Again lifetime WHIP for Hunter is 1.13 and Seaver is 1.12....same guy if you go by stats.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2017 2:51:00 PM (view original):
No, we cannot. Pitcher W/L record is useless.

That's a ridiculous statement. While win and loss record should not be given the importance that it is, it is still an important stat. And it can still be used to evaluate how good a pitcher is. There may be short-term measures were a bad pitcher can win several games in a month or two - or even over a single season, but in the long term good pitchers win more games. And when a picture has an exceptional run of win totals over several seasons I think that speaks to how good he is.

Please name the last non-reliever Cy Young Award winner who had a losing record.

Thanks

BL, doubles down on his stupidity. Again. We might be up to quadrupling down, or quintupling down by now.

Posted by sjpoker on 6/28/2017 3:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2017 2:51:00 PM (view original):
No, we cannot. Pitcher W/L record is useless.

That's a ridiculous statement. While win and loss record should not be given the importance that it is, it is still an important stat. And it can still be used to evaluate how good a pitcher is. There may be short-term measures were a bad pitcher can win several games in a month or two - or even over a single season, but in the long term good pitchers win more games. And when a picture has an exceptional run of win totals over several seasons I think that speaks to how good he is.

And if a pitcher, over his career, is in the top 5 in losses, he's probably horrible, right?

Which thread did we have the discussion/argument/tardfight about "pitching to the score"? Shouldn't we just link that one up about now?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2017 1:43:00 PM (view original):

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?

Again, context is important.

Hunter was considered one of the top pitchers of his era. Maybe you just don't understand that. I watched baseball in the early to mid 70's, when Hunter was in his prime. I remember how he was regarded at that time. I don't think you were old enough to watch and follow Hunter in those years. He was regarded as one of the best pitchers in MLB, and was also regarded as tracking towards a HOF career. Which he did in fact achieve.

Mussina was considered a very good pitcher in his prime. But there never really was any serious HOF talk about him throughout the prime of his career. Maybe he was overshadowed by Pedro and Schilling and the other great pitchers of his era. But he was never mentioned in the upper echelon of all-time greats, i.e. HOF worthy.

You might not like these facts. In fact, I know you don't since you make a point to argue against them whenever the opportunity presents itself. But they are facts.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2017 3:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/28/2017 3:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2017 2:51:00 PM (view original):
No, we cannot. Pitcher W/L record is useless.

That's a ridiculous statement. While win and loss record should not be given the importance that it is, it is still an important stat. And it can still be used to evaluate how good a pitcher is. There may be short-term measures were a bad pitcher can win several games in a month or two - or even over a single season, but in the long term good pitchers win more games. And when a picture has an exceptional run of win totals over several seasons I think that speaks to how good he is.

And if a pitcher, over his career, is in the top 5 in losses, he's probably horrible, right?

What's the ratio between losses and starts? Quantify that and I'll give you an answer.

Interesting article on Bill James Online about perceptual errors and how it affects who we THINK should be in the HOF, and why others might not agree.

http://www.billjamesonline.com/the_hall_of_fame%e2%80%99s_original_sin/?pg=4

Posted by toddcommish on 6/28/2017 3:38:00 PM (view original):
Interesting article on Bill James Online about perceptual errors and how it affects who we THINK should be in the HOF, and why others might not agree.

http://www.billjamesonline.com/the_hall_of_fame%e2%80%99s_original_sin/?pg=4

I think the point of that article was that the 75% voting threshold is too high if we want players who meet the hall of fame standard (but do not exceed it by a ton) to get in.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/28/2017 3:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2017 1:43:00 PM (view original):

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?

Again, context is important.

Hunter was considered one of the top pitchers of his era. Maybe you just don't understand that. I watched baseball in the early to mid 70's, when Hunter was in his prime. I remember how he was regarded at that time. I don't think you were old enough to watch and follow Hunter in those years. He was regarded as one of the best pitchers in MLB, and was also regarded as tracking towards a HOF career. Which he did in fact achieve.

Mussina was considered a very good pitcher in his prime. But there never really was any serious HOF talk about him throughout the prime of his career. Maybe he was overshadowed by Pedro and Schilling and the other great pitchers of his era. But he was never mentioned in the upper echelon of all-time greats, i.e. HOF worthy.

You might not like these facts. In fact, I know you don't since you make a point to argue against them whenever the opportunity presents itself. But they are facts.

But now, with the benefit of hindsight and more knowledge, you understand that Mussina was actually a much better pitcher than Hunter, right?

bad luck Seavers lifetime whip was 1.12 and Hunters was 1.13...same guy. Convo over.

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/28/2017 5:56:00 PM (view original):
bad luck Seavers lifetime whip was 1.12 and Hunters was 1.13...same guy. Convo over.

You're insane.

Hunter: 3.26 ERA; 104 ERA+; 3449 IP; 2012 SO; 37 WAR
Seaver: 2.86 ERA; 127 ERA+; 4783 IP; 3640 SO; 106 WAR

Once again BL asks me a question in which the direction he's going is completely transparent. I come back at him with a counter and he ignores it. Typical.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/28/2017 3:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2017 1:43:00 PM (view original):

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?

Again, context is important.

Hunter was considered one of the top pitchers of his era. Maybe you just don't understand that. I watched baseball in the early to mid 70's, when Hunter was in his prime. I remember how he was regarded at that time. I don't think you were old enough to watch and follow Hunter in those years. He was regarded as one of the best pitchers in MLB, and was also regarded as tracking towards a HOF career. Which he did in fact achieve.

Mussina was considered a very good pitcher in his prime. But there never really was any serious HOF talk about him throughout the prime of his career. Maybe he was overshadowed by Pedro and Schilling and the other great pitchers of his era. But he was never mentioned in the upper echelon of all-time greats, i.e. HOF worthy.

You might not like these facts. In fact, I know you don't since you make a point to argue against them whenever the opportunity presents itself. But they are facts.

Totally agree with Tec here.

Mussina was considered a solid upper tier starter. I never heard anyone say that he was one of the best in the game. That was reserved for Pedro Randy and Roger. I came in the era right after Catfish Hunter and remember he was considered one of the best in the game.