Posted by MikeT23 on 2/19/2012 5:58:00 PM (view original):
IOW, Hunter gave up one more earned run per month over 15 seasons.

If you account for his increased HRA per 9 when given run support, I'm not sure that's even a point.

In fact, I'd say "It's not".

Same pitcher.

Posted by jrd_x on 2/19/2012 5:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/19/2012 5:25:00 PM (view original):
I thought that using ERA as a barometer for pitching went out of vogue around 25 years ago.

What next . . . a discussion about batting average?

FIP is much better but Mike doesn't understand it so he doesn't want to use it.  What say you tec?  You think Hunter was better than Carlton?

Posted by jrd_x on 2/19/2012 6:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/19/2012 5:58:00 PM (view original):
IOW, Hunter gave up one more earned run per month over 15 seasons.

If you account for his increased HRA per 9 when given run support, I'm not sure that's even a point.

In fact, I'd say "It's not".

Same pitcher.

You are absolutely, g*dd*mn, motherf*cking retarded.  

Posted by tecwrg on 2/19/2012 6:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/19/2012 5:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/19/2012 5:25:00 PM (view original):
I thought that using ERA as a barometer for pitching went out of vogue around 25 years ago.

What next . . . a discussion about batting average?

FIP is much better but Mike doesn't understand it so he doesn't want to use it.  What say you tec?  You think Hunter was better than Carlton?

I think they were comparable during their prime years.  Carlton just pitched a lot longer.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/19/2012 6:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/19/2012 5:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/19/2012 5:25:00 PM (view original):
I thought that using ERA as a barometer for pitching went out of vogue around 25 years ago.

What next . . . a discussion about batting average?

FIP is much better but Mike doesn't understand it so he doesn't want to use it.  What say you tec?  You think Hunter was better than Carlton?

I think they were comparable during their prime years.  Carlton just pitched a lot longer.

I don't know about you, but I grew up watching baseball in the 70's.  The pitchers who were generally considered the "best" pitchers at that time (disregarding how history and stat-nerds might look back at them now, nearly 40 years later) were Hunter and Palmer in the AL, and Seaver and Carlton in the NL.  

At no time, when both were pitching and were in their prime, did I ever hear of Carlton being generally regarded as better than Hunter.  They were both top-notch pitchers, and were regarded pretty similarly.  Hunter had the advantage of pitching for better teams and won three rings.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/19/2012 6:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/19/2012 6:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/19/2012 5:58:00 PM (view original):
IOW, Hunter gave up one more earned run per month over 15 seasons.

If you account for his increased HRA per 9 when given run support, I'm not sure that's even a point.

In fact, I'd say "It's not".

Same pitcher.

You are absolutely, g*dd*mn, motherf*cking retarded.  

HAHA!   I'm almost positive that you're a lefthanded dicksucker.

Confirm or deny!!!!

Posted by jrd_x on 2/19/2012 6:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/19/2012 6:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/19/2012 5:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/19/2012 5:25:00 PM (view original):
I thought that using ERA as a barometer for pitching went out of vogue around 25 years ago.

What next . . . a discussion about batting average?

FIP is much better but Mike doesn't understand it so he doesn't want to use it.  What say you tec?  You think Hunter was better than Carlton?

I think they were comparable during their prime years.  Carlton just pitched a lot longer.

Isn't there a ton of value in pitching a lot longer?

If you focus on quantity and not quality, yes.  But the question is: who is the better pitcher, Hunter or Carlton?  And in their prime, the correct answer would be: neither.  They were very comparable.

Sandy Koufax's prime lasted five, maybe six seasons (depends on how you want to classify his '61 season).  Would you argue that Carlton in his prime was a better pitcher than Koufax in his prime, because Carlton's prime lasted longer?

If I had to guess, I'd say jrd_x is probably in his early 20's and thinks because he understands FiP and VORP and other arcane recent stats that he somehow thinks he has a deeper understanding of baseball.

Those of us who actually watched baseball in the 70's and read the accounts of the contemporary players and sportswriters know that (as tec pointed out) Hunter and Palmer were considered the best pitchers in the AL.  Carlton and Seaver likely suffered by comparison because their teams rarely made the playoffs and before the advent of cable, weren't seen by the entire country, although one can argue that the two biggest media markets on the East Coast put them in the Game of the Week spotlight more than they deserved.

Personally, I put more weight on playoff performances (which has started arguments in the football thread) than regular season stats against the Padres and the Cubs.  Hunter's postseason whip is 1.13 (identical to his regular season), Carlton's postseason whip is 1.48, up from his regular season 1.25.  so Hunter was a great pitcher who pitched great against the best teams on the biggest stage.  Carlton was a very good pitcher for a lonnnnnng time, that pitched worse against the best teams.

Posted by toddcommish on 2/19/2012 11:24:00 PM (view original):

If I had to guess, I'd say jrd_x is probably in his early 20's and thinks because he understands FiP and VORP and other arcane recent stats that he somehow thinks he has a deeper understanding of baseball.

Those of us who actually watched baseball in the 70's and read the accounts of the contemporary players and sportswriters know that (as tec pointed out) Hunter and Palmer were considered the best pitchers in the AL.  Carlton and Seaver likely suffered by comparison because their teams rarely made the playoffs and before the advent of cable, weren't seen by the entire country, although one can argue that the two biggest media markets on the East Coast put them in the Game of the Week spotlight more than they deserved.

Personally, I put more weight on playoff performances (which has started arguments in the football thread) than regular season stats against the Padres and the Cubs.  Hunter's postseason whip is 1.13 (identical to his regular season), Carlton's postseason whip is 1.48, up from his regular season 1.25.  so Hunter was a great pitcher who pitched great against the best teams on the biggest stage.  Carlton was a very good pitcher for a lonnnnnng time, that pitched worse against the best teams.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/19/2012 6:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/19/2012 6:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/19/2012 6:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/19/2012 5:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/19/2012 5:25:00 PM (view original):
I thought that using ERA as a barometer for pitching went out of vogue around 25 years ago.

What next . . . a discussion about batting average?

FIP is much better but Mike doesn't understand it so he doesn't want to use it.  What say you tec?  You think Hunter was better than Carlton?

I think they were comparable during their prime years.  Carlton just pitched a lot longer.

Isn't there a ton of value in pitching a lot longer?

If you focus on quantity and not quality, yes.  But the question is: who is the better pitcher, Hunter or Carlton?  And in their prime, the correct answer would be: neither.  They were very comparable.

Sandy Koufax's prime lasted five, maybe six seasons (depends on how you want to classify his '61 season).  Would you argue that Carlton in his prime was a better pitcher than Koufax in his prime, because Carlton's prime lasted longer?