And thats my whole point, if there is a lot of doubt if you are a hall of famer, then you aint one. The bar has been lowered such we will argue about every marginal candidate for years. The HoF should be for no doubters, and no doubters only.
That's admirable, and I have great sympathy to that point of view, but it's simply not the way the HoF works, and hasn't been for a long time. The HoF survives by having induction ceremonies every year. If it only admitted one player every five years or so, it just wouldn't survive. Anyway, there are an awful lot of players enshrined who instead of being "no doubt"ers are more like "what are they doing here"ers. The simple fact is that the typical HoFer isn't a Ruth, Mays, Bonds type, but rather a Gwynn, Crawford, Thome, McCovey type. If we restrict it to the former, there will have to be a lot of changes made.
@GreenSneakers said:
Anybody that chimes in on Blyleven vs Palmer, please state whether you say them pitch while active. TV is fine, in person is better. Also if you were old enough to be actively following sports when they did - reading the Sporting News, Sports Illustrated, etc.
I saw them both. I read contemporary articles on both. I think Palmer was better, without question, and so did every beat writer of their day.
I love advanced metrics. I love that folks go back and make sure no one was unfairly looked over. But when Baines never got double digits in the vote, or Blyleven took 14 years to get elected only after an all out campaign, thats got to tell you something.
And thats my whole point, if there is a lot of doubt if you are a hall of famer, then you aint one. The bar has been lowered such we will argue about every marginal candidate for years. The HoF should be for no doubters, and no doubters only.
I saw both play a couple of times in person and many times on TV. Both great pitchers. Both HOFers and deservedly so.
Look at the teams they played for and their run support. I remember the radio Twins announcer saying Bert lost more 1-0 and 2-1 games than anyone he had ever seen.
I did lose track of Bert when he went to the NL, but he came back to the Twins and pitched well.
Bert was/is kind of an a hole, not sure about Palmer.
Other than W/L records numbers say they are very close with a slight edge to Palmer. As someone who saw them both, I would agree that Palmer was slightly better.
Silly statement "if there is doubt if you are a hall of famer you aint one", Plenty of guys in the hall I wouldn't agree with and some that aren't in that should be. What taking 14 years for Bert to get in proves that people are blinded by W/L records and popularity.
You guys that want a total of 50 guys in the Hall are missing Baseball, go back to your slide rules please.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@GreenSneakers said:
I never said your opinion is invalid. I just dont agree with it. I see you collect Greg Maddux - a clear hall of famer in my view. If you want to put Bert Blyleven and Don Sutton in the same group as Maddux, you are welcome to, but there is a clear distinction in what I saw. Same thing with Frank Thomas and Harold Baines. There is just no question Frank was better.
If you'd prefer a wide cast of players in your hall of fame, I guess you and the veterans committee are on the same page. I'd like to be a bit more discerning and have fewer players in. We can just disagree on that.
The fact that I think Jim Palmer was better than Blyeven and you think the opposite ... well, folks reading this can form their own opinions on which one is correct. I think the answer is obvious. And I do think its relevant that I saw them pitch in forming that opinion.
Why is it relevant at all that you saw them pitch? Unless you were able to watch an entire career, it is just anecdotal. Have you ever read studies about the accuracy of the witnesses? We don't remember as clearly or accurately as we think we do. Say you saw Palmer pitch 100 times. That's about 20% of his career. You may have seen him throw 6 or 7 shutouts a no hitter or better yet, dominate a world series game. People in general will remember best the outliers best. We don't remember the average of the times ji m got roughed up in the second inning and was pulled. That is why it is best to rely on the statistical record when it comes to comparing players and leave the anecdotal behind.
It doesn't really matter what we think and feel when comparing players, it matters most what actually happened. We find that from the statistical record
“It doesn't really matter what we think and feel when comparing players, it matters most what actually happened. We find that from the statistical record.”
Then I guess this guy who won no MVPs, made very few all star teams and received very little else in the way of accolades in his career (or after) should be widely regarded as a top 10-20 player all time. The people who saw him got it wrong, the people now are getting it wrong and only future generations looking at the stats without any type of context will get it right. Think and feel be damned!
“It doesn't really matter what we think and feel when comparing players, it matters most what actually happened. We find that from the statistical record.”
Then I guess this guy who won no MVPs, made very few all star teams and received very little else in the way of accolades in his career (or after) should be widely regarded as a top 10-20 player all time. The people who saw him got it wrong, the people now are getting it wrong and only future generations looking at the stats without any type of context will get it right. Think and feel be damned!
Think and feel matters. Stats are such a small part.
PS - Good luck keeping a straight face defending that finger waving failer
While mvp, GG, cy young, all star games etc are nice, they also are not an unbiased way to compare players.
Check out how many games Palmiero played at first base when he won the GG there in 1999. 28. Do you think he deserved a GG for 28 games played?
Players get accolades all the time based on reputation opposed to earning them. Look at the all star games guys get voted on to based on reputation.
What about Dawson's MVP in 1987? Mo Vaughns in 1995? I could go on and on with MLB and CY Young votes the voters got wrong.
Now Palmiero was a very good player, not great. I am not sure where you got that I said context was not important. You can get context from The statistical record. Palmiero was a good raw stat accumulator in context. He played in a very high run scoring era, and has very little black ink.
He also is lumped in with The steroid crew, so that can skew his rankings, though No one really knows by now much.
“It doesn't really matter what we think and feel when comparing players, it matters most what actually happened. We find that from the statistical record.”
Then I guess this guy who won no MVPs, made very few all star teams and received very little else in the way of accolades in his career (or after) should be widely regarded as a top 10-20 player all time. The people who saw him got it wrong, the people now are getting it wrong and only future generations looking at the stats without any type of context will get it right. Think and feel be damned!
Think and feel matters. Stats are such a small part.
PS - Good luck keeping a straight face defending that finger waving failer
While mvp, GG, cy young, all star games etc are nice, they also are not an unbiased way to compare players.
Check out how many games Palmiero played at first base when he won the GG there in 1999. 28. Do you think he deserved a GG for 28 games played?
Players get accolades all the time based on reputation opposed to earning them. Look at the all star games guys get voted on to based on reputation.
What about Dawson's MVP in 1987? Mo Vaughns in 1995? I could go on and on with MLB and CY Young votes the voters got wrong.
Now Palmiero was a very good player, not great. I am not sure where you got that I said context was not important. You can get context from The statistical record. Palmiero was a good raw stat accumulator in context. He played in a very high run scoring era, and has very little black ink.
He also is lumped in with The steroid crew, so that can skew his rankings, though No one really knows by now much.
No; I think Rafael Palmiero was a bum. The stats defy that opinion completely.
In the future, people will think we’re all dummies: look at those numbers!
You did not stay context does not matter. I’m just pointing out that it does matter. Stats have become the alpha and the omega.
Awards are ‘wrong’ sometimes. A ‘popularity contest’ sometimes. Sometimes. Not all the time. I feel like people will look at the stats in 50 years and look at Dustin Pedroia’s MVP the way we look at Rizzuto or Joe Gordon. Like - who the heck was he and how’d he beat out Ramirez and Ortiz and Youkilis, let alone the other worthy players on other teams, etc., etc.?
Had to see the season to know. In this case, stats will only cloud the picture. Someone can come in with WAR and OPS+ and argue but if you watched the baseball games you don’t need it.
And, no, I don’t think you have to have seen people play but you should certainly consider the opinions of those that saw the games played in that season.
I also believe the pendulum has swung too far in devaluing W/L. They can be arbitrary (of course) but they also don’t have to be, necessarily. They can provide a LOT of meaning and context.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
I should add that I’m a huge Yankee fan so homer stuff doesn’t apply (at all) with respect to his MVP. He was the unquestioned MVP in the AL that year.
Here’s another one to mull over. How the Funk and Wagnal’s did Jacob deGrom get the Cy Young this year? By relying on a shiny ERA*
and all the nonsensical ‘advanced’ stats that tell you what a good season he could have had. The best pitcher in the NL was Max Scherzer, who lead every traditional, results driven category in the NL. Scroll down and see for yourself:
And all the stat heads pat each other on the back as Mad Max gets robbed.
Given the choice, I’m taking Max Scherzer all day over deGrom last year any and every time. I’m not saying it would be foolish to pick deGrom. He’s great, too. And, yes, he was robbed by a bad bullpen and a disappointing offense often. So was Max. Max also won more, struck out morebatters , pitched to a lower WHIP, had more IP, more complete games and more shutouts.
*The same ERA which ALL stat heads often point to as being as arbitrary as wins!
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Baines is 545th all-time in WAR; Blyleven, by contrast, is 39th. It's so interesting that these two are being compared as fringe HOFers, or at least discussed side-by-side. The two players are not close.
Other guys in the neighborhood of Baines's career WAR: Paul O'Neill, Kent Hrbek, Steve Garvey, Tim Wallach, Boog Powell, Rey Lankford. Decent players - very good at times. No one seriously thinks any of these players should be in.
I don't think "doubt" applies here. Baines is not an HOFer. The whole institution is cheapened by his presence in it.
@bens4778 said:
Baines is 545th all-time in WAR; Blyleven, by contrast, is 39th. It's so interesting that these two are being compared as fringe HOFers, or at least discussed side-by-side. The two players are not close.
Other guys in the neighborhood of Baines's career WAR: Paul O'Neill, Kent Hrbek, Steve Garvey, Tim Wallach, Boog Powell, Rey Lankford. Decent players - very good at times. No one seriously thinks any of these players should be in.
I don't think "doubt" applies here. Baines is not an HOFer. The whole institution is cheapened by his presence in it.
I think Garvey will eventually get in. Won MVP and finished 2nd in 1978. 10-time all star.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
“It doesn't really matter what we think and feel when comparing players, it matters most what actually happened. We find that from the statistical record.”
Then I guess this guy who won no MVPs, made very few all star teams and received very little else in the way of accolades in his career (or after) should be widely regarded as a top 10-20 player all time. The people who saw him got it wrong, the people now are getting it wrong and only future generations looking at the stats without any type of context will get it right. Think and feel be damned!
Think and feel matters. Stats are such a small part.
PS - Good luck keeping a straight face defending that finger waving failer
While mvp, GG, cy young, all star games etc are nice, they also are not an unbiased way to compare players.
Check out how many games Palmiero played at first base when he won the GG there in 1999. 28. Do you think he deserved a GG for 28 games played?
Players get accolades all the time based on reputation opposed to earning them. Look at the all star games guys get voted on to based on reputation.
What about Dawson's MVP in 1987? Mo Vaughns in 1995? I could go on and on with MLB and CY Young votes the voters got wrong.
Now Palmiero was a very good player, not great. I am not sure where you got that I said context was not important. You can get context from The statistical record. Palmiero was a good raw stat accumulator in context. He played in a very high run scoring era, and has very little black ink.
He also is lumped in with The steroid crew, so that can skew his rankings, though No one really knows by now much.
No; I think Rafael Palmiero was a bum. The stats defy that opinion completely.
In the future, people will think we’re all dummies: look at those numbers!
You did not stay context does not matter. I’m just pointing out that it does matter. Stats have become the alpha and the omega.
Awards are ‘wrong’ sometimes. A ‘popularity contest’ sometimes. Sometimes. Not all the time. I feel like people will look at the stats in 50 years and look at Dustin Pedroia’s MVP the way we look at Rizzuto or Joe Gordon. Like - who the heck was he and how’d he beat out Ramirez and Ortiz and Youkilis, let alone the other worthy players on other teams, etc., etc.?
Had to see the season to know. In this case, stats will only cloud the picture. Someone can come in with WAR and OPS+ and argue but if you watched the baseball games you don’t need it.
And, no, I don’t think you have to have seen people play but you should certainly consider the opinions of those that saw the games played in that season.
I also believe the pendulum has swung too far in devaluing W/L. They can be arbitrary (of course) but they also don’t have to be, necessarily. They can provide a LOT of meaning and context.
It appears you are a little out of your league here. > @1951WheatiesPremium said:
“It doesn't really matter what we think and feel when comparing players, it matters most what actually happened. We find that from the statistical record.”
Then I guess this guy who won no MVPs, made very few all star teams and received very little else in the way of accolades in his career (or after) should be widely regarded as a top 10-20 player all time. The people who saw him got it wrong, the people now are getting it wrong and only future generations looking at the stats without any type of context will get it right. Think and feel be damned!
Think and feel matters. Stats are such a small part.
PS - Good luck keeping a straight face defending that finger waving failer
While mvp, GG, cy young, all star games etc are nice, they also are not an unbiased way to compare players.
Check out how many games Palmiero played at first base when he won the GG there in 1999. 28. Do you think he deserved a GG for 28 games played?
Players get accolades all the time based on reputation opposed to earning them. Look at the all star games guys get voted on to based on reputation.
What about Dawson's MVP in 1987? Mo Vaughns in 1995? I could go on and on with MLB and CY Young votes the voters got wrong.
Now Palmiero was a very good player, not great. I am not sure where you got that I said context was not important. You can get context from The statistical record. Palmiero was a good raw stat accumulator in context. He played in a very high run scoring era, and has very little black ink.
He also is lumped in with The steroid crew, so that can skew his rankings, though No one really knows by now much.
No; I think Rafael Palmiero was a bum. The stats defy that opinion completely.
In the future, people will think we’re all dummies: look at those numbers!
You did not stay context does not matter. I’m just pointing out that it does matter. Stats have become the alpha and the omega.
Awards are ‘wrong’ sometimes. A ‘popularity contest’ sometimes. Sometimes. Not all the time. I feel like people will look at the stats in 50 years and look at Dustin Pedroia’s MVP the way we look at Rizzuto or Joe Gordon. Like - who the heck was he and how’d he beat out Ramirez and Ortiz and Youkilis, let alone the other worthy players on other teams, etc., etc.?
Had to see the season to know. In this case, stats will only cloud the picture. Someone can come in with WAR and OPS+ and argue but if you watched the baseball games you don’t need it.
And, no, I don’t think you have to have seen people play but you should certainly consider the opinions of those that saw the games played in that season.
I also believe the pendulum has swung too far in devaluing W/L. They can be arbitrary (of course) but they also don’t have to be, necessarily. They can provide a LOT of meaning and context.
It seems you are out of your league when discussing players. No one cares what your opinion of palmiero was. It matters not one iota when discussing his rankings as a player. That is why you are so hopelessly lost in this discussion. You can get context from The numbers. Good grief, you don't have to be sitting in the grandstands filling out a scorecard to have these kind of debates.
People already look at years past award winners and don't have to wonder why they won or lost or should have won or shouldn't have. It is all there in black and white. This stuff is SO simple. If you are wondering about a questionable award winner, there are volumes of information you can research it is not difficult or that time consuming.
As far as valuing pitcher won loss records, you are hopelessly lost on this one. It is a team stat. There is NO VALUE in using it as a player comparison stat. There have been volumes written on that as well.
Maybe before you embarrass yourself any further, get yourself on Amazon, get a few dozen books on the topic and spend the winter reading. Then come back around opening day and we will discuss again.
By the way, if you think I am bad, you really don't want to debate Dallas about this stuff....
You seem to be taking victory laps for telling me I don’t know anything then citing what other people wrote volumes on and kneel at their feet. You take stats someone else created (from mostly the raw numbers) and kneel at their feet too. Lots of kneeling going on, bud.
I prefer to form my own opinions.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
You seem to be taking victory laps for telling me I don’t know anything then citing what other people wrote volumes on and kneel at their feet. You take stats someone else created (from mostly the raw numbers) and kneel at their feet too. Lots of kneeling going on, bud.
I prefer to form my own opinions.
Of course those opinions are wrong.
It's called research. some people are better at it than others.
Well the baseball opinions I have shared in the thread are Harold Baines is not a Hall of Famer, Max Scherzer should have been the Cy Young Award winner last year and Dustin Pedroia’s MVP season will be decreed invalid by those who didn’t see it.
Fire away. Which one is wrong. Use whatever stats you like.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Oh - and that win loss is not completely devoid of meaning as many these days assert. It can be aribitrary (as stated at the time) but it can also help provide meaning is more precisely what I said.
There’s all 4 unless I’m mistaken.
Since I am so lost and it’s ‘SO simple’ and I don’t know the first thing about it - you even offered recommended books - all four should be wildly inaccurate and easy to mock, right?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Degrom was the right choice. The two threw the same amount of innings and degrom was considerably better in fip, era+, hr/9, RA9, RAA, WAA. I could go on. Degrom leads in just about every advanced metric.
Scherzer has more wins and strikeouts and his whip was .001 lower than degrom.
I am not going to spell out for you what each of those metrics means, but if you don't understand adjusting and normalizing statistics, I just don't know what to say.
Degrom was the right choice. The two threw the same amount of innings and degrom was considerably better in fip, era+, hr/9, RA9, > @1951WheatiesPremium said:
@craig44 said:
I think A rod, cliff Lee, and youk had better seasons than pedroia in 2007
What you think doesn’t matter though.
Your words.
A rod, cliff Lee, and youk had better seasons than pedroia. How's that.
Comments
That's admirable, and I have great sympathy to that point of view, but it's simply not the way the HoF works, and hasn't been for a long time. The HoF survives by having induction ceremonies every year. If it only admitted one player every five years or so, it just wouldn't survive. Anyway, there are an awful lot of players enshrined who instead of being "no doubt"ers are more like "what are they doing here"ers. The simple fact is that the typical HoFer isn't a Ruth, Mays, Bonds type, but rather a Gwynn, Crawford, Thome, McCovey type. If we restrict it to the former, there will have to be a lot of changes made.
No, seaver was better. And I didn't even have to watch them pitch to know that.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I saw both play a couple of times in person and many times on TV. Both great pitchers. Both HOFers and deservedly so.
Look at the teams they played for and their run support. I remember the radio Twins announcer saying Bert lost more 1-0 and 2-1 games than anyone he had ever seen.
I did lose track of Bert when he went to the NL, but he came back to the Twins and pitched well.
Bert was/is kind of an a hole, not sure about Palmer.
Other than W/L records numbers say they are very close with a slight edge to Palmer. As someone who saw them both, I would agree that Palmer was slightly better.
Silly statement "if there is doubt if you are a hall of famer you aint one", Plenty of guys in the hall I wouldn't agree with and some that aren't in that should be. What taking 14 years for Bert to get in proves that people are blinded by W/L records and popularity.
You guys that want a total of 50 guys in the Hall are missing Baseball, go back to your slide rules please.
Why is it relevant at all that you saw them pitch? Unless you were able to watch an entire career, it is just anecdotal. Have you ever read studies about the accuracy of the witnesses? We don't remember as clearly or accurately as we think we do. Say you saw Palmer pitch 100 times. That's about 20% of his career. You may have seen him throw 6 or 7 shutouts a no hitter or better yet, dominate a world series game. People in general will remember best the outliers best. We don't remember the average of the times ji m got roughed up in the second inning and was pulled. That is why it is best to rely on the statistical record when it comes to comparing players and leave the anecdotal behind.
It doesn't really matter what we think and feel when comparing players, it matters most what actually happened. We find that from the statistical record
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Seaver was much better, but there's room for Bert in the HOF as well.
“It doesn't really matter what we think and feel when comparing players, it matters most what actually happened. We find that from the statistical record.”
Then I guess this guy who won no MVPs, made very few all star teams and received very little else in the way of accolades in his career (or after) should be widely regarded as a top 10-20 player all time. The people who saw him got it wrong, the people now are getting it wrong and only future generations looking at the stats without any type of context will get it right. Think and feel be damned!
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/palmera01.shtml
Think and feel matters. Stats are such a small part.
PS - Good luck keeping a straight face defending that finger waiving test failer.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Well he holds the record for gold gloves by a DH!
While mvp, GG, cy young, all star games etc are nice, they also are not an unbiased way to compare players.
Check out how many games Palmiero played at first base when he won the GG there in 1999. 28. Do you think he deserved a GG for 28 games played?
Players get accolades all the time based on reputation opposed to earning them. Look at the all star games guys get voted on to based on reputation.
What about Dawson's MVP in 1987? Mo Vaughns in 1995? I could go on and on with MLB and CY Young votes the voters got wrong.
Now Palmiero was a very good player, not great. I am not sure where you got that I said context was not important. You can get context from The statistical record. Palmiero was a good raw stat accumulator in context. He played in a very high run scoring era, and has very little black ink.
He also is lumped in with The steroid crew, so that can skew his rankings, though No one really knows by now much.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
No; I think Rafael Palmiero was a bum. The stats defy that opinion completely.
In the future, people will think we’re all dummies: look at those numbers!
You did not stay context does not matter. I’m just pointing out that it does matter. Stats have become the alpha and the omega.
Awards are ‘wrong’ sometimes. A ‘popularity contest’ sometimes. Sometimes. Not all the time. I feel like people will look at the stats in 50 years and look at Dustin Pedroia’s MVP the way we look at Rizzuto or Joe Gordon. Like - who the heck was he and how’d he beat out Ramirez and Ortiz and Youkilis, let alone the other worthy players on other teams, etc., etc.?
Had to see the season to know. In this case, stats will only cloud the picture. Someone can come in with WAR and OPS+ and argue but if you watched the baseball games you don’t need it.
And, no, I don’t think you have to have seen people play but you should certainly consider the opinions of those that saw the games played in that season.
I also believe the pendulum has swung too far in devaluing W/L. They can be arbitrary (of course) but they also don’t have to be, necessarily. They can provide a LOT of meaning and context.
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 should add that I’m a huge Yankee fan so homer stuff doesn’t apply (at all) with respect to his MVP. He was the unquestioned MVP in the AL that year.
Here’s another one to mull over. How the Funk and Wagnal’s did Jacob deGrom get the Cy Young this year? By relying on a shiny ERA*
and all the nonsensical ‘advanced’ stats that tell you what a good season he could have had. The best pitcher in the NL was Max Scherzer, who lead every traditional, results driven category in the NL. Scroll down and see for yourself:
https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/2018-pitching-leaders.shtml
And all the stat heads pat each other on the back as Mad Max gets robbed.
Given the choice, I’m taking Max Scherzer all day over deGrom last year any and every time. I’m not saying it would be foolish to pick deGrom. He’s great, too. And, yes, he was robbed by a bad bullpen and a disappointing offense often. So was Max. Max also won more, struck out morebatters , pitched to a lower WHIP, had more IP, more complete games and more shutouts.
*The same ERA which ALL stat heads often point to as being as arbitrary as wins!
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Baines is 545th all-time in WAR; Blyleven, by contrast, is 39th. It's so interesting that these two are being compared as fringe HOFers, or at least discussed side-by-side. The two players are not close.
Other guys in the neighborhood of Baines's career WAR: Paul O'Neill, Kent Hrbek, Steve Garvey, Tim Wallach, Boog Powell, Rey Lankford. Decent players - very good at times. No one seriously thinks any of these players should be in.
I don't think "doubt" applies here. Baines is not an HOFer. The whole institution is cheapened by his presence in it.
I think Garvey will eventually get in. Won MVP and finished 2nd in 1978. 10-time all star.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
It appears you are a little out of your league here. > @1951WheatiesPremium said:
It seems you are out of your league when discussing players. No one cares what your opinion of palmiero was. It matters not one iota when discussing his rankings as a player. That is why you are so hopelessly lost in this discussion. You can get context from The numbers. Good grief, you don't have to be sitting in the grandstands filling out a scorecard to have these kind of debates.
People already look at years past award winners and don't have to wonder why they won or lost or should have won or shouldn't have. It is all there in black and white. This stuff is SO simple. If you are wondering about a questionable award winner, there are volumes of information you can research it is not difficult or that time consuming.
As far as valuing pitcher won loss records, you are hopelessly lost on this one. It is a team stat. There is NO VALUE in using it as a player comparison stat. There have been volumes written on that as well.
Maybe before you embarrass yourself any further, get yourself on Amazon, get a few dozen books on the topic and spend the winter reading. Then come back around opening day and we will discuss again.
By the way, if you think I am bad, you really don't want to debate Dallas about this stuff....
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
It’s funny @craig44
You seem to be taking victory laps for telling me I don’t know anything then citing what other people wrote volumes on and kneel at their feet. You take stats someone else created (from mostly the raw numbers) and kneel at their feet too. Lots of kneeling going on, bud.
I prefer to form my own opinions.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Of course those opinions are wrong.
It's called research. some people are better at it than others.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Well the baseball opinions I have shared in the thread are Harold Baines is not a Hall of Famer, Max Scherzer should have been the Cy Young Award winner last year and Dustin Pedroia’s MVP season will be decreed invalid by those who didn’t see it.
Fire away. Which one is wrong. Use whatever stats you like.
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 that win loss is not completely devoid of meaning as many these days assert. It can be aribitrary (as stated at the time) but it can also help provide meaning is more precisely what I said.
There’s all 4 unless I’m mistaken.
Since I am so lost and it’s ‘SO simple’ and I don’t know the first thing about it - you even offered recommended books - all four should be wildly inaccurate and easy to mock, right?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Degrom was the right choice. The two threw the same amount of innings and degrom was considerably better in fip, era+, hr/9, RA9, RAA, WAA. I could go on. Degrom leads in just about every advanced metric.
Scherzer has more wins and strikeouts and his whip was .001 lower than degrom.
I am not going to spell out for you what each of those metrics means, but if you don't understand adjusting and normalizing statistics, I just don't know what to say.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
You are hopelessly lost if you think giving pitchers a "win/loss" record has any value in player comparisons.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I think A rod, cliff Lee, and youk had better seasons than pedroia in 2007
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
And as far as Baines, you got one right! You know what they say, even the blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes!
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
What you think doesn’t matter though.
Your words.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Degrom was the right choice. The two threw the same amount of innings and degrom was considerably better in fip, era+, hr/9, RA9, > @1951WheatiesPremium said:
A rod, cliff Lee, and youk had better seasons than pedroia. How's that.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Of course ARod did. He won the MVP in 2007.
Pedroia won the MVP in 2008.
Sorry, I meant 2008. Finger must have hit the 7. The three players mentioned still apply
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
All good; people make mistakes. I knew what you meant.
Merry Christmas, @craig44
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
And a very Merry Christmas to you as well 1951WheatiesPremium!
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I know. I was just being difficult
I think you've got a case for Cliff Lee, the other two not so much. Or, at least, close enough to not really matter.