[drprestwood]

I didn't say that you admitted that your opinion was wrong.

Instead, you granted my arguments and the arguments of others as to why you were wrong by simply ignoring them.

Rhetorical theoretician Stephen Toulmin provides what is possibly the most commonly accepted structure for rhetorical argument. According to his model, an argument consists of six parts, but I will simplify it to the three indispensible ones for this discussion:

1) Claim
This is the conclusion that one is attempting to justify.
Your claim is that the Twins are not a good baseball team and only are passable because they play in the AL Central.
2) Evidence/Data
These are the facts on which the argument is based.
Your grounds are that the AL West is better than the AL Central.
3)Warrant
The warrant is where you determine whether or not the claim is legitimate based on the data.
This is where your argument is lacking. You have provided no analysis as to why the two are connected, nor data about their performance against the West.
I however provided a brief statistical analysis of what the Twins' record would be if they were in the West, based on winning percentages against various divisions.

There are two ways that you can choose to answer the argument--you can either respond on point, or choose a different rhetorical model. I predict failure either way.

Additionally, I just want to point out that your most recent argument was that the Twins are only a good ball club because they play in a weak division, not that the Twins will only get into the playoffs because they're in the Central or even that they only have a SHOT because of that fact.