Throw the Bum Out - Hall of Fame Edition Topic

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/15/2012 1:53:00 PM (view original):
Wow.  Thread sits idle for 8 days, tec makes an obvious poke attempt and jrdx responds in 23 minutes.

I wonder if he's been hitting refresh every half hour for the last week or if he rigged up some alarm that went off when this thread was re-activated?
Says the guy with over 15,000 posts.
3/15/2012 1:57 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/15/2012 1:53:00 PM (view original):
Wow.  Thread sits idle for 8 days, tec makes an obvious poke attempt and jrdx responds in 23 minutes.

I wonder if he's been hitting refresh every half hour for the last week or if he rigged up some alarm that went off when this thread was re-activated?
We're only 3 pages away from catching up to the LH2B thread.  I knew if I poked the monkey with a stick he'd get all riled up.
3/15/2012 2:01 PM
AND NOW WE ALL KNOW ABOUT DAVE STEIB!

3/15/2012 2:02 PM
Posted by Jtpsops on 3/15/2012 12:46:00 PM (view original):
Mussina was better than Hunter? I was a huge Moose fan but this is just stupid. Do you really expect to have any credibility whatsoever with statements like that?
Why do you think this is so stupid?  Based on your profile, you are too young to have seen Hunter pitch. 
3/15/2012 10:46 PM
!
6/22/2017 1:27 PM
Posted by Jtpsops on 3/15/2012 12:46:00 PM (view original):
Mussina was better than Hunter? I was a huge Moose fan but this is just stupid. Do you really expect to have any credibility whatsoever with statements like that?
I just read Keith Law's book "Smart Baseball" and he agrees that Mussina was better than Hunter. His reasoning is that Hunter did not have a very long career, and while he had some excellent seasons, he also had some that were average at best. His ERA+ for his career was basically league average. Law claims Hunter is one of the least deserving pitchers in the Hall. Mussina, on the other hand, was the definition of consistency for his longer career. As someone else mentioned, Mussina pitched in the steroids era. Hunter did not. I loved Hunter as a player but I'd lean towards agreeing he does not really belong in the Hall.
6/22/2017 1:37 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/10/2012 7:27:00 PM (view original):
I start with Fisk and Puckett.   Many more to follow.
I'm consistent. 5+ years later, same list.
6/22/2017 1:41 PM
Posted by wylie715 on 6/22/2017 1:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Jtpsops on 3/15/2012 12:46:00 PM (view original):
Mussina was better than Hunter? I was a huge Moose fan but this is just stupid. Do you really expect to have any credibility whatsoever with statements like that?
I just read Keith Law's book "Smart Baseball" and he agrees that Mussina was better than Hunter. His reasoning is that Hunter did not have a very long career, and while he had some excellent seasons, he also had some that were average at best. His ERA+ for his career was basically league average. Law claims Hunter is one of the least deserving pitchers in the Hall. Mussina, on the other hand, was the definition of consistency for his longer career. As someone else mentioned, Mussina pitched in the steroids era. Hunter did not. I loved Hunter as a player but I'd lean towards agreeing he does not really belong in the Hall.
Context is important. Hunter was considered one of the best pitchers in MLB during his prime.

Looking back at stats 40 years later and and characterizing Hunter as "league average" for his career is extremely disingenuous, and is one of the biggest flaws of the way the stat-nerds interpret their advanced stats.
6/22/2017 6:27 PM
#WAR
6/22/2017 7:32 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/22/2017 6:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by wylie715 on 6/22/2017 1:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Jtpsops on 3/15/2012 12:46:00 PM (view original):
Mussina was better than Hunter? I was a huge Moose fan but this is just stupid. Do you really expect to have any credibility whatsoever with statements like that?
I just read Keith Law's book "Smart Baseball" and he agrees that Mussina was better than Hunter. His reasoning is that Hunter did not have a very long career, and while he had some excellent seasons, he also had some that were average at best. His ERA+ for his career was basically league average. Law claims Hunter is one of the least deserving pitchers in the Hall. Mussina, on the other hand, was the definition of consistency for his longer career. As someone else mentioned, Mussina pitched in the steroids era. Hunter did not. I loved Hunter as a player but I'd lean towards agreeing he does not really belong in the Hall.
Context is important. Hunter was considered one of the best pitchers in MLB during his prime.

Looking back at stats 40 years later and and characterizing Hunter as "league average" for his career is extremely disingenuous, and is one of the biggest flaws of the way the stat-nerds interpret their advanced stats.
Like I said, he had a few fantastic years and the rest of his career he was basically average. I'm not sure a few great years is Hall of Fame worthy.
6/22/2017 7:38 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/22/2017 6:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by wylie715 on 6/22/2017 1:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Jtpsops on 3/15/2012 12:46:00 PM (view original):
Mussina was better than Hunter? I was a huge Moose fan but this is just stupid. Do you really expect to have any credibility whatsoever with statements like that?
I just read Keith Law's book "Smart Baseball" and he agrees that Mussina was better than Hunter. His reasoning is that Hunter did not have a very long career, and while he had some excellent seasons, he also had some that were average at best. His ERA+ for his career was basically league average. Law claims Hunter is one of the least deserving pitchers in the Hall. Mussina, on the other hand, was the definition of consistency for his longer career. As someone else mentioned, Mussina pitched in the steroids era. Hunter did not. I loved Hunter as a player but I'd lean towards agreeing he does not really belong in the Hall.
Context is important. Hunter was considered one of the best pitchers in MLB during his prime.

Looking back at stats 40 years later and and characterizing Hunter as "league average" for his career is extremely disingenuous, and is one of the biggest flaws of the way the stat-nerds interpret their advanced stats.
This is correct. In his time, every team in baseball coveted him. ADVANCED METRICS or no, he was considered one of the top pitchers when he played. That is indisputable. Nerds suck.
6/22/2017 10:57 PM
And now we know better. Hunter was just good, not great. Certainly not deserving of a hall of fame spot.
6/23/2017 10:16 AM
Looking at your alias posts, do you feel a little nostalgic?
6/23/2017 10:22 AM
What? Wylie?
6/23/2017 11:08 AM
LOL. Stop pretending you aren't jrdx.
6/23/2017 11:36 AM
◂ Prev 1...77|78|79|80|81...103 Next ▸
Throw the Bum Out - Hall of Fame Edition Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.