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.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/22/2017 3:23:00 PM (view original):

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?

Posted by tecwrg on 12/22/2017 5:00:00 PM (view original):
According to BL:

a) Kenny Lofton is "worthy" of a serious Hall of Fame discussion

b) Catfish Hunter is not

Therefore, according to BL logic:

c) Kenny Lofton was a better player than Catfish Hunter

KENNY LOFTON!!!

Posted by bad_luck on 12/22/2017 2:20:00 PM (view original):

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.

Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamppost: For support, not illumination.

-Vin Scully