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.