And FIP covers strikeouts, walks and homeruns which, in 2011, constituted around 29.1% of all plate appearances.  It COMPLETELY IGNORES the other 70.9% of what happens in a game.

I'd take Carlton, even in a one game scenario.  Just using old school stats, I think Hunter benefitted more from his home stadiums:

	IP	K/9	NIBB/9	H/9	HR/9	ERA	WHIP
Hunter - Home	1,871.0	5.5	2.2	7.2	0.8	2.70	1.06
Hunter - Road	1,578.1	4.9	2.5	8.3	1.1	3.92	1.23
Carlton - Home	2,655.2	7.2	2.9	7.8	0.7	3.05	1.20
Carlton - Road	2,562.0	7.0	3.0	8.4	0.8	3.39	1.29

Posted by tecwrg on 2/24/2012 5:03:00 PM (view original):
And FIP covers strikeouts, walks and homeruns which, in 2011, constituted around 29.1% of all plate appearances.  It COMPLETELY IGNORES the other 70.9% of what happens in a game.

The fact that 3 of every 10 PAs in MLB was either a walk, whiff or homer is just sad.  Somewhere Ty Cobb is turning over in his grave.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/24/2012 4:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/24/2012 4:54:00 PM (view original):
FIP is much more relevant than ERA or WHIP.

You haven't shown a shred of evidence that Hunter was as good as Carlton. 

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

Didn't you just say those stats weren't any good?

Carlton's ERA+ for his first 3400 innings was 119.  That's 14 percent (yes, ERA+ is scaled to percents) better than Hunter's 105 ERA+ over the same period.

Carlton's FIP for his career is 3.15, significantly better than Hunter's 3.66, and that spans Carlton's entire career, not just his first 3400 innings.

Man, you guys stat-nerded this one all to hell and beyond.........

E, are we really playing the "if we subtract" game now?

Carlton was 225-160 from 1965-79.  If you subtract his 5 best seasons, he's 108-113. Seems right on par with Hunter, wouldn't you say?

Posted by jrd_x on 2/24/2012 5:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/24/2012 4:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/24/2012 4:54:00 PM (view original):
FIP is much more relevant than ERA or WHIP.

You haven't shown a shred of evidence that Hunter was as good as Carlton. 

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

Didn't you just say those stats weren't any good?

Carlton's ERA+ for his first 3400 innings was 119.  That's 14 percent (yes, ERA+ is scaled to percents) better than Hunter's 105 ERA+ over the same period.

Carlton's FIP for his career is 3.15, significantly better than Hunter's 3.66, and that spans Carlton's entire career, not just his first 3400 innings.

I said ERA was not good.  Take that out and you have near identical W/L records, with Hunter having a better WHIP.

You can disregard WHIP if you want.  Just as I disregard FIP.  I think most rational people who understand what both of them represent would take WHIP over FIP.

WHIP is all Hunter has.  Every other stat goes Carlton's way.  And then he threw another 1800 innings.  This isn't even close.

This may be news to you, but WHIP is kind of important.  It means runners getting on base.

How did Carlton's last 1800 IP's affect his first 3400?  Why do you keep going back to that?

Because he knows it forces us to agree Carlton had the better career. Which distracts from the fact he still doesn't know what "quality" means.

Because there is value to innings pitched.  Having the ability to throw 5200 innings as opposed to 3400 is a big deal.  To do it with a better ERA, ERA+, FIP, k rate and HR rate makes you a much better pitcher.

I agree that Carlton had the better career.  I've never disputed that.  But he was not a better pitcher.

Why can't jrd comprehend that?

Posted by jrd_x on 2/24/2012 5:27:00 PM (view original):
Because there is value to innings pitched.  Having the ability to throw 5200 innings as opposed to 3400 is a big deal.  To do it with a better ERA, ERA+, FIP, k rate and HR rate makes you a much better pitcher.

Only if the stats you focus are are relevant to overall quality.  Which they are not.

Carlton "may" have been a better pitcher in real life, but here in the SIM, if I needed one victory and had my choice of the two, I'd go with Hunter.  Hell, I'd go with Cory Lidle over Carlton.  Hell, I'd even go with Tim Wakefield over Carlton.  The man has got to be the most "under-achieving" pitcher in the database!

(and that's all I'm adding to this 38+ pages of drivel...)

Posted by tecwrg on 2/24/2012 5:28:00 PM (view original):

I agree that Carlton had the better career.  I've never disputed that.  But he was not a better pitcher.

Why can't jrd comprehend that?

You can't have a better career without being the better pitcher.