@maxdome said:
Catfish Hunter had several great years. To even argue that point is crazy. Comparing him to a average pitchers due to some so called advance stat is like me saying since some medicore QB has a higher QB rating than Tom Brady. That means he is better.
Wrong, comparing him with other pitchers with "wins" as the metric is what is crazy.
Vida Blue with 22.3 is not in Hunter's peer group, he is far above it.
In the four years Blue and Hunter pitched for the same team Hunter had more starts, more wins and a lower ERA, and a MUCH better WHIP. In 1971 Blue was better but in 72 and 74 Hunter was better, about equal in 1973 (1973 being the worst year in Hunter's superb 5 year run). Blue had a better WHIP only in 1971, when he did have an outstanding year.
Hunter was better in 1975 as well. Blue a bit better in 76.
Bringing in Figueroa was silly, but he DID pitch better than Hunter during their times on the same team.
Wins here weren't my first consideration, ERA and WHIP are a better indicator. It's not in a pitchers control how many runs his team scores for him.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
For the majority of the history of MLB wins was a major factor in determining how good a pitcher was. Only in recent years has all this advance stats come into play. Some of these stats are misleading at best. The bottom line was during the decade of the 70's. Catfish Hunter was considered to be one of the best pitchers in all of baseball and that is why he is in the Hall of Fame !
@maxdome said:
For the majority of the history of MLB wins was a major factor in determining how good a pitcher was. Only in recent years has all this advance stats come into play. Some of these stats are misleading at best. The bottom line was during the decade of the 70's. Catfish Hunter was considered to be one of the best pitchers in all of baseball and that is why he is in the Hall of Fame !
maxdome- you are correct. Its the same with batting average. Now with the advanced stats some here try
to prove how intellectually superior they are to everyone else by ignoring the age old stats that have been
here for over a hundred years.
And I see you are having your first introduction to two of them now.
But trust me, they don't know any more about baseball than you or I, they just like to pretend they do.
maxdome- Just to be clear, I'm not talking about Joe Banzai.
Banzai knows a lot about baseball but doesn't come across as thinking he
knows more than everyone else.
As per, "Hunter was atrocious in 1968 and below average in 1970 and 1976". How is a 3.35 ERA and a 500 record with more innings pitched than hits allowed with a good strikeout to walk ratio a horrible year. Furthermore in 68 he pitched a perfect game and to the guy who claims he doesn't win games his team did. As if pitching a perfect game didn't help win the game he went 3 for 4 and drove in 3 of the 4 runs scored. In 1970 he was a 18 game winner and you claim below average also 1976 wasn't a bad year. Only once in his career he gave up more hits than innings pitched and that was in 1979 and diabetes and arm trouble factored into that. His strikeouts to walk ratio throughout his career was impressive.
@maxdome said:
For a stat person you should know that Figueroa wasn't even on the Yankees in 1975. Also Catfish had a great year in 1975 and was the ace of the pitching staff. The only thing that stopped him from continuing to be the ace was chronic sore arm and diabetes and that is why he retired.
I will be the first to admit that my memory is no match you and bb-ref, and if it gives you comfort that Figueroa was only the ace of the Yankees staff in the years they won the WS then you are easily comforted.
Here's a comparison that may shed some light on the topic. You, being you, will ignore it but others may find it interesting:
In games in which his team scored 2 or fewer runs, Hunter's record was 25-103 (.195)
In games in which his team scored 3 to 5 runs, Hunter's record was 98-55 (.641)
In games in which his team scored 6 or more runs, Hunter's record was 99-8 (.925)
Another pitcher from the same era was 30-101 (.229), 89-53 (.627) and 82-6 (.932) in the same situations, respectively. You'll note, or should note, that Hunter got 6+ run support a lot more often than the other pitcher. If the other pitcher pitched in Hunter's games instead of Hunter, and if his W/L % stayed the same in each run support situation, he would have had a record of 225-163; Hunter's record was 222-166 (he also won two games as a reliever). Now you can say that the other pitcher was a little bit better than Hunter, or you can call that small difference random noise, but if you try to make a case that Hunter was better based on his W/L record, you'll fail. As you have.
The other pitcher, Milt Pappas, got 1.2% of the vote in his one and only HOF ballot appearance. That seems about right to me. That's about how well Hunter should have done in his one and only HOF ballot appearnce.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@dallasactuary said:
Vida Blue with 22.3 is not in Hunter's peer group, he is far above it.
In the four years Blue and Hunter pitched for the same team Hunter had more starts, more wins and a lower ERA, and a MUCH better WHIP. In 1971 Blue was better but in 72 and 74 Hunter was better, about equal in 1973 (1973 being the worst year in Hunter's superb 5 year run). Blue had a better WHIP only in 1971, when he did have an outstanding year.
Hunter was better in 1975 as well. Blue a bit better in 76.
Bringing in Figueroa was silly, but he DID pitch better than Hunter during their times on the same team.
Wins here weren't my first consideration, ERA and WHIP are a better indicator. It's not in a pitchers control how many runs his team scores for him.
The confusion is probably my fault since I mixed apples an oranges and didn't state that I was doing so. The Figueroa comparison was solely to counter the false claim that Hunter was in any sense the "ace" of the Yankees; he was their best pitcher in one year in which they missed the playoffs, but was a non-entity in the years the Yankees gifted Hunter with two more WS rings. The ace of the Yankee teams that everyone remembers was Ed Figueroa.
The statement that Blue was better than Hunter was a career comparison, not confined to the years he overlapped with Hunter on the A's. While I could have been more clear, surely the statement that Vida Blue was a better pitcher than Jim Hunter over the course of their careers is about as controversial as stating Phil Niekro was better than Joe Niekro; I don't even see what form an argument to the contrary would take.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
As per, "Hunter was atrocious in 1968 and below average in 1970 and 1976". How is a 3.35 ERA and a 500 record with more innings pitched than hits allowed with a good strikeout to walk ratio a horrible year. Furthermore in 68 he pitched a perfect game and to the guy who claims he doesn't win games his team did. As if pitching a perfect game didn't help win the game he went 3 for 4 and drove in 3 of the 4 runs scored. In 1970 he was a 18 game winner and you claim below average also 1976 wasn't a bad year. Only once in his career he gave up more hits than innings pitched and that was in 1979 and diabetes and arm trouble factored into that. His strikeouts to walk ratio throughout his career was impressive.
In 1968, a 3.35 ERA playing half your games in the Oakland Coliseum was bad. The ENTIRE LEAGUE had a 2.98 ERA.
Some more stats:
ERA+ of 83
Hunter led the league in earned runs allowed (87)
Hunter had a 4.70 ERA on the road - 57% higher than the league overall ERA
I don't know if I'd go with "atrocious" but definitely at least "bad".
@Darin said:
maxdome- Just to be clear, I'm not talking about Joe Banzai.
Banzai knows a lot about baseball but doesn't come across as thinking he
knows more than everyone else.
Thanks for the kind words!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@dallasactuary said:
Vida Blue with 22.3 is not in Hunter's peer group, he is far above it.
The statement that Blue was better than Hunter was a career comparison, not confined to the years he overlapped with Hunter on the A's. While I could have been more clear, surely the statement that Vida Blue was a better pitcher than Jim Hunter over the course of their careers is about as controversial as stating Phil Niekro was better than Joe Niekro; I don't even see what form an argument to the contrary would take.
In looking at Hunter vs. Blue, I figured that the years they pitched for the same team would make for the best comparison.
Looking at their career stats, I certainly don't see Blue as being a better pitcher, or at least not much better.
ERA's were the same, Starts were the same, Hunter completed more games, Blue gave up less HR's, Hunter walked less batters, Hunter had a better WHIP. I was surprised that Hunter struck out almost as many guys as Blue. ERA+ Blue wins by a little.
Blue pitched for 17 years and Hunter 15. Blue was simply incredible in 1971 and very good in 1976. Hunter was very good in 1972, 1974 and 75.
These are the numbers that make sense to me. I don't think that saying Hunter had more run support made him a worse pitcher (if indeed hed did, I did not look that up).
I would certainly welcome some evidence that supports Blue as a much better pitcher. They look pretty similar to me.
Players that do "special" things get remembered and rewarded for them. How many pitchers have won 20 games 5 straight times? Like it or not, winning 20 in a year has always been the sign of a good/great pitcher. Doing it 5 straight years is amazing. Spahn did it 6 years in a row! Feller, Seaver, Koufax, Maddux, Ryan, Clemens, Martinez never did.
Had Koufax's teams not won the WS when he was pitching, would he be so highly regarded?
Comparing Apples and Oranges, I often wonder how Reggie Jackson would be remembered if not for the 1977 WS. Certainly his signature moment.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
As per, "Hunter was atrocious in 1968 and below average in 1970 and 1976". How is a 3.35 ERA and a 500 record with more innings pitched than hits allowed with a good strikeout to walk ratio a horrible year. Furthermore in 68 he pitched a perfect game and to the guy who claims he doesn't win games his team did. As if pitching a perfect game didn't help win the game he went 3 for 4 and drove in 3 of the 4 runs scored. In 1970 he was a 18 game winner and you claim below average also 1976 wasn't a bad year. Only once in his career he gave up more hits than innings pitched and that was in 1979 and diabetes and arm trouble factored into that. His strikeouts to walk ratio throughout his career was impressive.
For the majority of the history of MLB wins was a major factor in determining how good a pitcher was. Only in recent years has all this advance stats come into play. Some of these stats are misleading at best. The bottom line was during the decade of the 70's. Catfish Hunter was considered to be one of the best pitchers in all of baseball and that is why he is in the Hall of Fame !
Good grief, there was also a time when scientists believed in alchemy and humorism.
We should, by all means, continue to use traditional metrics, even though we have much much better ones just because they are the ones that have always been used. Can you see the sarcasm dripping from my keypad?
Now, "much" is subjective and if you want to leave off that adjective, I have no objection. But, Blue was better than Hunter; there is no way around that. That Hunter is in the HOF and Blue is not makes no sense at all. The only way to see them as similar is to ignore that Hunter pitched through the deadball era in the late 60's while Blue did not, instead pitching into the much higher scoring 80's.
They won't be clean sweeps, like with Blue, but Hunter also loses the same comparison to Pappas, McDowell, Tiant, Messersmith, Kaat, John, and a host of others. Do you want to know who beats Hunter 27-3, pitched 400 more innings, had a 4-0 record in the postseason and got 0.9% of the vote in his one and only HOF appearance? Jerry Koosman. Jerry Koosman was a better pitcher than Jim Hunter; in my opinion, a "much" better pitcher than Jim Hunter. Steve Rogers beats Hunter 23-7, for Pete's sake. Rogers also has a career W/L of .510, 21 points greater than the teams he pitched for. Hunter has a career W/L of .574, only 10 points higher than the teams he pitched for. Yeah, I'll say it - Steve Rogers was a better pitcher than Jim Hunter; the fact that he never got a single HOF vote providing zero evidence to the contrary.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@maxdome said:
For the majority of the history of MLB wins was a major factor in determining how good a pitcher was. Only in recent years has all this advance stats come into play. Some of these stats are misleading at best. The bottom line was during the decade of the 70's. Catfish Hunter was considered to be one of the best pitchers in all of baseball and that is why he is in the Hall of Fame !
maxdome- you are correct. Its the same with batting average. Now with the advanced stats some here try
to prove how intellectually superior they are to everyone else by ignoring the age old stats that have been
here for over a hundred years.
And I see you are having your first introduction to two of them now.
But trust me, they don't know any more about baseball than you or I, they just like to pretend they do.
No, no one is intellectually superior. Maybe more well read... that some stats have been around for 100 years doesn't make them superior, it just makes them older. We have so many great metrics now to use, why do you still seem so stuck on old limited stats?
I have been over BA before on this forum, but once again. BA sees the same value in a home run as a single, is not adjusted for park or era and does not include walks. It is such a very limited metric, other than tradition, I don't see why people cling to it so.
@maxdome said:
For the majority of the history of MLB wins was a major factor in determining how good a pitcher was. Only in recent years has all this advance stats come into play. Some of these stats are misleading at best. The bottom line was during the decade of the 70's. Catfish Hunter was considered to be one of the best pitchers in all of baseball and that is why he is in the Hall of Fame !
maxdome- you are correct. Its the same with batting average. Now with the advanced stats some here try
to prove how intellectually superior they are to everyone else by ignoring the age old stats that have been
here for over a hundred years.
And I see you are having your first introduction to two of them now.
But trust me, they don't know any more about baseball than you or I, they just like to pretend they do.
No, no one is intellectually superior. Maybe more well read... that some stats have been around for 100 years doesn't make them superior, it just makes them older. We have so many great metrics now to use, why do you still seem so stuck on old limited stats?
I have been over BA before on this forum, but once again. BA sees the same value in a home run as a single, is not adjusted for park or era and does not include walks. It is such a very limited metric, other than tradition, I don't see why people cling to it so.
Batting average reflects the ability of a ball player to HIT the baseball in such a manner that they reach base safely on their OWN accord. It's the absolute foundation of baseball offense. I can't imagine not understanding the game at a level that drives the idea that BA is a limited measure.
@softparade said:
Batting average reflects the ability of a ball player to HIT the baseball in such a manner that they reach base safely on their OWN accord. It's the absolute foundation of baseball offense. I can't imagine not understanding the game at a level that drives the idea that BA is a limited measure.
Craig's point is that OBP and SA measure everything BA measures, and much more. Looking at batting average is like using candles to light your home. Yes, candles are better than nothing, but why use them when there are alternatives that accomplish your objective so much better? Or can you not imagine not understanding household illumination at a level that drives the idea that candles are of limited utility? Anyway, those of us who use lightbulbs no longer use candles, or pay any attention to batting average.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@softparade said:
Batting average reflects the ability of a ball player to HIT the baseball in such a manner that they reach base safely on their OWN accord. It's the absolute foundation of baseball offense. I can't imagine not understanding the game at a level that drives the idea that BA is a limited measure.
Craig's point is that OBP and SA measure everything BA measures, and much more. Looking at batting average is like using candles to light your home. Yes, candles are better than nothing, but why use them when there are alternatives that accomplish your objective so much better? Or can you not imagine not understanding household illumination at a level that drives the idea that candles are of limited utility? Anyway, those of us who use lightbulbs no longer use candles, or pay any attention to batting average.
@craig44 said:
Ok, please explain to me how pitcher "wins" are an individual metric. Do even a teeny tiny little bit of research and you will find they mean hardly anything when evaluating a player. About as meaningless as RBI for hitters.
You'll also discover that Hunter got better run support than the other, equally good or better, pitchers on his teams. Vida Blue was a better pitcher than Hunter; Ken Holtzman was equally as good as Hunter. In Hunter's years on the Yankees, Ed Figueroa was the ace of the pitching staff.
Responding to various other posts (not craig44's):
As for his "darned good decade" of pitching, note that Hunter was atrocious in 1968 and below average in 1970 and 1976. He only had three seasons that could be characterized as "very good" and zero that could be called “great.”
In 1975, Catfish Hunter pitched 328 innings for the New York Yankees. In 39 starts, he pitched to a 23-14 record and 2.58 ERA and a 1.01 WHIP. And perhaps most impressively, he threw 30 complete games and 7 of them were shutouts.
That is a great season in any era, adjusted for any park and by any metric you like. If not, adjust your metrics. Individually AND for the team. Only thing he didn’t do for the Yankees in ‘75 was pour beer in the bleachers on off days. A guy who makes the first and last pitch of the game for his team doesn’t need a bullpen so it doesn’t matter how good the Yankee bullpen was in ‘75 really. Or doesn’t a starter going 9 show up in advanced metrics?
So, to sum up, you are wrong.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
I don't believe those metrics are great . Nothing beats the basic stats. Baseball is not rocket science.
You could point to some silly new method that makes a common player on par with one of the all time greats. I could point to the basic stats that shows the true greatness of a Hall of Famer and how he is superior to your average player.
We could argue back and forth but that would be pointless.
I see I don't have a monopoly on arrogance. But, technically, and ironically, you're wrong to call me wrong when all I did was express an opinion. If you look at Hunter's 1975 season and see "great", that's fine. I don't; I see "very good". In the 1970's Vida Blue had a "great" season as I see it ('71), as did Carlton ('72), Guidry ('78), and Seaver ('71). Humorously*, the only other season from that decade that I'd call "great was Jim Palmer in 1975. The gap from those seasons down to Hunter's '75 season is just too big to use the same word to describe them. I'm using "great" as my top category, and Hunter's season isn't in it. If you're using "great" as your second category, that's fine and neither of us is "wrong". But it means you're calling roughly ten times as many seasons "great" as I am.
*More humorously, Hunter's 1975 season was the third best performance by a pitcher that year; in addition to Palmer, Messersmith was also a little bit better.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I see I don't have a monopoly on arrogance. But, technically, and ironically, you're wrong to call me wrong when all I did was express an opinion. If you look at Hunter's 1975 season and see "great", that's fine. I don't; I see "very good". In the 1970's Vida Blue had a "great" season as I see it ('71), as did Carlton ('72), Guidry ('78), and Seaver ('71). Humorously*, the only other season from that decade that I'd call "great was Jim Palmer in 1975. The gap from those seasons down to Hunter's '75 season is just too big to use the same word to describe them. I'm using "great" as my top category, and Hunter's season isn't in it. If you're using "great" as your second category, that's fine and neither of us is "wrong". But it means you're calling roughly ten times as many seasons "great" as I am.
*More humorously, Hunter's 1975 season was the third best performance by a pitcher that year; in addition to Palmer, Messersmith was also a little bit better.
Wow. Does it depend on what my definition of ‘is’ is, Mr. Clinton?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
You know I have an abundance of respect for your opinions and writing. Or you should.
In what world is 30 complete games and seven shutouts over 39 starts not a great season?
I mean, I get that you want to parse words here (to be right, of course) so only 4-5 guys can have a season you deem ‘great’ in the decade of the 70s and it happens to cut off right above Catfish Hunter’s ‘75 debut season in Pinstripes (where he was coming of a Cy Young I bet he didn’t deserve) but then what’s the formula?
Lay it out, please. I know it has to be K weighted/driven...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@maxdome said:
For the majority of the history of MLB wins was a major factor in determining how good a pitcher was. Only in recent years has all this advance stats come into play. Some of these stats are misleading at best. The bottom line was during the decade of the 70's. Catfish Hunter was considered to be one of the best pitchers in all of baseball and that is why he is in the Hall of Fame !
maxdome- you are correct. Its the same with batting average. Now with the advanced stats some here try
to prove how intellectually superior they are to everyone else by ignoring the age old stats that have been
here for over a hundred years.
And I see you are having your first introduction to two of them now.
But trust me, they don't know any more about baseball than you or I, they just like to pretend they do.
No, no one is intellectually superior. Maybe more well read... that some stats have been around for 100 years doesn't make them superior, it just makes them older. We have so many great metrics now to use, why do you still seem so stuck on old limited stats?
I have been over BA before on this forum, but once again. BA sees the same value in a home run as a single, is not adjusted for park or era and does not include walks. It is such a very limited metric, other than tradition, I don't see why people cling to it so.
Batting average reflects the ability of a ball player to HIT the baseball in such a manner that they reach base safely on their OWN accord. It's the absolute foundation of baseball offense. I can't imagine not understanding the game at a level that drives the idea that BA is a limited measure.
@maxdome said:
For the majority of the history of MLB wins was a major factor in determining how good a pitcher was. Only in recent years has all this advance stats come into play. Some of these stats are misleading at best. The bottom line was during the decade of the 70's. Catfish Hunter was considered to be one of the best pitchers in all of baseball and that is why he is in the Hall of Fame !
maxdome- you are correct. Its the same with batting average. Now with the advanced stats some here try
to prove how intellectually superior they are to everyone else by ignoring the age old stats that have been
here for over a hundred years.
And I see you are having your first introduction to two of them now.
But trust me, they don't know any more about baseball than you or I, they just like to pretend they do.
No, no one is intellectually superior. Maybe more well read... that some stats have been around for 100 years doesn't make them superior, it just makes them older. We have so many great metrics now to use, why do you still seem so stuck on old limited stats?
I have been over BA before on this forum, but once again. BA sees the same value in a home run as a single, is not adjusted for park or era and does not include walks. It is such a very limited metric, other than tradition, I don't see why people cling to it so.
Batting average reflects the ability of a ball player to HIT the baseball in such a manner that they reach base safely on their OWN accord. It's the absolute foundation of baseball offense. I can't imagine not understanding the game at a level that drives the idea that BA is a limited measure.
What is more valuable, a single or a home run?
Depends on the situation. That’s a given. BA doesn’t care. Importance shows up in RS and RBI’s. Or, did you dig a hole and bury those too.
There will be no belittlement, no saying you don’t know baseball and no calling you and idiot or a fool or anything else, either.
But to blow past thirty 9 inning performaces? I mean, gosh, even losing half of them is still a real help to a ball club for so many reasons during a real actual baseball season.
In fact, I’d go so far as to say great seems the only appropriate word for the ‘75 season...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Also you were called out for the silly claim bringing in Figueroa . Then you tried to pass it on to something I said. Maybe you need to go back and proof read before making false claims.
I honestly don't consider complete games as even an element of "great". That seems like the sort of "one off" consideration that was found to support Hunter after the fact. Now, innings pitched is certainly an element, but I'm not going to downgrade a pitcher's season because his manager pulls every starter in the ninth so he can bring in his "closer", or upgrade the seasons of pitchers with smarter managers because they don't. Innings pitched is largely within a pitchers control; complete games are not. Messersmith threw the same seven shutouts that Hunter did in 1975, but completed "only" 19 games. But, he pitched only six fewer innings than Hunter with a better ERA and adjusted ERA. Messersmith was better in 1975 than Hunter was; complete games don't enter in to it. Maybe you agree and are willing to include Messersmith on your relatively vast list of "great" seasons, but I'm not. Alternatively, I can agree that Hunter was "great" in 1975 if you give me a different word to describe the seasons that were significantly better.
But we're just wasting time on a semantic disagreement. Hunter had three seasons - call them "great" or call them whatever you want to call them - that contribute to a legitimate HOF argument - 1972, 1974 and 1975. Those are pretty much "average" seasons for HOF pitchers. But other HOF pitchers have either lots more seasons like that, a handful of seasons much better than that, or both. Since you're not taking exception to any of the comparisons I made to Blue, Koosman, Rogers, etc., maybe our only disagreement is what percentile season qualifies as "great". But if you really do disagree that Jerry Koosman was better than Jim Hunter, then please make that argument; it will be a lot more interesting than arguing about the dictionary.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
“I honestly don't consider complete games as even an element of "great".”
Yeah, I can’t see how a guy pitching every inning of a game 30 times in a season is in anyway underwhelming. It is a ‘one off’ type thing except that when you look at his complete game totals in other seasons, it belies all that nonsense because he also did that in his other seasons - logged a great number of innings and complete games.
This was his greatness - he was a work horse, he did take the ball every 5th day and it did wear out his arm.
I can’t imagine ever counting baBIP AND xFIP trumping COMPLETE GAME. Times thirty. In one year.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Also you were called out for the silly claim bringing in Figueroa . Then you tried to pass it on to something I said. Maybe you need to go back and proof read before making false claims.
The cognitive dissonance is strong with you. First, you're right, I misread (or misremembered) your post describing Hunter as an ace; you did describe him as only the ace of the A's, and not of both the A's and the Yankees. My mistake, and I agree that bringing Figueroa into this was unnecessary. I don't regret it, because I jump on any opportunity to point out that Hunter wasn't very good, but I do regret attributing the claim that Hunter was the Yankees ace to you because that was not true.
So, now we agree that Hunter wasn't the ace of the Yankees when they won their Word Series in the 70's. We also agree, because these are just facts, that Hunter's ERA in those two years was 9% worse than average, that he had a combined WAR of 1 (0.5 per season), that he averaged only six innings per start, and that his win probability added was negative 0.1. In other words, we agree that Hunter was just taking up space on the Yankees roster, pitching no better than any random pitcher the Yankees may have called up from the minors or promoted from their bullpen.
So, if we agree on all that, what possible objection could you have to my statement that the Yankees gifted Hunter with two WS rings? ANY pitcher could have done what Hunter did for them (for a lot less money); that the Yankees allowed Hunter to use that space on their roster and not give Dick Tidrow more starts was a gift. They'd have won more games if they had given Tidrow those starts, so it was an expensive gift, too.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I met and talked to the majority of the A's players from 72-74. They all spoke of how great Catfish was and when he left that was the end of their run. Several mentioned that when he was pitching they knew they were going to win. Several also mentioned that they would of kept winning if he had stayed ! As per his years on the Yankees. I remember Steinbrenner being quoted as saying that Catfish taught them how to win.
OK, I am dying to know. In what situation is a single more valuable than a home run?
@dallasactuary You should probably be more concerned about your bush league dissertation on what Catfish Hunter meant to the Yankees. Wow are you lost lol
@softparade said:
Batting average reflects the ability of a ball player to HIT the baseball in such a manner that they reach base safely on their OWN accord. It's the absolute foundation of baseball offense. I can't imagine not understanding the game at a level that drives the idea that BA is a limited measure.
Craig's point is that OBP and SA measure everything BA measures, and much more. Looking at batting average is like using candles to light your home. Yes, candles are better than nothing, but why use them when there are alternatives that accomplish your objective so much better? Or can you not imagine not understanding household illumination at a level that drives the idea that candles are of limited utility? Anyway, those of us who use lightbulbs no longer use candles, or pay any attention to batting average.
lol
What is so humorous about this post may i ask? Is it your inability to grasp these very simple concepts?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
A single with the bases loaded is worth more than a solo HR.
That is, I am sure, what he meant.
Maybe that's what he meant and he's just struggling with the English language and he meant to say "situations". Because, of course, there is no "situation" in which it is better to hit a single than a home run.
@softparade said:
You should probably be more concerned about your bush league dissertation on what Catfish Hunter meant to the Yankees. Wow are you lost lol
Did you ever argue with a child who thinks a personal insult coupled with "lol" equals an actual argument? It's frustrating because there's no way to respond to a point that hasn't been made. I don't know if you're a child or just play one for the amusement of others on the internet, but the effect is the same. If you'd care to attempt to make a real point I will be happy to address it. If you'd prefer to save yourself the embarrassment, I'll understand.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@maxdome said:
For the majority of the history of MLB wins was a major factor in determining how good a pitcher was. Only in recent years has all this advance stats come into play. Some of these stats are misleading at best. The bottom line was during the decade of the 70's. Catfish Hunter was considered to be one of the best pitchers in all of baseball and that is why he is in the Hall of Fame !
maxdome- you are correct. Its the same with batting average. Now with the advanced stats some here try
to prove how intellectually superior they are to everyone else by ignoring the age old stats that have been
here for over a hundred years.
And I see you are having your first introduction to two of them now.
But trust me, they don't know any more about baseball than you or I, they just like to pretend they do.
No, no one is intellectually superior. Maybe more well read... that some stats have been around for 100 years doesn't make them superior, it just makes them older. We have so many great metrics now to use, why do you still seem so stuck on old limited stats?
I have been over BA before on this forum, but once again. BA sees the same value in a home run as a single, is not adjusted for park or era and does not include walks. It is such a very limited metric, other than tradition, I don't see why people cling to it so.
Batting average reflects the ability of a ball player to HIT the baseball in such a manner that they reach base safely on their OWN accord. It's the absolute foundation of baseball offense. I can't imagine not understanding the game at a level that drives the idea that BA is a limited measure.
What is more valuable, a single or a home run?
Depends on the situation. That’s a given. BA doesn’t care. Importance shows up in RS and RBI’s. Or, did you dig a hole and bury those too.
But RBI is a dependent metric. How is that valuable when comparing players? GMs are not basing huge free agent decisions on RBI. Otherwise, why would machado be about to earn $300 million. He only has one 100 RBI season. Also, Bryce harper, 1 100 rbi season. Yes, RBI are buried
Yes, of course the Hall of Fame has become watered down. That is not even remotely debatable.
My viewpoint has always been that if stats are needed to convince others that some player belongs in the Hall of Fame, then he likely if not definitely shouldn't be in there.
The Hall of Fame should be reserved for great players only. But sadly, there are too many just excellent players in there, even some who were only very good players.
Was a player a great player, yes or no, should all that needs to be contemplated when voting. Certainly a number of "no" players are now in the Hall for a multitude of reasons.
Oh well, it is what it is. But despite all that, I've visited the Hall twice and always had a wonderful time. I highly recommend it.
@stevek said:
The Hall of Fame should be reserved for great players only. But sadly, there are too many just excellent players in there, even some who were only very good players.
You need to keep going to get to Jack Morris.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@stevek said:
The Hall of Fame should be reserved for great players only. But sadly, there are too many just excellent players in there, even some who were only very good players.
You need to keep going to get to Jack Morris.
My theory on that is the voters at the time thought they were voting for Chuck Norris.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
A single with the bases loaded is worth more than a solo HR.
That is, I am sure, what he meant.
Maybe that's what he meant and he's just struggling with the English language and he meant to say "situations". Because, of course, there is no "situation" in which it is better to hit a single than a home run.
@softparade said:
You should probably be more concerned about your bush league dissertation on what Catfish Hunter meant to the Yankees. Wow are you lost lol
Did you ever argue with a child who thinks a personal insult coupled with "lol" equals an actual argument? It's frustrating because there's no way to respond to a point that hasn't been made. I don't know if you're a child or just play one for the amusement of others on the internet, but the effect is the same. If you'd care to attempt to make a real point I will be happy to address it. If you'd prefer to save yourself the embarrassment, I'll understand.
Did you get married only to have the mail man bang your wife on the reg? Certainly sounds like it.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
A single with the bases loaded is worth more than a solo HR.
That is, I am sure, what he meant.
I was speaking in specifics. In what in game situation would a batter be better off hitting a single than a home run?
Obviously there are moments where a single would be just as positive as a home run. None of this nonsense hides the stench being made here that BA is just an old relic.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
A single with the bases loaded is worth more than a solo HR.
That is, I am sure, what he meant.
I was speaking in specifics. In what in game situation would a batter be better off hitting a single than a home run?
Obviously there are moments where a single would be just as positive as a home run. None of this nonsense hides the stench being made here that BA is just an old relic.
You are simply being obtuse. If the bases were loaded, a home run would score an extra run that even a based loaded single would not.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
A single with the bases loaded is worth more than a solo HR.
That is, I am sure, what he meant.
I was speaking in specifics. In what in game situation would a batter be better off hitting a single than a home run?
Obviously there are moments where a single would be just as positive as a home run. None of this nonsense hides the stench being made here that BA is just an old relic.
You are simply being obtuse. If the bases were loaded, a home run would score an extra run that even a based loaded single would not.
Bottom 9 tie game man on 3rd or even 2nd. Come on stop being a simpleton.
@stevek said:
The Hall of Fame should be reserved for great players only. But sadly, there are too many just excellent players in there, even some who were only very good players.
You need to keep going to get to Jack Morris.
My theory on that is the voters at the time thought they were voting for Chuck Norris.
That theory makes much more sense than any other that I've heard.
And softparade, like I said, I understand.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Comments
Wrong, comparing him with other pitchers with "wins" as the metric is what is crazy.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
In the four years Blue and Hunter pitched for the same team Hunter had more starts, more wins and a lower ERA, and a MUCH better WHIP. In 1971 Blue was better but in 72 and 74 Hunter was better, about equal in 1973 (1973 being the worst year in Hunter's superb 5 year run). Blue had a better WHIP only in 1971, when he did have an outstanding year.
Hunter was better in 1975 as well. Blue a bit better in 76.
Bringing in Figueroa was silly, but he DID pitch better than Hunter during their times on the same team.
Wins here weren't my first consideration, ERA and WHIP are a better indicator. It's not in a pitchers control how many runs his team scores for him.
For the majority of the history of MLB wins was a major factor in determining how good a pitcher was. Only in recent years has all this advance stats come into play. Some of these stats are misleading at best. The bottom line was during the decade of the 70's. Catfish Hunter was considered to be one of the best pitchers in all of baseball and that is why he is in the Hall of Fame !
maxdome- you are correct. Its the same with batting average. Now with the advanced stats some here try
to prove how intellectually superior they are to everyone else by ignoring the age old stats that have been
here for over a hundred years.
And I see you are having your first introduction to two of them now.
But trust me, they don't know any more about baseball than you or I, they just like to pretend they do.
maxdome- Just to be clear, I'm not talking about Joe Banzai.
Banzai knows a lot about baseball but doesn't come across as thinking he
knows more than everyone else.
Darin well said and thank you.
Dallasactuary
As per, "Hunter was atrocious in 1968 and below average in 1970 and 1976". How is a 3.35 ERA and a 500 record with more innings pitched than hits allowed with a good strikeout to walk ratio a horrible year. Furthermore in 68 he pitched a perfect game and to the guy who claims he doesn't win games his team did. As if pitching a perfect game didn't help win the game he went 3 for 4 and drove in 3 of the 4 runs scored. In 1970 he was a 18 game winner and you claim below average also 1976 wasn't a bad year. Only once in his career he gave up more hits than innings pitched and that was in 1979 and diabetes and arm trouble factored into that. His strikeouts to walk ratio throughout his career was impressive.
I will be the first to admit that my memory is no match you and bb-ref, and if it gives you comfort that Figueroa was only the ace of the Yankees staff in the years they won the WS then you are easily comforted.
Here's a comparison that may shed some light on the topic. You, being you, will ignore it but others may find it interesting:
In games in which his team scored 2 or fewer runs, Hunter's record was 25-103 (.195)
In games in which his team scored 3 to 5 runs, Hunter's record was 98-55 (.641)
In games in which his team scored 6 or more runs, Hunter's record was 99-8 (.925)
Another pitcher from the same era was 30-101 (.229), 89-53 (.627) and 82-6 (.932) in the same situations, respectively. You'll note, or should note, that Hunter got 6+ run support a lot more often than the other pitcher. If the other pitcher pitched in Hunter's games instead of Hunter, and if his W/L % stayed the same in each run support situation, he would have had a record of 225-163; Hunter's record was 222-166 (he also won two games as a reliever). Now you can say that the other pitcher was a little bit better than Hunter, or you can call that small difference random noise, but if you try to make a case that Hunter was better based on his W/L record, you'll fail. As you have.
The other pitcher, Milt Pappas, got 1.2% of the vote in his one and only HOF ballot appearance. That seems about right to me. That's about how well Hunter should have done in his one and only HOF ballot appearnce.
The confusion is probably my fault since I mixed apples an oranges and didn't state that I was doing so. The Figueroa comparison was solely to counter the false claim that Hunter was in any sense the "ace" of the Yankees; he was their best pitcher in one year in which they missed the playoffs, but was a non-entity in the years the Yankees gifted Hunter with two more WS rings. The ace of the Yankee teams that everyone remembers was Ed Figueroa.
The statement that Blue was better than Hunter was a career comparison, not confined to the years he overlapped with Hunter on the A's. While I could have been more clear, surely the statement that Vida Blue was a better pitcher than Jim Hunter over the course of their careers is about as controversial as stating Phil Niekro was better than Joe Niekro; I don't even see what form an argument to the contrary would take.
In 1968, a 3.35 ERA playing half your games in the Oakland Coliseum was bad. The ENTIRE LEAGUE had a 2.98 ERA.
Some more stats:
I don't know if I'd go with "atrocious" but definitely at least "bad".
Thanks for the kind words!
In looking at Hunter vs. Blue, I figured that the years they pitched for the same team would make for the best comparison.
Looking at their career stats, I certainly don't see Blue as being a better pitcher, or at least not much better.
ERA's were the same, Starts were the same, Hunter completed more games, Blue gave up less HR's, Hunter walked less batters, Hunter had a better WHIP. I was surprised that Hunter struck out almost as many guys as Blue. ERA+ Blue wins by a little.
Blue pitched for 17 years and Hunter 15. Blue was simply incredible in 1971 and very good in 1976. Hunter was very good in 1972, 1974 and 75.
These are the numbers that make sense to me. I don't think that saying Hunter had more run support made him a worse pitcher (if indeed hed did, I did not look that up).
I would certainly welcome some evidence that supports Blue as a much better pitcher. They look pretty similar to me.
Players that do "special" things get remembered and rewarded for them. How many pitchers have won 20 games 5 straight times? Like it or not, winning 20 in a year has always been the sign of a good/great pitcher. Doing it 5 straight years is amazing. Spahn did it 6 years in a row! Feller, Seaver, Koufax, Maddux, Ryan, Clemens, Martinez never did.
Had Koufax's teams not won the WS when he was pitching, would he be so highly regarded?
Comparing Apples and Oranges, I often wonder how Reggie Jackson would be remembered if not for the 1977 WS. Certainly his signature moment.
He> @maxdome said:
Good grief, there was also a time when scientists believed in alchemy and humorism.
We should, by all means, continue to use traditional metrics, even though we have much much better ones just because they are the ones that have always been used. Can you see the sarcasm dripping from my keypad?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Ask and ye shall receive.
Top 10 seasons in the metrics that matter:
Blue: Hunter - ERA+
183:144
142:140
140:134
123:114
121:113
119:107
109:102
108:98
104:93
103:85
Blue wins 10-0
Blue: Hunter - WAR
9.0:8.1
7.7:6.9
5.8:5.7
5.0:4.7
4.7:2.7
3.6:2.3
2.9:1.9
2.7:1.5
2.1:1.3
2.1:1.0
Blue wins 10-0
Blue:Hunter - WPA
6.6:4.5
5.7:3.8
3.1:3.1
2.9:2.9
2.9:2.2
2.6:1.4
1.6:1.2
1.3:0.9
1.3:0.3
0.9:-0.4
Blue wins 8-0-2
Now, "much" is subjective and if you want to leave off that adjective, I have no objection. But, Blue was better than Hunter; there is no way around that. That Hunter is in the HOF and Blue is not makes no sense at all. The only way to see them as similar is to ignore that Hunter pitched through the deadball era in the late 60's while Blue did not, instead pitching into the much higher scoring 80's.
They won't be clean sweeps, like with Blue, but Hunter also loses the same comparison to Pappas, McDowell, Tiant, Messersmith, Kaat, John, and a host of others. Do you want to know who beats Hunter 27-3, pitched 400 more innings, had a 4-0 record in the postseason and got 0.9% of the vote in his one and only HOF appearance? Jerry Koosman. Jerry Koosman was a better pitcher than Jim Hunter; in my opinion, a "much" better pitcher than Jim Hunter. Steve Rogers beats Hunter 23-7, for Pete's sake. Rogers also has a career W/L of .510, 21 points greater than the teams he pitched for. Hunter has a career W/L of .574, only 10 points higher than the teams he pitched for. Yeah, I'll say it - Steve Rogers was a better pitcher than Jim Hunter; the fact that he never got a single HOF vote providing zero evidence to the contrary.
No, no one is intellectually superior. Maybe more well read... that some stats have been around for 100 years doesn't make them superior, it just makes them older. We have so many great metrics now to use, why do you still seem so stuck on old limited stats?
I have been over BA before on this forum, but once again. BA sees the same value in a home run as a single, is not adjusted for park or era and does not include walks. It is such a very limited metric, other than tradition, I don't see why people cling to it so.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Batting average reflects the ability of a ball player to HIT the baseball in such a manner that they reach base safely on their OWN accord. It's the absolute foundation of baseball offense. I can't imagine not understanding the game at a level that drives the idea that BA is a limited measure.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Craig's point is that OBP and SA measure everything BA measures, and much more. Looking at batting average is like using candles to light your home. Yes, candles are better than nothing, but why use them when there are alternatives that accomplish your objective so much better? Or can you not imagine not understanding household illumination at a level that drives the idea that candles are of limited utility? Anyway, those of us who use lightbulbs no longer use candles, or pay any attention to batting average.
lol
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
In 1975, Catfish Hunter pitched 328 innings for the New York Yankees. In 39 starts, he pitched to a 23-14 record and 2.58 ERA and a 1.01 WHIP. And perhaps most impressively, he threw 30 complete games and 7 of them were shutouts.
That is a great season in any era, adjusted for any park and by any metric you like. If not, adjust your metrics. Individually AND for the team. Only thing he didn’t do for the Yankees in ‘75 was pour beer in the bleachers on off days. A guy who makes the first and last pitch of the game for his team doesn’t need a bullpen so it doesn’t matter how good the Yankee bullpen was in ‘75 really. Or doesn’t a starter going 9 show up in advanced metrics?
So, to sum up, you are wrong.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Oh and the comparable pitchers? Guys who had thirty complete games (or more) in a single season since WWII ended?
Bob Feller, Robin Roberts, Juan Marichal, Fergie Jenkins, Steve Carlton and Catfish Hunter.
Nice list.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I don't believe those metrics are great . Nothing beats the basic stats. Baseball is not rocket science.
You could point to some silly new method that makes a common player on par with one of the all time greats. I could point to the basic stats that shows the true greatness of a Hall of Famer and how he is superior to your average player.
We could argue back and forth but that would be pointless.
The bottom line is he is a Hall of Famer !
I see I don't have a monopoly on arrogance. But, technically, and ironically, you're wrong to call me wrong when all I did was express an opinion. If you look at Hunter's 1975 season and see "great", that's fine. I don't; I see "very good". In the 1970's Vida Blue had a "great" season as I see it ('71), as did Carlton ('72), Guidry ('78), and Seaver ('71). Humorously*, the only other season from that decade that I'd call "great was Jim Palmer in 1975. The gap from those seasons down to Hunter's '75 season is just too big to use the same word to describe them. I'm using "great" as my top category, and Hunter's season isn't in it. If you're using "great" as your second category, that's fine and neither of us is "wrong". But it means you're calling roughly ten times as many seasons "great" as I am.
*More humorously, Hunter's 1975 season was the third best performance by a pitcher that year; in addition to Palmer, Messersmith was also a little bit better.
Wow. Does it depend on what my definition of ‘is’ is, Mr. Clinton?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
@dallasactuary
You know I have an abundance of respect for your opinions and writing. Or you should.
In what world is 30 complete games and seven shutouts over 39 starts not a great season?
I mean, I get that you want to parse words here (to be right, of course) so only 4-5 guys can have a season you deem ‘great’ in the decade of the 70s and it happens to cut off right above Catfish Hunter’s ‘75 debut season in Pinstripes (where he was coming of a Cy Young I bet he didn’t deserve) but then what’s the formula?
Lay it out, please. I know it has to be K weighted/driven...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
What is more valuable, a single or a home run?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Depends on the situation. That’s a given. BA doesn’t care. Importance shows up in RS and RBI’s. Or, did you dig a hole and bury those too.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
@softparade
This is about to get crazy. RBI are close to the core; the earth’s core, I mean.
That is how deep @craig44 has buried RBI.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
@dallasactuary
There will be no belittlement, no saying you don’t know baseball and no calling you and idiot or a fool or anything else, either.
But to blow past thirty 9 inning performaces? I mean, gosh, even losing half of them is still a real help to a ball club for so many reasons during a real actual baseball season.
In fact, I’d go so far as to say great seems the only appropriate word for the ‘75 season...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
@dallassactuary
"False claim", that Catfish Hunter was not the ace of the 1975 Yankee pitching staff. Please explain !
Yankees gifted Catfish two World Series Rings ? Please explain !
@dallassactuary
Also you were called out for the silly claim bringing in Figueroa . Then you tried to pass it on to something I said. Maybe you need to go back and proof read before making false claims.
I honestly don't consider complete games as even an element of "great". That seems like the sort of "one off" consideration that was found to support Hunter after the fact. Now, innings pitched is certainly an element, but I'm not going to downgrade a pitcher's season because his manager pulls every starter in the ninth so he can bring in his "closer", or upgrade the seasons of pitchers with smarter managers because they don't. Innings pitched is largely within a pitchers control; complete games are not. Messersmith threw the same seven shutouts that Hunter did in 1975, but completed "only" 19 games. But, he pitched only six fewer innings than Hunter with a better ERA and adjusted ERA. Messersmith was better in 1975 than Hunter was; complete games don't enter in to it. Maybe you agree and are willing to include Messersmith on your relatively vast list of "great" seasons, but I'm not. Alternatively, I can agree that Hunter was "great" in 1975 if you give me a different word to describe the seasons that were significantly better.
But we're just wasting time on a semantic disagreement. Hunter had three seasons - call them "great" or call them whatever you want to call them - that contribute to a legitimate HOF argument - 1972, 1974 and 1975. Those are pretty much "average" seasons for HOF pitchers. But other HOF pitchers have either lots more seasons like that, a handful of seasons much better than that, or both. Since you're not taking exception to any of the comparisons I made to Blue, Koosman, Rogers, etc., maybe our only disagreement is what percentile season qualifies as "great". But if you really do disagree that Jerry Koosman was better than Jim Hunter, then please make that argument; it will be a lot more interesting than arguing about the dictionary.
@dallasactuary
“I honestly don't consider complete games as even an element of "great".”
Yeah, I can’t see how a guy pitching every inning of a game 30 times in a season is in anyway underwhelming. It is a ‘one off’ type thing except that when you look at his complete game totals in other seasons, it belies all that nonsense because he also did that in his other seasons - logged a great number of innings and complete games.
This was his greatness - he was a work horse, he did take the ball every 5th day and it did wear out his arm.
I can’t imagine ever counting baBIP AND xFIP trumping COMPLETE GAME. Times thirty. In one year.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
1951WheatiesPremium
Agreed !
The cognitive dissonance is strong with you. First, you're right, I misread (or misremembered) your post describing Hunter as an ace; you did describe him as only the ace of the A's, and not of both the A's and the Yankees. My mistake, and I agree that bringing Figueroa into this was unnecessary. I don't regret it, because I jump on any opportunity to point out that Hunter wasn't very good, but I do regret attributing the claim that Hunter was the Yankees ace to you because that was not true.
So, now we agree that Hunter wasn't the ace of the Yankees when they won their Word Series in the 70's. We also agree, because these are just facts, that Hunter's ERA in those two years was 9% worse than average, that he had a combined WAR of 1 (0.5 per season), that he averaged only six innings per start, and that his win probability added was negative 0.1. In other words, we agree that Hunter was just taking up space on the Yankees roster, pitching no better than any random pitcher the Yankees may have called up from the minors or promoted from their bullpen.
So, if we agree on all that, what possible objection could you have to my statement that the Yankees gifted Hunter with two WS rings? ANY pitcher could have done what Hunter did for them (for a lot less money); that the Yankees allowed Hunter to use that space on their roster and not give Dick Tidrow more starts was a gift. They'd have won more games if they had given Tidrow those starts, so it was an expensive gift, too.
I met and talked to the majority of the A's players from 72-74. They all spoke of how great Catfish was and when he left that was the end of their run. Several mentioned that when he was pitching they knew they were going to win. Several also mentioned that they would of kept winning if he had stayed ! As per his years on the Yankees. I remember Steinbrenner being quoted as saying that Catfish taught them how to win.
OK, I am dying to know. In what situation is a single more valuable than a home run?
A single with the bases loaded is worth more than a solo HR.
That is, I am sure, what he meant.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
@dallasactuary You should probably be more concerned about your bush league dissertation on what Catfish Hunter meant to the Yankees. Wow are you lost lol
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
What is so humorous about this post may i ask? Is it your inability to grasp these very simple concepts?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Maybe that's what he meant and he's just struggling with the English language and he meant to say "situations". Because, of course, there is no "situation" in which it is better to hit a single than a home run.
Did you ever argue with a child who thinks a personal insult coupled with "lol" equals an actual argument? It's frustrating because there's no way to respond to a point that hasn't been made. I don't know if you're a child or just play one for the amusement of others on the internet, but the effect is the same. If you'd care to attempt to make a real point I will be happy to address it. If you'd prefer to save yourself the embarrassment, I'll understand.
But RBI is a dependent metric. How is that valuable when comparing players? GMs are not basing huge free agent decisions on RBI. Otherwise, why would machado be about to earn $300 million. He only has one 100 RBI season. Also, Bryce harper, 1 100 rbi season. Yes, RBI are buried
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I was speaking in specifics. In what in game situation would a batter be better off hitting a single than a home run?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Yes, of course the Hall of Fame has become watered down. That is not even remotely debatable.
My viewpoint has always been that if stats are needed to convince others that some player belongs in the Hall of Fame, then he likely if not definitely shouldn't be in there.
The Hall of Fame should be reserved for great players only. But sadly, there are too many just excellent players in there, even some who were only very good players.
Was a player a great player, yes or no, should all that needs to be contemplated when voting. Certainly a number of "no" players are now in the Hall for a multitude of reasons.
Oh well, it is what it is. But despite all that, I've visited the Hall twice and always had a wonderful time. I highly recommend it.
You need to keep going to get to Jack Morris.
My theory on that is the voters at the time thought they were voting for Chuck Norris.
Did you get married only to have the mail man bang your wife on the reg? Certainly sounds like it.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Obviously there are moments where a single would be just as positive as a home run. None of this nonsense hides the stench being made here that BA is just an old relic.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
You are simply being obtuse. If the bases were loaded, a home run would score an extra run that even a based loaded single would not.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Bottom 9 tie game man on 3rd or even 2nd. Come on stop being a simpleton.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
That theory makes much more sense than any other that I've heard.
And softparade, like I said, I understand.