Posted by tecwrg on 6/28/2017 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2017 9:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/28/2017 6:46:00 AM (view original):
If you looked at 2000 Radke's and 2016 Scherzer's WAR in a vacuum, would you assume they had similarly effective seasons?

In other words, put 2000 Radke on the 2016 Nats and 2016 Scherzer on the 2000 Twins, they would each still put up a 6.2 WAR because of their relative abilities to limit runs?

If we looked at each pitcher's season in a vacuum, obviously Scherzer was better. But in reality, their seasons were equally valuable because baseball doesn't exist in a vacuum.

In the same way, if a pitcher in 1910 had the exact same line as a pitcher in 2000, their seasons weren't equally valuable in reality, despite being equally valuable in a vacuum.

Adding context allows us to see that preventing runs was a much harder task in 2000.

If I understand your argument . . . context is not important, unless it is, but then again it might not be. Unless you need it.

And the factor that determines whether or not context is needed is how badly you've argued yourself into a corner with an unsupportable statement, and the only way out is to change direction by adding or removing"context".

I think the only vacuum here is the one between your ears.

This is what I don't understand about you, tec. You clearly like baseball. You watch it, coach it, and read about it. You even pay to play baseball sim games and spend a lot of time arguing about it in the forum.

Someone with that much interest in baseball should be able to look at the careers of Catfish Hunter and Mike Mussina and easily see that Mussina was a SIGNIFICANTLY better pitcher. It's not even close. The only way you could think it was close is if you think a 3.26 ERA in the 60's and 70's was better than a 3.68 ERA in the 90's and 2000's. But someone who spends so much time saying "context!" wouldn't think that.

So what's the disconnect? Why do you have a blind spot when it comes to Hunter? Why do you ignore rationality when it comes to Mussina?

Moose was a beast but he pitched at the same time as Pedro, Schilling and Johnson...all were way better than him.

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/28/2017 1:48:00 PM (view original):
Moose was a beast but he pitched at the same time as Pedro, Schilling and Johnson...all were way better than him.

Hunter pitched at the same time as Seaver, Palmer, and Perry (and Gibson and Niekro and Carlton and Jenkins and Tiant)...all were way better than him.

But they were not better winners and in fact he was the highest paid pitcher. You cannot argue that Moose was the better WINNER of Pedro, Curt and Johnson. In fact Pedro stands alone as one of the all time greats. Johnson may have been the best lefty ever and Schilling was a Post Season Beast. Seaver's lifetime whip was 1.12 and Hunter's was 1.13. I am a Sox fan and I have no dog in this fight mind you.

Jesus christ. Teams win games. Players help their teams win by playing well. All of those pitchers were better at baseball than Hunter.

No way. Its easier to win when you play for nothing than if you are in a pressure situation.

In 1971 he was the #2 starter
In 1972 he was the #1 starter
In 1973 he was the #2 starter
In 1974 & 75 he was the #1 starter

He was a critical component of the winning. I get that it is a team game but part of the reason Ortiz is such a cult hero as is Schilling is because they won. Same with Rivera and Jeter. Winning is not easy and its not for everyone. Don't just dismiss it. If you do then you are sadly mistaken.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2017 1:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/28/2017 1:48:00 PM (view original):
Moose was a beast but he pitched at the same time as Pedro, Schilling and Johnson...all were way better than him.

Hunter pitched at the same time as Seaver, Palmer, and Perry (and Gibson and Niekro and Carlton and Jenkins and Tiant)...all were way better than him.

And Sutton, and Messersmith.

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/28/2017 2:17:00 PM (view original):
No way. Its easier to win when you play for nothing than if you are in a pressure situation.

In 1971 he was the #2 starter
In 1972 he was the #1 starter
In 1973 he was the #2 starter
In 1974 & 75 he was the #1 starter

He was a critical component of the winning. I get that it is a team game but part of the reason Ortiz is such a cult hero as is Schilling is because they won. Same with Rivera and Jeter. Winning is not easy and its not for everyone. Don't just dismiss it. If you do then you are sadly mistaken.

That's circular.

He was a winning player because he won. Therefore, he gets extra credit for the winning.

No he was a winning player because he was largely responsible for the wins. Your argument is weak, man. You are getting killed here.

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/28/2017 2:27:00 PM (view original):
No he was a winning player because he was largely responsible for the wins. Your argument is weak, man. You are getting killed here.

Now we're getting somewhere. Was he largely responsible for the wins?

In 72, 74, and 75, Hunter was very good and helped the team win a lot of games.

But looking at 71, for example, he was just a little above average. The A's still won 101 games though, so I have a hard time giving Hunter the credit there. They were a great team. Hunter wasn't a great pitcher that year. They would have won more games (and maybe the WS) with 1971 Tom Seaver on the roster instead.

The 1977 Yankees won 100 games and the WS with Hunter on the roster. But Hunter was bad. Should we give him the "winning" credit there?

He won 20% of their games? Seaver is one of the best ever. 86 Red Sox were awesome and Seaver stunk? Your argument is silly.

I think we should establish that getting the W as a pitcher doesn't mean you were solely (or even primarily) responsible for the fact that your team won the game.

Can we agree on that?

Yes, but we also should not 100% just dismiss it either. Can we agree on that?

No, we cannot. Pitcher W/L record is useless.

"useless" LMAO

You, sir are plain wrong.