Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2017 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2017 2:35:00 PM (view original):
I didn't say he was better. cccp asked if Hunter gets credit for his IP. He does. But to highlight that Hunter's IP was nothing terribly impressive, I listed all pitchers with at least as many IP with at least as good of an ERA+.

But if he has as many or more IP, with as good or better ERA+, doesn't that make him "better" in your retarded "this is what the stats are saying" logic?

Osteen didn't have any sort of peak at all. That matters. I'd rank Hunter ahead, but neither belong in the Hall of Fame.

You are ignoring the 180+ CGs and 40+ shutouts and a streak of years where he went 146-78. His 8 All star appearances and 4 WS rings. I get that he is not a slam dunk like Walter Johnson but in this watered down HoF I do think he belongs as he was a dominant player for nearly a decade and played for a winning team. I do believe that winning should count.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2017 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2017 2:35:00 PM (view original):
I didn't say he was better. cccp asked if Hunter gets credit for his IP. He does. But to highlight that Hunter's IP was nothing terribly impressive, I listed all pitchers with at least as many IP with at least as good of an ERA+.

But if he has as many or more IP, with as good or better ERA+, doesn't that make him "better" in your retarded "this is what the stats are saying" logic?

Yeah, it's utterly moronic to suggest that pitchers who pitched more innings and more effectively are better. Utterly illogical.

What "logic" would you use to evaluate pitchers? Dumbass.

Sexy butts?

Posted by dahsdebater on 7/18/2017 10:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2017 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2017 2:35:00 PM (view original):
I didn't say he was better. cccp asked if Hunter gets credit for his IP. He does. But to highlight that Hunter's IP was nothing terribly impressive, I listed all pitchers with at least as many IP with at least as good of an ERA+.

But if he has as many or more IP, with as good or better ERA+, doesn't that make him "better" in your retarded "this is what the stats are saying" logic?

Yeah, it's utterly moronic to suggest that pitchers who pitched more innings and more effectively are better. Utterly illogical.

What "logic" would you use to evaluate pitchers? Dumbass.

Well, dahs, clearly you don't understand that people 40 years ago thought Hunter was great. Was he actually great? No. But people thought he was. Apparently, that's all that matters.

People 40 years ago were so stupid that they actually even watched games be played. Can you believe that? It's so much easier and better to simply look at stats (even the made-up ones that get factored a couple different ways) after the season. Those are all that really matters, right b_l?

Posted by bad_luck on 7/18/2017 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 7/18/2017 10:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2017 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2017 2:35:00 PM (view original):
I didn't say he was better. cccp asked if Hunter gets credit for his IP. He does. But to highlight that Hunter's IP was nothing terribly impressive, I listed all pitchers with at least as many IP with at least as good of an ERA+.

But if he has as many or more IP, with as good or better ERA+, doesn't that make him "better" in your retarded "this is what the stats are saying" logic?

Yeah, it's utterly moronic to suggest that pitchers who pitched more innings and more effectively are better. Utterly illogical.

What "logic" would you use to evaluate pitchers? Dumbass.

Well, dahs, clearly you don't understand that people 40 years ago thought Hunter was great. Was he actually great? No. But people thought he was. Apparently, that's all that matters.

Your problem is you look at everything in a vacuum, free of context.

The game was played differently in the 1970s than it is now. I don't care what super awesome "metrics" people come up with to compare players across eras. I'm far more likely to take the words and opinions of players who stepped into the box against Hunter, fans who actually sat and watched him pitch in the 1970s and sportswriters who actually covered the games he pitched.

Is it possible Hunter is a bit overrated? Yes. Was he a HOF pitcher? Yes. Have your attempts to boil every player evaluation down to a mathematical formula without any shred of common sense gotten old and tired? Yes.

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/18/2017 11:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/18/2017 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 7/18/2017 10:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2017 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2017 2:35:00 PM (view original):
I didn't say he was better. cccp asked if Hunter gets credit for his IP. He does. But to highlight that Hunter's IP was nothing terribly impressive, I listed all pitchers with at least as many IP with at least as good of an ERA+.

But if he has as many or more IP, with as good or better ERA+, doesn't that make him "better" in your retarded "this is what the stats are saying" logic?

Yeah, it's utterly moronic to suggest that pitchers who pitched more innings and more effectively are better. Utterly illogical.

What "logic" would you use to evaluate pitchers? Dumbass.

Well, dahs, clearly you don't understand that people 40 years ago thought Hunter was great. Was he actually great? No. But people thought he was. Apparently, that's all that matters.

Your problem is you look at everything in a vacuum, free of context.

The game was played differently in the 1970s than it is now. I don't care what super awesome "metrics" people come up with to compare players across eras. I'm far more likely to take the words and opinions of players who stepped into the box against Hunter, fans who actually sat and watched him pitch in the 1970s and sportswriters who actually covered the games he pitched.

Is it possible Hunter is a bit overrated? Yes. Was he a HOF pitcher? Yes. Have your attempts to boil every player evaluation down to a mathematical formula without any shred of common sense gotten old and tired? Yes.

Show me.

What common sense about Hunter am I missing?

Hunter allowed runs at an average rate compared to other pitchers playing the same game at the same time. What was so different about the game that makes him great in spite of that fact?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/27/2017 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bronxcheer on 6/27/2017 1:14:00 PM (view original):
SEAVER
CARLTON
PALMER
TIANT
HUNTER

What is "Dudes you blew in the 70s"?

and the 80s, and 90s...but why stop there

Posted by bad_luck on 7/18/2017 12:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/18/2017 11:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/18/2017 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 7/18/2017 10:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2017 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2017 2:35:00 PM (view original):
I didn't say he was better. cccp asked if Hunter gets credit for his IP. He does. But to highlight that Hunter's IP was nothing terribly impressive, I listed all pitchers with at least as many IP with at least as good of an ERA+.

But if he has as many or more IP, with as good or better ERA+, doesn't that make him "better" in your retarded "this is what the stats are saying" logic?

Yeah, it's utterly moronic to suggest that pitchers who pitched more innings and more effectively are better. Utterly illogical.

What "logic" would you use to evaluate pitchers? Dumbass.

Well, dahs, clearly you don't understand that people 40 years ago thought Hunter was great. Was he actually great? No. But people thought he was. Apparently, that's all that matters.

Your problem is you look at everything in a vacuum, free of context.

The game was played differently in the 1970s than it is now. I don't care what super awesome "metrics" people come up with to compare players across eras. I'm far more likely to take the words and opinions of players who stepped into the box against Hunter, fans who actually sat and watched him pitch in the 1970s and sportswriters who actually covered the games he pitched.

Is it possible Hunter is a bit overrated? Yes. Was he a HOF pitcher? Yes. Have your attempts to boil every player evaluation down to a mathematical formula without any shred of common sense gotten old and tired? Yes.

Show me.

What common sense about Hunter am I missing?

Hunter allowed runs at an average rate compared to other pitchers playing the same game at the same time. What was so different about the game that makes him great in spite of that fact?

For starters, you're missing the fact that his peers, his opponents, fans and sportswriters of the time considered him one of, if not the best pitcher in the AL at the time, and a HOFer.

Contrary to your belief, you do not know more about Catfish Hunter and his playing ability than they did.

LOL

So this:

Well, dahs, clearly you don't understand that people 40 years ago thought Hunter was great. Was he actually great? No. But people thought he was. Apparently, that's all that matters.

Yes...that. The problem with you advanced metrics people is they make you arrogant. You think you've stumbled on to some superior source of knowledge that has enlightened you and made you smarter than everyone else.

"All those poor, uneducated fools of the past - not enough wisdom to know that Mr. X should/shouldn't be in the HOF. Thankfully, we, the Enlightened, are here to right their wrongs!!"

You're nothing more than an arrogant know-it-all - who really doesn't know that much at all.

LOL

Tell me why he was great. Was he better than Palmer? Was he better than Seaver? Perry? Jenkins? Blyleven?

Sure, those guys are all legit Hall of Famers, but if Hunter was the best pitcher in baseball, he needs to be better than them.

If everyone in the 70's thought Hunter was so great, why did he only win ONE Cy Young award?

Seaver and Palmer each won three. Perry won two.