View Single Post
Old January 6 2014, 03:09 PM   #322
Timby
GIVE ME YOUR FACE
 
Timby's Avatar
 
Re: MLB Offseason 2013-2014

Yanks wrote: View Post
Timby wrote: View Post
Yanks wrote: View Post
Not sure how you can not consider wins as a factor.
Because a pitcher's wins, again, are an artificial statistic -- it only means that his offense happened to score more runs than he gave up during a particular game (to say nothing of any defense-independent pitching statistics). It says absolutely nothing about his actual performance. For example: Ryan Dempster was a balls-out awesome starter for the Cubs in 2012, but he didn't get his first win until June 5 because the offense was complete dogshit.

Let's take it a step farther and look at Maddux. In 1994, when he had a fucking ridiculous 1.56 ERA and a 271 ERA+, he "only" had 16 wins. In both his 20-win seasons, his ERA+ averaged 168 (still excellent) and his WHIP was north of 1. Again, still excellent stats, but not as lights-out as 1994 -- but if you were to look at his wins, you'd think that '92 and '93 were better, which is wrong on its face. Even if you disregard 1994 due to it being strike-shortened, every single season in which Maddux had more than those 16 wins had him boasting a worse ERA+ and WHIP.

This is why Morris' entire case for the Hall of Fame falls apart as soon as you look at any meaningful number: He was a good, occasionally very good pitcher who ate a ton of innings and did nothing else of note. As soon as you remove Game 7 from the equation (which was really due to Lonnie Smith being a knucklehead and Kent Hrbek having a cannon of an arm), you cannot make an intellectually honest argument for Morris in the Hall.
I'll agree with the ERA point. I ended up supporting King Felix getting the CY Young over CC. But it's really hard to discount wins as a factor. Felix was SO good that year I made the exception.

But I will take issue with "it only means that his offense happened to score more runs than he gave up during a particular game"

Take someone like Andy Petitte. He was his best in important games and that's what he thrived in

"it only means that the pitcher held the opposing offense to less runs than his team scored during a particular game"

If Mattox is left off someones ballet, I'm going to go shoot him. There is no reason on the planet or in the universe to leave him off a ballot.
Take issue with it all you want, but you still haven't explained why. Again, look at my example of Ryan Dempster in '12 -- he was pitching lights-out for two consecutive months, but didn't have a single win during that time. Why? Because the offense was scoring an average of about 1.8 runs/game during his starts. You need to look beyond the basic stats like "wins," because in addition to not telling you the whole story, they don't even really tell you any part of the story -- shit, Vida Blue won 20 games in 1973, and he did so while walking almost as many people as he struck out, giving up a lot of dingers and being just a notch above league-average in every other rate and counting statistic. But if you just look at WINZ, then it was a great season ... except by any objective metric, it absolutely wasn't.

The fact of the matter is that no pitcher can "win" a game on his own, because he has no control over three things: The defense around him, his own team's offense, and how the opposing team's pitcher is performing on that given day. Ultimately, the point of baseball is to score more runs than the other guys. Here's a fun little read.

Really, pitcher wins is one of the three most bullshit statistics in baseball, in the unholy trinity with pitcher saves and batter RBI.

Yanks wrote: View Post
If Mattox is left off someones ballet, I'm going to go shoot him. There is no reason on the planet or in the universe to leave him off a ballot.
There will be several who do. Remember, the all-time record for votes is Tom Seaver, who topped out around 98.8 percent in ... '92, I want to say. Maddux is, when you drill down to the meaningful numbers, a better pitcher than Seaver was. However, there are two factors at play:

- There are voters who continue to return a blank ballot every year in protest of the Hall of Fame's decision to make Pete Rose permanently ineligible.

- There are voters (better known as fucking lunatics) who believe, for some misguided reason, that no one should ever get into the Hall on their first ballot.

I don't expect Maddux to be the first unanimous vote.

Last edited by Timby; January 6 2014 at 03:25 PM.
Timby is offline