And Hunter from 1968-1979 played on no losing teams and NINE teams that won 91 or more games including 4 that won 100 or more.  Carlton played on many mediocre teams.  In fact he is most well known for winning almost half of his team's games in 1972 when he went 27-10 for a team that won 59 games.

You had mentioned that the stats were compiled in different leagues.  From 1971-1975 (Hunter's best seasons), the leagues were almost identical in pitching productivity.  Shockingly so.

• 1971 NL - .252 BA 1.296 WHIP  3.47 ERA
• 1971 AL - .247 BA  1.297 WHIP  3.46 ERA
• 1972 NL - .248 BA 1.290 WHIP 3.45 ERA
• 1972 AL - .239 BA  1.231 WHIP  3.47 ERA
• 1973 NL - .254 BA 1.331 WHIP  3.66 ERA
• 1973 AL - .259 BA  1.370 WHIP  3.82 ERA
• 1974 NL - .255 BA  1.357 WHIP  3.62 ERA
• 1974 AL - .258 BA  1.330 WHIP  3.62 ERA
• 1975 NL - .257 BA  1.360 WHIP  3.62 ERA
• 1975 AL - .258 BA  1.362 WHIP  3.78 ERA

I was surprised how similar the 2 leagues were in that timeframe.

Posted by eschwartz67 on 2/24/2012 12:21:00 PM (view original):
Mike....  I really, REALLY wanted Hunter to be better than Carlton.  I hate Steve Carlton.  But the numbers dont support him being better, or even close to Carlton.  In the same paragraph, sure.  In the same sentence....  no.

I used adjusted ERA as well, Mike.  It accounts for NL/AL variance.  I also used WAR/Pitcher which accounts for League.  And it is not close.  You have brought a water pistol to a gun fight if you try to argue that Catfish Hunter was Steve Carlton's equal.  Career-wise incuding longevity, there is not a chance you could argue it successfully, and without the longevity...  just using  Carlton's career up until 1984...   you still can't  All those stats denoted by the

• .

in the post above were compiled by Carlton through 1984.  All of them.   And Carlton won.  By a lot.  And I wasn't happy to see it.  I hate the guy.  But you cant argue that Hunter was his equal.  Just can't.  At least not successfully.

And I am a huge baseball fan who watched both of them during the 70s, and Carlton into the 80s.  And it was my opinion before looking at the stats that they were equals.  I even tried to (to quote Mike) "cherrypick" stats that would show Carlton to be inferior.  But they don't exist.

This. This. This. This. This.

Posted by eschwartz67 on 2/24/2012 11:53:00 AM (view original):
It comes down to this, Mike....  Catfish Hunter was an ordinary pitcher for 10 of his 15 seasons.  He was a stellar pitcher in 5 seasons from 1971-1975.  Those 5 seasons placed him in the HOF.  And deservedly so.  From 1971-1975, Catfish Hunter was among the top handful of pitchers in the American League (Perry, Blyleven, Hunter, Ryan, Palmer, Blue).  Carlton had many more AS seasons than just 5.

Hunter had five 20 win seasons and two seasons over 13 other than those.
Carlton had six 20 win seasons and SEVEN seasons over 13.  His ERA in those 7 seasons were 3.62, 2.17, 3.22, 2.84, 3.56, 3.11 & 2.98

And it doesn't include 1981 when Carlton was 13-4 with a 2.42 ERA in 190 innings in a 110 game season

Carlton was better.

Wins?

jrd is gonna **** a blue brick.

I know, right?  Even by the incredibly useless and outdated Win stat, Carlton was better.

Although this whole argument seems to have zoned in on Hunter-Carlton, the overall premise was that stats don't tell the whole story. Sometimes seeing a guy pitch tells you a whole lot more about his skills and value than some numbers on a paper. And I think throughout this argument, regardless of thoughts on Hunter and Carlton specifically, it's been shown that stats are not the be-all and end-all, and can be misleading when used apart from actual ability and performance.

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.

This.

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/24/2012 1:25:00 PM (view original):
Although this whole argument seems to have zoned in on Hunter-Carlton, the overall premise was that stats don't tell the whole story. Sometimes seeing a guy pitch tells you a whole lot more about his skills and value than some numbers on a paper. And I think throughout this argument, regardless of thoughts on Hunter and Carlton specifically, it's been shown that stats are not the be-all and end-all, and can be misleading when used apart from actual ability and performance.

That's certainly a...different take on things.  Did you see every pitch Hunter ever threw?  What about Carlton?  And if you did, do you remember them 40 years later?  The stats do a much better job of telling the whole story than your memory.

Wow, that's one of the nerdiest things I've ever heard.

I suppose staring at some sheet music tells a better story than going to a concert too....

Posted by jrd_x on 2/24/2012 1:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/24/2012 1:25:00 PM (view original):
Although this whole argument seems to have zoned in on Hunter-Carlton, the overall premise was that stats don't tell the whole story. Sometimes seeing a guy pitch tells you a whole lot more about his skills and value than some numbers on a paper. And I think throughout this argument, regardless of thoughts on Hunter and Carlton specifically, it's been shown that stats are not the be-all and end-all, and can be misleading when used apart from actual ability and performance.

That's certainly a...different take on things.  Did you see every pitch Hunter ever threw?  What about Carlton?  And if you did, do you remember them 40 years later?  The stats do a much better job of telling the whole story than your memory.

What about the sportwriters and other baseball people at the time?  Did any of them ever place Carlton above Hunter back when they were both active in the 70's? 

Please show me some references from that era that did so.

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.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/24/2012 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/24/2012 1:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/24/2012 1:25:00 PM (view original):
Although this whole argument seems to have zoned in on Hunter-Carlton, the overall premise was that stats don't tell the whole story. Sometimes seeing a guy pitch tells you a whole lot more about his skills and value than some numbers on a paper. And I think throughout this argument, regardless of thoughts on Hunter and Carlton specifically, it's been shown that stats are not the be-all and end-all, and can be misleading when used apart from actual ability and performance.

That's certainly a...different take on things.  Did you see every pitch Hunter ever threw?  What about Carlton?  And if you did, do you remember them 40 years later?  The stats do a much better job of telling the whole story than your memory.

What about the sportwriters and other baseball people at the time?  Did any of them ever place Carlton above Hunter back when they were both active in the 70's? 

Please show me some references from that era that did so.

I made my case a few days ago in a single post and declared that was all I had to say on the subject.  However, I am sorry but this is too easy.  It's like a great watermelon floating up to the plate and I am going to smash it with a mighty swing.  It's a moment of weakness I will try and not repeat.

Yes, the baseball people at the time, on four occasions gave Steve Carlton a Cy Young award, not 2nd place, 3rd place or 4th place but 1st place.  Mr. Hunter, a fine pitcher was declared the winner once.  Steve Carlton is one of only four pitchers to win the award 4 or more times.

I am afraid baseball cannot be perfectly be analyzed with statistics and the frantic efforts to prove Jim Hunter was the equal of Steve Carlton are exhibit one.

Of course some people are just getting their kicks on this thread trying to drive the Carlton supporters up a tree when they know very well black is not white.  It looks like some have fallen into their spider web mind games.

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.

Y'know, I kinda understand where jrd_x is coming from.  He never really saw these guys pitch, so he can't really base any of his judgments on visual evidence or even second-hand interpretations from the broadcasters/sportswriters of the time.  So he stares at the stat sheets, trying to build a narrative....  His narrative, based on crunching numbers, says that Carlton was "much better".

That's fine.  He's entitled to his statistic-based interpretation.  Those of us who actually saw both Hunter and Carlton pitch have a different idea.  My problem is that he is overly adamant that his numbers are somehow superior than personal observation.  This is a major failing of the sabermetricians, who somehow think they can find a magic bullet that somehow can reduce baseball to a series of stats. 

Posted by SpotSell on 2/24/2012 2:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/24/2012 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 2/24/2012 1:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/24/2012 1:25:00 PM (view original):
Although this whole argument seems to have zoned in on Hunter-Carlton, the overall premise was that stats don't tell the whole story. Sometimes seeing a guy pitch tells you a whole lot more about his skills and value than some numbers on a paper. And I think throughout this argument, regardless of thoughts on Hunter and Carlton specifically, it's been shown that stats are not the be-all and end-all, and can be misleading when used apart from actual ability and performance.

That's certainly a...different take on things.  Did you see every pitch Hunter ever threw?  What about Carlton?  And if you did, do you remember them 40 years later?  The stats do a much better job of telling the whole story than your memory.

What about the sportwriters and other baseball people at the time?  Did any of them ever place Carlton above Hunter back when they were both active in the 70's? 

Please show me some references from that era that did so.

I made my case a few days ago in a single post and declared that was all I had to say on the subject.  However, I am sorry but this is too easy.  It's like a great watermelon floating up to the plate and I am going to smash it with a mighty swing.  It's a moment of weakness I will try and not repeat.

Yes, the baseball people at the time, on four occasions gave Steve Carlton a Cy Young award, not 2nd place, 3rd place or 4th place but 1st place.  Mr. Hunter, a fine pitcher was declared the winner once.  Steve Carlton is one of only four pitchers to win the award 4 or more times.

I am afraid baseball cannot be perfectly be analyzed with statistics and the frantic efforts to prove Jim Hunter was the equal of Steve Carlton are exhibit one.

Of course some people are just getting their kicks on this thread trying to drive the Carlton supporters up a tree when they know very well black is not white.  It looks like some have fallen into their spider web mind games.

Comparing the number of CYA's might not be the best way to compare them because they never played in the same league together.  They were judged against different sets of competition.  If they were both competing for the same award, then that would be a valid argument.  But they weren't, so it isn't.