Posted by MikeT23 on 6/29/2017 7:25:00 AM (view original):
Is this still going on? I don't give a damn about most of this crap but the fact is that Hunter was considered an all-time great during his era. Mussina was not. Perhaps that means something.

It doesn't to BL. Reality is irrelevant when he looks at his precious spreadsheets.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/29/2017 7:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/29/2017 7:25:00 AM (view original):
Is this still going on? I don't give a damn about most of this crap but the fact is that Hunter was considered an all-time great during his era. Mussina was not. Perhaps that means something.

It doesn't to BL. Reality is irrelevant when he looks at his precious spreadsheets.

BL says only stats matter one moment and then the next you need context to interpret the stats. I guess it depends on his mood.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/29/2017 7:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2017 11:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/28/2017 9:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2017 5:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/28/2017 3:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2017 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/28/2017 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2017 9:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/28/2017 6:46:00 AM (view original):
If you looked at 2000 Radke's and 2016 Scherzer's WAR in a vacuum, would you assume they had similarly effective seasons?

In other words, put 2000 Radke on the 2016 Nats and 2016 Scherzer on the 2000 Twins, they would each still put up a 6.2 WAR because of their relative abilities to limit runs?

If we looked at each pitcher's season in a vacuum, obviously Scherzer was better. But in reality, their seasons were equally valuable because baseball doesn't exist in a vacuum.

In the same way, if a pitcher in 1910 had the exact same line as a pitcher in 2000, their seasons weren't equally valuable in reality, despite being equally valuable in a vacuum.

Adding context allows us to see that preventing runs was a much harder task in 2000.

If I understand your argument . . . context is not important, unless it is, but then again it might not be. Unless you need it.

And the factor that determines whether or not context is needed is how badly you've argued yourself into a corner with an unsupportable statement, and the only way out is to change direction by adding or removing"context".

I think the only vacuum here is the one between your ears.

This is what I don't understand about you, tec. You clearly like baseball. You watch it, coach it, and read about it. You even pay to play baseball sim games and spend a lot of time arguing about it in the forum.

Someone with that much interest in baseball should be able to look at the careers of Catfish Hunter and Mike Mussina and easily see that Mussina was a SIGNIFICANTLY better pitcher. It's not even close. The only way you could think it was close is if you think a 3.26 ERA in the 60's and 70's was better than a 3.68 ERA in the 90's and 2000's. But someone who spends so much time saying "context!" wouldn't think that.

So what's the disconnect? Why do you have a blind spot when it comes to Hunter? Why do you ignore rationality when it comes to Mussina?

Again, context is important.

Hunter was considered one of the top pitchers of his era. Maybe you just don't understand that. I watched baseball in the early to mid 70's, when Hunter was in his prime. I remember how he was regarded at that time. I don't think you were old enough to watch and follow Hunter in those years. He was regarded as one of the best pitchers in MLB, and was also regarded as tracking towards a HOF career. Which he did in fact achieve.

Mussina was considered a very good pitcher in his prime. But there never really was any serious HOF talk about him throughout the prime of his career. Maybe he was overshadowed by Pedro and Schilling and the other great pitchers of his era. But he was never mentioned in the upper echelon of all-time greats, i.e. HOF worthy.

You might not like these facts. In fact, I know you don't since you make a point to argue against them whenever the opportunity presents itself. But they are facts.

But now, with the benefit of hindsight and more knowledge, you understand that Mussina was actually a much better pitcher than Hunter, right?

I understand that Hunter was considered one of the best pitchers of his era, and was considered a HOF quality pitcher when he played.

I also understand that Mussina was considered a very good pitcher in his era, but was not considered a lock for the HOF when he played.

Do you understand that, or are you still going to deny context and hide behind your retarded new age metrics?

I'm not asking you to use new age metrics. Look at Hunter's stats. Look at Mussina's. Tell me who you think was better.

I thought you needed your clown stats to compare players across eras. Now you're asking me to compare guys without your clown stats.

WTF, bro?

I saw Hunter pitch, and I know how he was regarded in his era.
I saw Mussina pitch, and I know how he was regarded in his era.

Context matters.

"I don't have to watch the games. I have the stats." - BL

This is idiot-speak for: "I know Mussina was better but I can't admit it."

Posted by wylie715 on 6/29/2017 2:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/28/2017 9:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 6/28/2017 7:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/28/2017 1:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 6/28/2017 1:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/28/2017 10:47:00 AM (view original):
It was harder in 2000 because it was the steroid era. I agree but Mad Max is still a much better pitcher than Radke. Again Radke was not garbage he earned $60Mil+ in his career.

how much he earned doesn't make him a good pitcher. Marvin Bernard earned over $13 million in a 9 year career. He sucked.

$9M vs. $60M stop it!

well, it was $13 million, but the point is how much a player makes doesn't make them good or bad. These days a utility middle infielder makes several million a year. Doesn't make them any more than a utility infielder...just a rich utility infielder.

Sure it does and Benard was a quality player. Don't diss him.

Dude, now we can't take anything you say seriously. He did roids and he was still close to worthless.

Benard was AWESOME...he was better than Hunter.

Pedro was better than any pitcher ever. Besides Hunter.

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/29/2017 11:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 6/29/2017 2:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/28/2017 9:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 6/28/2017 7:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/28/2017 1:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 6/28/2017 1:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/28/2017 10:47:00 AM (view original):
It was harder in 2000 because it was the steroid era. I agree but Mad Max is still a much better pitcher than Radke. Again Radke was not garbage he earned $60Mil+ in his career.

how much he earned doesn't make him a good pitcher. Marvin Bernard earned over $13 million in a 9 year career. He sucked.

$9M vs. $60M stop it!

well, it was $13 million, but the point is how much a player makes doesn't make them good or bad. These days a utility middle infielder makes several million a year. Doesn't make them any more than a utility infielder...just a rich utility infielder.

Sure it does and Benard was a quality player. Don't diss him.

Dude, now we can't take anything you say seriously. He did roids and he was still close to worthless.

Benard was AWESOME...he was better than Hunter.

Benard may have been a better hitter than Hunter, but not by much!

My attempt at sarcasm did not work

you didn't use the sarcasm font!!!!

BL has checked out. #defeated

When did I check out?

You should have checked out before you started with the Hunter / Radke comparison.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/29/2017 5:51:00 PM (view original):
You should have checked out before you started with the Hunter / Radke comparison.

You're not even willing to do a comparison. Your ability to think critically begins and ends with "what people thought 40 years ago."

Posted by bad_luck on 6/29/2017 5:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/29/2017 5:51:00 PM (view original):
You should have checked out before you started with the Hunter / Radke comparison.

You're not even willing to do a comparison. Your ability to think critically begins and ends with "what people thought 40 years ago."

Your ability to think is confined to Bill James articles and Microsoft Excel.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/29/2017 5:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/29/2017 5:51:00 PM (view original):
You should have checked out before you started with the Hunter / Radke comparison.

You're not even willing to do a comparison. Your ability to think critically begins and ends with "what people thought 40 years ago."

WHIP is a relevant stat and Hunter and Seaver have the same basic WHIP. You are the one who uses fuzzy math that only favors you. Very ignorant you are. And Pedro was better than any pitcher you and I have EVER seen compare his numbers to anyone and everyone that was his contemporary and its not even freaking close. Please learn logic and math and then get back to me. I have schooled and embarrassed you in this debate.

Mussina was not even in the same stratosphere as Pedro.

Posted by sjpoker on 6/29/2017 7:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/29/2017 5:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/29/2017 5:51:00 PM (view original):
You should have checked out before you started with the Hunter / Radke comparison.

You're not even willing to do a comparison. Your ability to think critically begins and ends with "what people thought 40 years ago."

Your ability to think is confined to Bill James articles and Microsoft Excel.

You're being ridiculous. In any other situation, if someone asked you to compare two pitchers, you'd go to their BR page and look at the stats.

I'm perfectly willing to listen to an argument as to why Hunter was better than Mussina, but you'll actually have to make the argument using facts. Not bullshit like "Hunter was the most coveted pitcher in baseball" and "40 years ago people thought Hunter was really good."