Originally Posted by HoustonGM
It's funny how manipulate stats to fit your argument. and you call me ignorant.
Da Cubs suck
It's funny how manipulate stats to fit your argument
o
How did I manipulate stats to fit my argument?
Da Cubs suck
Why 100 innings? Why not use 150 or 200 innings? Because it fits your argument. Well I can say lets see how the stack up using 300 IP as the cutoff. Wow Ryan kills him. Ryan is better he had more great season than pedro when they pitched 300 innings. How about 250 INnnings. How are you determinig what is a great/ good/ average season etc..
o
I actually used 100 innings because it cuts off the the very partial seasons, and 100 innings in a season represents a decent amount of pitching for one season, and cuts off the least amount of seasons from each pitcher in order to get a better take on their whole careers.
It cuts off 3 seasons from Pedro, of innings 8, 28, and 69. It cuts 3 seasons from Ryan of innings 3, 66.1, and 89.1. Those seasons aren't noteworthy to the pitchers careers.
I didn't choose 100 because it made my argument looked better. I chose 100 because it is a good representation of roughly half a season of pitching.
I determined what is great/good etc. mostly by looking at how well they prevented runs and how they compared to other pitchers in their league.
Da Cubs suck
Unregistered User
I'm not sure I understand the point of comparing Nolan Ryan to Pedro Martinez...
Ryan's longevity and toughness and the way he carried himself... absolutely remarkable. But as HGM pointed out, many of his seasons were not what you consider "great." He was never, even for a season, the best pitcher in his own LEAGUE. He only finished in the top 3 of Cy Young voting 3 times in his career, and never won it.
Pedro put up numbers that have only been put up a handful of times in all of history. In 2000: a 0.737 WHIP? 8.9 strikeouts for every walk? An ERA which was one THIRD of the league ERA that season? Those numbers don't even sound real, it's like they were made up. He also has 3 Cy Youngs and 6 total top-3s in Cy Young voting.
A subpar season by Pedro standards would involve 5K/BB and a WHIP barely cracking 1.0.
Pedro will make the HOF for completely different reasons than Ryan is in there. No point in turning it into a "who's better" contest, but if I'm a GM, I'll take a guy who will be relatively impossible to score on for 7 to 10 seasons over a guy who will pitch for 25+ years and always be very good, but never better than a borderline top-5 pitcher in baseball, and will often not even be in the top 10.
I saw Mike Mussina's name mentioned a couple times in this thread. I don't agree with him for the Hall of Fame. Most of his career is rather underwhelming (in HOF terms). The only truly impressive numbers (again, in HOF terms) he ever put up were really great K/BB ratios. He was never close to being the best pitcher in baseball. He may have spent 3 or 4 years in the top 10, but he was never even a top 5 guy. Impressive win total, but that's what happens when you stay healthy and pitch for very good teams.
o
THAT would be manipulating statistics to change the argument - cutting off every season of Pedro's career by setting an inning minimum in which barely any pitchers met during Pedro's career. I purposefully set the minimum so that the entirety of both pitchers careers would be counted. But, sure, let's raise the inning mark to 150, see below. Raising above that IS manipulating stats to fit YOUR argument, because it cuts off seasons that rightfully should be included because they were fully pitched seasons in a different era. I set the bar to a low minimum so that every significant season in both pitcher's careers were counted.
Ryan:
Great - 1977, 1987, 1991 (3)
Very Good - 1972, 1973, 1974, 1983, 1984, 1989, 1990 (7)
Above Average - 1979, 1982, 1986 (3)
Average - 1975, 1976, 1978, 1980, 1992 (5)
Below Average - 1971, 1985, 1988 (3)
Great - 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005 (7)
Very Good - 1995, 1996, 2004 (3)
Above Average - (0)
Average - (0)
Below Average - (0)
I ask you again what stats did you use to detrmine what was a good/great season etc.
o
Mussina's a guy that gets in for great career value, in my eyes. He was actually often in the top 5, but never the best. He had 8 top-6 finishes in Cy Young voting, 6 top-5 finishes. He was always a very good pitcher, rarely great, but rarely less than very good, and he's one it for a while. That makes him a HOFer in my eyes. Clearly a step below the greats, but still worthy of induction. It's also important to remember that his career isn't yet over...
Compare him to guys currently in the HOF, and he fits in solidly in the middle of the pack.
Song of Solomon 5:4
Too many adverbs and adjectives!
]
Unregistered User
I gotta disagree. Close to top 5, yes, but his Cy Young voting finishes were 2, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6. Based on that alone, it would only appear he was a top-5 pitcher in baseball once. He was pitching at the same time as Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens and Curt Schilling (all of whom are better), and there were always a few guys (Cone, Glavine, Pettitte, Smoltz, Mulder, Wells) each season that were at their peaks and pitching better than Mussina.
This is where it comes down to a matter of what the HOF standards should be... I think you have to be dominant and unquestionably among the VERY best in baseball for a decent amount of time AND you should be able to sustain a high level of play for several years. Mussina only has one of those two things going. If he could do what Nolan Ryan did, and pitch for another 10 years, and rack up ungodly numbers, he'd be a no-brainer choice.He had 8 top-6 finishes in Cy Young voting, 6 top-5 finishes. He was always a very good pitcher, rarely great, but rarely less than very good, and he's one it for a while. That makes him a HOFer in my eyes. Clearly a step below the greats, but still worthy of induction. It's also important to remember that his career isn't yet over...
Compare him to guys currently in the HOF, and he fits in solidly in the middle of the pack.
There some other factors that go into it, for me. Like Jackie Robinson is in for breaking the color barrier more than anything, and even if he had only been an average player, he'd be in. Mussina doesn't really have much memorable stuff going for him in terms of winning or doing anything special. The lack of a championship is kind of a knock on him.
It's my opinion that there should be fewer players like Mussina (or of less quality) in the Hall of Fame. I'm not sure he'd fall in the middle of the pack, as you said. I'd think he's more around a 25 percentile range in terms of starting pitchers. But you're right that he would "fit in," though in my mind... well, it's like they always say in the media. It's not the "Hall of the Very Good."
You can only put so many players from one position in one era into the HOF, and we've got quite a few all time greats that are going in. Perhaps that's actually a good argument FOR Mussina, that he was in the league at the same time as the five guys I mentioned earlier.
My prediction is that he *will* get in, but not first ballot, and I still likely won't agree with it. And I don't foresee the rest of his career changing my opinion on him.
Da Cubs suck
Depending on HGM's argument the CY or any award for that matter. Doesn't matter because they are popularity contests. Again this depends on wether or not this supports his argument. Again I ask you HGM what stats did you use. You seem to like avoiding the question. Probably because you know your method of thinking is seriously flawed. And you did manipulate statistics to say that Pedro threw 107 innings as a reliever and say that is comparable as a great season where Ryan threw 300 innings is absurd, * Sigh* Funny thing about statistics how you can manipulate them.Ryan's longevity and toughness and the way he carried himself... absolutely remarkable. But as HGM pointed out, many of his seasons were not what you consider "great." He was never, even for a season, the best pitcher in his own LEAGUE. He only finished in the top 3 of Cy Young voting 3 times in his career, and never won it.
o
They shouldn't be used by themselves for any sort of evaluation. They can be used in conjuction with many other stats, etc. They give you an idea of what the sportswriters in the pitchers time thought of the pitcher. They don't unequivocally tell you who was better or worse, though.
What are you talking about? I already answered you MULTIPLE times. I'm not using one statistic. I'm deciding it based on how he fared as compared to the other pitchers in his league, and how well he prevented runs. What more do you want? I already said this twice, now three times.Again I ask you HGM what stats did you use. You seem to like avoiding the question. Probably because you know your method of thinking is seriously flawed.
I made sure to mark it as such because it's clearly not as good as even Ryan's very good seasons. Come on, use some common sense. Look at the list even without that season, as that's clearly an understandable thing to do.And you did manipulate statistics to say that Pedro threw 107 innings as a reliever and say that is comparable as a great season where Ryan threw 300 innings is absurd
I decided the cutoff of 100 innings by looking at NOLAN RYAN'S career. When I decided the cutoff, I wasn't even aware that Pedro broke 100 innings in his season as a reliever. I did not choose the inning minimum in order to make my argument for Pedro look better. As I said, and am now once again repeating, I chose it because it made sure that every somewhat signficant season in both pitcher's careers were included.
Registered User
I dunno - Johnson should be able to rack up the 6 he needs... but it could be a long time until we see another 300-game winner.
I'm of the opinion that Halladay's heading for the HoF... but I'm a Jays fan.Realistically, he'll probably have to spend some time on a contending team (either the Jays get it together, or he goes elsewhere) to make it happen, but he's got the talent.
Ian
Unregistered User
There's nothing "flawed" about the way HGM broke down the seasons. He even noted that one of Pedro's "great" seasons was as a reliever.
Also, how is a season throwing 100+ innings (!) as a reliever (not to mention as a rookie) not significant? That's actually probably the reliever equivalent of tossing 300 innings as a starter. Plus, Pedro had to prepare himself and take the mound 20 or 30 times more than Nolan Ryan ever did in a season.
Hell, I think the 100+ innings for a rookie reliever and the numbers he put up that season are easily more impressive than half of Nolan Ryan's INDIVIDUAL seasons, let alone the seasons where he'd walk 200 batters and have an ERA higher than league average.
Da Cubs suck
I guess since you won't tell anyone what stats you are using to detrmine a great season then your whole argument is invalid. For example I could say a great season pitching for me is someone with an ERA under_ with an K/9ip of _ with an Era+ _. If I don't even know what stats you are using to evaluate a good/average/great season etc. Than how can your argument even be valid? You can't even provide and proof of the word vomit you continually spout off about.What are you talking about? I already answered you MULTIPLE times. I'm not using one statistic. I'm deciding it based on how he fared as compared to the other pitchers in his league, and how well he prevented runs. What more do you want? I already said this twice, now three times.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote