Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2017 5:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 5:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2017 5:11:00 PM (view original):
Can we agree that a guy who didn't walk people, basically pitched to contact, could have this mindset?

"I always thought about completing games, starting games, eating up innings and trying to win games more importantly than anything else"

And, in doing so, he allowed a lot of runs. Sorry. That makes him a less effective pitcher.

The fact that you don't understand 70s baseball isn't surprising. You were still making poopee in your diapers.

The fact that you refuse to consider that pitcher's priorities might have been different is what makes you a retard. If a guy is looking to extend an outing, he's not going to nibble at the corners. He's going to throw strikes and hope the hitter makes a mistake. If they don't, he's giving up runs but, if he can throw 11 pitches instead of 23, he's just added an inning to his game.

And compared to other pitchers in the 70's, Hunter wasn't very good.

Being an inning eater is valuable but it doesn't make you a Hall of Famer.

Well, it shouldn't, especially for you, guy who thinks only 25 players deserve to be in the Hall.

I think he completed close to 40% of his starts and got decisions in 80% of them. That was a thing in the 70s. As was the 20+ win seasons.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2017 6:08:00 PM (view original):
I think he completed close to 40% of his starts and got decisions in 80% of them. That was a thing in the 70s. As was the 20+ win seasons.

Awesome. He still wasn’t very good.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 6:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2017 6:08:00 PM (view original):
I think he completed close to 40% of his starts and got decisions in 80% of them. That was a thing in the 70s. As was the 20+ win seasons.

Awesome. He still wasn’t very good.

For instance, Jim Palmer also completed 40% of his starts, also got decisions in 80% of them, had more 20 win seasons, and managed to allow runs at a rate 25% better than average.

Thanks for the valuable insight that Palmer was a better pitcher than Hunter.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 6:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 6:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2017 6:08:00 PM (view original):
I think he completed close to 40% of his starts and got decisions in 80% of them. That was a thing in the 70s. As was the 20+ win seasons.

Awesome. He still wasn’t very good.

For instance, Jim Palmer also completed 40% of his starts, also got decisions in 80% of them, had more 20 win seasons, and managed to allow runs at a rate 25% better than average.

Cool. You found one other guy.

Incidentally, both went to six WS, Hunter's teams won 5, Palmer's teams won 3.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/11/2017 6:41:00 PM (view original):
Thanks for the valuable insight that Palmer was a better pitcher than Hunter.

At least we can agree to put away the ridiculous “best pitcher in the league” nonsense when referring to Hunter.

Posted by toddcommish on 12/11/2017 6:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 6:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 6:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2017 6:08:00 PM (view original):
I think he completed close to 40% of his starts and got decisions in 80% of them. That was a thing in the 70s. As was the 20+ win seasons.

Awesome. He still wasn’t very good.

For instance, Jim Palmer also completed 40% of his starts, also got decisions in 80% of them, had more 20 win seasons, and managed to allow runs at a rate 25% better than average.

Cool. You found one other guy.

Incidentally, both went to six WS, Hunter's teams won 5, Palmer's teams won 3.

Do you want me to lay out the list of pitchers in the 60s/70s better than Hunter?

A pitcher allows "a lot" of runs yet wins a lot of games but he "wasn't vey good."

Wins trumps runs allowed. You have to get that.

Posted by donaldjl on 12/11/2017 6:47:00 PM (view original):
A pitcher allows "a lot" of runs yet wins a lot of games but he "wasn't vey good."

Wins trumps runs allowed. You have to get that.

A pitcher who allows a lot of runs and still gets credited for wins is getting those wins despite their ability, not because of it.

A pitcher getting those wins while going deep into games and keeping his team ahead or close deserves those wins. It takes offense and defense to win.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 6:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by donaldjl on 12/11/2017 6:47:00 PM (view original):
A pitcher allows "a lot" of runs yet wins a lot of games but he "wasn't vey good."

Wins trumps runs allowed. You have to get that.

A pitcher who allows a lot of runs and still gets credited for wins is getting those wins despite their ability, not because of it.

A failure to understand 70s baseball is understandable for those who were pooping pants in the 70s.

A failure to attempt to understand the mindset of a 70s pitcher is willful ignorance for those who were pooping pants in the 70s.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 6:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/11/2017 6:41:00 PM (view original):
Thanks for the valuable insight that Palmer was a better pitcher than Hunter.

At least we can agree to put away the ridiculous “best pitcher in the league” nonsense when referring to Hunter.

Please quote where I said that Hunter was "THE BEST" pitcher in the league.

I said he was regarded as one of the best pitchers in the AL in the 70's.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/11/2017 7:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 6:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/11/2017 6:41:00 PM (view original):
Thanks for the valuable insight that Palmer was a better pitcher than Hunter.

At least we can agree to put away the ridiculous “best pitcher in the league” nonsense when referring to Hunter.

Please quote where I said that Hunter was "THE BEST" pitcher in the league.

I said he was regarded as one of the best pitchers in the AL in the 70's.

Do you think he was a top five pitcher in MLB? Top 10? Top 20?

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2017 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 6:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by donaldjl on 12/11/2017 6:47:00 PM (view original):
A pitcher allows "a lot" of runs yet wins a lot of games but he "wasn't vey good."

Wins trumps runs allowed. You have to get that.

A pitcher who allows a lot of runs and still gets credited for wins is getting those wins despite their ability, not because of it.

A failure to understand 70s baseball is understandable for those who were pooping pants in the 70s.

A failure to attempt to understand the mindset of a 70s pitcher is willful ignorance for those who were pooping pants in the 70s.

70's baseball was still baseball. We aren't talking about 1870's, 50 ft mounds, 8 ball walks, no gloves, etc.

We can see what Hunter did. We can see what other pitchers did. By doing that, we can see that Hunter wasn't that great. Even relative other 70's pitchers.

Your homer panties are showing.