Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 10:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/13/2014 10:24:00 AM (view original):
I don't think I'm on the wrong side of those arguments, obviously. Why do you think you're always on the wrong side of the argument?

Yet reality (i.e. HOF election results, MVP voting, etc) seem to deviate from your view of the world.

Why do you think that is?

I don't think anyone's arguing whether or not a player is or isn't actually in the Hall of Fame. If your argument is that we should defer to the wisdom of the BBWAA and save ourselves from any critical thinking, then you have problems that I can't help you with.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 6:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/13/2014 4:19:00 AM (view original):

Mussina didn't have as many opportunities to win games (better opposing pitchers going against him than against glavine, worse offenses in Baltimore giving him lower run support etc), and thus didn't register on the Cy Young voters minds as much.

This may or may not be true, but it's not the real story.  Wins-wise, the difference between Moose and Glavine is all about the fact that Glavine started a year younger, pitched a couple years older, and stayed a little bit healthier throughout his career.  Mussina won over 50% of his starts in his career; Glavine won under 45%.  Moose also pitched more innings per game.  He's still a lot of wins and a lot of innings short for the reasons I listed above, but there really is no meaningful metric by which Glavine was a BETTER pitcher than Moose, when he was pitching.  Mussina threw more innings per game, won more per game, had a much better WHIP, had a substantively better ERA+.  Moose also lost a smaller proportion of his games than Glavine.  Glavine has the best single-season WAR of the 2, but his 2nd best is equal to Moose's 4th.  In fact, in spite of basically 4 full seasons less career pitching, Moose trumps Glavine in career WAR by over 10%.  Moose has a much higher career K rate.  A much lower career walk rate.  A lower hit rate.  And those last 3 things aren't even normalized for the fact that Glavine got to pitch to pitchers his entire career, while Mussina spent his entire career in the AL East.

I don't see how anybody rational can look at the 2 and say that they honestly believe that Glavine was a better pitcher.  If you want to say something like "We want a Hall of Fame that includes every pitcher who has won 300 games," fine.  Then put Glavine in.  But don't pretend you actually think he was a better pitcher.  There's no way in hell.

Yet Glavine gets 91% of the vote while Mussina only gets 20% of the vote.

Why is that?

Because the voters are idiots. That's obvious. Please tell me you see that.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/13/2014 10:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 10:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/13/2014 10:24:00 AM (view original):
I don't think I'm on the wrong side of those arguments, obviously. Why do you think you're always on the wrong side of the argument?

Yet reality (i.e. HOF election results, MVP voting, etc) seem to deviate from your view of the world.

Why do you think that is?

I don't think anyone's arguing whether or not a player is or isn't actually in the Hall of Fame. If your argument is that we should defer to the wisdom of the BBWAA and save ourselves from any critical thinking, then you have problems that I can't help you with.

My argument is that for the most part, with some recent exceptions (Dawson, Rice, Blyleven), the BBWAA is doing a fair job, no matter what anybody thinks of the process that's being used.

They're certainly doing better than you would be doing if you were in change of selecting inductees.  We'd have a bloated HOF full of above average players.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/13/2014 10:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 6:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/13/2014 4:19:00 AM (view original):

Mussina didn't have as many opportunities to win games (better opposing pitchers going against him than against glavine, worse offenses in Baltimore giving him lower run support etc), and thus didn't register on the Cy Young voters minds as much.

This may or may not be true, but it's not the real story.  Wins-wise, the difference between Moose and Glavine is all about the fact that Glavine started a year younger, pitched a couple years older, and stayed a little bit healthier throughout his career.  Mussina won over 50% of his starts in his career; Glavine won under 45%.  Moose also pitched more innings per game.  He's still a lot of wins and a lot of innings short for the reasons I listed above, but there really is no meaningful metric by which Glavine was a BETTER pitcher than Moose, when he was pitching.  Mussina threw more innings per game, won more per game, had a much better WHIP, had a substantively better ERA+.  Moose also lost a smaller proportion of his games than Glavine.  Glavine has the best single-season WAR of the 2, but his 2nd best is equal to Moose's 4th.  In fact, in spite of basically 4 full seasons less career pitching, Moose trumps Glavine in career WAR by over 10%.  Moose has a much higher career K rate.  A much lower career walk rate.  A lower hit rate.  And those last 3 things aren't even normalized for the fact that Glavine got to pitch to pitchers his entire career, while Mussina spent his entire career in the AL East.

I don't see how anybody rational can look at the 2 and say that they honestly believe that Glavine was a better pitcher.  If you want to say something like "We want a Hall of Fame that includes every pitcher who has won 300 games," fine.  Then put Glavine in.  But don't pretend you actually think he was a better pitcher.  There's no way in hell.

Yet Glavine gets 91% of the vote while Mussina only gets 20% of the vote.

Why is that?

Because the voters are idiots. That's obvious. Please tell me you see that.

"Anybody who doesn't agree with me is an idiot!"

bad_luck, circa 2012-2014

Or a dick.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 11:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/13/2014 10:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 10:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/13/2014 10:24:00 AM (view original):
I don't think I'm on the wrong side of those arguments, obviously. Why do you think you're always on the wrong side of the argument?

Yet reality (i.e. HOF election results, MVP voting, etc) seem to deviate from your view of the world.

Why do you think that is?

I don't think anyone's arguing whether or not a player is or isn't actually in the Hall of Fame. If your argument is that we should defer to the wisdom of the BBWAA and save ourselves from any critical thinking, then you have problems that I can't help you with.

My argument is that for the most part, with some recent exceptions (Dawson, Rice, Blyleven), the BBWAA is doing a fair job, no matter what anybody thinks of the process that's being used.

They're certainly doing better than you would be doing if you were in change of selecting inductees.  We'd have a bloated HOF full of above average players.

If I was arguing that Glavine was significantly better than Mussina (one belongs in the Hall of Fame and the other is just "above average"), I'd want to deflect away from the actual argument as quickly as possible, too.

I continue to find it hilarious that you reject stats like WAR (always) and OPS+ (Bernie Williams and Rick Monday) but you are happy to accept something as clearly flawed as pitcher wins (EDITED, obviously I got a little ahead of myself while I was typing).

Answer one question and we can stop arguing about this:

Since you love to appeal to authority so much, which stat do you think MLB front offices are more likely to use in their player evaluations, Pitcher Wins or WAR?

Posted by mfahie on 1/13/2014 7:48:00 AM (view original):
burnsy, you're right that it is what it is, but it's certainly worth debate. The BBWAA has been notoriously stupid for quite a while now. Clearly, despite the fact that we know a whole lot more about statistics than we ever did, these arbitrary numbers are still the most important thing about getting into the Hall. 300 wins and 3000 H gets you in, regardless your other stats (PEDs notwithstanding).

I'm not saying Glavine doesn't belong in, but the dismissal of Mussina and instant enshrinement of Glavine has everything to do with that arbitrary number. I honestly think if he hadn't been a below-average pitcher for his last two seasons and won 15 games, he wouldn't have gotten in so easily.

There are going to be people who see Glavine's 300 wins and add him immediately to the HOF without much critical thinking.  They won't put in Mussina because they don't think he's good enough.  And that sucks.  If Glavine finished with 285 wins, these same people likely wouldn't be putting Glavine in.  And I think that's where BL and others are frustrated, and I understand it.  What averages out to a win a year (and wins really aren't completely in a pitcher's control) would determine whether or not a pitcher is a HOFer or not?  Doesn't make a ton of sense.  If you avoid looking at wins and look at the numbers that pitchers have more control of, you see that Mussina was probably a better pitcher for his career.  

Posted by bad_luck on 1/13/2014 11:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 11:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/13/2014 10:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 10:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/13/2014 10:24:00 AM (view original):
I don't think I'm on the wrong side of those arguments, obviously. Why do you think you're always on the wrong side of the argument?

Yet reality (i.e. HOF election results, MVP voting, etc) seem to deviate from your view of the world.

Why do you think that is?

I don't think anyone's arguing whether or not a player is or isn't actually in the Hall of Fame. If your argument is that we should defer to the wisdom of the BBWAA and save ourselves from any critical thinking, then you have problems that I can't help you with.

My argument is that for the most part, with some recent exceptions (Dawson, Rice, Blyleven), the BBWAA is doing a fair job, no matter what anybody thinks of the process that's being used.

They're certainly doing better than you would be doing if you were in change of selecting inductees.  We'd have a bloated HOF full of above average players.

If I was arguing that Glavine was significantly better than Mussina (one belongs in the Hall of Fame and the other is just "above average"), I'd want to deflect away from the actual argument as quickly as possible, too.

I continue to find it hilarious that you reject stats like WAR (always) and OPS+ (Bernie Williams and Rick Monday) but happy to accept something as clearly flawed as WAR.

Answer one question and we can stop arguing about this:

Since you love to appeal to authority so much, which stat do you think MLB front offices are more likely to use in their player evaluations, Pitcher Wins or WAR?

Neither.

Posted by burnsy483 on 1/13/2014 11:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mfahie on 1/13/2014 7:48:00 AM (view original):
burnsy, you're right that it is what it is, but it's certainly worth debate. The BBWAA has been notoriously stupid for quite a while now. Clearly, despite the fact that we know a whole lot more about statistics than we ever did, these arbitrary numbers are still the most important thing about getting into the Hall. 300 wins and 3000 H gets you in, regardless your other stats (PEDs notwithstanding).

I'm not saying Glavine doesn't belong in, but the dismissal of Mussina and instant enshrinement of Glavine has everything to do with that arbitrary number. I honestly think if he hadn't been a below-average pitcher for his last two seasons and won 15 games, he wouldn't have gotten in so easily.

There are going to be people who see Glavine's 300 wins and add him immediately to the HOF without much critical thinking.  They won't put in Mussina because they don't think he's good enough.  And that sucks.  If Glavine finished with 285 wins, these same people likely wouldn't be putting Glavine in.  And I think that's where BL and others are frustrated, and I understand it.  What averages out to a win a year (and wins really aren't completely in a pitcher's control) would determine whether or not a pitcher is a HOFer or not?  Doesn't make a ton of sense.  If you avoid looking at wins and look at the numbers that pitchers have more control of, you see that Mussina was probably a better pitcher for his career.  

This.

If you see pitcher wins for what they are (a useless assignment by the scorekeeper), Mussina was probably the better pitcher.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 11:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/13/2014 11:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 11:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/13/2014 10:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 10:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/13/2014 10:24:00 AM (view original):
I don't think I'm on the wrong side of those arguments, obviously. Why do you think you're always on the wrong side of the argument?

Yet reality (i.e. HOF election results, MVP voting, etc) seem to deviate from your view of the world.

Why do you think that is?

I don't think anyone's arguing whether or not a player is or isn't actually in the Hall of Fame. If your argument is that we should defer to the wisdom of the BBWAA and save ourselves from any critical thinking, then you have problems that I can't help you with.

My argument is that for the most part, with some recent exceptions (Dawson, Rice, Blyleven), the BBWAA is doing a fair job, no matter what anybody thinks of the process that's being used.

They're certainly doing better than you would be doing if you were in change of selecting inductees.  We'd have a bloated HOF full of above average players.

If I was arguing that Glavine was significantly better than Mussina (one belongs in the Hall of Fame and the other is just "above average"), I'd want to deflect away from the actual argument as quickly as possible, too.

I continue to find it hilarious that you reject stats like WAR (always) and OPS+ (Bernie Williams and Rick Monday) but happy to accept something as clearly flawed as WAR.

Answer one question and we can stop arguing about this:

Since you love to appeal to authority so much, which stat do you think MLB front offices are more likely to use in their player evaluations, Pitcher Wins or WAR?

Neither.

I knew you wouldn't answer.

Wording it differently, if a front office had to use one or the other, which do you think they would use?

Posted by bad_luck on 1/13/2014 11:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 1/13/2014 11:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mfahie on 1/13/2014 7:48:00 AM (view original):
burnsy, you're right that it is what it is, but it's certainly worth debate. The BBWAA has been notoriously stupid for quite a while now. Clearly, despite the fact that we know a whole lot more about statistics than we ever did, these arbitrary numbers are still the most important thing about getting into the Hall. 300 wins and 3000 H gets you in, regardless your other stats (PEDs notwithstanding).

I'm not saying Glavine doesn't belong in, but the dismissal of Mussina and instant enshrinement of Glavine has everything to do with that arbitrary number. I honestly think if he hadn't been a below-average pitcher for his last two seasons and won 15 games, he wouldn't have gotten in so easily.

There are going to be people who see Glavine's 300 wins and add him immediately to the HOF without much critical thinking.  They won't put in Mussina because they don't think he's good enough.  And that sucks.  If Glavine finished with 285 wins, these same people likely wouldn't be putting Glavine in.  And I think that's where BL and others are frustrated, and I understand it.  What averages out to a win a year (and wins really aren't completely in a pitcher's control) would determine whether or not a pitcher is a HOFer or not?  Doesn't make a ton of sense.  If you avoid looking at wins and look at the numbers that pitchers have more control of, you see that Mussina was probably a better pitcher for his career.  

This.

If you see pitcher wins for what they are (a useless assignment by the scorekeeper), Mussina was probably the better pitcher.

Not getting into the wins argument again, but I don't see wins as merely a "useless assignment by a scorekeeper."  Just not a fantastic indicator of a player's worth.

I would imagine they're looking at a variety of stats and scouting reports.  It's not an "either wins or WAR" thing.

I know you think that players can be thoroughly evaluated using only numbers on a piece of paper and a calculator.  The real world doesn't operate that way.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 11:44:00 AM (view original):
I would imagine they're looking at a variety of stats and scouting reports.  It's not an "either wins or WAR" thing.

I know you think that players can be thoroughly evaluated using only numbers on a piece of paper and a calculator.  The real world doesn't operate that way.

I don't think that.

I promise you that no front offices use pitcher W/L to evaluate major league pitchers. Even the ****** *** Phillies front office.

I also know for a fact that at least some front offices incorporate WAR into their major league evaluations.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/13/2014 8:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/12/2014 6:44:00 PM (view original):
I think that it's more than just training and nutrition that separates great athletes from today and those from the past.

I've yet to be enlightened.    What separates them?

?????

Posted by bad_luck on 1/13/2014 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 11:44:00 AM (view original):
I would imagine they're looking at a variety of stats and scouting reports.  It's not an "either wins or WAR" thing.

I know you think that players can be thoroughly evaluated using only numbers on a piece of paper and a calculator.  The real world doesn't operate that way.

I don't think that.

I promise you that no front offices use pitcher W/L to evaluate major league pitchers. Even the ****** *** Phillies front office.

I also know for a fact that at least some front offices incorporate WAR into their major league evaluations.

"I don't need to see the games.  I have the stats"

You, around a year or so ago.