for "beaten to death" forum. For instance, we've been through an incredibly tedious discussion over the years about whether the Reds strike out too much to have a good offense. As it turned out, they were able to lead the league in scoring while also leading it in Ks (just like BRM). It also turned out the team had one of the more consistent offenses in baseball. Now that doesn't mean there aren't things the team could do in order to score more, but it does mean that as board we've seen these arguments tested and a definitive answer has been given -- as long as you get on base and hit for power, whiffing like crazy won't prevent you from scoring gobs of runs. We KNOW this. It's no longer needs to be a matter for opinion on this board and having to give equal weight and credit to the opinions of the folks who haven't learned it shatters the boundaries of common sense.
I mentioned this in another thread and I'll repeat it here. We've covered a lot of ground in six years. In general it shouldn't be the job of the board to repeat itself for newer posters, it should be the job of the newer posters to catch up to where the board has progressed to. There's almost an endless supply of topics out there and we don't need to keep running over the same ones or spinning our wheels because someone doesn't understand when they've formed a half-baked opinion.
Speaking of wheels:
Originally Posted by wheels
Every time the older posters get fed up with the junk that's floating around and start getting vocal about it, the newer posters start making a push to enact change even though they've essentially just joined the board.