Throw the Bum Out - Hall of Fame Edition Topic

toddcommish
Posts: 5084 (0)
Hall of Famer
516 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
I'm pretty sure this has broken down to a generational debate between guys who actually WATCHED THE GAMES in the 70's and stat monkeys that study numbers in their mom's basement
2/22/2012 4:51 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by Jtpsops on 2/22/2012 4:49:00 PM (view original):
A little, but I'm sure I can still find you plenty of examples to the contrary.

It would be the hitter equivalent of saying HR hitters are better than high average hitters, since HRs automatically put runs on the board. While that may be true, it doesn't necessarily mean that HR hitters are better or more valuable, just like putting fewer balls in play doesn't necessarily mean you'll get the better result.

If a guy has a heavy sinker and 80% of balls in play are groundballs on the infield, I like that better than a guy who has 50-60% of balls put in play, but all of them are laced to the gaps or over the OF wall.
There are outliers for everything, but the general trend is that a high k rate is better than a low k rate.

Obviously we would need to add context when looking at HR hitters vs high average hitters.  Triple slash is usually enough.  A guy who hits .300/.320/.410 is generally less valuable than a guy who hits .260/.350/.500, but there are a ton of other things at work there (OBP for one) that we need to also consider.

As for the groundball pitcher vs the guy who gives up a ton of homeruns and doubles, I doubt a pitcher who gives up big hits at that rate hangs around in the majors for very long.
2/22/2012 5:01 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by toddcommish on 2/22/2012 4:51:00 PM (view original):
I'm pretty sure this has broken down to a generational debate between guys who actually WATCHED THE GAMES in the 70's and stat monkeys that study numbers in their mom's basement
Who needs to watch games when we can overanalyze them after the fact with our slide rules and fancy formulas?
2/22/2012 5:11 PM
Jtpsops
Posts: 15509 (0)
Hall of Famer
744 1 2 2 144
Prospect
I love how everytime some evidence is shown refute jrd, his response is simply "there are outliers for everything".
2/22/2012 5:14 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 2/22/2012 5:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 2/22/2012 4:51:00 PM (view original):
I'm pretty sure this has broken down to a generational debate between guys who actually WATCHED THE GAMES in the 70's and stat monkeys that study numbers in their mom's basement
Who needs to watch games when we can overanalyze them after the fact with our slide rules and fancy formulas?
This really is the twilight zone.

I love watching baseball.  I do it as often as possible.  But it's ridiculous to suggest that you can't make a case for player A over player B without actually having watched them play.  You know Babe Ruth was better than Cedric Durst but you didn't see either of them actually play.  You know Christy Mathewson was better than Doc Crandall.

What would seeing Hunter and Carlton pitch tell me that the stats don't?
2/22/2012 5:19 PM
antoncresten
Posts: 9094 (0)
Hall of Famer
296 3
Hall of Famer
I SAW EM ALL KIDDIES, SEAVER+ GIBSON WERE THE BEST SINCE KOUFAX AND THAT BOB FELLER
2/22/2012 5:29 PM
toddcommish
Posts: 5084 (0)
Hall of Famer
516 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 2/22/2012 5:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 2/22/2012 5:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 2/22/2012 4:51:00 PM (view original):
I'm pretty sure this has broken down to a generational debate between guys who actually WATCHED THE GAMES in the 70's and stat monkeys that study numbers in their mom's basement
Who needs to watch games when we can overanalyze them after the fact with our slide rules and fancy formulas?
This really is the twilight zone.

I love watching baseball.  I do it as often as possible.  But it's ridiculous to suggest that you can't make a case for player A over player B without actually having watched them play.  You know Babe Ruth was better than Cedric Durst but you didn't see either of them actually play.  You know Christy Mathewson was better than Doc Crandall.

What would seeing Hunter and Carlton pitch tell me that the stats don't?
Perhaps you should maybe READ some of the opinions (not of the bombastic blowhards around here, but sportswriters of the day) from that time period.  Stats will give you a very limited view and even then, it's dependent on the scorekeeper...  (e.g. Have you ever seen what Jeter has to do to get an error in Yankee Stadium?)

Tossing out FiP and VORP and BABIP just makes you sound like a nerd.  These guys didn't pitch in the dark ages before integration.  Hunter pitched in the World Series for over half the 70's.  Stat geeks who never saw him will say he was "lucky" to be on such good teams.  Those WS teams thought they were "lucky" to have a horse like him leading their rotation.

It's like someone told Joe Morgan, "It's funny how those winning teams keep following you around."
2/22/2012 5:34 PM
toddcommish
Posts: 5084 (0)
Hall of Famer
516 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
Posted by antoncresten on 2/22/2012 5:29:00 PM (view original):
I SAW EM ALL KIDDIES, SEAVER+ GIBSON WERE THE BEST SINCE KOUFAX AND THAT BOB FELLER

Didn't Feller pitch for them Cleveland Injuns?

2/22/2012 5:35 PM
antoncresten
Posts: 9094 (0)
Hall of Famer
296 3
Hall of Famer
THAT'S RIGHT PALEFACE
2/22/2012 5:38 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect

I grew up watching baseball in the 70's.  Growing up in Northeast PA, both the Philadelphia and New York markets were considered our "local" market, so we got all the televised Yankee and Phillies games (Mets, too) on our cable TV, as well as all the games on local radio.  So I had a lot of exposure to both Hunter and Carlton during their prime.  I also saw a lot of Hunter with Oakland because the A's were often on the NBC "Game of the Week" on Saturday afternoons and Monday evenings, not to mention all of his post-season starts with Oakland during that timeframe.  I also had all the local newspaper coverage of the Yankees and Phillies, as well as being an avid reader of sports magazines and periodicals, such as Baseball Digest (my favorite back then), the Sporting News, Sports Illustrated, Sport magazine, etc.

At no time did I ever hear anybody contend that Steve Carlton was a better pitcher than Catfish Hunter.  Never.  Not once.

Surely, that must mean something.  Or did an entire generation of baseball fans, writers, "experts", etc. just completely miss the boat?

2/22/2012 5:45 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
So what?  Two years ago Jayson Stark said on the radio that he'd rather have Ryan Howard than Joey Votto.

We know better know.

What would seeing them pitch tell me that the stats don't?

2/22/2012 5:49 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 2/22/2012 5:50:00 PM (view original):
So what?  Two years ago Jayson Stark said on the radio that he'd rather have Ryan Howard than Joey Votto.

We know better know.

What would seeing them pitch tell me that the stats don't?

Two years ago, Ryan Howard had a ROY, and MVP and three other top-5 MVP finishes on his resume.  Votto had two full seasons and an MVP-22 finish on his.

That's hardly a comparable comparison to two pitchers whose careers started at roughly the same time and had concurrent primes.
2/22/2012 5:56 PM
Jtpsops
Posts: 15509 (0)
Hall of Famer
744 1 2 2 144
Prospect
Two years ago...so you mean before Votto won his MVP and before Howard ruptured his Achilles? A lot of people would have said that two years ago. I fail to see how that proves any kind of point.

And I don't think anyone is arguing that stats say nothing. What started this whole argument was that we need to trust guys who were there. It's easy for us to look back and say "so and so sucked! look at those stats!", but there are other things that jump out to people who watch games.

I hate Jeter - but I'll admit he's a hustler. There are very few guys in MLB who go full-on until a play is finished the way he does. Is that gonna show up in any stat 50 years down the road? No, but if some young kid in 50 years says "man, how'd Jeter get in the hall? Statistically, he looks pretty borderline to me!", you can bet some old guy is gonna say "are you kidding me? the guy was a leader! He won 5 rings, went to 7 WS and never stopped hustling! He's damn sure a HOFer!"

If I'm on the fence about someone I never saw play, and someone who was there says "sorry man, but he was the best there was back then" - I'll probably take that into account.
2/22/2012 5:56 PM
toddcommish
Posts: 5084 (0)
Hall of Famer
516 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 2/22/2012 5:50:00 PM (view original):
So what?  Two years ago Jayson Stark said on the radio that he'd rather have Ryan Howard than Joey Votto.

We know better know.

What would seeing them pitch tell me that the stats don't?

So you admit that you think you know more about baseball from a piece of paper than actually watching the game?
2/22/2012 5:56 PM
toddcommish
Posts: 5084 (0)
Hall of Famer
516 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
Posted by Jtpsops on 2/22/2012 5:56:00 PM (view original):
Two years ago...so you mean before Votto won his MVP and before Howard ruptured his Achilles? A lot of people would have said that two years ago. I fail to see how that proves any kind of point.

And I don't think anyone is arguing that stats say nothing. What started this whole argument was that we need to trust guys who were there. It's easy for us to look back and say "so and so sucked! look at those stats!", but there are other things that jump out to people who watch games.

I hate Jeter - but I'll admit he's a hustler. There are very few guys in MLB who go full-on until a play is finished the way he does. Is that gonna show up in any stat 50 years down the road? No, but if some young kid in 50 years says "man, how'd Jeter get in the hall? Statistically, he looks pretty borderline to me!", you can bet some old guy is gonna say "are you kidding me? the guy was a leader! He won 5 rings, went to 7 WS and never stopped hustling! He's damn sure a HOFer!"

If I'm on the fence about someone I never saw play, and someone who was there says "sorry man, but he was the best there was back then" - I'll probably take that into account.

Unless his name is MikeT23

2/22/2012 5:57 PM
◂ Prev 1...18|19|20|21|22...103 Next ▸
Throw the Bum Out - Hall of Fame Edition Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.