this is a group of dingleberries spouting opinions, there is no L and there certainly is no W



if Morris is in, Dennis Martinez should be in

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2017 8:24:00 PM (view original):
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.

Cy Williams for the hall!

Posted by edsortails on 12/11/2017 11:53:00 PM (view original):
this is a group of dingleberries spouting opinions, there is no L and there certainly is no W



if Morris is in, Dennis Martinez should be in

Actually, I'm spouting fact.

Teams valued starts, complete games, innings and wins in the 70s. They had no idea that FIPx or ERA+ existed. So using those stats to evaluate pitchers from the 70s is point-blank retarded. Pitchers had a different mindset. They wanted to take the ball when it was their turn, finish what they started, pitch as many innings as possible and pile up wins. Because that's what paid the bills. FACT!

As to whether or not I'm a dingleberry can be debated. But, if you're implying that I am, I may recall my "edso is not so bad" comment.

Posted by toddcommish on 12/11/2017 5:29:00 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.

But "effectiveness" in baseball is WINNING. You don't really care if your pitcher goes 9 innings and gives up 5 runs, if the team has already scored 8. Sometimes his job isn't limiting "BABIP" or "ERA+". Sometimes (and this was more true in the 70's/80's than now) his job was to suck it up and throw a complete game to spare the bullpen.

That will never show up in the "new" stats.

It's amazing how many people fail to get this. Roy Halladay always comes to mind. If his team gave him a 6-0 lead, he'd go right after hitters, focused on getting outs and eating innings, not caring if he gave up 4 runs, as long as his team got the W. Conversely, if his team gave him a 1-0 lead, he could bear down and make that stand up as well as anyone in the game.

Any pitcher who's on the mound thinking about his WHIP, ERA or whatever else during a game isn't worth a salt. Those are the guys you see who continue to nip the corners with a 5 run lead and end up walking a guy because they're trying to hard too strike him out.

That mindset was even more prevalent before the 1990s. A pitcher's job, especially the ace of the staff, was to go the distance and make sure his team got the W. That's it. It wasn't to shut them out, throw a no-hitter, etc...it was to get the W for his team.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2017 9:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by edsortails on 12/11/2017 11:53:00 PM (view original):
this is a group of dingleberries spouting opinions, there is no L and there certainly is no W



if Morris is in, Dennis Martinez should be in

Actually, I'm spouting fact.

Teams valued starts, complete games, innings and wins in the 70s. They had no idea that FIPx or ERA+ existed. So using those stats to evaluate pitchers from the 70s is point-blank retarded. Pitchers had a different mindset. They wanted to take the ball when it was their turn, finish what they started, pitch as many innings as possible and pile up wins. Because that's what paid the bills. FACT!

As to whether or not I'm a dingleberry can be debated. But, if you're implying that I am, I may recall my "edso is not so bad" comment.

But he wasn't exceptional over his entire career when it comes to starts, innings, games etc. He was mediocre.

He was also mediocre when it comes to runs allowed and that's not some new **** that just showed up. We have known that good pitchers limit runs forever.

The FACT! here is that Hunter was, over his entire career, mediocre.

He was very good for three seasons. He does not belong in the hall of fame.

I'm just curious, how many MLB pitchers right now (or during Catfish's era) have:

- Averaged 240 innings over 10 years (Catfish averaged that over 15 and that includes his "decline" years and his first two seasons where he didn't crack 200)
- Been on FIVE World Series winning teams
- Been in the top 4 for the CY award four years in a row
- Been in the top 12 for the MVP four years in a row

BL doesn't like facts that don't fit his narrative.

Pretty sure Palmer is the only one who is close to Catfish's resume during that ERA in the AL.

I know BL likes to discount WINNING, but it matters. To fans, to owners, to writers, and to the players... and yes, to the HOF.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/12/2017 11:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2017 9:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by edsortails on 12/11/2017 11:53:00 PM (view original):
this is a group of dingleberries spouting opinions, there is no L and there certainly is no W



if Morris is in, Dennis Martinez should be in

Actually, I'm spouting fact.

Teams valued starts, complete games, innings and wins in the 70s. They had no idea that FIPx or ERA+ existed. So using those stats to evaluate pitchers from the 70s is point-blank retarded. Pitchers had a different mindset. They wanted to take the ball when it was their turn, finish what they started, pitch as many innings as possible and pile up wins. Because that's what paid the bills. FACT!

As to whether or not I'm a dingleberry can be debated. But, if you're implying that I am, I may recall my "edso is not so bad" comment.

But he wasn't exceptional over his entire career when it comes to starts, innings, games etc. He was mediocre.

He was also mediocre when it comes to runs allowed and that's not some new **** that just showed up. We have known that good pitchers limit runs forever.

The FACT! here is that Hunter was, over his entire career, mediocre.

He was very good for three seasons. He does not belong in the hall of fame.

Actually he was exceptional in the categories I stated. Not sure what your source is but it's wrong.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2017 12:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/12/2017 11:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2017 9:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by edsortails on 12/11/2017 11:53:00 PM (view original):
this is a group of dingleberries spouting opinions, there is no L and there certainly is no W



if Morris is in, Dennis Martinez should be in

Actually, I'm spouting fact.

Teams valued starts, complete games, innings and wins in the 70s. They had no idea that FIPx or ERA+ existed. So using those stats to evaluate pitchers from the 70s is point-blank retarded. Pitchers had a different mindset. They wanted to take the ball when it was their turn, finish what they started, pitch as many innings as possible and pile up wins. Because that's what paid the bills. FACT!

As to whether or not I'm a dingleberry can be debated. But, if you're implying that I am, I may recall my "edso is not so bad" comment.

But he wasn't exceptional over his entire career when it comes to starts, innings, games etc. He was mediocre.

He was also mediocre when it comes to runs allowed and that's not some new **** that just showed up. We have known that good pitchers limit runs forever.

The FACT! here is that Hunter was, over his entire career, mediocre.

He was very good for three seasons. He does not belong in the hall of fame.

Actually he was exceptional in the categories I stated. Not sure what your source is but it's wrong.

He isn't in the top ten for IP, CG, or GS in the era he pitched.

Posted by edsortails on 12/11/2017 11:53:00 PM (view original):
this is a group of dingleberries spouting opinions, there is no L and there certainly is no W



if Morris is in, Dennis Martinez should be in

There is now a push for Dave Stieb to get elected to the HOF since Jack Morris got in. Please just stop with the madness!

If Dave Stieb gets in, then Kenny Lofton should get some serious reconsideration.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/12/2017 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2017 12:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/12/2017 11:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2017 9:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by edsortails on 12/11/2017 11:53:00 PM (view original):
this is a group of dingleberries spouting opinions, there is no L and there certainly is no W



if Morris is in, Dennis Martinez should be in

Actually, I'm spouting fact.

Teams valued starts, complete games, innings and wins in the 70s. They had no idea that FIPx or ERA+ existed. So using those stats to evaluate pitchers from the 70s is point-blank retarded. Pitchers had a different mindset. They wanted to take the ball when it was their turn, finish what they started, pitch as many innings as possible and pile up wins. Because that's what paid the bills. FACT!

As to whether or not I'm a dingleberry can be debated. But, if you're implying that I am, I may recall my "edso is not so bad" comment.

But he wasn't exceptional over his entire career when it comes to starts, innings, games etc. He was mediocre.

He was also mediocre when it comes to runs allowed and that's not some new **** that just showed up. We have known that good pitchers limit runs forever.

The FACT! here is that Hunter was, over his entire career, mediocre.

He was very good for three seasons. He does not belong in the hall of fame.

Actually he was exceptional in the categories I stated. Not sure what your source is but it's wrong.

He isn't in the top ten for IP, CG, or GS in the era he pitched.

Are you still using pre-1969 numbers? Because that's just stupid. So define your "era".

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2017 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/12/2017 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2017 12:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/12/2017 11:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/12/2017 9:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by edsortails on 12/11/2017 11:53:00 PM (view original):
this is a group of dingleberries spouting opinions, there is no L and there certainly is no W



if Morris is in, Dennis Martinez should be in

Actually, I'm spouting fact.

Teams valued starts, complete games, innings and wins in the 70s. They had no idea that FIPx or ERA+ existed. So using those stats to evaluate pitchers from the 70s is point-blank retarded. Pitchers had a different mindset. They wanted to take the ball when it was their turn, finish what they started, pitch as many innings as possible and pile up wins. Because that's what paid the bills. FACT!

As to whether or not I'm a dingleberry can be debated. But, if you're implying that I am, I may recall my "edso is not so bad" comment.

But he wasn't exceptional over his entire career when it comes to starts, innings, games etc. He was mediocre.

He was also mediocre when it comes to runs allowed and that's not some new **** that just showed up. We have known that good pitchers limit runs forever.

The FACT! here is that Hunter was, over his entire career, mediocre.

He was very good for three seasons. He does not belong in the hall of fame.

Actually he was exceptional in the categories I stated. Not sure what your source is but it's wrong.

He isn't in the top ten for IP, CG, or GS in the era he pitched.

Are you still using pre-1969 numbers? Because that's just stupid. So define your "era".

1965-1985

And going 69-89 doesn't help him. He falls in every category.