Has jrd answered one question in this thread yet? Everytime someone poses a question, he responds with a question or throws up some kind of smokescreen.

Posted by jrd_x on 2/24/2012 6:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/24/2012 6:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/24/2012 5:36:00 PM (view original):

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.

Hypothetical example.  Let's assume that both pitchers are contemporaries and in the same league; their careers overlap and they are facing common opponents:

Pitcher A:  8 seasons, 143-68 W/L record, 1898 IP, 2.69 ERA, 158 ERA+, 1.096 WHIP
Pitcher B: 13 seasons, 192-111 W/L record, 2776 IP, 3.06 ERA, 145 ERA+, 1.158 WHIP

Who's the better pitcher?  Who had the better career?

Those are either made up or incomplete sections of a career.  A career 158 ERA+ would be among the best all time.

Who is the better pitcher?  Who had the better career?

Quick, who's better, Randy Johnson or Addie Joss?

Anyone who knows anything about baseball would say Johnson was better.  Yet Addie beats him in almost every rate statistic.  Randy is better because he  was nearly as a good, and played twice as long.

I don't know.  Honestly.  I need more context than just that.

Pitcher A was extremely effective with an ERA+ of 158, which would be the best all time for starting pitchers.  But he only pitched 1800 innings.

Pitcher B was also extremely effective, his 145 ERA+ would also be among the best all time.  He threw more innings but had a higher ERA.

What additional context do you need?  You have said repeatedly that you can deduce who's better purely through the stats.

Please answer the questions: who is the better pitcher, and who had the better career?

But you aren't giving me all the stats.

Which one do you think had the better career?

If I had to choose one I'd probably take B.  His peak might have been just as good as A's, the additional 1000 innings or so might have just brought the totals down.

Posted by toddcommish on 2/24/2012 6:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thejuice6 on 2/24/2012 5:31:00 PM (view original):
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...)

Hey, juice, maybe you should start a league where half the teams take Carlton's best four years, and the other half take Hunter's best four.

Keep the lineups and the relievers static, and see who wins.

After all, the SIM is inherently a mathematical, probability driven algorithm.  Rather than depend on the personal observations of a bunch of cranky old farts or the statistical machinations of a bunch of socially stunted computer nerds, let Carlton and Hunter duel it out in the WIS arena.

That's an idea, Todd but I'm not sure I could find 12 suckers who will take Carlton...lol.

What additional stats do you need?

Using the FIP calculation (using the 3.10) on this page, I have player A with 2.87 FIP and player B with 3.07 FIP.

What else do you need?

Posted by jrd_x on 2/24/2012 6:51:00 PM (view original):
Which one do you think had the better career?

If I had to choose one I'd probably take B.  His peak might have been just as good as A's, the additional 1000 innings or so might have just brought the totals down.

I'm asking you.

Are you taking B for both better pitcher and better career?

Sure, I'll take B.  The FIPs aren't very far apart, and a 143 ERA+ over 2700 innings is probably more valuable than a 158 over 1800 innings.

Those are obviously not complete careers, so who are they?

I'll let you know shortly.

So despite player A having better numbers across the board, including in all of the key metrics you adhere to, you are saying that player B is the better pitcher.

How much degradation must a player with a longer career have over a player with across the board better numbers over a shorter career have before you will consider the shorter guy being better?

What if player B's ERA+ was 135?  125?  115?  105?  With all the other stats similarly downgraded?

I don't know.  I'm under the assumption that we aren't seeing player A's decline phase.  Also guessing that we are seeing at least some of player B's decline phase.

Without knowing if those are full career numbers or just excerpts, I really can't do much more than just guess.

As I said, for the purposes of this hypothetical assume it's complete career numbers for player A and player B.  Maybe both of their hypothetical careers were abruptly cut short due to injury.

If I ever say "He played longer.   He was better", I beg someone to put me down.

It's not like we're talking Mark Fidyrich.   Hunter pitched 3449 innings.   He wasn't some one year wonder who flamed out.