Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2017 5:05:00 PM (view original):

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.

Mike Mussina, for example.

I think the problem is that Mussina was a very good, consistent pitcher over the course of his career, but he never had those incredible years like Pedro, Seaver, and Hunter did

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/28/2017 1:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 6/28/2017 1:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/28/2017 10:47:00 AM (view original):
It was harder in 2000 because it was the steroid era. I agree but Mad Max is still a much better pitcher than Radke. Again Radke was not garbage he earned $60Mil+ in his career.

how much he earned doesn't make him a good pitcher. Marvin Bernard earned over $13 million in a 9 year career. He sucked.

$9M vs. $60M stop it!

well, it was $13 million, but the point is how much a player makes doesn't make them good or bad. These days a utility middle infielder makes several million a year. Doesn't make them any more than a utility infielder...just a rich utility infielder.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2017 6:24:00 PM (view original):

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

ERA is an irrelevant stat like saves. WHIP is what really counts. Come on. IP just means longevity...big deal. Pedro was better than Seaver and he didnt pitch as long. You're obviously clueless. His WHIP was 1.054 and he pitched at the height of the steroid era unlike those lucky SOBs, Hunter and Seaver.

Posted by wylie715 on 6/28/2017 7:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/28/2017 1:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 6/28/2017 1:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/28/2017 10:47:00 AM (view original):
It was harder in 2000 because it was the steroid era. I agree but Mad Max is still a much better pitcher than Radke. Again Radke was not garbage he earned $60Mil+ in his career.

how much he earned doesn't make him a good pitcher. Marvin Bernard earned over $13 million in a 9 year career. He sucked.

$9M vs. $60M stop it!

well, it was $13 million, but the point is how much a player makes doesn't make them good or bad. These days a utility middle infielder makes several million a year. Doesn't make them any more than a utility infielder...just a rich utility infielder.

Sure it does and Benard was a quality player. Don't diss him.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2017 5:17:00 PM (view original):

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?

I understand that Hunter was considered one of the best pitchers of his era, and was considered a HOF quality pitcher when he played.

I also understand that Mussina was considered a very good pitcher in his era, but was not considered a lock for the HOF when he played.

Do you understand that, or are you still going to deny context and hide behind your retarded new age metrics?

And are you still going to assert that Radke = Osteen = Hunter?

I'd be pretty embarrassed if I tried to make that claim, because it would make me look pretty stupid.

Are you embarrassed?

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/28/2017 9:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 6/28/2017 7:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/28/2017 1:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 6/28/2017 1:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/28/2017 10:47:00 AM (view original):
It was harder in 2000 because it was the steroid era. I agree but Mad Max is still a much better pitcher than Radke. Again Radke was not garbage he earned $60Mil+ in his career.

how much he earned doesn't make him a good pitcher. Marvin Bernard earned over $13 million in a 9 year career. He sucked.

$9M vs. $60M stop it!

well, it was $13 million, but the point is how much a player makes doesn't make them good or bad. These days a utility middle infielder makes several million a year. Doesn't make them any more than a utility infielder...just a rich utility infielder.

Sure it does and Benard was a quality player. Don't diss him.

Dude, I've been a Giants fan for over 40 years. Benard was crap.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/28/2017 9:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2017 5:17:00 PM (view original):

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?

I understand that Hunter was considered one of the best pitchers of his era, and was considered a HOF quality pitcher when he played.

I also understand that Mussina was considered a very good pitcher in his era, but was not considered a lock for the HOF when he played.

Do you understand that, or are you still going to deny context and hide behind your retarded new age metrics?

I'm not asking you to use new age metrics. Look at Hunter's stats. Look at Mussina's. Tell me who you think was better.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/28/2017 9:48:00 PM (view original):
And are you still going to assert that Radke = Osteen = Hunter?

I'd be pretty embarrassed if I tried to make that claim, because it would make me look pretty stupid.

Are you embarrassed?

No one is making that argument.

Posted by toddcommish on 6/28/2017 7:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2017 5:05:00 PM (view original):

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.

Mike Mussina, for example.

Sure. A guy who was better than the average Hall of fame starting pitcher but doesn't get in because people have perception issues.

Though, Mussina will get in eventually.

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/28/2017 9:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 6/28/2017 7:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/28/2017 1:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 6/28/2017 1:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/28/2017 10:47:00 AM (view original):
It was harder in 2000 because it was the steroid era. I agree but Mad Max is still a much better pitcher than Radke. Again Radke was not garbage he earned $60Mil+ in his career.

how much he earned doesn't make him a good pitcher. Marvin Bernard earned over $13 million in a 9 year career. He sucked.

$9M vs. $60M stop it!

well, it was $13 million, but the point is how much a player makes doesn't make them good or bad. These days a utility middle infielder makes several million a year. Doesn't make them any more than a utility infielder...just a rich utility infielder.

Sure it does and Benard was a quality player. Don't diss him.

Dude, now we can't take anything you say seriously. He did roids and he was still close to worthless.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2017 11:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/28/2017 9:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2017 5:17:00 PM (view original):

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?

I understand that Hunter was considered one of the best pitchers of his era, and was considered a HOF quality pitcher when he played.

I also understand that Mussina was considered a very good pitcher in his era, but was not considered a lock for the HOF when he played.

Do you understand that, or are you still going to deny context and hide behind your retarded new age metrics?

I'm not asking you to use new age metrics. Look at Hunter's stats. Look at Mussina's. Tell me who you think was better.

I thought you needed your clown stats to compare players across eras. Now you're asking me to compare guys without your clown stats.

WTF, bro?

I saw Hunter pitch, and I know how he was regarded in his era.
I saw Mussina pitch, and I know how he was regarded in his era.

Context matters.

"I don't have to watch the games. I have the stats." - BL

Is this still going on? I don't give a damn about most of this crap but the fact is that Hunter was considered an all-time great during his era. Mussina was not. Perhaps that means something.

Anybody who thinks Seaver wasn't as good as Pedro is insane

I wouldv'e liked to see Pedro pitch behind those Mets offensive teams. 65 rbi's would lead the ******* team