<< <i>So throw that post season stuff out the window. >>
Stopped here. This isn't a sabermetrics discussion in between XBox marathons. It's the Hall of Fame, which, thankfully, is still voted on by people who understand that the game is played with a heartbeat, not a spreadsheet. Many players are known by what they accomplished in the post-season.
At least you guys have the comfort of knowing that almost one out of four voters agreed with you, at least in part.
Mussina was the equal or better than Smoltz. Equal in IP/ERA+, and better in WAR.
Mussina also had a better peak value than Smoltz.
You are using too small a sample size in regard to the post season, and that is as flawed as using W/L percentage. You seem to believe in the mythical post season ability of rising to the occasion with Smoltz and the post season, but then ignore that he didn't rise enough to the occassion in the WS where he was only 2-2.
Even with your small post season sample size, Smoltz has a 2.67 post season ERA. Mussina 3.42.
When you account for the fact that Mussina had more post season innings in the AL where he had to pitch in a higher run scoring environment than Smoltz did, then that ERA gap really drops to about a difference of a .15 - .25 in ERA. That is hardly anything to get too excited about considering it is over less than 200 IP for both of them, and that Smoltz would simply be one Kershaw-like shelling away from actually being less effective than Mussina in the post season.
<< <i>So throw that post season stuff out the window. >>
Stopped here. This isn't a sabermetrics discussion in between XBox marathons. It's the Hall of Fame, which, thankfully, is still voted on by people who understand that the game is played with a heartbeat, not a spreadsheet. Many players are known by what they accomplished in the post-season.
At least you guys have the comfort of knowing that almost one out of four voters agreed with you, at least in part. >>
If you are using that flawed logic, then you can't ignore that Smoltz was only 2-2 in the WS, and that his team only 1-4. That would be what he did on the biggest stage. That would be his primary post season contribution. You can't have it both ways.
On one hand, you ignore the 2-2 record in the World Series and point to a more sabermetic measurement(like ERA) to say he did good in the WS, but then when valid measurements like ERA+ are used to show that Mussina was as equal or better than Smoltz, then you ignore it.
You can't have it both ways fella.
If you are anti-sabermetric, then you are left with a 2-2 WS record by Smoltz, and his team being a resounding failure in the WS as his legacy.
If you are going to then point out Smoltz's post season ERA(a more sabermetric measurement), then you can't ignore the ERA+ and WAR measurements that put Mussina ahead of Smoltz.
You also cannot then ignore that when you account for the difficulty of each player's league to pitch in, that Mussina and Smoltz are with .25 runs in ERA in their post season pitching performances.
Then as pointed out above, Mussina and Smoltz really weren't much different in the post season with their ERA's. If you don't understand the impact of pitching in the AL that time, compared to the NL, then it is YOU who has absolutely no clue in regard to the pulse of baseball.
John Smoltz is a Hall of Famer. Mike Mussina is Alan Trammell. My logic just happens to be shared with 455 people who are charged with determining who wins and who doesn't.
John Smoltz is a Hall of Famer. Mike Mussina is Alan Trammell. My logic just happens to be shared with 455 people who are charged with determining who wins and who doesn't. >>
All that means is that you share the same flaw as 455 people, and have about the same baseball evaluative IQ as them...zero.
Because you are still left with:
On one hand, you ignore the 2-2 record in the World Series and point to a more sabermetic measurement(like ERA) to say he did good in the WS, but then when valid measurements like ERA+ are used to show that Mussina was as equal or better than Smoltz, then you ignore it.
You can't have it both ways fella.
If you are anti-sabermetric, then you are left with a 2-2 WS record by Smoltz, and his team being a resounding failure in the WS as his legacy.
If you are going to then point out Smoltz's post season ERA(a more sabermetric measurement), then you can't ignore the ERA+ and WAR measurements that put Mussina ahead of Smoltz.
You also cannot then ignore that when you account for the difficulty of each player's league to pitch in, that Mussina and Smoltz are within .25 runs in ERA in their post season pitching performances.
Then as pointed out above, Mussina and Smoltz really weren't much different in the post season with their ERA's. If you don't understand the impact of pitching in the AL that time, compared to the NL, then it is YOU who has absolutely no clue in regard to the pulse of baseball.
John Smoltz is a Hall of Famer. Mike Mussina is Alan Trammell. My logic just happens to be shared with 455 people who are charged with determining who wins and who doesn't. >>
All that means is that you share the same flaw as 455 people, and have about the same baseball evaluative IQ as them...zero.
Because you are still left with:
On one hand, you ignore the 2-2 record in the World Series and point to a more sabermetic measurement(like ERA) to say he did good in the WS, but then when valid measurements like ERA+ are used to show that Mussina was as equal or better than Smoltz, then you ignore it.
You can't have it both ways fella.
If you are anti-sabermetric, then you are left with a 2-2 WS record by Smoltz, and his team being a resounding failure in the WS as his legacy.
If you are going to then point out Smoltz's post season ERA(a more sabermetric measurement), then you can't ignore the ERA+ and WAR measurements that put Mussina ahead of Smoltz.
You also cannot then ignore that when you account for the difficulty of each player's league to pitch in, that Mussina and Smoltz are within .25 runs in ERA in their post season pitching performances.
Then as pointed out above, Mussina and Smoltz really weren't much different in the post season with their ERA's. If you don't understand the impact of pitching in the AL that time, compared to the NL, then it is YOU who has absolutely no clue in regard to the pulse of baseball. >>
LMAO. Tomorrow I will be on a baseball field. And the day after that. And I will have discussions with scouts and cross checkers all spring about my lefty who throws 92 with a filthy split, but who hasn't built up the confidence to pound the inside, and who casts his curve ball a little too much. Not polished enough for the top few rounds, but certainly won't last beyond the 15th. And my field will be littered with local major leaguers in February as they get their last cuts in before spring training. My guys love chatting up those hitters.
Put it this way: if you're going to get frustrated and take a personal shot with the baseball IQ thing, have a clue who you're talking to. I'll run circles around you on baseball IQ. You can sort through your baseball cards and run your sabermetric data in your cubicle during lunch, but your knowledge is limited to whatever Baseball Tonight and sabr.org are telling you this week.
John Smoltz is in the Hall of Fame. Don't forget that. Try this: stay on topic from now on. The BBWAA and I didn't come after you personally.
In looking at it, I can see how the writers and baseball retards can't understand how the ERA+ and WAR show that Mussina is as good or better than Smoltz, or the baseball morons not being able to see that Mussina's 3.42 post season ERA isn't really significantly different than Smoltz's 2.67 because of the fact that Mussina had to pitch more in the higher run scoring environment of the AL, and that those ERA's are over a small sample size.
I'll leave the Mussina facts to the more intelligently inclined and go to the Schilling/Smoltz comparison as it may be easier for the masses to understand.
Schilling 3,261 IP and a 127 ERA+....WAR 80.7........597 W%....3,116 SO....4.38 SO/W ratio Smoltz...3,473 IP and a 125 ERA+....WAR 66.5........579 W%....3,084 SO....3.08 SO/W ratio
A mix of valid measurements and old school measurements show Schilling as superior.
As shown above, Mussina and Smoltz do not have a significant post season different in post season pitching, but that is harder to see for some because of the AL factor, and being able to understand the impact of the small sample size.
In the case of Schilling, we don't have to worry about that, because Schilling beats Smoltz all around in the post-season.
Schilling 11-2 with a 2.23 ERA, and a 4-1 record and 2.06 ERA in the WS. Three WS rings. Smoltz...15-4 with a 2.67 ERA, and a 2-2 record and 2.47 ERA in the WS. One WS ring.
Schilling also has post-season lore on his side with Boston and his bloody sock. Smoltz's lore is losing four WS.
So Schilling is an equal or better pitcher for their career, has a better post season resume and legacy...and he isn't in. Yeah, that makes sense.
With Mussina/Smoltz/Schilling...it just shows how easy it is for the ignorant to be fooled...and that writers don't know enough.
PS. Been there done that with baseball...and none of that matters in regard to what this topic is. Some of the dumbest evaluations come from the best players in all Sports. Michael Jordan is horrible at evaluating players. I would much rather listen to Jerry Krause than Jordan in that regard, and Krause was awful at playing. But I more than held my own on the field both playing and coaching.
Also, if you truly believe 'your word' is what counts, then why would you cite the writers so much? LOL. They can't play or coach.
Lol ok sure you knock skin2 and tell him to flip his baseball cards yet your posting on a baseball card board? Yeah I played Ball against guys that ended up in major league ball played my whole life. You want me to believe you are doing all that yet can't see that Mike Mussina and Curt schilling where about as close to John Smoltz as they come. Yeah ok?!?!? Why don't you go flip your ball cards yourself. Maybe no one should share there opinion since they don't share your baseball IQ?!?!?! I'm no saber metrics lover I happen to believe the game is played between the lines and that stats just help illustrate points not completely make them but I'll get out of this disscussion now since my 40 years on this earth and basic love of the sport of baseball for 35 years of it don't measure up.......lol yeah whatever
That's awesome. Back him into a corner and all of a sudden we are a bunch of ignorant retards. Classic. Expected on an anonymous message board in 2015, but still a classic.
No, really, you and the accountants down the hall are the true bastions of baseball knowledge. Keep fighting the good fight. Looking forward to that 8th ballot when Moose cracks the 40% mark.
I am not an accountant you moron I'm a combat Marine that's served his country for 20+ years just like said you need to watch who you talk to. You take your baseball knowledge and have your opinion I'll take mine and we can just leave it at that.
Guante is probably just some chubby guy with zits pretending to be a coach, lol.
Guante, I'm past my playing prime, but could do all things on the field pretty darn well. Just fell a few inches or a few MPH short to be drafted as a RHP. 6 ft and 88 MPH wasn't enough. OH well...none of that changes that what you are saying between Mussina and Smoltz, which makes zero sense when you look at it objectively...as I pointed out with the flaws in your logic and methods.
If you are indeed a coach at a high level, then you understand that some conferences, or some minor leagues, are more conducive to power hitting, and you know that when a guy hits 20 HR in one of those leagues that he may actually be a worse power hitter than a guy who hits 12 in a different conference or league.
You also understand that the law of averages in baseball take time to even out. When you hear Greg Maddux say that some of the best games he pitched were when he gave up 10 hits, you may scratch your head and wonder why...but as he said, some of the weak hit balls found holes, and he lost. In the post season, that happens all the time. That is why when you measure a player, the sample size is important.
Knowing this, you should understand that Mussina and Smoltz aren't as different post season pitchers as you think. Considering Mussina has a 3.42 ERA done mostly in AL games, and Smoltz a 2.67 done mostly in NL games, you shouldn't be making claims like that is some vast difference.
For a high level coach, you should understand the big difference in pitching in the AL vs the NL during those years. Even a blind man or moron could see it! So why can't you if you are so smart?
The only person backed into a corner was you with your logic.
On one hand you use sabermetric measures when it is pointed out that Smoltz was only 2-2 in the WS, and his team 1-4........then on the next, you discount it when it is shown that for their career, Mussina was the equal or better(depending which measurement is used). You can't have it both ways, sorry.
<< <i>I am not an accountant you moron I'm a combat Marine that's served his country for 20+ years just like said you need to watch who you talk to. You take your baseball knowledge and have your opinion I'll take mine and we can just leave it at that. >>
<< <i>I am not an accountant you moron I'm a combat Marine that's served his country for 20+ years just like said you need to watch who you talk to. You take your baseball knowledge and have your opinion I'll take mine and we can just leave it at that. >>
I'm not a moron you accountant. >>
OK. That was pretty funny. As long as no malice was inteded
I like TheMick6...he is a cool dude. I appreciate his viewpoints, and they differ from mine a lot. Maybe not really different though...just looked at from different angles, because our conclusions always seem to be pretty similar.
<< <i>On one hand you use sabermetric measures when it is pointed out that Smoltz was only 2-2 in the WS, and his team 1-4........then on the next, you discount it when it is shown that for their career, Mussina was the equal or better(depending which measurement is used). You can't have it both ways, sorry. >>
Not sure who you thought you were talking to, but the only thing I posted about John Smoltz and post-season was 15-4. At no time did I change my stance, nor did I switch from one stat method to another. While arguing with your phantom enemy, you somehow turned 15-4 into 2-2 and NL vs AL and only looking at the World Series.
"Smoltz went 15-4 with two saves." "Smoltz was 15-4 with two saves."
Considering that I only posted two things about John Smoltz in the post-season, and they are both identical and listed above, could you please point out where I somehow tried to "have it both ways"?? Thanks, chief. And please have a good day at the office tomorrow.
Im a little annoyed with myself for letting him get to me actually. Just won't respond again. He thinks Smoltz is better and he's in the Hall no questioning that so arguing is pointless because that's his only point. Good hearing from you again Skin2 we always come damn close on opinions not always but most of the time. Damn my only point was that they were statistically identical.
<< <i> As for post-season domination, pitchers don't win World Series titles single-handedly. Smoltz went 15-4 with two saves. Not much more you can ask. >>
You said this, and that is a sabermetric viewpoint in terms of recognizing that pitchers alone don't win the WS. You said that to refute TheMick pointing out that Smoltz's teams were only 1-4 in WS play. That by you is a sabermetric viewpoint.
Then you also used numbers that are a small sample size, and a W/L record as evidence of his performance.
You are right, I used your logic(small sample size and W/L record) and pointed out that Smoltz was only 2-2 on the big stage. By your logic, his performance in the WS trumps all other post season significance, and by your logic W/L is a good measurement to use to determine this since you pointed out his 15-4 post season record....thus it stands that his 2-2 WS record would be valid evidence in terms of your thought process, and since it is on the biggest stage it also has more value than his other playoff games.
Therefore, his main post season legacy is that of a .500 pitcher on the biggest stage there can be. That is all based on YOUR methodology.
Of course, both you and I agree that he actually pitched well in that 2-2 record, because he had a good ERA(which is more of a sbermetric measurement and more precise at evaluating pitchrs).
ERA+ is even more precise, and Moose was as good as Smoltz for their career. WAR, Moose was better. Though I'm not usually a fan of that stat.
But what you still are glossing over is Mussina was almost as effective as Smoltz in the post season....when you account for the league environement, and then when you account for sample size, there is no post season difference between the two. Which means your main difference between the two simply is not accurate.
I love it when Skin gets rolling...all we need now is for dallasactuary to pop in, LOL!!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i> As for post-season domination, pitchers don't win World Series titles single-handedly. Smoltz went 15-4 with two saves. Not much more you can ask. >>
You said this, and that is a sabermetric viewpoint in terms of recognizing that pitchers alone don't win the WS. You said that to refute TheMick pointing out that Smoltz's teams were only 1-4 in WS play. That by you is a sabermetric viewpoint.
>>
Actually, it's a common sense view, not a sabermetric view. If you needed sabermetrics to teach you that a pitcher who starts two games isn't responsible for winning four, then we have other issues to address.
TheMick said something about Smoltz losing four World Series. And I correctly pointed out that a pitcher can't win a World Series by himself. Therefore, when looking at a pitcher's post-season performance, it makes sense to look at the games he pitched in, not in the games in which he was leaning on the rail and chewing on sunflower seeds. The rest of your post is a completely made up argument against absolutely nothing that I wrote. But the important thing is that you've convinced yourself that those guys are all equal. And we can't understate the importance of your opinion on this.
<< <i>Im a little annoyed with myself for letting him get to me actually. Just won't respond again. He thinks Smoltz is better and he's in the Hall no questioning that so arguing is pointless because that's his only point. Good hearing from you again Skin2 we always come damn close on opinions not always but most of the time. Damn my only point was that they were statistically identical. >>
Right back at you!
I like how you use your intuition, couple that with familiar measurements....and then cross check it with some of the sabermetric measurements(even though you aren't a fan of those), and come to your conclusion.
You pretty much ended this argument in the very beginning when you said that if both the traditional and sabermetric measurements point to Mussina being as good....then he must be.
You were also correct in saying that Mussina was no slouch in the post season either. Heck, a 3.42 post season ERA during that era, and in the AL, is actually pretty darn good!
<< <i> As for post-season domination, pitchers don't win World Series titles single-handedly. Smoltz went 15-4 with two saves. Not much more you can ask. >>
You said this, and that is a sabermetric viewpoint in terms of recognizing that pitchers alone don't win the WS. You said that to refute TheMick pointing out that Smoltz's teams were only 1-4 in WS play. That by you is a sabermetric viewpoint.
>>
Actually, it's a common sense view, not a sabermetric view. If you needed sabermetrics to teach you that a pitcher who starts two games isn't responsible for winning four, then we have other issues to address.
TheMick said something about Smoltz losing four World Series. And I correctly pointed out that a pitcher can't win a World Series by himself. Therefore, when looking at a pitcher's post-season performance, it makes sense to look at the games he pitched in, not in the games in which he was leaning on the rail and chewing on sunflower seeds. The rest of your post is a completely made up argument against absolutely nothing that I wrote. But the important thing is that you've convinced yourself that those guys are all equal. And we can't understate the importance of your opinion on this. >>
Actually, sabermetrics IS common sesne...but also backed up by factual objective data.
Not completely made up. I am simply using your logic that you established. Smoltz was 2-2 in the WS. You claimed that a pitchers W/L record is an important indicator of how good he was. 2-2 isn't very good.
You also claimed that Smoltz's post season ability and legacy is what makes him better than Mussina. Well, 2-2 in the WS isn't a very good legacy.
Also, as pointed out several times that you faield to address...Mussina's 3.42 ERA in the AL is pretty darn good, and almsot as good as Smoltz's 2.67 in the NL. When you account for the small sample size, there really is no post season difference between them.
It must be neat to frame BOTH sides of an argument in the ways that you want them to be presented. Forget what the other person actually wrote.
In any event, let's revisit this in July when Smoltz is giving his induction speech. Maybe all of the real baseball guys can invite Mussina over for drinks and compare WARs.
<< <i>It must be neat to frame BOTH sides of an argument in the ways that you want them to be presented. Forget what the other person actually wrote.
In any event, let's revisit this in July when Smoltz is giving his induction speech. Maybe all of the real baseball guys can invite Mussina over for drinks and compare WARs. >>
I didn't frame anything. That is YOUR methodology, not mine.
You use W/L record as your barometer.
You use post season performance as your barometer.
You value the WS above all.
Smoltz was only 2-2 in the World Series...so by your barometer, he is a mediocre big game pitcher....and that is his post legacy according to your methodology.
As for Smoltz's induction speech...good for him. He is lucky there are many fools doing the voting. I'm not going to blame Smoltz for that. I'm pretty sure he would agree with me that Mussina was as good...although his strength is pitching rather than evaluating.
Maybe you can ask Smoltz about his 2-2 WS record and ask him if he had gone 4-1 in the WS, if they would have actually won more than one ring?
And why haven't you addressed the difference between pitching in the AL vs the NL in that era? Too hard to understand?
<< <i>Could you show me the quote which shows that I value the World Series above all? Thanks in advance. >>
You put a lot of value on post-season performance...do you not believe the WS is the most valuable of all post season series? >>
Ah, so we have finally come around to admitting that you insert your own assumptions so that you can have something to argue against.
As far as anything being "too hard to understand", don't flatter yourself. As we established already, this game is a lunch break hobby for you. That's probably the hardest part for you to accept. The world will never know that you figured out the game better than anyone involved in the game, and you did it all in between sales meetings. You made it!!
You make such a big deal about a post season legacy, so it is obvious that the WS would be the most important series.
If you don't believe it is, then you are being disingenuous, or all your post season legacy means nothing...and that is your entire argument, a 15-4 post season record and a post season legacy.
You seem incapable of understanding the difference in ERA's and their leagues.
So that leaves you using W/L record as your barometer...and with the WS being the most important series...Smolt'z 2-2 WS record is mediocre. The team's 1-4 record is bad.
In order for you to refute those things, you must turn to sabermetric evaluations....but you already discounted them with the ERA+ and WAR.
So should i call you Sherwin Williams for painting yourself in a corner?
Not only have I not said 90% of the things attributed to me, you're the guy who said to dismiss the postseason altogether. If you really believe that, why have you spent the last few hours arguing nothing but the postseason? Do you also get into debates about the tooth fairy?
So my comment that Smoltz was 15-4 in the postseason somehow evolved into an argument that the Braves were 1-4 in the World Series, and that point is being made by a guy who doesn't believe in postseason stats at all.
CAN'T. MAKE. THIS. UP.
Have a great night. When you wake up, Mike Mussina is still just another guy.
<< <i>Not only have I not said 90% of the things attributed to me, you're the guy who said to dismiss the postseason altogether. If you really believe that, why have you spent the last few hours arguing nothing but the postseason? Do you also get into debates about the tooth fairy?
So my comment that Smoltz was 15-4 in the postseason somehow evolved into an argument that the Braves were 1-4 in the World Series, and that point is being made by a guy who doesn't believe in postseason stats at all.
CAN'T. MAKE. THIS. UP.
Have a great night. When you wake up, Mike Mussina is still just another guy. >>
I didn't make anything up...those are all YOUR philosophies and methodology.
Unfortuantely your methodology doesn't work.
Nope, post season stats don't mean much...and that is why I am poinitng out your folly in attempting to do so.
I think you should go back to concentrate coaching...and just make sure you don't mess up the things that players already do well. Happens way too much!
<< <i>If they are close, which is debatable, Smoltz' post-season domination certainly puts him in the lead. >>
The logic doesn't make a lot sense if you can't cash the check in the World Series. Jack Morris was better at cashing the check in the WS and had 41 more regular season wins. But Morris didn't have two HOF pitchers coattails to ride.
<< <i>If they are close, which is debatable, Smoltz' post-season domination certainly puts him in the lead. >>
Vols, thanks for pointing this quote out from Guante. I did not see it.
CeciliaGuante has brought nothing to this debate but this above philosophy. Smoltz had a 2-2 WS record, and their team a 1-4 World Series record.
CeciliaGuante's only evidence is using Smoltz's 15-4 W/L record to support his claim. He ignores ERA, ERA+, etc..
So on one hand he sings the praises of post season dominance using a 15-4 record to support his claim, then on the other he ignores the 2-2 WS record which would carry the most weight.
Also, in that above quote he says it is debatable that they are even close in the regular season. Hmmm, it has already been pointed out that Mussina is as good in ERA+, and better in WAR.
However, CeciliaGuante doesn't 'believe' in those measurements. Probably because he is just some random meathead coach, or an ignorant fool.
The one measurement he DOES believe in is W/L record, because that is all he uses to support his post season dominance claim.
Hmmmm....
So CeciliaGuante, since you use Smoltz's 15-4 record as your main evidence of post-season dominance, then how you do make the claim that it is "debatable" that the two pitchers are equal when Mussina was 270-153 with a .638 WP%, and Smoltz only 213-155 with a .579 WP% for their careers?
By your method, Smoltz was more dominant in the post season, but that would make Mussina the far better pitcher in the regular season for their careers because of the super W/L numbers. It wouldn't make it debatable. It would be a slam dunk that Mussina was better based on YOUR methods.
Oh, and Smoltz was only 2-2 in the WS. So YOUR method makes Smoltz a mediocre pitcher on the biggest stage there can be. That would be his legacy based on YOUR methodology.
Moose was a heck of pitcher, but he WAS NOT better than Smoltz. Smoltz was the best at his position several times in the NL. He won Cy Young, won Relief Man... he even won the Roberto Clemente award. He also won a Silver Slugger and NLCS MVP award. His postseason performance was better. And he does have a WS ring (it's a little ironic the Yankees won a WS the year before and the year after Mussina was there). He was also in the top 20 of MVP voting 3 times. Then there's the adversity he faced... the psychological issues, the injury, switching from starter to closer back to starter (while never missing a beat). I have zero issue with Smoltz getting in and Mussina not... although I think Mussina and Schilling should both get in (and soon).
The whole super-exclusivity of the HOF is somewhat of a crock. With the expansions of MLB, increased globalization of the sport, and better development at an earlier age... more players should be getting in. To change the rules to reduce the ballot time from 15 years to 10 and to only allow 10 votes on a ballot is counter-intuitive to what's really happening in baseball.
<< <i>Probably because he is just some random meathead coach, or an ignorant fool. >>
I'm glad you went this route so that everyone can see who you are. Someone disagrees with you? Ignorant meathead fool.
Enjoy working for The Man today. Swing by if you want to take some cuts after work.
>>
You traveled your own route as a meathead...I'm just pointing it out.
I don't trust a lot of coaches in messing with a players' swing, so I'll pass on that. Even pros. Even former players who may have had the ability to hit, because when many explain it or teach it, they teach some incorrect things...things that are actually different than what they actually do/did.
What do you think of the swing that Alex Rodriguez is showing on the cover of the Kevin Long video, where he is showing poor hitting mechanics at the point of contact while hitting off a tee?
Maybe you know about coaching baseball skills and may have played some(don't know)...but it is pretty evident that evaluative abilities on subjects such as the one on this thread, is lacking. So meathead does apply.
PS. It is ironic that you made a snide remark about Alan Trammell earlier in the thread, and then 'boasted' how you will be hanging with scouts, so that you think you have credibility.
Back in 1988 when I was hanging with scouts, they said that Alan Trammell was better than Cal Ripken. So is he better than Ripken, thus making your snide comment wrong? Or is it that scouts words on topics as this aren't exactly as meaningful as you think.
As usual, you have the gift of writing a long-winded post arguing things that have nothing to do with me or anything I have written.
Now I am responsible for some scout allegedly saying that Alan Trammell was better than Cal Ripken? I have no credibility because some hitting coach screwed up your swing? Got me. My cover is blown. You must be in the C.I.A.
Glad you could check in during lunch. Now back to the grind.
Again, your meatheadness fails to see the point on trammell.
You tried to refute the accurate measurements that show Mussina was the equal or better than Smoltz by claiming you are around the game, and how you are hanging with scouts. You say that to try and give you credibility in the debate, because you never offered anything of value, or anything that made sense.
You hanging with scouts or coaching does nothing to refute the evidence I put for comparing Smotlz and Mussina.
Then you made some snide comment about Alan Trammell, saying that Mussina will be Alan Trammell, not good enough for the Hall.
I am pointing out, in 1988 when I was hanging with scouts, those guys said that Trammell was better than Cal Ripken. So either those scouts are right, and Trammell is better than RIpken and Hall Worthy, or scouts aren't anything special when it comes to debates such as these, therefore, making your credibility claim/reach, meaningless.
So that brings us back to what I originally posted between the two:
Mussina was the equal in IP/ERA+ Mussina was better in WAR, by a lot. Mussina was also better by a landslide in W/L and WP%, which are the stats that YOU hail more than anything.
You being a coach and hanging with scouts does NOT give you ANY insight that changes that. So your 'attempt' at discrediting that valid and tested info, simply did not work. Whether you coach, play, or hang with scouts, it still doesn't change those measurments.
It also does not change that Mussina and Smoltz were basically as effective as each other in the post season when you account for the league they pitched in, and the sample size of innings.
You hanging with scouts or coaching does nothing to refute the evidence I put for comparing Smotlz and Mussina.
>>
In your attempt to be Message Board Bad A-- while masquerading as a baseball guy, you entirely missed the context of why I had to mention that scouts will be at my facility all spring. After your mindless comment about me having no baseball IQ, I simply informed you that my whole career revolves around baseball, showing that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It had nothing to do with refuting any evidence about Hall of Famer John Smoltz or former Major Leaguer Mike Mussina. If you could follow a thread, you might not have made that embarrassing mistake.
The HOF is not based on stats, but popularity and feel good stories. Any stat thrown out is meaningless other than % of votes received. No other statistical measurement gets any player in. Bottom line, Smoltz is in and Mussina is not (for now at least). Congrats to the class of 2015!
Everything you have written says you have no baseball IQ on this topic. I didn't have to say it...but did anyway, because I felt like toying with a moron yesterday. I guess I was bored.
I still stand by your lack of baseball IQ in regard to this topic. You claimed to have a 'feel for the pulse of the game', and that 'this wasn't some xbox stat game'.
You used that to discredit the measurements I posted that show Mussina was indeed the equal or better.
As for your baseball IQ in regard to on the field. I still don't know that either. I know facilities that wreck swings and arm action all the time. How do I know you are not one of them? Also, just because you have a kid throwing 92 MPH at your facility, doesn't mean it is a credit to you. Most likely, he had that gift before he even knew you existed. So don't start taking credit for guys that get drafted going through your facility, because they would probably get drafted if you were never even born.
I just hope you aren't taking guys and messing up their already elite swings, or throwing arm actions, with some convoluted understanding of those mechanics, and trying to 'enhance' or alter them.
So don't go breaking your arm patting yourself on the back.
So back on topic:
Mussina was equal in IP/ERA+ Mussina was better in WAR Mussina was better in W/L and WP% by a lot.
Mussina also beat Smoltz in peak years with 8 out of 12.
Mussina was about as equally effective as Smoltz in the Post Season when you account for league and sample size.
SO WHERE DO YOU SEE THAT SMOLTZ WAS BETTER THAT YOU CLAIM?
<< <i>You claimed to have a 'feel for the pulse of the game', and that 'this wasn't some xbox stat game'. >>
Link or screen shot, please. If you're going to continue to embarrass yourself, at least use things that I actually write. That has been the theme throughout, but this time you actually used quotes.
<< <i>As for your baseball IQ in regard to on the field. I still don't know that either. I know facilities that wreck swings and arm action all the time. How do I know you are not one of them? Also, just because you have a kid throwing 92 MPH at your facility, doesn't mean it is a credit to you. Most likely, he had that gift before he even knew you existed. So don't start taking credit for guys that get drafted going through your facility, because they would probably get drafted if you were never even born. >>
Where did I take credit for it? Once again (recurring theme alert), when I wrote that it was in response to your claim of having no baseball IQ, when in fact my career revolves around baseball. We're approaching a dozen different times now that you have argued against something that I never wrote or claimed.
<< <i>SO WHERE DO YOU SEE THAT SMOLTZ WAS BETTER THAT YOU CLAIM? >>
<< <i>So throw that post season stuff out the window. >>
Stopped here. This isn't a sabermetrics discussion in between XBox marathons. It's the Hall of Fame, which, thankfully, is still voted on by people who understand that the game is played with a heartbeat, not a spreadsheet. Many players are known by what they accomplished in the post-season. >>
You didn't exactly claim that YOU had the had those attributes, so I have to apologize for that.
You do go all-in that the writers do, and believe they know what they are talking about. I guess you are guilty by association
Since your only evidence that Smoltz was better was simply that the writers voted him in...I guess that leaves you with no mind for yourself. That is the best you have? For someone that claims they have such a high baseball IQ, I would expect forming your own opinion.
All of what I wrote in this thread is also directed toward the writers as well. THey have a history of being stupid, and still are. When you yourself throw your hat in mindlessly with them, then what else can I say, but that you are the same.
None of what you wrote, or what you believe the writers know, refutes the information:
Mussina equal or better in IP/ERA+ Mussina better in WAR Mussina better in W/L, and WP% by a landslide.
Mussina equally as effect as Smoltz in the post season when accounting for league and sample size.
Many writers are not educated enough to know and understand this, which makes them baseball evaluative stupid. If YOU believe whole heartedly in them, that would make you the same.
Like TheMick6 said in the beginning...Smoltz/Mussina/Schilling are the same. Putting one in and not the other two, makes no sense. But these are writers we are talking about, so I guess it does make sense.
PS. Smoltz accomplished a 2-2 record on the biggest stage. You can't hail post season success(using wins as your evidence), and ignore that in the WOrld Series Smoltz was .500
So we're left with the notion that Smoltz only got in because the writers are stupid. And you are qualified to make that claim because in your spare time away from your day job, you are a better baseball analyst than anyone who covers it for a living. Makes sense.
Glad you could check in during lunch. Now back to the grind. >>
I don't have a horse in this race but what's with all the down talk? I'm glad you love your job but I'm pretty sure there are lots of guys here that are in "the grind" that do significantly better than you do, and aren't half as angry.
Best of luck with that 15th rounder, someday maybe we can grab a beer and talk about the kid I coached in Pee Wee that played 15 minutes for the Sharks in 1997.
<< <i>So we're left with the notion that Smoltz only got in because the writers are stupid. And you are qualified to make that claim because in your spare time away from your day job, you are a better baseball analyst than anyone who covers it for a living. Makes sense. >>
I'll go against any of them any time of the day.
They are writers. They are qualified to write sentences and have good grammar. In that regard, I bow to them.
However, they are uneducated in baseball. There are a few who are getting better...but the masses of them leave a lot to be desired.
They believe in a lot of myths, misinformation, invalid information, and just flat out fail in baseball logic. I catch them all the time.
That isn't the only reason Smoltz got in though. He was very good. However, he wasn't any better than Mussina.
Someone noted above about Smoltz's Cy Young award as evidence of being better than Mussina. That was a writers mistake too. That award belonged to Kevin Brown that year. Brown beat him by a full run in ERA. However, the writers were fooled by the W/L records. Why? Because they are stupid.
At least some are starting learn, because Felix Hernandez won a Cy Young a couple years ago with a near .500 record. 15 years ago that never would have happened. So as you can see, they ARE learning. But since they are still lacking...that must mean they were awful before they started learning.
If you get thrown under the bus because you follow blindly the 'word' of the uneducated writers...hey, you hitched your ride.
Comments
<< <i>So throw that post season stuff out the window. >>
Stopped here. This isn't a sabermetrics discussion in between XBox marathons. It's the Hall of Fame, which, thankfully, is still voted on by people who understand that the game is played with a heartbeat, not a spreadsheet. Many players are known by what they accomplished in the post-season.
At least you guys have the comfort of knowing that almost one out of four voters agreed with you, at least in part.
Mussina was the equal or better than Smoltz. Equal in IP/ERA+, and better in WAR.
Mussina also had a better peak value than Smoltz.
You are using too small a sample size in regard to the post season, and that is as flawed as using W/L percentage. You seem to believe in the mythical post season ability of rising to the occasion with Smoltz and the post season, but then ignore that he didn't rise enough to the occassion in the WS where he was only 2-2.
Even with your small post season sample size, Smoltz has a 2.67 post season ERA. Mussina 3.42.
When you account for the fact that Mussina had more post season innings in the AL where he had to pitch in a higher run scoring environment than Smoltz did, then that ERA gap really drops to about a difference of a .15 - .25 in ERA. That is hardly anything to get too excited about considering it is over less than 200 IP for both of them, and that Smoltz would simply be one Kershaw-like shelling away from actually being less effective than Mussina in the post season.
<< <i>
<< <i>So throw that post season stuff out the window. >>
Stopped here. This isn't a sabermetrics discussion in between XBox marathons. It's the Hall of Fame, which, thankfully, is still voted on by people who understand that the game is played with a heartbeat, not a spreadsheet. Many players are known by what they accomplished in the post-season.
At least you guys have the comfort of knowing that almost one out of four voters agreed with you, at least in part. >>
If you are using that flawed logic, then you can't ignore that Smoltz was only 2-2 in the WS, and that his team only 1-4. That would be what he did on the biggest stage. That would be his primary post season contribution. You can't have it both ways.
On one hand, you ignore the 2-2 record in the World Series and point to a more sabermetic measurement(like ERA) to say he did good in the WS, but then when valid measurements like ERA+ are used to show that Mussina was as equal or better than Smoltz, then you ignore it.
You can't have it both ways fella.
If you are anti-sabermetric, then you are left with a 2-2 WS record by Smoltz, and his team being a resounding failure in the WS as his legacy.
If you are going to then point out Smoltz's post season ERA(a more sabermetric measurement), then you can't ignore the ERA+ and WAR measurements that put Mussina ahead of Smoltz.
You also cannot then ignore that when you account for the difficulty of each player's league to pitch in, that Mussina and Smoltz are with .25 runs in ERA in their post season pitching performances.
Then as pointed out above, Mussina and Smoltz really weren't much different in the post season with their ERA's. If you don't understand the impact of pitching in the AL that time, compared to the NL, then it is YOU who has absolutely no clue in regard to the pulse of baseball.
<< <i>If you are using that flawed logic...... >>
John Smoltz is a Hall of Famer. Mike Mussina is Alan Trammell. My logic just happens to be shared with 455 people who are charged with determining who wins and who doesn't.
<< <i>
<< <i>If you are using that flawed logic...... >>
John Smoltz is a Hall of Famer. Mike Mussina is Alan Trammell. My logic just happens to be shared with 455 people who are charged with determining who wins and who doesn't. >>
All that means is that you share the same flaw as 455 people, and have about the same baseball evaluative IQ as them...zero.
Because you are still left with:
On one hand, you ignore the 2-2 record in the World Series and point to a more sabermetic measurement(like ERA) to say he did good in the WS, but then when valid measurements like ERA+ are used to show that Mussina was as equal or better than Smoltz, then you ignore it.
You can't have it both ways fella.
If you are anti-sabermetric, then you are left with a 2-2 WS record by Smoltz, and his team being a resounding failure in the WS as his legacy.
If you are going to then point out Smoltz's post season ERA(a more sabermetric measurement), then you can't ignore the ERA+ and WAR measurements that put Mussina ahead of Smoltz.
You also cannot then ignore that when you account for the difficulty of each player's league to pitch in, that Mussina and Smoltz are within .25 runs in ERA in their post season pitching performances.
Then as pointed out above, Mussina and Smoltz really weren't much different in the post season with their ERA's. If you don't understand the impact of pitching in the AL that time, compared to the NL, then it is YOU who has absolutely no clue in regard to the pulse of baseball.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If you are using that flawed logic...... >>
John Smoltz is a Hall of Famer. Mike Mussina is Alan Trammell. My logic just happens to be shared with 455 people who are charged with determining who wins and who doesn't. >>
All that means is that you share the same flaw as 455 people, and have about the same baseball evaluative IQ as them...zero.
Because you are still left with:
On one hand, you ignore the 2-2 record in the World Series and point to a more sabermetic measurement(like ERA) to say he did good in the WS, but then when valid measurements like ERA+ are used to show that Mussina was as equal or better than Smoltz, then you ignore it.
You can't have it both ways fella.
If you are anti-sabermetric, then you are left with a 2-2 WS record by Smoltz, and his team being a resounding failure in the WS as his legacy.
If you are going to then point out Smoltz's post season ERA(a more sabermetric measurement), then you can't ignore the ERA+ and WAR measurements that put Mussina ahead of Smoltz.
You also cannot then ignore that when you account for the difficulty of each player's league to pitch in, that Mussina and Smoltz are within .25 runs in ERA in their post season pitching performances.
Then as pointed out above, Mussina and Smoltz really weren't much different in the post season with their ERA's. If you don't understand the impact of pitching in the AL that time, compared to the NL, then it is YOU who has absolutely no clue in regard to the pulse of baseball. >>
LMAO. Tomorrow I will be on a baseball field. And the day after that. And I will have discussions with scouts and cross checkers all spring about my lefty who throws 92 with a filthy split, but who hasn't built up the confidence to pound the inside, and who casts his curve ball a little too much. Not polished enough for the top few rounds, but certainly won't last beyond the 15th. And my field will be littered with local major leaguers in February as they get their last cuts in before spring training. My guys love chatting up those hitters.
Put it this way: if you're going to get frustrated and take a personal shot with the baseball IQ thing, have a clue who you're talking to. I'll run circles around you on baseball IQ. You can sort through your baseball cards and run your sabermetric data in your cubicle during lunch, but your knowledge is limited to whatever Baseball Tonight and sabr.org are telling you this week.
John Smoltz is in the Hall of Fame. Don't forget that. Try this: stay on topic from now on. The BBWAA and I didn't come after you personally.
I'll leave the Mussina facts to the more intelligently inclined and go to the Schilling/Smoltz comparison as it may be easier for the masses to understand.
Schilling 3,261 IP and a 127 ERA+....WAR 80.7........597 W%....3,116 SO....4.38 SO/W ratio
Smoltz...3,473 IP and a 125 ERA+....WAR 66.5........579 W%....3,084 SO....3.08 SO/W ratio
A mix of valid measurements and old school measurements show Schilling as superior.
As shown above, Mussina and Smoltz do not have a significant post season different in post season pitching, but that is harder to see for some because of the AL factor, and being able to understand the impact of the small sample size.
In the case of Schilling, we don't have to worry about that, because Schilling beats Smoltz all around in the post-season.
Schilling 11-2 with a 2.23 ERA, and a 4-1 record and 2.06 ERA in the WS. Three WS rings.
Smoltz...15-4 with a 2.67 ERA, and a 2-2 record and 2.47 ERA in the WS. One WS ring.
Schilling also has post-season lore on his side with Boston and his bloody sock. Smoltz's lore is losing four WS.
So Schilling is an equal or better pitcher for their career, has a better post season resume and legacy...and he isn't in. Yeah, that makes sense.
With Mussina/Smoltz/Schilling...it just shows how easy it is for the ignorant to be fooled...and that writers don't know enough.
PS. Been there done that with baseball...and none of that matters in regard to what this topic is. Some of the dumbest evaluations come from the best players in all Sports. Michael Jordan is horrible at evaluating players. I would much rather listen to Jerry Krause than Jordan in that regard, and Krause was awful at playing. But I more than held my own on the field both playing and coaching.
Also, if you truly believe 'your word' is what counts, then why would you cite the writers so much? LOL. They can't play or coach.
No, really, you and the accountants down the hall are the true bastions of baseball knowledge. Keep fighting the good fight. Looking forward to that 8th ballot when Moose cracks the 40% mark.
<< <i>Mike Mussina and Curt schilling where about as close to John Smoltz as they come. >>
Yes, and the whole baseball world agrees with you.
Guante, I'm past my playing prime, but could do all things on the field pretty darn well. Just fell a few inches or a few MPH short to be drafted as a RHP. 6 ft and 88 MPH wasn't enough. OH well...none of that changes that what you are saying between Mussina and Smoltz, which makes zero sense when you look at it objectively...as I pointed out with the flaws in your logic and methods.
If you are indeed a coach at a high level, then you understand that some conferences, or some minor leagues, are more conducive to power hitting, and you know that when a guy hits 20 HR in one of those leagues that he may actually be a worse power hitter than a guy who hits 12 in a different conference or league.
You also understand that the law of averages in baseball take time to even out. When you hear Greg Maddux say that some of the best games he pitched were when he gave up 10 hits, you may scratch your head and wonder why...but as he said, some of the weak hit balls found holes, and he lost. In the post season, that happens all the time. That is why when you measure a player, the sample size is important.
Knowing this, you should understand that Mussina and Smoltz aren't as different post season pitchers as you think. Considering Mussina has a 3.42 ERA done mostly in AL games, and Smoltz a 2.67 done mostly in NL games, you shouldn't be making claims like that is some vast difference.
For a high level coach, you should understand the big difference in pitching in the AL vs the NL during those years. Even a blind man or moron could see it! So why can't you if you are so smart?
The only person backed into a corner was you with your logic.
On one hand you use sabermetric measures when it is pointed out that Smoltz was only 2-2 in the WS, and his team 1-4........then on the next, you discount it when it is shown that for their career, Mussina was the equal or better(depending which measurement is used). You can't have it both ways, sorry.
<< <i>I am not an accountant you moron I'm a combat Marine that's served his country for 20+ years just like said you need to watch who you talk to. You take your baseball knowledge and have your opinion I'll take mine and we can just leave it at that. >>
I'm not a moron you accountant.
<< <i>
<< <i>I am not an accountant you moron I'm a combat Marine that's served his country for 20+ years just like said you need to watch who you talk to. You take your baseball knowledge and have your opinion I'll take mine and we can just leave it at that. >>
I'm not a moron you accountant. >>
OK. That was pretty funny. As long as no malice was inteded
I like TheMick6...he is a cool dude. I appreciate his viewpoints, and they differ from mine a lot. Maybe not really different though...just looked at from different angles, because our conclusions always seem to be pretty similar.
<< <i>On one hand you use sabermetric measures when it is pointed out that Smoltz was only 2-2 in the WS, and his team 1-4........then on the next, you discount it when it is shown that for their career, Mussina was the equal or better(depending which measurement is used). You can't have it both ways, sorry. >>
Not sure who you thought you were talking to, but the only thing I posted about John Smoltz and post-season was 15-4. At no time did I change my stance, nor did I switch from one stat method to another. While arguing with your phantom enemy, you somehow turned 15-4 into 2-2 and NL vs AL and only looking at the World Series.
"Smoltz went 15-4 with two saves."
"Smoltz was 15-4 with two saves."
Considering that I only posted two things about John Smoltz in the post-season, and they are both identical and listed above, could you please point out where I somehow tried to "have it both ways"?? Thanks, chief. And please have a good day at the office tomorrow.
<< <i> As for post-season domination, pitchers don't win World Series titles single-handedly. Smoltz went 15-4 with two saves. Not much more you can ask. >>
You said this, and that is a sabermetric viewpoint in terms of recognizing that pitchers alone don't win the WS. You said that to refute TheMick pointing out that Smoltz's teams were only 1-4 in WS play. That by you is a sabermetric viewpoint.
Then you also used numbers that are a small sample size, and a W/L record as evidence of his performance.
You are right, I used your logic(small sample size and W/L record) and pointed out that Smoltz was only 2-2 on the big stage. By your logic, his performance in the WS trumps all other post season significance, and by your logic W/L is a good measurement to use to determine this since you pointed out his 15-4 post season record....thus it stands that his 2-2 WS record would be valid evidence in terms of your thought process, and since it is on the biggest stage it also has more value than his other playoff games.
Therefore, his main post season legacy is that of a .500 pitcher on the biggest stage there can be. That is all based on YOUR methodology.
Of course, both you and I agree that he actually pitched well in that 2-2 record, because he had a good ERA(which is more of a sbermetric measurement and more precise at evaluating pitchrs).
ERA+ is even more precise, and Moose was as good as Smoltz for their career. WAR, Moose was better. Though I'm not usually a fan of that stat.
But what you still are glossing over is Mussina was almost as effective as Smoltz in the post season....when you account for the league environement, and then when you account for sample size, there is no post season difference between the two. Which means your main difference between the two simply is not accurate.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i> As for post-season domination, pitchers don't win World Series titles single-handedly. Smoltz went 15-4 with two saves. Not much more you can ask. >>
You said this, and that is a sabermetric viewpoint in terms of recognizing that pitchers alone don't win the WS. You said that to refute TheMick pointing out that Smoltz's teams were only 1-4 in WS play. That by you is a sabermetric viewpoint.
>>
Actually, it's a common sense view, not a sabermetric view. If you needed sabermetrics to teach you that a pitcher who starts two games isn't responsible for winning four, then we have other issues to address.
TheMick said something about Smoltz losing four World Series. And I correctly pointed out that a pitcher can't win a World Series by himself. Therefore, when looking at a pitcher's post-season performance, it makes sense to look at the games he pitched in, not in the games in which he was leaning on the rail and chewing on sunflower seeds. The rest of your post is a completely made up argument against absolutely nothing that I wrote. But the important thing is that you've convinced yourself that those guys are all equal. And we can't understate the importance of your opinion on this.
<< <i>Im a little annoyed with myself for letting him get to me actually. Just won't respond again. He thinks Smoltz is better and he's in the Hall no questioning that so arguing is pointless because that's his only point. Good hearing from you again Skin2 we always come damn close on opinions not always but most of the time. Damn my only point was that they were statistically identical. >>
Right back at you!
I like how you use your intuition, couple that with familiar measurements....and then cross check it with some of the sabermetric measurements(even though you aren't a fan of those), and come to your conclusion.
You pretty much ended this argument in the very beginning when you said that if both the traditional and sabermetric measurements point to Mussina being as good....then he must be.
You were also correct in saying that Mussina was no slouch in the post season either. Heck, a 3.42 post season ERA during that era, and in the AL, is actually pretty darn good!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i> As for post-season domination, pitchers don't win World Series titles single-handedly. Smoltz went 15-4 with two saves. Not much more you can ask. >>
You said this, and that is a sabermetric viewpoint in terms of recognizing that pitchers alone don't win the WS. You said that to refute TheMick pointing out that Smoltz's teams were only 1-4 in WS play. That by you is a sabermetric viewpoint.
>>
Actually, it's a common sense view, not a sabermetric view. If you needed sabermetrics to teach you that a pitcher who starts two games isn't responsible for winning four, then we have other issues to address.
TheMick said something about Smoltz losing four World Series. And I correctly pointed out that a pitcher can't win a World Series by himself. Therefore, when looking at a pitcher's post-season performance, it makes sense to look at the games he pitched in, not in the games in which he was leaning on the rail and chewing on sunflower seeds. The rest of your post is a completely made up argument against absolutely nothing that I wrote. But the important thing is that you've convinced yourself that those guys are all equal. And we can't understate the importance of your opinion on this. >>
Actually, sabermetrics IS common sesne...but also backed up by factual objective data.
Not completely made up. I am simply using your logic that you established. Smoltz was 2-2 in the WS. You claimed that a pitchers W/L record is an important indicator of how good he was. 2-2 isn't very good.
You also claimed that Smoltz's post season ability and legacy is what makes him better than Mussina. Well, 2-2 in the WS isn't a very good legacy.
Also, as pointed out several times that you faield to address...Mussina's 3.42 ERA in the AL is pretty darn good, and almsot as good as Smoltz's 2.67 in the NL. When you account for the small sample size, there really is no post season difference between them.
In any event, let's revisit this in July when Smoltz is giving his induction speech. Maybe all of the real baseball guys can invite Mussina over for drinks and compare WARs.
<< <i>Does anyone else have any cards they pulled themselves of these guys? >>
I do, I'll have to dig some up. I'm afraid they'll get lost in this Sports Talk post though
Does sabr affect the grading scale at all?
<< <i>It must be neat to frame BOTH sides of an argument in the ways that you want them to be presented. Forget what the other person actually wrote.
In any event, let's revisit this in July when Smoltz is giving his induction speech. Maybe all of the real baseball guys can invite Mussina over for drinks and compare WARs. >>
I didn't frame anything. That is YOUR methodology, not mine.
You use W/L record as your barometer.
You use post season performance as your barometer.
You value the WS above all.
Smoltz was only 2-2 in the World Series...so by your barometer, he is a mediocre big game pitcher....and that is his post legacy
As for Smoltz's induction speech...good for him. He is lucky there are many fools doing the voting. I'm not going to blame Smoltz for that. I'm pretty sure he would agree with me that Mussina was as good...although his strength is pitching rather than evaluating.
Maybe you can ask Smoltz about his 2-2 WS record and ask him if he had gone 4-1 in the WS, if they would have actually won more than one ring?
And why haven't you addressed the difference between pitching in the AL vs the NL in that era? Too hard to understand?
<< <i>Could you show me the quote which shows that I value the World Series above all? Thanks in advance. >>
You put a lot of value on post-season performance...do you not believe the WS is the most valuable of all post season series?
<< <i>
<< <i>Could you show me the quote which shows that I value the World Series above all? Thanks in advance. >>
You put a lot of value on post-season performance...do you not believe the WS is the most valuable of all post season series? >>
Ah, so we have finally come around to admitting that you insert your own assumptions so that you can have something to argue against.
As far as anything being "too hard to understand", don't flatter yourself. As we established already, this game is a lunch break hobby for you. That's probably the hardest part for you to accept. The world will never know that you figured out the game better than anyone involved in the game, and you did it all in between sales meetings. You made it!!
You make such a big deal about a post season legacy, so it is obvious that the WS would be the most important series.
If you don't believe it is, then you are being disingenuous, or all your post season legacy means nothing...and that is your entire argument, a 15-4 post season record and a post season legacy.
You seem incapable of understanding the difference in ERA's and their leagues.
So that leaves you using W/L record as your barometer...and with the WS being the most important series...Smolt'z 2-2 WS record is mediocre. The team's 1-4 record is bad.
In order for you to refute those things, you must turn to sabermetric evaluations....but you already discounted them with the ERA+ and WAR.
So should i call you Sherwin Williams for painting yourself in a corner?
So my comment that Smoltz was 15-4 in the postseason somehow evolved into an argument that the Braves were 1-4 in the World Series, and that point is being made by a guy who doesn't believe in postseason stats at all.
CAN'T. MAKE. THIS. UP.
Have a great night. When you wake up, Mike Mussina is still just another guy.
<< <i>Not only have I not said 90% of the things attributed to me, you're the guy who said to dismiss the postseason altogether. If you really believe that, why have you spent the last few hours arguing nothing but the postseason? Do you also get into debates about the tooth fairy?
So my comment that Smoltz was 15-4 in the postseason somehow evolved into an argument that the Braves were 1-4 in the World Series, and that point is being made by a guy who doesn't believe in postseason stats at all.
CAN'T. MAKE. THIS. UP.
Have a great night. When you wake up, Mike Mussina is still just another guy. >>
I didn't make anything up...those are all YOUR philosophies and methodology.
Unfortuantely your methodology doesn't work.
Nope, post season stats don't mean much...and that is why I am poinitng out your folly in attempting to do so.
I think you should go back to concentrate coaching...and just make sure you don't mess up the things that players already do well. Happens way too much!
<< <i>If they are close, which is debatable, Smoltz' post-season domination certainly puts him in the lead. >>
The logic doesn't make a lot sense if you can't cash the check in the World Series. Jack Morris was better at cashing the check in the WS and had 41 more regular season wins. But Morris didn't have two HOF pitchers coattails to ride.
https://kennerstartinglineup.blogspot.com/
<< <i>If they are close, which is debatable, Smoltz' post-season domination certainly puts him in the lead. >>
Vols, thanks for pointing this quote out from Guante. I did not see it.
CeciliaGuante has brought nothing to this debate but this above philosophy. Smoltz had a 2-2 WS record, and their team a 1-4 World Series record.
CeciliaGuante's only evidence is using Smoltz's 15-4 W/L record to support his claim. He ignores ERA, ERA+, etc..
So on one hand he sings the praises of post season dominance using a 15-4 record to support his claim, then on the other he ignores the 2-2 WS record which would carry the most weight.
Also, in that above quote he says it is debatable that they are even close in the regular season. Hmmm, it has already been pointed out that Mussina is as good in ERA+, and better in WAR.
However, CeciliaGuante doesn't 'believe' in those measurements. Probably because he is just some random meathead coach, or an ignorant fool.
The one measurement he DOES believe in is W/L record, because that is all he uses to support his post season dominance claim.
Hmmmm....
So CeciliaGuante, since you use Smoltz's 15-4 record as your main evidence of post-season dominance, then how you do make the claim that it is "debatable" that the two pitchers are equal when Mussina was 270-153 with a .638 WP%, and Smoltz only 213-155 with a .579 WP% for their careers?
By your method, Smoltz was more dominant in the post season, but that would make Mussina the far better pitcher in the regular season for their careers because of the super W/L numbers. It wouldn't make it debatable. It would be a slam dunk that Mussina was better based on YOUR methods.
Oh, and Smoltz was only 2-2 in the WS. So YOUR method makes Smoltz a mediocre pitcher on the biggest stage there can be. That would be his legacy based on YOUR methodology.
<< <i>Probably because he is just some random meathead coach, or an ignorant fool. >>
I'm glad you went this route so that everyone can see who you are. Someone disagrees with you? Ignorant meathead fool.
Enjoy working for The Man today. Swing by if you want to take some cuts after work.
The whole super-exclusivity of the HOF is somewhat of a crock. With the expansions of MLB, increased globalization of the sport, and better development at an earlier age... more players should be getting in. To change the rules to reduce the ballot time from 15 years to 10 and to only allow 10 votes on a ballot is counter-intuitive to what's really happening in baseball.
<< <i>
<< <i>Probably because he is just some random meathead coach, or an ignorant fool. >>
I'm glad you went this route so that everyone can see who you are. Someone disagrees with you? Ignorant meathead fool.
Enjoy working for The Man today. Swing by if you want to take some cuts after work.
>>
You traveled your own route as a meathead...I'm just pointing it out.
I don't trust a lot of coaches in messing with a players' swing, so I'll pass on that. Even pros. Even former players who may have had the ability to hit, because when many explain it or teach it, they teach some incorrect things...things that are actually different than what they actually do/did.
What do you think of the swing that Alex Rodriguez is showing on the cover of the Kevin Long video, where he is showing poor hitting mechanics at the point of contact while hitting off a tee?
Maybe you know about coaching baseball skills and may have played some(don't know)...but it is pretty evident that evaluative abilities on subjects such as the one on this thread, is lacking. So meathead does apply.
PS. It is ironic that you made a snide remark about Alan Trammell earlier in the thread, and then 'boasted' how you will be hanging with scouts, so that you think you have credibility.
Back in 1988 when I was hanging with scouts, they said that Alan Trammell was better than Cal Ripken. So is he better than Ripken, thus making your snide comment wrong? Or is it that scouts words on topics as this aren't exactly as meaningful as you think.
Now I am responsible for some scout allegedly saying that Alan Trammell was better than Cal Ripken? I have no credibility because some hitting coach screwed up your swing? Got me. My cover is blown. You must be in the C.I.A.
Glad you could check in during lunch. Now back to the grind.
You tried to refute the accurate measurements that show Mussina was the equal or better than Smoltz by claiming you are around the game, and how you are hanging with scouts. You say that to try and give you credibility in the debate, because you never offered anything of value, or anything that made sense.
You hanging with scouts or coaching does nothing to refute the evidence I put for comparing Smotlz and Mussina.
Then you made some snide comment about Alan Trammell, saying that Mussina will be Alan Trammell, not good enough for the Hall.
I am pointing out, in 1988 when I was hanging with scouts, those guys said that Trammell was better than Cal Ripken. So either those scouts are right, and Trammell is better than RIpken and Hall Worthy, or scouts aren't anything special when it comes to debates such as these, therefore, making your credibility claim/reach, meaningless.
So that brings us back to what I originally posted between the two:
Mussina was the equal in IP/ERA+
Mussina was better in WAR, by a lot.
Mussina was also better by a landslide in W/L and WP%, which are the stats that YOU hail more than anything.
You being a coach and hanging with scouts does NOT give you ANY insight that changes that. So your 'attempt' at discrediting that valid and tested info, simply did not work. Whether you coach, play, or hang with scouts, it still doesn't change those measurments.
It also does not change that Mussina and Smoltz were basically as effective as each other in the post season when you account for the league they pitched in, and the sample size of innings.
So your entire cover is blown.
<< <i>
You hanging with scouts or coaching does nothing to refute the evidence I put for comparing Smotlz and Mussina.
>>
In your attempt to be Message Board Bad A-- while masquerading as a baseball guy, you entirely missed the context of why I had to mention that scouts will be at my facility all spring. After your mindless comment about me having no baseball IQ, I simply informed you that my whole career revolves around baseball, showing that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It had nothing to do with refuting any evidence about Hall of Famer John Smoltz or former Major Leaguer Mike Mussina. If you could follow a thread, you might not have made that embarrassing mistake.
Now tighten that tie and get back to work.
The HOF is not based on stats, but popularity and feel good stories. Any stat thrown out is meaningless other than % of votes received. No other statistical measurement gets any player in. Bottom line, Smoltz is in and Mussina is not (for now at least). Congrats to the class of 2015!
scrutiny from the sidelines...
Hi Skip!
I still stand by your lack of baseball IQ in regard to this topic. You claimed to have a 'feel for the pulse of the game', and that 'this wasn't some xbox stat game'.
You used that to discredit the measurements I posted that show Mussina was indeed the equal or better.
As for your baseball IQ in regard to on the field. I still don't know that either. I know facilities that wreck swings and arm action all the time. How do I know you are not one of them? Also, just because you have a kid throwing 92 MPH at your facility, doesn't mean it is a credit to you. Most likely, he had that gift before he even knew you existed. So don't start taking credit for guys that get drafted going through your facility, because they would probably get drafted if you were never even born.
I just hope you aren't taking guys and messing up their already elite swings, or throwing arm actions, with some convoluted understanding of those mechanics, and trying to 'enhance' or alter them.
So don't go breaking your arm patting yourself on the back.
So back on topic:
Mussina was equal in IP/ERA+
Mussina was better in WAR
Mussina was better in W/L and WP% by a lot.
Mussina also beat Smoltz in peak years with 8 out of 12.
Mussina was about as equally effective as Smoltz in the Post Season when you account for league and sample size.
SO WHERE DO YOU SEE THAT SMOLTZ WAS BETTER THAT YOU CLAIM?
<< <i>You claimed to have a 'feel for the pulse of the game', and that 'this wasn't some xbox stat game'. >>
Link or screen shot, please. If you're going to continue to embarrass yourself, at least use things that I actually write. That has been the theme throughout, but this time you actually used quotes.
<< <i>As for your baseball IQ in regard to on the field. I still don't know that either. I know facilities that wreck swings and arm action all the time. How do I know you are not one of them? Also, just because you have a kid throwing 92 MPH at your facility, doesn't mean it is a credit to you. Most likely, he had that gift before he even knew you existed. So don't start taking credit for guys that get drafted going through your facility, because they would probably get drafted if you were never even born. >>
Where did I take credit for it? Once again (recurring theme alert), when I wrote that it was in response to your claim of having no baseball IQ, when in fact my career revolves around baseball. We're approaching a dozen different times now that you have argued against something that I never wrote or claimed.
<< <i>SO WHERE DO YOU SEE THAT SMOLTZ WAS BETTER THAT YOU CLAIM? >>
Right here:
<< <i>
<< <i>So throw that post season stuff out the window. >>
Stopped here. This isn't a sabermetrics discussion in between XBox marathons. It's the Hall of Fame, which, thankfully, is still voted on by people who understand that the game is played with a heartbeat, not a spreadsheet. Many players are known by what they accomplished in the post-season.
>>
You didn't exactly claim that YOU had the had those attributes, so I have to apologize for that.
You do go all-in that the writers do, and believe they know what they are talking about. I guess you are guilty by association
Since your only evidence that Smoltz was better was simply that the writers voted him in...I guess that leaves you with no mind for yourself. That is the best you have? For someone that claims they have such a high baseball IQ, I would expect forming your own opinion.
All of what I wrote in this thread is also directed toward the writers as well. THey have a history of being stupid, and still are. When you yourself throw your hat in mindlessly with them, then what else can I say, but that you are the same.
None of what you wrote, or what you believe the writers know, refutes the information:
Mussina equal or better in IP/ERA+
Mussina better in WAR
Mussina better in W/L, and WP% by a landslide.
Mussina equally as effect as Smoltz in the post season when accounting for league and sample size.
Many writers are not educated enough to know and understand this, which makes them baseball evaluative stupid. If YOU believe whole heartedly in them, that would make you the same.
Like TheMick6 said in the beginning...Smoltz/Mussina/Schilling are the same. Putting one in and not the other two, makes no sense. But these are writers we are talking about, so I guess it does make sense.
PS. Smoltz accomplished a 2-2 record on the biggest stage. You can't hail post season success(using wins as your evidence), and ignore that in the WOrld Series Smoltz was .500
<< <i>
Glad you could check in during lunch. Now back to the grind. >>
I don't have a horse in this race but what's with all the down talk? I'm glad you love your job but I'm pretty sure there are lots of guys here that are in "the grind" that do significantly better than you do, and aren't half as angry.
Best of luck with that 15th rounder, someday maybe we can grab a beer and talk about the kid I coached in Pee Wee that played 15 minutes for the Sharks in 1997.
<< <i>So we're left with the notion that Smoltz only got in because the writers are stupid. And you are qualified to make that claim because in your spare time away from your day job, you are a better baseball analyst than anyone who covers it for a living. Makes sense. >>
I'll go against any of them any time of the day.
They are writers. They are qualified to write sentences and have good grammar. In that regard, I bow to them.
However, they are uneducated in baseball. There are a few who are getting better...but the masses of them leave a lot to be desired.
They believe in a lot of myths, misinformation, invalid information, and just flat out fail in baseball logic. I catch them all the time.
That isn't the only reason Smoltz got in though. He was very good. However, he wasn't any better than Mussina.
Someone noted above about Smoltz's Cy Young award as evidence of being better than Mussina. That was a writers mistake too. That award belonged to Kevin Brown that year. Brown beat him by a full run in ERA. However, the writers were fooled by the W/L records. Why? Because they are stupid.
At least some are starting learn, because Felix Hernandez won a Cy Young a couple years ago with a near .500 record. 15 years ago that never would have happened. So as you can see, they ARE learning. But since they are still lacking...that must mean they were awful before they started learning.
If you get thrown under the bus because you follow blindly the 'word' of the uneducated writers...hey, you hitched your ride.
Unsubscribed as well. You all should just get together, whip it out and measure! It's obviously no longer about any MLB player or the HOF.
<< <i>I think somebody forgot their meds!
Unsubscribed as well. You all should just get together, whip it out and measure! It's obviously no longer about any MLB player or the HOF. >>
Couldn't've said it better myself. It's like watching a little kid constantly yanking on his little sister's pigtails.