I agree that some of those guys were better than Hunter, but less than half probably. Brad ******* Radke? Really? Mark Buerle? Mark Langston? Right there your credibility comes into question. (well, YOUR credibility has always been in question)

Posted by wylie715 on 6/26/2017 12:56:00 PM (view original):
I agree that some of those guys were better than Hunter, but less than half probably. Brad ******* Radke? Really? Mark Buerle? Mark Langston? Right there your credibility comes into question. (well, YOUR credibility has always been in question)

IP.............ERA+.... SO.... BB....WAR.... WHIP
3449.........104......2012.....954....36.6......1.134 Hunter
2451.........113......1467.....445....45.6......1.260 Radke
2962.........107......2464....1289...50.3..... 1.354 Langston
3283.........117......1870.....734....59.2......1.281 Buehrle

I threw Radke in as a dig, Hunter was better, but not by a ton. Radke was more effective at limiting runs over 1000 fewer innings, but those 1000 innings matter. Buehrle is the only one of those three that is definitely better than Hunter. Langston and Radke are just kind of in the same tier...which says a lot about Hunter and whether or not he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

None of them belong in the Hall, but Hunter was better than you think? Did you ever see him pitch?

Posted by wylie715 on 6/26/2017 6:56:00 PM (view original):
None of them belong in the Hall, but Hunter was better than you think? Did you ever see him pitch?

Quote post by wylie715 on 6/26/2017 6:56:00 PM:
None of them belong in the Hall,. but Hunter was better than you think? slightly above average for his career.

FTFY

What would seeing him in person tell me that I'm not getting from his record?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2017 1:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 6/26/2017 12:56:00 PM (view original):
I agree that some of those guys were better than Hunter, but less than half probably. Brad ******* Radke? Really? Mark Buerle? Mark Langston? Right there your credibility comes into question. (well, YOUR credibility has always been in question)

IP.............ERA+.... SO.... BB....WAR.... WHIP
3449.........104......2012.....954....36.6......1.134 Hunter
2451.........113......1467.....445....45.6......1.260 Radke
2962.........107......2464....1289...50.3..... 1.354 Langston
3283.........117......1870.....734....59.2......1.281 Buehrle

I threw Radke in as a dig, Hunter was better, but not by a ton. Radke was more effective at limiting runs over 1000 fewer innings, but those 1000 innings matter. Buehrle is the only one of those three that is definitely better than Hunter. Langston and Radke are just kind of in the same tier...which says a lot about Hunter and whether or not he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

Brad ******* Radke had a career 45 WAR?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2017 1:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 6/26/2017 12:56:00 PM (view original):
I agree that some of those guys were better than Hunter, but less than half probably. Brad ******* Radke? Really? Mark Buerle? Mark Langston? Right there your credibility comes into question. (well, YOUR credibility has always been in question)

IP.............ERA+.... SO.... BB....WAR.... WHIP
3449.........104......2012.....954....36.6......1.134 Hunter
2451.........113......1467.....445....45.6......1.260 Radke
2962.........107......2464....1289...50.3..... 1.354 Langston
3283.........117......1870.....734....59.2......1.281 Buehrle

I threw Radke in as a dig, Hunter was better, but not by a ton. Radke was more effective at limiting runs over 1000 fewer innings, but those 1000 innings matter. Buehrle is the only one of those three that is definitely better than Hunter. Langston and Radke are just kind of in the same tier...which says a lot about Hunter and whether or not he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

Thanks for posting this. This can be used as the best piece of evidence to support the idea that context is important, and that those who rely solely on new aged metrics to judge whether a player was relatively ":good" or "bad" are complete idiots.

Catfish Hunter was considered one of the best pitchers of his era. Brad Radke was considered . . . well, he was a guy who pitched for the Twins.

How did Brad Radke have a 45 WAR??

If Brad Radke's 2000 season isn't a complete indictment of WAR then I don't know what is.

LOL@WAR

Posted by sjpoker on 6/26/2017 9:59:00 PM (view original):
If Brad Radke's 2000 season isn't a complete indictment of WAR then I don't know what is.

LOL.

I can't wait to hear PSBL's spin on that.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2017 7:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 6/26/2017 6:56:00 PM (view original):
None of them belong in the Hall, but Hunter was better than you think? Did you ever see him pitch?

Quote post by wylie715 on 6/26/2017 6:56:00 PM:
None of them belong in the Hall,. but Hunter was better than you think? slightly above average for his career.

FTFY

What would seeing him in person tell me that I'm not getting from his record?

tell you? probably nothing.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2017 11:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/26/2017 9:59:00 PM (view original):
If Brad Radke's 2000 season isn't a complete indictment of WAR then I don't know what is.

LOL.

I can't wait to hear PSBL's spin son that.

I don't see a problem. He threw 226 innings and he was 16% better than average at allowing earned runs that year. There's a lot of value in that.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2017 9:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2017 1:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 6/26/2017 12:56:00 PM (view original):
I agree that some of those guys were better than Hunter, but less than half probably. Brad ******* Radke? Really? Mark Buerle? Mark Langston? Right there your credibility comes into question. (well, YOUR credibility has always been in question)

IP.............ERA+.... SO.... BB....WAR.... WHIP
3449.........104......2012.....954....36.6......1.134 Hunter
2451.........113......1467.....445....45.6......1.260 Radke
2962.........107......2464....1289...50.3..... 1.354 Langston
3283.........117......1870.....734....59.2......1.281 Buehrle

I threw Radke in as a dig, Hunter was better, but not by a ton. Radke was more effective at limiting runs over 1000 fewer innings, but those 1000 innings matter. Buehrle is the only one of those three that is definitely better than Hunter. Langston and Radke are just kind of in the same tier...which says a lot about Hunter and whether or not he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

Thanks for posting this. This can be used as the best piece of evidence to support the idea that context is important, and that those who rely solely on new aged metrics to judge whether a player was relatively ":good" or "bad" are complete idiots.

Catfish Hunter was considered one of the best pitchers of his era. Brad Radke was considered . . . well, he was a guy who pitched for the Twins.

What context is missing?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2017 1:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2017 11:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/26/2017 9:59:00 PM (view original):
If Brad Radke's 2000 season isn't a complete indictment of WAR then I don't know what is.

LOL.

I can't wait to hear PSBL's spin son that.

I don't see a problem. He threw 226 innings and he was 16% better than average at allowing earned runs that year. There's a lot of value in that.

LOL.

Seriously, folks. You can't make this **** up.

When you're using a hammer and keep hitting your thumb, it's not the hammer. You can keep pounding your thumb or just stop hammering.

BL will beat himself to death if given enough time.