Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2017 3:11:00 PM (view original):
It's relatively pointless to argue this. You see, when Hunter signed with the Yanks, I said "So what? He's led the league in ERA once and wins once. For the best team in the American League. Dude doesn't throw hard or strike people out. I'm not sure he's that big of a deal."

Of course, I was 12, my brain wasn't fully formed and my understanding of baseball was that of a, well, 12 year old. It took a few years before I understood what it meant to take the ball every 4th/5th day, complete the game and pile up innings. He did those things very well. In fact, it was Hunter's inability to do those things that made me realize the importance. It was '78 or '79, one of the years after he started breaking down in '77, when the Yanks were running out washed ups or never was after Guidry and Figueroa to get starts. That's when I said "Damn, you need guys to take the ball and pitch when it's their turn." I was older and understood baseball a little better.

It's not the same now because starters are expected to go 5 or 6 and hand it over. Teams are build that way. They weren't in the 70s.

So, anyway, maybe BL doesn't have a fully formed brain or simply has the understanding of baseball like a 12 y/o.

Except, over his entire career, he didn’t throw a ton of innings.

230 IP/season (including half seasons at the beginning and end of his career) and over 7 IP/start.

What's your definition of a lot of innings?

Take away his partial season at age 19, and his last three seasons when he was battling injuries and health issues, he averaged 268 a season during his prime.

BL: "He didn't throw a ton of innings".

He threw 1000 more career IP's than the immortal Brad Radke.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/12/2017 4:15:00 PM (view original):
Take away his partial season at age 19, and his last three seasons when he was battling injuries and health issues, he averaged 268 a season during his prime.

BL: "He didn't throw a ton of innings".

Well, cool. But his short prime matters. Between 1965 and 1985, he's 13th in IP. That's above average but unremarkable, especially since he wasn't particularly good at preventing runs.

Mickey Lolich has more career IP than Hunter.

Hunter is 76th all time in IP. Again, good, but nothing special. Especially if you're making the case that his ability to eat innings is THE case for him in the Hall.

Now, you might argue, "well, that's not fair, obviously he isn't going to keep up with the turn of the century guys that threw 400 innings a season." Which is correct. But numbers 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 on the all time innings list were all guys whose careers started right at the same time as Hunter's. Even if you disregard Niekro, there's still Ryan, Perry, Sutton, and Carlton.

Blyleven, Seaver, and Tommy John all make the top 20.

Hunter's entire case is built on a myth.

He wasn't good at preventing runs. He didn't throw a lot of innings. There is no reason he should be in the Hall.

You do realize that Hunter retired at age 33 due to health reasons, correct?

All the other guys you listed pitched into their 40's. Some were deep into their 40's.

But thank you, Captain Obvious, for pointing out that pitchers with much longer careers threw more career innings. That's groundbreaking research right there. You can have a cookie.

In his prime, Hunter averaged 268 innings pitched a season.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/12/2017 5:22:00 PM (view original):
You do realize that Hunter retired at age 33 due to health reasons, correct?

All the other guys you listed pitched into their 40's. Some were deep into their 40's.

But thank you, Captain Obvious, for pointing out that pitchers with much longer careers threw more career innings. That's groundbreaking research right there. You can have a cookie.

In his prime, Hunter averaged 268 innings pitched a season.

----------------------

You do realize that Hunter retired at age 33 due to health reasons, correct?

Yeah. That's a problem for him. It hurts his HOF case.

All the other guys pitched into their 40's. Some were deep into their 40's.

Yeah. That's good for them. It helps their HOF cases.

In his prime, Hunter averaged 268 innings pitched a season.

Cool. His prime was relatively short. That matters.

For a guy who doesn't need to watch games because he has the stats, b_l sure doesn't understand much about numbers (or anything else).

Posted by tecwrg on 12/12/2017 5:22:00 PM (view original):
You do realize that Hunter retired at age 33 due to health reasons, correct?

All the other guys you listed pitched into their 40's. Some were deep into their 40's.

But thank you, Captain Obvious, for pointing out that pitchers with much longer careers threw more career innings. That's groundbreaking research right there. You can have a cookie.

In his prime, Hunter averaged 268 innings pitched a season.

No, he does not. He doesn't understand that teams don't really care how many innings retired pitchers don't throw. You know, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT FRIGGIN' PAYING THEM.

Seriously, this is a new level of stupid for BL.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2017 6:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/12/2017 5:22:00 PM (view original):
You do realize that Hunter retired at age 33 due to health reasons, correct?

All the other guys you listed pitched into their 40's. Some were deep into their 40's.

But thank you, Captain Obvious, for pointing out that pitchers with much longer careers threw more career innings. That's groundbreaking research right there. You can have a cookie.

In his prime, Hunter averaged 268 innings pitched a season.

No, he does not. He doesn't understand that teams don't really care how many innings retired pitchers don't throw. You know, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT FRIGGIN' PAYING THEM.

Seriously, this is a new level of stupid for BL.

What does that even mean?

If you're going to argue that a guy was an innings eater, he should, you know, eat innings. Throwing a lot of innings for 7 or 8 years and then breaking down doesn't help his case.

No, Mike's right. You've reached a new level of stupid.

Congrats.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/12/2017 6:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2017 6:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/12/2017 5:22:00 PM (view original):
You do realize that Hunter retired at age 33 due to health reasons, correct?

All the other guys you listed pitched into their 40's. Some were deep into their 40's.

But thank you, Captain Obvious, for pointing out that pitchers with much longer careers threw more career innings. That's groundbreaking research right there. You can have a cookie.

In his prime, Hunter averaged 268 innings pitched a season.

No, he does not. He doesn't understand that teams don't really care how many innings retired pitchers don't throw. You know, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT FRIGGIN' PAYING THEM.

Seriously, this is a new level of stupid for BL.

What does that even mean?

If you're going to argue that a guy was an innings eater, he should, you know, eat innings. Throwing a lot of innings for 7 or 8 years and then breaking down doesn't help his case.

Help his case for what? I'm not arguing for him in the HOF. He's there. I'm telling you WHY HE WAS CONSIDERED VALUABLE FROM 1969 TO 1976. And, because of that, you know, he was considered HOF-worthy.

Seriously, and I am expecting a response, on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being completely brain dead and 10 having a complete lack of understanding of pitching in the 70s, where would you put yourself?

"From the years 1980 to 2000, Hunter didn't throw a single inning. How in the hell can you put that guy in the HOF?" - BL circa any time in the new future