Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 7:58:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2017 7:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 7:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2017 7:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 7:29:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2017 7:16:00 PM (view original):
Ruth changed the way baseball was played. Hunter pitched the way pitchers were expected to pitch in the 70s not the way they are expected to pitch today. .
See the difference?
Yeah. I also see that, relative other pitchers in the 70’s, Hunter was just above average.
Using what metric?
ERA
OK, good. You used something they used in the 70s. An excellent start!!!
How about wins, complete games, starts, innings pitched and WHIP?
We’ve had this argument before.
Pitcher W/L is useless.
CG, starts, IP are all essentially the same stat. Between 1950 and 1980, Hunter was 15th in CG and GS and 17th in IP.
And that’s generous because it fully encompasses Hunter’s career while cutting years off of some competitors. If you add 5 years on each side, he falls to 18th, 22nd, and 23rd.
For WHIP, he was good. 5th over that time, >2500 IP. But again, he allowed a lot of runners to score, so the low WHIP didn’t seem to pay off.
Slightly above average. Not a hall of fame quality pitcher.
Hunter pitched in the 50s? If you're gonna do monkey work, at least do it during the relevant years of his career. Jeez.
If I were going to do any thoughtful analysis of stats, here's what I'd do:
Start in 1969(mound lowered) and wrap it up in 1976(effective end of Hunter as a full-time player)
ERA-allowing earned runs
Starts-taking the ball every 4th/5th day
CG-finish what you started
Innings-reducing the number of lesser pitchers required
Wins-a big deal in the 70s(don't care what you think, Mr.70spoopypants)
WHIP-not allowing baserunners
During that 8 year period, I bet he fares pretty well in every damn one of those. And that's what was valued in the 70s.