No. Definitely not.

Because he wasn't even a Top 10 pitcher that year.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/19/2017 8:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 7/19/2017 7:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/19/2017 7:09:00 PM (view original):
I didn't say not in this case. I said on a player vs player one season comparison, we always need more than just WAR. Just like we need more than just ERA or WHIP.

DUDE! I pretty much said WAR cannot be reliably used for a player vs player comparison across Eras. You just confirmed that. Why did it take you two weeks in a thousand posts to admit that?

I guess I should have unblocked you earlier. WAR is actually great for across era comparisons. Most stats lack any context whatsoever. A 3.00 is a 3.00 ERA in 1908 or 1999 yet we know that a 3.00 is much more valuable in 1999.

When doing any sort of comparison you should use several stats. If you're going to use WAR on its own, it's good for a big picture view.

Well I'm glad you agree with me. Now we can all move on from this discussion.

Ya, this could have all been solved eons ago if BL would have just agreed that WAR has limitations. But he keeps arguing like it's an infallible, catch-all "stat".

I've never said it was infallible or didn't have limitations. In almost all circumstances, I cite it in conjunction with other stats.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/19/2017 8:54:00 PM (view original):
I've never said it was infallible or didn't have limitations. In almost all circumstances, I cite it in conjunction with other stats.

LOL.

Sure you do.

You do that about as often as I post about my high respect for your in-depth knowledge of baseball.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/19/2017 11:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/19/2017 8:54:00 PM (view original):
I've never said it was infallible or didn't have limitations. In almost all circumstances, I cite it in conjunction with other stats.

LOL.

Sure you do.

You do that about as often as I post about my high respect for your in-depth knowledge of baseball.

Please quote where I made an argument for or against a player using WAR and only WAR.

Holyfuckingshit. You have 15571 posts. I'm guessing 5k are political arguments and the other 10k+ are HOF arguments with WAR being the prominent stat you use to make your argument. The list you posted with Hunter showed a dozen guys with very similar stats EXCEPT WAR and, while you didn't outright say it, WAR was your reason for excluding Hunter.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/19/2017 11:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/19/2017 11:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/19/2017 8:54:00 PM (view original):
I've never said it was infallible or didn't have limitations. In almost all circumstances, I cite it in conjunction with other stats.

LOL.

Sure you do.

You do that about as often as I post about my high respect for your in-depth knowledge of baseball.

Please quote where I made an argument for or against a player using WAR and only WAR.

Sorry, you're the post monkey in these forums.

Everybody knows that you're the WAR guy. YOU know you're the WAR guy. Every ******* baseball discussion that you participate in ultimately goes back to WAR. It's your "go-to" stat. It's your warm and happy place. It's your safety zone. Even when WAR gives a completely ****** up misrepresentation of players, you retardedly defend it to the bitter end, as you're doing here with Radke/Scherzer. And as you've been doing with Hunter.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/19/2017 8:54:00 PM (view original):
I've never said it was infallible or didn't have limitations. In almost all circumstances, I cite it in conjunction with other stats.

You just made several posts saying every stat but WAR is in Scherzer's favour over Radke. And you still maintain both seasons have equal value. Why? Cuz WAR.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/20/2017 6:51:00 AM (view original):
Holyfuckingshit. You have 15571 posts. I'm guessing 5k are political arguments and the other 10k+ are HOF arguments with WAR being the prominent stat you use to make your argument. The list you posted with Hunter showed a dozen guys with very similar stats EXCEPT WAR and, while you didn't outright say it, WAR was your reason for excluding Hunter.

My reason for excluding Hunter was that he wasn't very good.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/20/2017 7:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/19/2017 11:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/19/2017 11:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/19/2017 8:54:00 PM (view original):
I've never said it was infallible or didn't have limitations. In almost all circumstances, I cite it in conjunction with other stats.

LOL.

Sure you do.

You do that about as often as I post about my high respect for your in-depth knowledge of baseball.

Please quote where I made an argument for or against a player using WAR and only WAR.

Sorry, you're the post monkey in these forums.

Everybody knows that you're the WAR guy. YOU know you're the WAR guy. Every ******* baseball discussion that you participate in ultimately goes back to WAR. It's your "go-to" stat. It's your warm and happy place. It's your safety zone. Even when WAR gives a completely ****** up misrepresentation of players, you retardedly defend it to the bitter end, as you're doing here with Radke/Scherzer. And as you've been doing with Hunter.

There's nothing wrong with WAR. It's one stat that does a good job at what it was designed to do--be a good broad comparison tool.

Except when it's not? Like when it says Radke/Schrezer were comparable?

Posted by bad_luck on 7/20/2017 9:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/20/2017 6:51:00 AM (view original):
Holyfuckingshit. You have 15571 posts. I'm guessing 5k are political arguments and the other 10k+ are HOF arguments with WAR being the prominent stat you use to make your argument. The list you posted with Hunter showed a dozen guys with very similar stats EXCEPT WAR and, while you didn't outright say it, WAR was your reason for excluding Hunter.

My reason for excluding Hunter was that he wasn't very good.

But you didn't watch him pitch. Your reasoning for him not being very good is WAR.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/20/2017 10:12:00 AM (view original):
Except when it's not? Like when it says Radke/Schrezer were comparable?

In terms of runs allowed, when accounting for context, they were comparable.

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/20/2017 10:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/20/2017 9:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/20/2017 6:51:00 AM (view original):
Holyfuckingshit. You have 15571 posts. I'm guessing 5k are political arguments and the other 10k+ are HOF arguments with WAR being the prominent stat you use to make your argument. The list you posted with Hunter showed a dozen guys with very similar stats EXCEPT WAR and, while you didn't outright say it, WAR was your reason for excluding Hunter.

My reason for excluding Hunter was that he wasn't very good.

But you didn't watch him pitch. Your reasoning for him not being very good is WAR.

That. And ERA+. And basically any other stat that adjusts for average. His ERA was good until you realize that everyone in the 60s and 70s had a low ERA.