Posted by Jtpsops on 2/24/2012 12:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by smeric on 2/24/2012 12:11:00 AM (view original):
No **** Sherlock ... But two pitchers with essentially the same stat lines with one pitching substantially longer *is* obviously the better pitcher overall

Ok there, Watson.

If you have two guys with the exact same abilities, and pitcher A throws 3,000 IP and retires dealing with health issues, while pitcher B goes on to throw 5,000...they're still equally good pitchers. Player B was healthier and definitely had the better career. But he was not the better PITCHER.

Again, not a difficult concept. But yet I'm not shocked you're having trouble with it.

Carlton in his prime = Hunter in his prime.

Your constant denial of that doesn't change the reality.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/24/2012 8:52:00 AM (view original):

Carlton in his prime = Hunter in his prime.

Your constant denial of that doesn't change the reality.

Posted by jrd_x on 2/24/2012 9:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/24/2012 8:52:00 AM (view original):

Carlton in his prime = Hunter in his prime.

Your constant denial of that doesn't change the reality.

1. Over the same 3200 innings, Carlton was better.
2. I haven't checked but even if they were the exact same pitcher for a two or three year span, Carlton's ability to continue to pitch at a high level for another 1800 innings easily makes him the better pitcher.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/24/2012 10:25:00 AM (view original):
Hunter's career (1965 - 1979) through age 33:  224-166 W/L, 3449 IP, 3.26 ERA, 1.134 WHIP.

Carlton's career (1965 - 1979) through age 34: 225-160 W/L. 3485 IP, 3.08 ERA, 1.225 WHIP

They were the same pitcher.  Then, Carlton pitched another 1732 IPs.

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/24/2012 10:31:00 AM (view original):
I'll take the better WHIP guy any day of the week.

And again, 900 of those 1732 IP were good, at best. Not great, not "high level", etc. If we're merely rewarding the accumulation of innings, Jamie Moyer should be in the hall. From 83-88, Carlton did not put up great, or HOF numbers.

At least smeric had the sense to stop posting when he was proven wrong.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/24/2012 6:56:00 AM (view original):
It really boils down to this:

Do you want a guy who pitches very good for 15 seasons or the guy who has some very good seasons mixed in with some off years at the end of his career?

I'm not big on how teams spend their money but Carlton's highest paid seasons came when he was horrible.    He compiled more numbers(and money) while being a drag on his team.    How does that make him better?   No one would have missed Carlton after 83-84.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/24/2012 10:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/24/2012 6:56:00 AM (view original):
It really boils down to this:

Do you want a guy who pitches very good for 15 seasons or the guy who has some very good seasons mixed in with some off years at the end of his career?

I'm not big on how teams spend their money but Carlton's highest paid seasons came when he was horrible.    He compiled more numbers(and money) while being a drag on his team.    How does that make him better?   No one would have missed Carlton after 83-84.

This.

If you take into account post-season, I'd take Hunter's 15 over Carlton's first 15.  All day.    If I could have Carlton 1980-1983 without 1984-88, then there's a debate.

Keep in mind that Hunter had to contend with a DH for half his career.  Carlton did not.

Posted by tecwrg2 on 2/24/2012 6:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by smeric on 2/23/2012 11:43:00 PM (view original):
If they were "equally as good" they would have had equally long careers. It's not a difficult concept.

Quantity <> quality.

An analogy: you and your wife/girlfriend/whoever go out to dinner one night.  You both order the same item from the menu.  You get the full entree, but she only orders the half-portion.  Which one tastes better?

jrd continues to confuse "more" with "better".

I'll refer back to my analogy above and would be interested in jrd's answer.

Posted by jrd_x on 2/24/2012 10:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/24/2012 10:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/24/2012 6:56:00 AM (view original):
It really boils down to this:

Do you want a guy who pitches very good for 15 seasons or the guy who has some very good seasons mixed in with some off years at the end of his career?

I'm not big on how teams spend their money but Carlton's highest paid seasons came when he was horrible.    He compiled more numbers(and money) while being a drag on his team.    How does that make him better?   No one would have missed Carlton after 83-84.

This.

If you take into account post-season, I'd take Hunter's 15 over Carlton's first 15.  All day.    If I could have Carlton 1980-1983 without 1984-88, then there's a debate.

Keep in mind that Hunter had to contend with a DH for half his career.  Carlton did not.

But you can't take some seasons and not others.  You get them all, including Hunter's last three and Carlton's last three.

You're free to choose Hunter's entire career over Carlton's, but that says a hell of a lot more about you than it does Hunter.