Posted by tecwrg on 2/24/2012 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/24/2012 1:50:00 PM (view original):
Are we really doing this again?  Doctors used to recommend that pregnant women smoke cigarettes to relax.  We've come a long way in 40 years.

We have records of every pitch both pitchers have thrown.  We know who was better and we don't need some hacky sportswriter from 1976 to tell us.

So nobody who saw them play can comment on them now because their memories must be bad, and any contemporary commentary that was written in the 70's must be disregarded because sportswriters in the 70's were hacks who didn't understand the game?

That's sheer genius.  Way to cover all the bases.

Like spotsell said.  If "everyone" thought Hunter was better, why did Carlton win more Cy Young awards.

The stats show that Carlton was better.  If you want to argue otherwise, you'll need to provide some evidence.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/24/2012 10:25:00 AM (view original):
Hunter's career (1965 - 1979) through age 33:  224-166 W/L, 3449 IP, 3.26 ERA, 1.134 WHIP.

Carlton's career (1965 - 1979) through age 34: 225-160 W/L. 3485 IP, 3.08 ERA, 1.225 WHIP

They were the same pitcher.  Then, Carlton pitched another 1732 IPs.

Here's evidence.  Nearly identical stats throughout the course of their careers when they were both active.

As to your comment about Cy Young Awards, please refer to my previous response to spotsell.

Funny how jrd tosses aside the sportswriters opinions, citing them as "hacky".

Then uses Cy Young awards to try and support his view.

Truth be told, I stopped caring about Carlton-Hunter 20 pages ago.   The "advanced metric" of FIP kept drawing me back.   Don't walk people, don't let them hit the ball a long way and, if possible, don't let them hit the ball at all is some super advanced stuff that Little Jimmy's dad, the ironworker who thought any ball put in play was a "hit", yelled at me when I was seven.   Declaring such things "advanced" is laughable.

As far as "this is what I saw", we don't always see the things we thought we great in the same light.  Ryan, Aaron and Kingman were the "best" players when I was kid.  Ryan threw harder than anyone, Kingman hit 'em farther than anyone and Aaron hit them a long way more often than anyone.   I only saw Carlton in the playoffs and he always seemed to get smacked around.   But the graphic would show he once struck out over 300 and I'd dismiss what I was watching as a "bad game."  Conversely, Hunter pitched well but struck out no one.   He was just "lucky" IMO. 

As I got older, the "big plays" carried less weight.   Preventing/scoring runs was the thing.  As I aged, I recognized that RBI/RS were largely opportunity stats.  But preventing runs, and baserunners, never left me as important aspects of the game.  That allowed me to appreciate a guy like Hunter who did just as well, if not better, at preventing runs/limiting baserunners as the guys who whiffed a lot of people. 

So, anyway, if you want to use your "advanced metric" of FIP, good for you.  Don't try to sell it to me.  I like the guy who stops the other team from scoring.  I don't care how he does it but, at some point, let's just say 3449 innings, it stops being "lucky".    He was pretty good even if that dumb 10 year old in a Yankee hat thought he couldn't pitch because he couldn't strike people out.

Funny how jrd tosses aside the sportswriters opinions, citing them as "hacky".

Then uses Cy Young awards to try and support his view.

They are hacky.  And I'm not a fan of using awards to argue for or against a player.  But if you guys are going to argue that sportswriters thought Hunter was better, Cy Young awards become relevant. 

Not if they didn't pitch in the same league.

If I fight a 10 year old girl and beat her *** while you fight Mike Tyson and get stomped, am I the better fighter?

That's how your CY award comparson works in a vacuum.

Posted by jrd_x on 2/24/2012 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Funny how jrd tosses aside the sportswriters opinions, citing them as "hacky".

Then uses Cy Young awards to try and support his view.

They are hacky.  And I'm not a fan of using awards to argue for or against a player.  But if you guys are going to argue that sportswriters thought Hunter was better, Cy Young awards become relevant. 

There you go again, trying to have it both ways.

If the 70's sportswriters were "hacky", then we have to disregard the CYAs because they were selected by chattering monkeys with typewriters.

If the 70's sportswriters are to be respected as understanding the game, then we have to accept that Hunter and Carlton were regarded as equals.

Pick one.

Not for different leagues...  And I've been perusing the stats (using WIS, so none of the FiP or BABIP stuff), and the sportswriters seem to get the Cy Young awards wrong in the 70's more often than not, clearly overvaluing the stats-du-jour like Wins and Ks.  I was part of the first wave of Bill James statheads that caught onto WHIP and OAV as better measurements of pitching, so even the WIS stats like ERC+ start to get a little excessive.  It seems like we're getting away from the goal of the game, which is to win.

In some cases, that means giving up four runs when your team has scored five.  Or giving up one run when your team has scored two.  Or throwing nine innings when your bullpen is gassed.  That isn't always reducible to a number that will show up on a stat sheet.  But if you're watching the game, you know it.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/24/2012 2:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/24/2012 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Funny how jrd tosses aside the sportswriters opinions, citing them as "hacky".

Then uses Cy Young awards to try and support his view.

They are hacky.  And I'm not a fan of using awards to argue for or against a player.  But if you guys are going to argue that sportswriters thought Hunter was better, Cy Young awards become relevant. 

There you go again, trying to have it both ways.

If the 70's sportswriters were "hacky", then we have to disregard the CYAs because they were selected by chattering monkeys with typewriters.

If the 70's sportswriters are to be respected as understanding the game, then we have to accept that Hunter and Carlton were regarded as equals.

Pick one.

I did.  I think the writers are hacky.  I would prefer not to use their opinions.  You brought it up. 

Got it.  No one but you "understands stats" and sportswriters are "hacky".  

Good to know.

That's why we're on page 35.

Posted by jrd_x on 2/24/2012 2:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/24/2012 2:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/24/2012 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Funny how jrd tosses aside the sportswriters opinions, citing them as "hacky".

Then uses Cy Young awards to try and support his view.

They are hacky.  And I'm not a fan of using awards to argue for or against a player.  But if you guys are going to argue that sportswriters thought Hunter was better, Cy Young awards become relevant. 

There you go again, trying to have it both ways.

If the 70's sportswriters were "hacky", then we have to disregard the CYAs because they were selected by chattering monkeys with typewriters.

If the 70's sportswriters are to be respected as understanding the game, then we have to accept that Hunter and Carlton were regarded as equals.

Pick one.

I did.  I think the writers are hacky.  I would prefer not to use their opinions.  You brought it up. 

Spotsell brought up the Cy Young awards.  You followed up with "If "everyone" thought Hunter was better, why did Carlton win more Cy Young awards."

So again, if writers are "hacky", why are you using Carlton's CYAs (which are selected by hacks) as part of your argument?

And to clarify: at no time did I say that "everyone" thought Hunter was better.  I've been saying all along that Hunter and Carlton are basically the same pitcher.  The stats clearly show that for the portion of Carlton's career that matched Hunter's.  Evidence which you refuse to acknowledge.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/24/2012 10:25:00 AM (view original):
Hunter's career (1965 - 1979) through age 33:  224-166 W/L, 3449 IP, 3.26 ERA, 1.134 WHIP.

Carlton's career (1965 - 1979) through age 34: 225-160 W/L. 3485 IP, 3.08 ERA, 1.225 WHIP

They were the same pitcher.  Then, Carlton pitched another 1732 IPs. 



Tec...   Being that I wanted to believe that Hunter was the equal of Carlton (which was my opinion until this morning when I looked up the real stats for them), your post is the most rational argument for Hunter being close to the equal (if not very equal) to Steve Carlton.  My question for you, is where in your thoughts on this do the fact that during Hunter's career, he played on many more high quality teams than did Carlton.  And it was not through the fault of Carlton.  He pitched amazingly well.  But the Cardinals of the 60s won 1 championship and the Phillies of the 70s won zero.  Hunter played on many champions with the A's and Yankees.  How does that factor in knowing that Carlton had a slightly better W/L record playing on vastly inferior teams? 

I think Cal Ripken is a great guy to illustrate this principle (cue Mike's 'roider comments).

If you look at his stats alone, I'm sure some would wonder how he got into the hall. He got the magic "3,000", but took 20 years to do it and has the worst average of anyone in that club. He was also great defensively, but didn't win many GG because he played with the likes of Trammell, Fernandez and Vizquel.

However, I grew up watching Ripken and can tell you he's undoubtedly a HOFer. As much as I hate to make the comparison, he's similar to Jeter in the heart, hustle and intangible category. He was always prepared, studied both hitters and pitchers relentlessly, and had the streak. That's all stuff that is not captured by any of the stats mentioned in this thread.

So do stats help? Of course. They're meaningful to a degree, especially when we're trying to measure players we never got to see play. But when we hear the testimony of someone who did watch them, it just makes you look foolish to say "You're an idiot. You have no clue what you're talking about. Look at the stats!!!"