Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2017 7:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/12/2017 7:17:00 PM (view original):
Ok, but we're evaluating the value that Hunter delivered with innings, starts, complete games etc. To gauge that, we need to compare him to other pitchers.

Would it be accurate to narrow the focus to just the years where Hunter was in his prime and end up excluding the years where other pitchers were in their primes (or at least cutting off a significant portion of their careers)?

Was he pitching against 1888 Silver King? We know how long Hunter's career spanned. That's who he pitched against. That was the player pool that teams had to choose from. MLB is not SLB. 1888 Silver King was not available in 1972.

What the **** are you talking about???

All pitchers in a given era don't start their careers on the same day. They don't all end their careers on the same day. They don't have their peaks at the same time of for the same amount of seasons.

To accurately compare pitchers in a era, you have to expand the years to account for that. For instance, Tommy John pitched from 63 to 89. He is a contemporary of Hunter. They should be compared to each other along with other pitchers in the era.

If you only run the comparison from 66-76, you get Hunter's prime, but you miss the second half of John's career, including the four years he was in the top 10 in Cy Young voting.

Get it?

I already know the answer to this question, but I feel compelled to ask it anyway.

Do you realize how stupid you look in this forum when you attempt to make these retarded arguments?

Actually any comparisons are unnecessary. During the time he pitched, he pitched well, he pitched a lot of innings and he won games. So at that time he was one of the best. I don't go for all the era comparing horse ****. You watch a guy play and you can tell if he's any good.

None of those facts are relevant to BL, the expert on 1970's baseball.

I am trying, while recognizing that you denser than iron, to explain why Hunter was valued during HIS career and why he was considered HOF-worthy during HIS career. No one, but you, cares what pitcher A did in 1957 or Pitcher B did in 1983. If their careers overlapped with Hunter's, fantastic. Compare those years to Hunter.

I know you want understand this but teams build rosters on players that are available to them. No one wanted 11 y/o Catfish in 1957 or washed up Hunter in 1983. What Tommy John did in the 10 years after Hunter retired is not relevant.

I'd say "I have no idea why you think you get to dictate the terms of every discussion" but I do. You're a pompous *** with a very narrow viewpoint. You can't fathom that there MIGHT be a different way to see things. There is no way that this is your real-life personality. If it is, you shouldn't have contact with people you don't know. And, I imagine, the people you do know cringe when you enter a discussion.

I don't go for his horse **** either. Don't spout stat comparisons from a guy you never saw play and decide whether or not he was good.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2017 9:09:00 PM (view original):
I am trying, while recognizing that you denser than iron, to explain why Hunter was valued during HIS career and why he was considered HOF-worthy during HIS career. No one, but you, cares what pitcher A did in 1957 or Pitcher B did in 1983. If their careers overlapped with Hunter's, fantastic. Compare those years to Hunter.

I know you want understand this but teams build rosters on players that are available to them. No one wanted 11 y/o Catfish in 1957 or washed up Hunter in 1983. What Tommy John did in the 10 years after Hunter retired is not relevant.

I'd say "I have no idea why you think you get to dictate the terms of every discussion" but I do. You're a pompous *** with a very narrow viewpoint. You can't fathom that there MIGHT be a different way to see things. There is no way that this is your real-life personality. If it is, you shouldn't have contact with people you don't know. And, I imagine, the people you do know cringe when you enter a discussion.

Holy **** you love to try to pretend you’re smart.

Try this, dummy. I already said that how Hunter was viewed in his time doesn’t interest me. I don’t give a **** if idiots thought he was the greatest pitcher ever.

It’s irrelevant to the question of whether or not he was actually a great pitcher. If that’s not a question that interests you, door’s on the left. You’re free to leave.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/12/2017 7:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2017 7:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/12/2017 7:17:00 PM (view original):
Ok, but we're evaluating the value that Hunter delivered with innings, starts, complete games etc. To gauge that, we need to compare him to other pitchers.

Would it be accurate to narrow the focus to just the years where Hunter was in his prime and end up excluding the years where other pitchers were in their primes (or at least cutting off a significant portion of their careers)?

Was he pitching against 1888 Silver King? We know how long Hunter's career spanned. That's who he pitched against. That was the player pool that teams had to choose from. MLB is not SLB. 1888 Silver King was not available in 1972.

What the **** are you talking about???

All pitchers in a given era don't start their careers on the same day. They don't all end their careers on the same day. They don't have their peaks at the same time of for the same amount of seasons.

To accurately compare pitchers in a era, you have to expand the years to account for that. For instance, Tommy John pitched from 63 to 89. He is a contemporary of Hunter. They should be compared to each other along with other pitchers in the era.

If you only run the comparison from 66-76, you get Hunter's prime, but you miss the second half of John's career, including the four years he was in the top 10 in Cy Young voting.

Get it?

And, clearly, you don’t get it.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/12/2017 9:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2017 9:09:00 PM (view original):
I am trying, while recognizing that you denser than iron, to explain why Hunter was valued during HIS career and why he was considered HOF-worthy during HIS career. No one, but you, cares what pitcher A did in 1957 or Pitcher B did in 1983. If their careers overlapped with Hunter's, fantastic. Compare those years to Hunter.

I know you want understand this but teams build rosters on players that are available to them. No one wanted 11 y/o Catfish in 1957 or washed up Hunter in 1983. What Tommy John did in the 10 years after Hunter retired is not relevant.

I'd say "I have no idea why you think you get to dictate the terms of every discussion" but I do. You're a pompous *** with a very narrow viewpoint. You can't fathom that there MIGHT be a different way to see things. There is no way that this is your real-life personality. If it is, you shouldn't have contact with people you don't know. And, I imagine, the people you do know cringe when you enter a discussion.

Holy **** you love to try to pretend you’re smart.

Try this, dummy. I already said that how Hunter was viewed in his time doesn’t interest me. I don’t give a **** if idiots thought he was the greatest pitcher ever.

It’s irrelevant to the question of whether or not he was actually a great pitcher. If that’s not a question that interests you, door’s on the left. You’re free to leave.

"I already said that how Hunter was viewed in his time doesn’t interest me.'


I'd say "I have no idea why you think you get to dictate the terms of every discussion" but I do. You're a pompous *** with a very narrow viewpoint. You can't fathom that there MIGHT be a different way to see things. There is no way that this is your real-life personality. If it is, you shouldn't have contact with people you don't know. And, I imagine, the people you do know cringe when you enter a discussion.

LOf'inL. Jesus, I've never, in my entire life interacted with anyone with so little self-awareness. Never.

How he was viewed in his time interested a lot of baseball people during that time and a lot of HOF voters later on.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/12/2017 9:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/12/2017 7:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2017 7:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/12/2017 7:17:00 PM (view original):
Ok, but we're evaluating the value that Hunter delivered with innings, starts, complete games etc. To gauge that, we need to compare him to other pitchers.

Would it be accurate to narrow the focus to just the years where Hunter was in his prime and end up excluding the years where other pitchers were in their primes (or at least cutting off a significant portion of their careers)?

Was he pitching against 1888 Silver King? We know how long Hunter's career spanned. That's who he pitched against. That was the player pool that teams had to choose from. MLB is not SLB. 1888 Silver King was not available in 1972.

What the **** are you talking about???

All pitchers in a given era don't start their careers on the same day. They don't all end their careers on the same day. They don't have their peaks at the same time of for the same amount of seasons.

To accurately compare pitchers in a era, you have to expand the years to account for that. For instance, Tommy John pitched from 63 to 89. He is a contemporary of Hunter. They should be compared to each other along with other pitchers in the era.

If you only run the comparison from 66-76, you get Hunter's prime, but you miss the second half of John's career, including the four years he was in the top 10 in Cy Young voting.

Get it?

And, clearly, you don’t get it.

Clearly, there's one person in this discussion who "doesn't get it".

And clearly, you're the only person in this discussion who doesn't realize who that is.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2017 9:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/12/2017 9:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2017 9:09:00 PM (view original):
I am trying, while recognizing that you denser than iron, to explain why Hunter was valued during HIS career and why he was considered HOF-worthy during HIS career. No one, but you, cares what pitcher A did in 1957 or Pitcher B did in 1983. If their careers overlapped with Hunter's, fantastic. Compare those years to Hunter.

I know you want understand this but teams build rosters on players that are available to them. No one wanted 11 y/o Catfish in 1957 or washed up Hunter in 1983. What Tommy John did in the 10 years after Hunter retired is not relevant.

I'd say "I have no idea why you think you get to dictate the terms of every discussion" but I do. You're a pompous *** with a very narrow viewpoint. You can't fathom that there MIGHT be a different way to see things. There is no way that this is your real-life personality. If it is, you shouldn't have contact with people you don't know. And, I imagine, the people you do know cringe when you enter a discussion.

Holy **** you love to try to pretend you’re smart.

Try this, dummy. I already said that how Hunter was viewed in his time doesn’t interest me. I don’t give a **** if idiots thought he was the greatest pitcher ever.

It’s irrelevant to the question of whether or not he was actually a great pitcher. If that’s not a question that interests you, door’s on the left. You’re free to leave.

"I already said that how Hunter was viewed in his time doesn’t interest me.'


I'd say "I have no idea why you think you get to dictate the terms of every discussion" but I do. You're a pompous *** with a very narrow viewpoint. You can't fathom that there MIGHT be a different way to see things. There is no way that this is your real-life personality. If it is, you shouldn't have contact with people you don't know. And, I imagine, the people you do know cringe when you enter a discussion.

LOf'inL. Jesus, I've never, in my entire life interacted with anyone with so little self-awareness. Never.

Ok, let’s try it this way. I agree with you that Hunter was considered great in the 70’s.

My interest has to do with whether or not he actually was great. He wasn’t. I’d bet you agree based on the fact that you wouldn’t put him in the hall of fame.

If that’s not a discussion you want to have, cool. Don't have it. No one begged you to jump into this.

How is it that the majority of players, baseball writers, and fans of the game from the 1970's, people who watched Hunter's career as it was happening, can come to one conclusion, and you, magically, 40 years later, come to a very different conclusion?

How is it that, in your mind, you are right, and everyfuckingbody else is wrong?

That seems like the definition of narcissistic. In your mind, you have special insight that everybody else is lacking.

You amuse me.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/12/2017 10:08:00 PM (view original):
How is it that the majority of players, baseball writers, and fans of the game from the 1970's, people who watched Hunter's career as it was happening, can come to one conclusion, and you, magically, 40 years later, come to a very different conclusion?

How is it that, in your mind, you are right, and everyfuckingbody else is wrong?

That seems like the definition of narcissistic. In your mind, you have special insight that everybody else is lacking.

You amuse me.

You think I’m the only person who thinks Hunter wasn’t great?

You're the only one here in this thread arguing against it, Mr. LackOfSelfAwareness.