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 goes with my point from the other thread. Current voters, especially saber blowhards like Law, want to prove they're more enlightened than everyone else, including past voters, writers, fans, players, etc. who actually watched, covered and played with Hunter during his career.

Voters now are not the ones in position to judge players of the past.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/23/2017 11:38:00 AM (view original):

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 goes with my point from the other thread. Current voters, especially saber blowhards like Law, want to prove they're more enlightened than everyone else, including past voters, writers, fans, players, etc. who actually watched, covered and played with Hunter during his career.

Voters now are not the ones in position to judge players of the past.

I don't think the pint is to prove anyone is smarter, the point is to show that Mussina belongs. He was waaaaaaay better than Hunter. That's clear. So you either beliveve that both belong in or just Mussina. But a Hall with Hunter and without Mussina doesn't make sense.

I think Mussina deserves hall consideration. I don't really know how you can definitively say he was "waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better" than Hunter.

As we've established over many years and pages and pages of your drivel, what's clear to you is definitely not clear to anyone else.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/23/2017 12:05:00 PM (view original):
I think Mussina deserves hall consideration. I don't really know how you can definitively say he was "waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better" than Hunter.

As we've established over many years and pages and pages of your drivel, what's clear to you is definitely not clear to anyone else.

123 ERA+ vs 104 ERA+ is pretty clear.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2017 12:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/23/2017 12:05:00 PM (view original):
I think Mussina deserves hall consideration. I don't really know how you can definitively say he was "waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better" than Hunter.

As we've established over many years and pages and pages of your drivel, what's clear to you is definitely not clear to anyone else.

123 ERA+ vs 104 ERA+ is pretty clear.

LOL.

I make an argument that context is important, something that advanced stats are unable to account for.

BL counters by spitting out advanced stats.

Clueless.

I'm a big Mussina fan, but I don't think there was any point in his career when Mussina was considered the best pitcher in his league. You could argue Hunter was the best pitcher in the AL from '72 to '75

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2017 11:08:00 AM (view original):
What? Wylie?

no way you're me. I'd kill myself if you were. Or rather I'd kill you.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2017 12:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2017 12:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/23/2017 12:05:00 PM (view original):
I think Mussina deserves hall consideration. I don't really know how you can definitively say he was "waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better" than Hunter.

As we've established over many years and pages and pages of your drivel, what's clear to you is definitely not clear to anyone else.

123 ERA+ vs 104 ERA+ is pretty clear.

LOL.

I make an argument that context is important, something that advanced stats are unable to account for.

BL counters by spitting out advanced stats.

Clueless.

You say context is important. I completely agree.

Hunter and Mussina played in vastly different eras. The run scoring environment during Hunter's career was low. Mussina pitched during the steroid era.

We could look at plain ERA and ignore that context. Or we could look at ERA+, which just takes ERA and scales it to the rest of the league, incorporating context. Hunter, over his career, was 4% better than his contemporaries at preventing runs from scoring. Mussina was 23% better.

LOL.

Hunter was the most coveted pitcher in MLB for a 4-5 year period.
Mussina was the most coveted pitcher in MLB for never.

I'm sure BLd_x and his statbook know more than the baseball men of the 70s. Right?

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/23/2017 12:44:00 PM (view original):
I'm a big Mussina fan, but I don't think there was any point in his career when Mussina was considered the best pitcher in his league. You could argue Hunter was the best pitcher in the AL from '72 to '75

Pretty sure Palmer was better from 72-75. Hunter was great for those years, though. Right up there in the top 3 or 4.

Mussina was up in near the top in his prime too. He just wasn't better than Pedro, Clemens, or Johnson, three pitchers in the top 10 all time.

Clueless.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2017 1:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/23/2017 12:44:00 PM (view original):
I'm a big Mussina fan, but I don't think there was any point in his career when Mussina was considered the best pitcher in his league. You could argue Hunter was the best pitcher in the AL from '72 to '75

Pretty sure Palmer was better from 72-75. Hunter was great for those years, though. Right up there in the top 3 or 4.

Mussina was up in near the top in his prime too. He just wasn't better than Pedro, Clemens, or Johnson, three pitchers in the top 10 all time.

Palmer was not good at all in '74. And Hunter should have won the Cy over Palmer in '75.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/23/2017 1:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2017 1:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/23/2017 12:44:00 PM (view original):
I'm a big Mussina fan, but I don't think there was any point in his career when Mussina was considered the best pitcher in his league. You could argue Hunter was the best pitcher in the AL from '72 to '75

Pretty sure Palmer was better from 72-75. Hunter was great for those years, though. Right up there in the top 3 or 4.

Mussina was up in near the top in his prime too. He just wasn't better than Pedro, Clemens, or Johnson, three pitchers in the top 10 all time.

Palmer was not good at all in '74. And Hunter should have won the Cy over Palmer in '75.

Just for reference, Jim Palmer's ERA+ in 1974 was 105. Hunter's career ERA+ was 104.

1975
Palmer - 323 IP, 2.09 ERA, 169 ERA+, 1.031 WHIP, 193 K, 80 BB
Hunter - 328 IP, 2.58 ERA, 144 ERA+. 1.009 WHIP, 177 K, 83 BB

I'm willing to listen to an argument for Hunter in 75 but I don't see it. In almost the same amount of innings pitched, Hunter allowed 2 fewer base runners and 19 more earned runs.

I'd rather have Andy Messersmith than Catfish Hunter. Maybe it's cuz I'm some stupid millennial with stats.

Regardless, Hunter was one of the best pitchers in the AL for 4 years. And for the rest of his career he was distinctly below average. Not even average with a huge peak. Clearly below average. There's no question Moose was a better pitcher than Hunter. I'm fine with Mussina not being in the HOF. But there is no way that Hunter should be in. You should need to be both very good at some point in your career and have a good career in aggregate. Mussina is pretty borderline on the first one, and Hunter fails miserably on the second. I'm not a big fan of Blyleven in the Hall either due to lack of peak. For hitters I can look past it if they're good for long enough (like Beltre), but there are so many SP in baseball, so many in the HOF, that I want my HOF-types to be excellent for at least a couple years. There are always a few excellent pitchers in baseball. If they never got to that level it's hard to see them being worthy. There isn't always an excellent catcher, or an excellent 2B, or an excellent 3B. There's always great pitching somewhere.