Posted by MikeT23 on 1/13/2014 11:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/13/2014 8:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/12/2014 6:44:00 PM (view original):
I think that it's more than just training and nutrition that separates great athletes from today and those from the past.

I've yet to be enlightened.    What separates them?

?????

Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/13/2014 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 11:44:00 AM (view original):
I would imagine they're looking at a variety of stats and scouting reports.  It's not an "either wins or WAR" thing.

I know you think that players can be thoroughly evaluated using only numbers on a piece of paper and a calculator.  The real world doesn't operate that way.

I don't think that.

I promise you that no front offices use pitcher W/L to evaluate major league pitchers. Even the ****** *** Phillies front office.

I also know for a fact that at least some front offices incorporate WAR into their major league evaluations.

"I don't need to see the games.  I have the stats"

You, around a year or so ago.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/13/2014 12:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/13/2014 11:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/13/2014 8:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/12/2014 6:44:00 PM (view original):
I think that it's more than just training and nutrition that separates great athletes from today and those from the past.

I've yet to be enlightened.    What separates them?

?????

You didn't respond to this so I saw no need in engaging in another argument with you:

Quote post by bad_luck on 1/10/2014 11:16:00 AM:

You shouldn't be using 30% then, because that's not what I was saying. I said you should round off the decimal. In each situation that will be a different percentage. It could be as high as 100%, as it is with 2013 David Freese and Alberto Callaspo or lower than 0.1%, as it is with Rickey Henderson's and Tom Seaver's career WAR. 

Please confirm that you understand so that we can stop referring to "30%." 

Regarding Raines and Biggio, WAR isn't everything. Stop acting like anyone ever insisted it was.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/13/2014 12:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/13/2014 12:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/13/2014 11:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/13/2014 8:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/12/2014 6:44:00 PM (view original):
I think that it's more than just training and nutrition that separates great athletes from today and those from the past.

I've yet to be enlightened.    What separates them?

?????

You didn't respond to this so I saw no need in engaging in another argument with you:

Quote post by bad_luck on 1/10/2014 11:16:00 AM:

You shouldn't be using 30% then, because that's not what I was saying. I said you should round off the decimal. In each situation that will be a different percentage. It could be as high as 100%, as it is with 2013 David Freese and Alberto Callaspo or lower than 0.1%, as it is with Rickey Henderson's and Tom Seaver's career WAR. 

Please confirm that you understand so that we can stop referring to "30%." 

Regarding Raines and Biggio, WAR isn't everything. Stop acting like anyone ever insisted it was.

You made a stupid statement.    Back it up or shut the **** up. 

Posted by bad_luck on 1/13/2014 12:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/13/2014 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 11:44:00 AM (view original):
I would imagine they're looking at a variety of stats and scouting reports.  It's not an "either wins or WAR" thing.

I know you think that players can be thoroughly evaluated using only numbers on a piece of paper and a calculator.  The real world doesn't operate that way.

I don't think that.

I promise you that no front offices use pitcher W/L to evaluate major league pitchers. Even the ****** *** Phillies front office.

I also know for a fact that at least some front offices incorporate WAR into their major league evaluations.

"I don't need to see the games.  I have the stats"

You, around a year or so ago.

Do you have the exact quote? I'm pretty sure there was context surrounding anything like that.

Such as: there's no way anyone could remember every game from a player's career from 30 years ago. Or how do you know he's the best SS in the league just by watching, you couldn't possibly see and remember every play from every SS in baseball. Etc.

Watching the games is great. Watching the games is why we all love baseball. But you need stats to tell which pitcher was better over his entire career. And, anyway, you aren't arguing that you saw Glavine and know he was better, you're arguing that he was assigned more pitcher wins. You know, a stat.

Posted by burnsy483 on 1/13/2014 12:20:00 PM (view original):
Do you have time for bronchitis?

Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 12:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/13/2014 12:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/13/2014 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 11:44:00 AM (view original):
I would imagine they're looking at a variety of stats and scouting reports.  It's not an "either wins or WAR" thing.

I know you think that players can be thoroughly evaluated using only numbers on a piece of paper and a calculator.  The real world doesn't operate that way.

I don't think that.

I promise you that no front offices use pitcher W/L to evaluate major league pitchers. Even the ****** *** Phillies front office.

I also know for a fact that at least some front offices incorporate WAR into their major league evaluations.

"I don't need to see the games.  I have the stats"

You, around a year or so ago.

Do you have the exact quote? I'm pretty sure there was context surrounding anything like that.

Such as: there's no way anyone could remember every game from a player's career from 30 years ago. Or how do you know he's the best SS in the league just by watching, you couldn't possibly see and remember every play from every SS in baseball. Etc.

Watching the games is great. Watching the games is why we all love baseball. But you need stats to tell which pitcher was better over his entire career. And, anyway, you aren't arguing that you saw Glavine and know he was better, you're arguing that he was assigned more pitcher wins. You know, a stat.

No, I don't catalog dates and times of your retarded utterings in my secret notebook.  Ain't nobody got time for that.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 12:39:00 PM (view original):
Just reminding you of your previous comments.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 6:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/13/2014 4:19:00 AM (view original):

Mussina didn't have as many opportunities to win games (better opposing pitchers going against him than against glavine, worse offenses in Baltimore giving him lower run support etc), and thus didn't register on the Cy Young voters minds as much.

This may or may not be true, but it's not the real story.  Wins-wise, the difference between Moose and Glavine is all about the fact that Glavine started a year younger, pitched a couple years older, and stayed a little bit healthier throughout his career.  Mussina won over 50% of his starts in his career; Glavine won under 45%.  Moose also pitched more innings per game.  He's still a lot of wins and a lot of innings short for the reasons I listed above, but there really is no meaningful metric by which Glavine was a BETTER pitcher than Moose, when he was pitching.  Mussina threw more innings per game, won more per game, had a much better WHIP, had a substantively better ERA+.  Moose also lost a smaller proportion of his games than Glavine.  Glavine has the best single-season WAR of the 2, but his 2nd best is equal to Moose's 4th.  In fact, in spite of basically 4 full seasons less career pitching, Moose trumps Glavine in career WAR by over 10%.  Moose has a much higher career K rate.  A much lower career walk rate.  A lower hit rate.  And those last 3 things aren't even normalized for the fact that Glavine got to pitch to pitchers his entire career, while Mussina spent his entire career in the AL East.

I don't see how anybody rational can look at the 2 and say that they honestly believe that Glavine was a better pitcher.  If you want to say something like "We want a Hall of Fame that includes every pitcher who has won 300 games," fine.  Then put Glavine in.  But don't pretend you actually think he was a better pitcher.  There's no way in hell.

Yet Glavine gets 91% of the vote while Mussina only gets 20% of the vote.

Why is that?

Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 12:52:00 PM (view original):
Six top-3 CYA finishes, including two wins, for Glavine versus one top-3 CYA finishes and no wins for Mussina.

That says a lot about how they were perceived during their careers.  And how they're also being perceived now.

Mussina was a very, very good pitcher.  Nobody is questioning that. 

Glavine was better.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 12:52:00 PM (view original):
Six top-3 CYA finishes, including two wins, for Glavine versus one top-3 CYA finishes and no wins for Mussina.

That says a lot about how they were perceived during their careers.  And how they're also being perceived now.

Mussina was a very, very good pitcher.  Nobody is questioning that. 

Glavine was better.