Well after studing the stats. John maybe you could make a case. But I still don't think so. Kaat, I'm sorry he belongs nowhere near the HOF. He was nothing more than mediocre through his career.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brewersfan
Printable View
Well after studing the stats. John maybe you could make a case. But I still don't think so. Kaat, I'm sorry he belongs nowhere near the HOF. He was nothing more than mediocre through his career.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brewersfan
Like he said, Blyleven, John, and Kaat were all very similar pitchers. Blyleven is obviously the better of the three, but they all had very similar careers. Kaat also has those gold gloves on his resume, something that surely helped Brooks Robinson.
A case can be made for Jack Morris, I don't care much either way.
Charlie Hough? he had 216 wins, 216 losses. He was basically the definiton of a league average pticher. He had a pretty good five year stretch, but overall he was nothing speical.
Doyle Alexander is another league-average guy. He didn't even reach that coveted 200 win mark in his career, and while he could post a great year here and there, he could also post a fairly eh year
John was basically the same as Kaat...except Kaat had tons of Gold Gloves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brewersfan
Brooks Robinson had a very mediocre career, but got in the Hall on the strength of his Gold Gloves. His career OPS+ was 104, ffairly average.
Wrong. Somebody still has to catch it, or have you never heard of a "passed ball"? Oh, that's right. Those only count for catcher stats.:pQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
lol
Ok first you make these quotes:
Quote:
You're judging pitchers ENTIRELY on the worst stat there is to judge them by - wins, oh, and their awards which we all know aren't the best judges of a player
Then when I bring up these players you say this:Quote:
Wins are vastly more meaningful for starters than relievers, but they're still a junk stat. What if a guy happens to get lucky and has and gives up 10 runs each game he pitches, but his team gives him an average run support of 12, so he ends up with a 18-10 record. Is he a good pitcher? No.
Quote:
Charlie Hough? he had 216 wins, 216 losses. He was basically the definiton of a league average pticher. He had a pretty good five year stretch, but overall he was nothing speical.
Doyle Alexander is another league-average guy. He didn't even reach that coveted 200 win mark in his career, and while he could post a great year here and there, he could also post a fairly eh year
So basically if it suits your argument you dismiss wins and awards as meaningless stats. But here you use them as meaningful stats to prove your argument against me!! So basically it all depends on the argument whether that stat is meaningful or not for you. Thats what I call a hypocrite!Quote:
Kaat had tons of Gold Gloves.
i just want to make it clear that im not saying Bert was the best pitcher of all time. he's far from it.
im just saying it is impressive for a starting pitcher to be well above average for 20+ years.
I'd say he was above average for most of 20 years, well is a bit subjective. He was well above average for at least four years.
You're not serious are you? :-\Quote:
Originally Posted by TexanBob
They have meaning for the Hall of Fame. A pitcher has to be extremely good to be Hall worthy without high win totals, like Sandy Koufax. And while I only quoted wins, I could also quote the ptichers basically league average ERA's and other stats. The players you mentioned are not in league with Blyleven, John, and Kaat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brewersfan
Roger Clemens was above average for most of 20+ years too. so...Quote:
Originally Posted by nuzzy62
Blyleven = Clemens :D
no really....a 22-year career with ERA+ of ~118 equals well above average (17 above 100, 10 above 125, 5 above 140, and 2 above 150). thats better than every starting pitcher in the HoF from his era, except seaver (127), and only a handful of SP have 20+ year careers in that territory since WWII.
dola
if your math prof gave a test and then came back a few days later and said that the average score in the class, after adjusting for the curve, was a 75, would you have done "well above average" if your score was 90?
Actually in a proper stanine bell curve 84.2 per cent and higher would be considered above average, 97.7 per cent would be considered well above average and .13 per cent exceptional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_curve_grading
:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by nuzzy62
i think you better go back to math class.
Go take a look. There's no adding or anything it's printed right on the graphic :)
yea, i understand the graphic. thats why i said you should go back to math class :pQuote:
Originally Posted by nuzzy62