Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2012 12:26:00 PM (view original):
In other words, the only thing a pitcher can do that impacts the number of hits he allows is to strike batters out.

Do you realize how completely and utterly retarded that is?

It might sound retarded but it isn't.

And it definitely isn't as retarded as choosing 8 peak years of Clemens' career over those same 8 years plus 5 more very good years.

So you admit that your argument sounds retarded?

It might, to someone that would rather have 8 years of Clemens over the same 8 years plus 5 more very good years of Clemens.

jrd, you lost credibility pages ago - it's just morbidly fun watching you argue and circles and switch the focus of the debate everytime someone points out a fallacy or inconsistency in your argument. If you want to argue Carlton is better than Hunter, that's fine - that's a matter of opinion. But the "evidence" you're offering in support of it - pulling fluffy stats, citing his longevity and K's, saying pitchers have no control over a batted ball - is what is making you look like a complete fool.

Somebody who is unable to comprehend the meaning of "hypothetical" might come across that way as well.

Somebody who places their entire belief system and understanding of baseball in obscure statistics that have little to no relevance with respect to player performance, while disregarding more meaningful statistics and personal observation might come across that way as well.

Somebody who is unable to intelligently refute cold hard facts without resorting to repeating a mantra of "my guy is better" might come across that way as well.

Just sayin'.

I won't say WAR is an all-encompassing stat, but it's pretty close.  I'll compare Hunter and Carlton in terms of WAR, going from best year to worst.

Carlton:  12.2  9.4  7.2  5.8  5.7  5.5  5.4  4.6  4.5  4.3  3.7  2.9  2.8  2.6  2.5  2.3  2.3  2.2  1.2  0.8  0.6  0.5  -0.2  -0.5  -0.8  -1.0  -2.1
Hunter:    7.6   6.4  5.7  4.0  2.8  2.2  1.7  1.2  1.1  0.8  0.6  0.0 -0.3 -0.6 -0.7

That's pretty convincing.  And in their best seasons, Carlton beats Hunter in virtually every statistical category.

This is a list of the top ten pitchers by BABIP since 1960, min 2500 innings pitched:

Posted by jm1618 on 2/25/2012 1:07:00 PM (view original):
I won't say WAR is an all-encompassing stat, but it's pretty close.  I'll compare Hunter and Carlton in terms of WAR, going from best year to worst.

Carlton:  12.2  9.4  7.2  5.8  5.7  5.5  5.4  4.6  4.5  4.3  3.7  2.9  2.8  2.6  2.5  2.3  2.3  2.2  1.2  0.8  0.6  0.5  -0.2  -0.5  -0.8  -1.0  -2.1
Hunter:    7.6   6.4  5.7  4.0  2.8  2.2  1.7  1.2  1.1  0.8  0.6  0.0 -0.3 -0.6 -0.7

That's pretty convincing.  And in their best seasons, Carlton beats Hunter in virtually every statistical category.

If they won't go for FIP, it's unlikely the flat earthers are going to accept WAR.

tecwrg, your hypothetical shows that two pitchers can be equal during their prime, but one's rate stats can be brought down by continuing to pitch beyond their prime, still at major league quality.

Posted by jrd_x on 2/25/2012 1:08:00 PM (view original):
This is a list of the top ten pitchers by BABIP since 1960, min 2500 innings pitched:

Catfish Hunter

Jim Palmer

Charlie Hough

Tom Seaver

Dave Stieb

Mel Stottlemyre

Juan Marichal

Don Sutton

Luis Tiant

Mike Cuellar

Here is a list of the top ten pitchers by FIP since 1960, min 2500 innings pitched:

Bob Gibson
Pedro Martinez
Don Drysdale
Nolan Ryan
Tom Seaver
Juan Marichal
Jim Bunning
Gaylord Perry
Roger Clemens
Steve Carlton

I don't know about you, since you think that 8 years of Clemens is better than 13 years of Clemens, but to me, the second list looks a lot better than the first.

I guess Jim Bunning was a better pitcher than Greg Maddux, since the all-perfect FIP has Bunning in the top-10 while Maddux is shut-out.

Too bad all those hacky sportswriters denied Bunning all those CYAs he deserved in the 60's, while they stupidly gave that POS Maddux four straight in the 90's.

I'm feeling so enlightened right now.

Posted by jm1618 on 2/25/2012 1:15:00 PM (view original):
tecwrg, your hypothetical shows that two pitchers can be equal during their prime, but one's rate stats can be brought down by continuing to pitch beyond their prime, still at major league quality.

That's not what it represented at all.  The assumption was two different pitchers whose careers ended due to injury while still in their primes, before decline.  One pitched for 8 seasons at a higher level of performance than the other who pitched for 13 seasons.

The fact that both stat lines were taken from the same real player has no bearing on the hypothetical.  It was just a source for getting some realistic numbers.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/24/2012 7:24:00 PM (view original):
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.

Bullsh*t.  You said maybe both careers were cut short but that these were complete careers.

Even if they had been different pitchers whose careers were cut short, B's peak was just as good as A's and then he pitched another 1000 innings.  There is no way anyone could ever argue that A was the better pitcher.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2012 1:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jm1618 on 2/25/2012 1:15:00 PM (view original):
tecwrg, your hypothetical shows that two pitchers can be equal during their prime, but one's rate stats can be brought down by continuing to pitch beyond their prime, still at major league quality.

That's not what it represented at all.  The assumption was two different pitchers whose careers ended due to injury while still in their primes, before decline.  One pitched for 8 seasons at a higher level of performance than the other who pitched for 13 seasons.

The fact that both stat lines were taken from the same real player has no bearing on the hypothetical.  It was just a source for getting some realistic numbers.

Whether or not a player is in their prime is not black and white.  Players generally enter the major leagues, get better until they reach their primes, and then gradually decline.  Years 9-13 are not going to be as good as years 1-8.  This just demonstrates how we shouldn't put too much stock in cumulative rate stats when comparing careers of different lengths.

If a player's career ends due to injury, would it not be completed at that point?

And without seeing individual seasons, how can you say for sure that B's peak was just as good as A's?  Perhaps A was just a little bit better than B every season they played.  Which means that for any/every given season, A was the better pitcher.

My God, you are dense.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2012 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/25/2012 1:08:00 PM (view original):
This is a list of the top ten pitchers by BABIP since 1960, min 2500 innings pitched:

Catfish Hunter

Jim Palmer

Charlie Hough

Tom Seaver

Dave Stieb

Mel Stottlemyre

Juan Marichal

Don Sutton

Luis Tiant

Mike Cuellar

Here is a list of the top ten pitchers by FIP since 1960, min 2500 innings pitched:

Bob Gibson
Pedro Martinez
Don Drysdale
Nolan Ryan
Tom Seaver
Juan Marichal
Jim Bunning
Gaylord Perry
Roger Clemens
Steve Carlton

I don't know about you, since you think that 8 years of Clemens is better than 13 years of Clemens, but to me, the second list looks a lot better than the first.

I guess Jim Bunning was a better pitcher than Greg Maddux, since the all-perfect FIP has Bunning in the top-10 while Maddux is shut-out.

Too bad all those hacky sportswriters denied Bunning all those CYAs he deserved in the 60's, while they stupidly gave that POS Maddux four straight in the 90's.

I'm feeling so enlightened right now.

No one has ever argued that FIP is an all perfect stat.  It's just better than WHIP (and ERA) because they are both so dependent on factors outside of the pitcher's control.

Greg Maddux is something like 19th on the FIP list, just a few hundredths below Bunning.   Meanwhile, Charlie Hough, Dave Stieb, and Mel Stottlemyre are AWESOME at controlling balls in play.