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.

“You were still making poopee in your diapers.?“



Can we just give Mike a fat L for saying that?

Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 7:58:00 PM (view original):

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.

Hunter pitched in the 50s? If you're gonna do monkey work, at least do it during the relevant years of his career. Jeez.

If I were going to do any thoughtful analysis of stats, here's what I'd do:
Start in 1969(mound lowered) and wrap it up in 1976(effective end of Hunter as a full-time player)
ERA-allowing earned runs
Starts-taking the ball every 4th/5th day
CG-finish what you started
Innings-reducing the number of lesser pitchers required
Wins-a big deal in the 70s(don't care what you think, Mr.70spoopypants)
WHIP-not allowing baserunners

During that 8 year period, I bet he fares pretty well in every damn one of those. And that's what was valued in the 70s.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2017 8:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 7:58:00 PM (view original):

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.

Hunter pitched in the 50s? If you're gonna do monkey work, at least do it during the relevant years of his career. Jeez.

If I were going to do any thoughtful analysis of stats, here's what I'd do:
Start in 1969(mound lowered) and wrap it up in 1976(effective end of Hunter as a full-time player)
ERA-allowing earned runs
Starts-taking the ball every 4th/5th day
CG-finish what you started
Innings-reducing the number of lesser pitchers required
Wins-a big deal in the 70s(don't care what you think, Mr.70spoopypants)
WHIP-not allowing baserunners

During that 8 year period, I bet he fares pretty well in every damn one of those. And that's what was valued in the 70s.

LOL

First, if a pitcher’s HOF case falls apart because a comparison included pitchers in the 15 years before he started, his case wasn’t strong to begin with.

Second, holy ****, you only want to look at the years Hunter pitched but exclude his decline years. And then compare those year to other pitchers whose peaks won’t conveniently fall within that limited time period. That’s not even ten years. It’s the opposite of thoughtful analysis. How retarded are you?

If you want to include 1977-79, go ahead.

But you realize baseball made a big change in 1969, right? Using stats from 50s is retarded. That's like comparing the 1910s power hitters to Ruth. That's 3rd grader analysis.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2017 8:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 7:58:00 PM (view original):

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.

Hunter pitched in the 50s? If you're gonna do monkey work, at least do it during the relevant years of his career. Jeez.

If I were going to do any thoughtful analysis of stats, here's what I'd do:
Start in 1969(mound lowered) and wrap it up in 1976(effective end of Hunter as a full-time player)
ERA-allowing earned runs
Starts-taking the ball every 4th/5th day
CG-finish what you started
Innings-reducing the number of lesser pitchers required
Wins-a big deal in the 70s(don't care what you think, Mr.70spoopypants)
WHIP-not allowing baserunners

During that 8 year period, I bet he fares pretty well in every damn one of those. And that's what was valued in the 70s.

That’s what we in the business call a “peak”.

Andruw Jones also had a good peak. And just like Catfish, was fairly mediocre outside of that peak.

But it’s whatever, you said it, it’s the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Stats.

Its why Catfish is in the Hall and not Andy Measersmith

Well, A) Hunter wasn't dogmeat before 1969. He was a rookie in 65 at 19, a part-time starter in 66, threw almost 500 IP in 67-68 with WHIP of 1.13 and 1.19. But baseball lowered the mound in 1969 and using pre-69 numbers is plain *** dumb. It just is. B) I'm not arguing he's a HOFer. As BL exaggerated, I'm a small hall guy. I'm arguing that he was considered one of the best pitchers of his time and new age metrics don't apply because priorities were different in the 70s. So I understand WHY he's in the HOF. Which eludes BL because he's looking at FIPx9jrk11.

A good example of simple-minded thinking is Home Run Baker vs Babe Ruth. I looked at that and thought "Baker hit like 12 one season. Babe Ruth hit 60. How in the hell did Baker get the nickname Home Run? That's stupid." Of course, I was 9-10 and had no idea what context was. Baker and Ruth essentially played in different eras/styles. That's what BL is doing when using today's metrics to compare 70s pitchers.

Like I said last time I argued with BL about Hunter . . . context is important.

That concept is lost on him.

The irony of all this is that there are stats that account for context. Mike and tec hate those stats.

These?

Start in 1969(mound lowered) and wrap it up in 1976(effective end of Hunter as a full-time player)
ERA-allowing earned runs
Starts-taking the ball every 4th/5th day
CG-finish what you started
Innings-reducing the number of lesser pitchers required
Wins-a big deal in the 70s(don't care what you think, Mr.70spoopypants)
WHIP-not allowing baserunners

Because your precious stats ignore the context that winning games, not having the best possible stats, used to be the priority.

You seem to be unable to comprehend that.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 8:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2017 8:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 7:58:00 PM (view original):

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.

Hunter pitched in the 50s? If you're gonna do monkey work, at least do it during the relevant years of his career. Jeez.

If I were going to do any thoughtful analysis of stats, here's what I'd do:
Start in 1969(mound lowered) and wrap it up in 1976(effective end of Hunter as a full-time player)
ERA-allowing earned runs
Starts-taking the ball every 4th/5th day
CG-finish what you started
Innings-reducing the number of lesser pitchers required
Wins-a big deal in the 70s(don't care what you think, Mr.70spoopypants)
WHIP-not allowing baserunners

During that 8 year period, I bet he fares pretty well in every damn one of those. And that's what was valued in the 70s.

LOL

First, if a pitcher’s HOF case falls apart because a comparison included pitchers in the 15 years before he started, his case wasn’t strong to begin with.

Second, holy ****, you only want to look at the years Hunter pitched but exclude his decline years. And then compare those year to other pitchers whose peaks won’t conveniently fall within that limited time period. That’s not even ten years. It’s the opposite of thoughtful analysis. How retarded are you?

This

Posted by tecwrg on 12/11/2017 9:30:00 PM (view original):
Because your precious stats ignore the context that winning games, not having the best possible stats, used to be the priority.

You seem to be unable to comprehend that.

Nope.

Teams win games by scoring more runs and allowing less runs. Good stats measure how individual players contribute to run scoring and prevention. Better stats incorporate context (league run scoring environment, ball parks, etc.).

You, on the other hand, think pitcher W/L record is a good stat.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 9:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 8:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2017 8:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/11/2017 7:58:00 PM (view original):

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.

Hunter pitched in the 50s? If you're gonna do monkey work, at least do it during the relevant years of his career. Jeez.

If I were going to do any thoughtful analysis of stats, here's what I'd do:
Start in 1969(mound lowered) and wrap it up in 1976(effective end of Hunter as a full-time player)
ERA-allowing earned runs
Starts-taking the ball every 4th/5th day
CG-finish what you started
Innings-reducing the number of lesser pitchers required
Wins-a big deal in the 70s(don't care what you think, Mr.70spoopypants)
WHIP-not allowing baserunners

During that 8 year period, I bet he fares pretty well in every damn one of those. And that's what was valued in the 70s.

LOL

First, if a pitcher’s HOF case falls apart because a comparison included pitchers in the 15 years before he started, his case wasn’t strong to begin with.

Second, holy ****, you only want to look at the years Hunter pitched but exclude his decline years. And then compare those year to other pitchers whose peaks won’t conveniently fall within that limited time period. That’s not even ten years. It’s the opposite of thoughtful analysis. How retarded are you?

This

First, dumbass, I'm not arguing that he should be in the HOF. I'm a small hall guy. I'm explaining to you why he is. You're simply too stupid to understand.

Second, I said "Include the end of his career if you want but start in 1969. You know, because baseball made a big change." Or maybe you don't know. You know, because you're stupid. Rocks point and laugh at your intelligence. I once picked up a rosin bag that makes you look baseball dumb. You're like Rain Man except you're not a very good driver and you can't count matchsticks.

If I see that a pitcher went 22-6 in a given season, I can reasonably infer that he must have been a pretty good pitcher that season.

Sounds like you'd be clueless.

Is that it? Are you clueless about baseball?