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.

BL believes that all of baseball history should be judged through the lens of how the game is played today.

I'm sure that BL believes that all those bunts and stolen bases in 1917 were just bad baseball.

At one time, Ruth was ridiculed for swinging from his heels. He was going to swing and miss too much.

Baseball changes. BL doesn't get that.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2017 7:11:00 PM (view original):
At one time, Ruth was ridiculed for swinging from his heels. He was going to swing and miss too much.

Baseball changes. BL doesn't get that.

So should we judge Ruth by the standard of that time (shouldn’t swing from his heels)?

Or should we judge him by the correct standard?

Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 7:05:00 PM (view original):

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?

tec?

Ruth changed the way baseball was played. Hunter pitched the way pitchers were expected to pitch in the 70s not the way they are expected to pitch today. .

See the difference?

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2017 7:16:00 PM (view original):
Ruth changed the way baseball was played. Hunter pitched the way pitchers were expected to pitch in the 70s not the way they are expected to pitch today. .

See the difference?

Obviously not.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2017 7:16:00 PM (view original):
Ruth changed the way baseball was played. Hunter pitched the way pitchers were expected to pitch in the 70s not the way they are expected to pitch today. .

See the difference?

Yeah. I also see that, relative other pitchers in the 70’s, Hunter was just above average.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 7:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2017 7:16:00 PM (view original):
Ruth changed the way baseball was played. Hunter pitched the way pitchers were expected to pitch in the 70s not the way they are expected to pitch today. .

See the difference?

Yeah. I also see that, relative other pitchers in the 70’s, Hunter was just above average.

Using what metric?

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2017 7:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 7:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2017 7:16:00 PM (view original):
Ruth changed the way baseball was played. Hunter pitched the way pitchers were expected to pitch in the 70s not the way they are expected to pitch today. .

See the difference?

Yeah. I also see that, relative other pitchers in the 70’s, Hunter was just above average.

Using what metric?

ERA

Here’s the part where mike argues that pitchers in the 70s didn’t mind giving up runs because 70’s baseball was soooooo different.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 7:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 7:05:00 PM (view original):

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?

tec?

Nope, not going down that rathole.

Whatever number I give, you'll try to get into a lengthy debate and split hairs between Catfish Hunter and Joe Schmoe's ERA+, FIPx, WHiP@g/9, and whatever other retarded new age stats you choose to pull out of your ***.

I've got better things to do with my free time tonight.

Fact: Catfish Hunter was regarded as one of the best pitchers in the AL in the 70's. You can deny it all you want, but that WAS how he was regarded by his peers and by the people who watched and covered baseball at that time.

They actually threw underhand anytime runners were on in the hopes that the hitter would clear the bases with a rally-killing homer.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 12:45:00 PM (view original):
tec's favorite logic:

if fans and writers were wrong about a player 40 years ago, that player deserves to be in the hall of fame.

LOL

Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 7:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2017 7:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 7:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2017 7:16:00 PM (view original):
Ruth changed the way baseball was played. Hunter pitched the way pitchers were expected to pitch in the 70s not the way they are expected to pitch today. .

See the difference?

Yeah. I also see that, relative other pitchers in the 70’s, Hunter was just above average.

Using what metric?

ERA

OK, good. You used something they used in the 70s. An excellent start!!!

How about wins, complete games, starts, innings pitched and WHIP?

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2017 7:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 7:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2017 7:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 7:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2017 7:16:00 PM (view original):
Ruth changed the way baseball was played. Hunter pitched the way pitchers were expected to pitch in the 70s not the way they are expected to pitch today. .

See the difference?

Yeah. I also see that, relative other pitchers in the 70’s, Hunter was just above average.

Using what metric?

ERA

OK, good. You used something they used in the 70s. An excellent start!!!

How about wins, complete games, starts, innings pitched and WHIP?

We’ve had this argument before.

Pitcher W/L is useless.

CG, starts, IP are all essentially the same stat. Between 1950 and 1980, Hunter was 15th in CG and GS and 17th in IP.

And that’s generous because it fully encompasses Hunter’s career while cutting years off of some competitors. If you add 5 years on each side, he falls to 18th, 22nd, and 23rd.

For WHIP, he was good. 5th over that time, >2500 IP. But again, he allowed a lot of runners to score, so the low WHIP didn’t seem to pay off.

Slightly above average. Not a hall of fame quality pitcher.