Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2012 3:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/25/2012 3:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2012 3:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/25/2012 3:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2012 3:07:00 PM (view original):
I've said repeatedly that Carlton had a better career.  He was just not a better pitcher.

I hate to just now break it to you after 45 pages, but the guy with the better career is the better pitcher.

Who had the better career . . . Jamie Moyer or Sandy Koufax?

Koufax.  IP is the only advantage Moyer has and it makes it closer than it probably should be (career BR WAR 54.5 for Koufax vs 47.3 for Moyer) but Koufax was the better pitcher.

Moyer pitched for 24 years and won 267 games as a major league pitcher.  Koufax pitched for only 12 seasons.  One could argue that Moyer had a better career by virtue of being able to pitch at an effective level until age 47.

But no one's arguing that, so it's a moot point.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2012 3:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/25/2012 3:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2012 3:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/25/2012 3:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2012 3:07:00 PM (view original):
I've said repeatedly that Carlton had a better career.  He was just not a better pitcher.

I hate to just now break it to you after 45 pages, but the guy with the better career is the better pitcher.

Who had the better career . . . Jamie Moyer or Sandy Koufax?

Koufax.  IP is the only advantage Moyer has and it makes it closer than it probably should be (career BR WAR 54.5 for Koufax vs 47.3 for Moyer) but Koufax was the better pitcher.

Moyer pitched for 24 years and won 267 games as a major league pitcher.  Koufax pitched for only 12 seasons.  One could argue that Moyer had a better career by virtue of being able to pitch at an effective level until age 47.

Well you could but Koufax was so much better for his twelve seasons that he is able to overcome Moyer's IP advantage.

Posted by jm1618 on 2/25/2012 3:20:00 PM (view original):
"The discussion at hand is Hunter's career vs. Carlton's career through 1979"

OK, I'll compare them again, but this time exclude Carlton's seasons after 1979.

Carlton:  12.2  7.2  5.8  4.6  4.5  4.3  3.7  2.9  2.8  2.6  2.5  2.3  0.6  0.5
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

Carlton STILL beats Hunter in WAR, every single year.

Please don't ignore this, either.

Posted by jrd_x on 2/25/2012 3:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2012 3:36:00 PM (view original):

How can something that measures a completely uncontrollable result add context to anything?

Once again, you're trying to have it both ways . . . (1) BABIP measures uncontrollable results; and (2) BABIP can be used to show a trend.

I'll ask again . . . do you realize how completely and utterly retarded that sounds?

Just because the pitcher can't control it doesn't mean we don't need to know what happened.  BABIP varies due to defense and luck.  It is good to know which pitchers benefited from defense and luck and which pitchers didn't.

Once again, you're trying to have it both ways . . . (1) BABIP measures uncontrollable results; and (2) BABIP can be used to show us what happened.

I'll ask again . . . do you realize how completely and utterly retarded that sounds?

Think about it, it doesn't sound that retarded.  BABIP is basically a measure of luck.  We can use it to determine which pitchers benefited from luck, and which pitchers earned their value on skill.

jm...Hunter and Carlton aside, can you at least agree it's possible for Pitcher A to have a better overall career than Pitcher B, but for Pitcher B to still be the better pitcher? That's the root of this. jrd is not getting the quantity vs quality debate. He's said repeatedly that a pitcher with a better CAREER is automatically the better pitcher overall. That's just not true.

So Catfish Hunter, with the best BABIP in MLB over the past 50 years (pitchers > 2500 IP) was lucky for 15 years?

Is that what we're going with?

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/25/2012 3:58:00 PM (view original):
jm...Hunter and Carlton aside, can you at least agree it's possible for Pitcher A to have a better overall career than Pitcher B, but for Pitcher B to still be the better pitcher? That's the root of this. jrd is not getting the quantity vs quality debate. He's said repeatedly that a pitcher with a better CAREER is automatically the better pitcher overall. That's just not true.

Then we're basically arguing over a technicality.  I'd say that longevity is a quality of a good pitcher, just like control and speed.

So Moyer should be in the HOF then?

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/25/2012 4:06:00 PM (view original):
So Moyer should be in the HOF then?

You can't get in the HOF on longevity alone.  If Moyer was more effective during his career, I'd say he'd be worth consideration.

Posted by tecwrg2 on 2/25/2012 4:00:00 PM (view original):
So Catfish Hunter, with the best BABIP in MLB over the past 50 years (pitchers > 2500 IP) was lucky for 15 years?

Is that what we're going with?

He's luckier than anyone over the past 50 years with more than 2500 IP.  Someone has to be the luckiest.

I'm sorry, but this is all so stupid. The insinuation that BABIP is based on luck is = to saying that batting average is based on luck. That a hitter just strolls up to the plate and swings, and once he makes contact, he has no control over which direction the ball goes in, how hard it's hit, etc.

So in other words, Ty Cobb was just the luckiest hitter that ever lived.

Posted by jm1618 on 2/25/2012 4:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg2 on 2/25/2012 4:00:00 PM (view original):
So Catfish Hunter, with the best BABIP in MLB over the past 50 years (pitchers > 2500 IP) was lucky for 15 years?

Is that what we're going with?

He's luckier than anyone over the past 50 years with more than 2500 IP.  Someone has to be the luckiest.

Coincidentally, it's the HOF pitcher we're debating.

Weird, huh?

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/25/2012 4:24:00 PM (view original):
I'm sorry, but this is all so stupid. The insinuation that BABIP is based on luck is = to saying that batting average is based on luck. That a hitter just strolls up to the plate and swings, and once he makes contact, he has no control over which direction the ball goes in, how hard it's hit, etc.

So in other words, Ty Cobb was just the luckiest hitter that ever lived.

No, that's not what he's saying at all.

He's saying that the pitchers who threw to him were unlucky over the course of 24 years and 13,000+ plate appearances.  No skill involved at all on anybody's part.

I'd agree that BABIP isn't a perfect measure of luck.  But it would seem that the batter has more control over which direction the ball goes than the pitcher.