Colon's lifetime WHIP is: 1.3 and he has 13 career shutouts in 20 years. Meanwhile, the WHIP for Hunter was 1.1 and he had 42 career shutouts in 15 yrs. He also pitched ~100 more innings than Colon.

Hunter was better. Not to mention his post season success.

Oh boy, sj is butthurt again. Lol.

There's nothing I love more than having BL type out a 10 paragraph post so I can block it.

Wins don't matter to pitchers just to teams. LOL

Posted by dahsdebater on 12/22/2017 12:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 12/22/2017 12:00:00 PM (view original):
Ah, critiquing grammar - the sure sign of a lost argument.

No, there's just no point arguing with the vast majority of people in these forums about baseball. They aren't interested in factual evidence. You dismiss numbers out of hand because only nerds care about stats. Baseball has passed all of you by, every front office in MLB has a whole team of BLs leading their decision-making processes while over half the league has done away with professional scouting, but you refuse to accept the new way of thinking. No point continuing to point out how wrong-headed you are when all you do is point and laugh. Mike talks constantly about the fact that there are too many people in the HOF, but now he's trying to use the fact that Catfish is in as evidence that he deserves to be in? The hypocrisy is mind-boggling. You can't talk about baseball with people who constantly change their arguments to fit the point they're trying to make at the moment. You guys have this fixed perception of baseball that doesn't really make sense. But you're not going to budge on it.

So instead I'll just point out when you do something stupid and wait for an actually interesting baseball discussion. This one is ridiculous.

what is ridiculous is you thinking that nobody in these forums knows anything about baseball solely because they don't agree with you. Nobody is dismissing stats. You and BL are dismissing everything else except stats. Stats are helpful in determining if a player was any good or not, but they are not the only method. You and BL just want to dismiss anyone who saw Hunter pitch and dismiss the viewpoint of players he played against and with. You also dismiss all the writers who viewed Hunter as one of the best pitchers in baseball at that time. Obviously, just because someone writes about baseball, that doesn't make them experts on the subject, but you should take those opinions into account when judging a player. Stats do not ell the whole story.

I'm not even sure Hunter belongs in the Hall (not that it matters, he is there) but he was a very good pitcher.

Shut up, wylie. LOL

Thing is, other than Mike's argument that Hunter threw a lot of innings (which is true over four seasons or so), no one is really willing to say what it is that he did so well.

If you're going to make the argument that the stats are telling the wrong story, what's the right story? Because, from my point of view, if Hunter wasn't very good at preventing runs from scoring, there would have to be extenuating circumstances to still consider him a very good pitcher.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/22/2017 2:01:00 PM (view original):
Thing is, other than Mike's argument that Hunter threw a lot of innings (which is true over four seasons or so), no one is really willing to say what it is that he did so well.

If you're going to make the argument that the stats are telling the wrong story, what's the right story? Because, from my point of view, if Hunter wasn't very good at preventing runs from scoring, there would have to be extenuating circumstances to still consider him a very good pitcher.

" Because, from my point of view..."

You finally said something that holds water. Your point of view is his career numbers. The point if view that you don't use is actually watching the man pitch. What he did in each game against each batter is what mattered. That's why they play the games.

Posted by donaldjl on 12/22/2017 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/22/2017 2:01:00 PM (view original):
Thing is, other than Mike's argument that Hunter threw a lot of innings (which is true over four seasons or so), no one is really willing to say what it is that he did so well.

If you're going to make the argument that the stats are telling the wrong story, what's the right story? Because, from my point of view, if Hunter wasn't very good at preventing runs from scoring, there would have to be extenuating circumstances to still consider him a very good pitcher.

" Because, from my point of view..."

You finally said something that holds water. Your point of view is his career numbers. The point if view that you don't use is actually watching the man pitch. What he did in each game against each batter is what mattered. That's why they play the games.

...um...we have a complete record of what he did in each game against each batter.

I give up. You're absolutely right. He was a meh pitcher who was lucky enough to be on those winning teams. There were probably 20 or 30 other pitchers back then who would have put up the exact same numbers in his position. I bow down to your super stat based philosophy and I will no longer watch any sporting event. Why waste my time when I can just look at everyone's season or career stats to get all the information I need. Thank you for showing me the light.

I know you're being sarcastic, but this:

He was a meh pitcher who was lucky enough to be on those winning teams. There were probably 20 or 30 other pitchers back then who would have put up the exact same numbers in his position.

Is 100% correct.

Watching baseball should be done for fun. Watch it, please. But don't pretend that you can remember things from 40 years ago better than...you know...the actual historical record of what happened for every batter faced over 15 years.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/22/2017 2:29:00 PM (view original):
I know you're being sarcastic, but this:

He was a meh pitcher who was lucky enough to be on those winning teams. There were probably 20 or 30 other pitchers back then who would have put up the exact same numbers in his position.

Is 100% correct.

Watching baseball should be done for fun. Watch it, please. But don't pretend that you can remember things from 40 years ago better than...you know...the actual historical record of what happened for every batter faced over 15 years.

But be sure to use those 40 year old stats as the sole judgement as to if a player was good or not. What his teammates thought doesn't matter. What his opponents thought doesn't matter. What baseball writers from that time thought doesn't matter. What fans from that era thought doesn't matter. Stats, stats, and just stats. Heell, change the name to Hall of Stats.

**** those teammates, opponents, writers, owners, fans, and even the hotdog vendor. Clearly none of them knew a damn thing about baseball. I've been lied to my entire life. It's all a sham. I'm only going to trust in what bad_luck posts as fact from this moment on. I'll even watch some games because he says I should, for entertainment purposes. But I will not be drawn in by the propaganda perpetuated by persons claiming to understand what is happening on the field. I'll probably even watch with the sound off to avoid any further brainwashing.

Posted by donaldjl on 12/22/2017 2:58:00 PM (view original):
**** those teammates, opponents, writers, owners, fans, and even the hotdog vendor. Clearly none of them knew a damn thing about baseball. I've been lied to my entire life. It's all a sham. I'm only going to trust in what bad_luck posts as fact from this moment on. I'll even watch some games because he says I should, for entertainment purposes. But I will not be drawn in by the propaganda perpetuated by persons claiming to understand what is happening on the field. I'll probably even watch with the sound off to avoid any further brainwashing.

Tell me. What are the stats getting wrong about Hunter?

Not a thing. Stats are gospel. Hunter was mediocre. I've been saved. I feel so enlightened.