If you break down their career numbers into averages per 250 IP, Hunter gave up 10 less hits and 16 less walks per 250 IP but gave up 7 more HR and struck out 52 less per 250.  A few of those walks were due to Carlton issuing more IBB, though.  Pretty much same W-L and ERA, as noted before.  There is some evidence that Hunter had a better defense behind him as Carlton had a few more ROE and a few more unearned runs, on average, than Hunter.  Also, Hunter's BABIP was .246 vs. Carlton's .284, which may also be evidence of defensive differences (or park factors?) that could at leasty partially explain (if you buy into that) Carlton's higher hits allowed.  I do think Carlton's carrying that level of performance, on average, on for 9 more years and 1800 mor IP is pretty darn impressive.  Run support is also interesting:

0-2 runs support, Carlton: 1626 IP, 46-160 W-L, 2.99 ERA, 1.24 WHIP, .65 HR/9, .276 BABIP
0-2 runs support, Hunter: 975 IP, 25-103 W-L, 3.26 ERA, 1.15 WHIP, .83 HR/9, .253 BABIP

3-5 runs support, Carlton: 1922 IP, 130-69 W-L, 3.02 ERA, 1.23 WHIP, .70 HR/9, .285 BABIP
3-5 runs support, Hunter:  1417.1, 98-55 W-L, 3.11 ERA, 1.11 WHIP, .98 HR/9, .243 BABIP

6+ runs support, Carlton: 1617.1 IP, 151-11 W-L, 3.62 ERA, 1.27 WHIP, .77 HR/9, .289 BABIP
6+ runs support, Hunter:  1013 IP, 99-8 W-L, 3.46 ERA, 1.14 WHIP, 1.12 HR/9, .242 BABIP

There's some evidence for pitching to the score but I bet this would be similar across all starting pitchers.  It looks a little more pronounced for Carlton than Hunter, though.

I didn't learn anything that makes me want to kick Hunter out of the Hall but I think Carlton likely got less help from his defense and/or park and the fact that he was able to perform so well for so much longer than Hunter pushes Carlton ahead of Hunter for me.  I am a Phillie's fan, though (bias alert!).  And a stat-nerd.

Posted by trsnoke on 2/18/2012 9:11:00 AM (view original):

Posnanski just blogged about Hall of Fame and playing time.  Now the players that stick around longest are obviously good or they wouldn't be able to stick around so long but I think it is still interesting:

"There are 25 players in baseball history with more than 10,000 at-bats.  -- 21 of them are in the Hall of Fame.  -- 2 are active (Derek Jeter and Omar Vizquel). Jeter is a Hall of Fame lock. -- 2 are not in the Hall of Fame because they committed what many people consider to be baseball cardinal sins (Pete Rose and Rafael Palmeiro).

There are 28 pitchers in baseball history with more than 4,000 innings pitched.  -- 20 of them are in the Hall of Fame.  -- 4 are almost certain to get into the Hall of Fame soon (Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine).  That leaves four pitchers … and you want to talk about eerie similarities. The four pitchers with 4,000 innings who may never get into the Hall of Fame are Jim Kaat, Tommy John, Frank Tanana, Jamie Moyer

Look at that -- could you find four more similar pitchers? The Hall of Fame formula seems to go like this: If you pitch 4,000 innings in the big leagues, you absolutely WILL go to the Hall of Fame … that is unless you are a crafty lefty with an ERA+ between 104 and 111, fewer than 300 victories, somewhere between 2,200 and 2,800 strikeouts and somewhere between 1,000 and 1,300 walks. In that subset, zero percent will go to the Hall of Fame."

http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2012/02/3000-hits.html

You're on another planet if you think Clemens is getting elected anytime soon, if at all.

Thanks for that, TRS.  Hunter's HR rate sure goes up based on his run support, doesn't it?

FWIW, I haven't been arguing that both belong in or out of the HOF.   My point was that Carlton, in an average year, was no better than Hunter.    He just pitched much, much longer.

It started over this:

• And, quite honestly, I'm not sure I put ANY of them in MY HOF.   Just saying, during that era, being a workhorse with a 3ish ERA was considered Hall-worthy.
• You wouldn't put Nolan Ryan in your HOF?
• Or Carlton?  The guy pitched over 5000 innings and is 4th all time in strikeouts.

1,  Take the mound.
Both had a ten year stretch where they averaged over 275 innings per season(H-277, C-279).   Pretty much a wash.

Ridiculous.  For Hunter's innings to be "pretty much a wash," he would have had to pitch another 7 seasons at 250 innings a season.  Considering the fact that he pitched 143, 118, and 105 innings his last three seasons, he probably would have needed another 15 seasons.

2.  Prevent runs.
Career era of 3.26(H) and 3.22(C)   Nothing to see there.

The ERA's are similar, but once again, a little context adds a lot to the picture.  Use adjusted ERA+ and the difference is bigger -- 105 (H)  to 115 (C).  Adjust for defense using FIP instead of ERA, and the difference is further magnified -- 3.66 (H) to 3.15 (C).  

And once again, Carlton maintained that ERA for two thousand more innings.  Had Hunter thrown another two thousand innings, how likely is it that he would have lowered his ERA?

Carlton was the better pitcher by far.

1,  If you want to argue longevity, I've already conceded that Carlton was a compiler.   So there's no point in continuing on that point.

2.  I think we know Hunter gave up more home runs.    Thanks to trsnoke, we also know that his HR Allowed increased dramatically when given some run support.  FIP means nothing if you recognize that.

Carlton pitched much longer not more effectively.   Had Hunter had 4-5 outstanding seasons and finished his career with 1600 innings, there would be nothing to discuss.   Alas, he had far more than that.  

Carlton and Hunter actually made their MLB debuts within about a month of each other so their careers overlapped for Hunter's entire 15 year career.  Carlton was a freak to add another 9 years at almost 200 IP/yr on top of that, and with pretty similar numbers to his first 15 yrs (and those last 9 were his age 35-43 seasons!).  The only knock I'd have on Hunter is that I just saw his Home/Road splits and there's a big difference there - Home ERA and WHIP of 2.70 and 1.06, Road of 3.92 and 1.225.  SO and BB both better at home - SO/BB ratio was 2.41 at home and 1.81 on road.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/19/2012 7:51:00 AM (view original):
1,  If you want to argue longevity, I've already conceded that Carlton was a compiler.   So there's no point in continuing on that point.

2.  I think we know Hunter gave up more home runs.    Thanks to trsnoke, we also know that his HR Allowed increased dramatically when given some run support.  FIP means nothing if you recognize that.

Carlton pitched much longer not more effectively.   Had Hunter had 4-5 outstanding seasons and finished his career with 1600 innings, there would be nothing to discuss.   Alas, he had far more than that.  

1. You are F'ing retarded.  If all Carlton did was "compile" a ton of innings, why didn't Hunter do it?

2.  "FIP means nothing if you recognize that."  What does that sentence even mean?  FIP means exactly what it says it means.  It scales a pitcher performance in strikeouts, walks, and home runs, to ERA.  It's not a be all and end all, but it adds context.

Carlton did pitch more effectively.  If you shorten his career to roughly the same IP ('65-'78) as Hunter, his ERA goes down to 3.04 and his adjusted ERA plus goes up to 120.  He was significantly better over the same amount of innings and then added another 1800 innings at a high level as icing on the cake.  There is no rational argument that Hunter was better than Carlton.

1)  Hunter had health issues his last three seasons, including diabetes.  That's why he retired at age 33.  Carlton remained healthy and pitched until he was 43.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/19/2012 11:58:00 AM (view original):
1)  Hunter had health issues his last three seasons, including diabetes.  That's why he retired at age 33.  Carlton remained healthy and pitched until he was 43.

So what?

Posted by jrd_x on 2/19/2012 12:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/19/2012 11:58:00 AM (view original):
1)  Hunter had health issues his last three seasons, including diabetes.  That's why he retired at age 33.  Carlton remained healthy and pitched until he was 43.

So what?

That was in direct response to your question of why didn't Hunter compile all the innings that Carlton did.  I would have thought that was obvious.

No I knew what it was for. Still, so what? Is hunter better than Carlton?

Are you sticking to the "He played longer so he was better" argument?