HOF for futute pitchers

[oriole^]

I think both career value and peak value, and by extension both the length of the career and the length of the peak, need to be taken into account, in a discussion of who's "best." In terms of pure career value, Ryan beats Pedro, unquestionaly, but it's probably closer than one would think because of the sheer level of Pedro's performance. In terms of who was a better pitcher, though, as I said, the height and length of the players' peaks need to be taken into account, and different people place different values on peak and career value, something I've learned a lot about from following the Hall of Merit discussions over at Baseball Think Factory.

Yeah, I agree, though I will say that I tend to mistrust such revisionist stuff. Baseball stats are a simulation of what happens in a game, and are very useful as such, but every time someone new takes 50-year-old stats and massages them into an argument that so-and-so was or wasn't so great, they risk turning them into something more than they are.

Not saying you're doing that, mind.

Heh...actually...somebody was disputing that Pedro should be in the Hall...lol.

Oh. Well, not me.

Kiner only had better individual seasons in terms of home run output. Aaron had better defense, more extra bases, more speed, played in a low offensive era which accounts for much of the home run difference, etc. Once you account for all those, there's no argument for Kiner over Aaron. Kiner's peak wasn't historically ridiculously high. Although his home run dominance was, his total production wasn't. One could only make a case for Kiner over Aaron if they put EXTREME value on peak, and completely failed to adjust for context.

Um, sorta. The difference in offensive eras wasn't that great with the exception of a period in the late 1960s, the difference in defense isn't that pronounced (both had better than average arms; Aaron won 3 Gold Gloves in a 23 year career), and Aaron wasn't all that dominant next to other offensive producers of his time (Willie Mays, Frank Robinson, etc.)

But yeah, the point is, it's a question of degree.

If you evaluate the two properly, you'll see that Kiner's best was about the same level as Aaron's best (which cannot be said for Ryan's best vs. Pedro's best), except that Aaron did it longer. You'll also see that Kiner had very little career value because he played for such a short period of time, which is not comparable to Pedro. You'll also see that Aaron performed at a level at or slightly below his peak for nearly 20 years, while Kiner only did for a handful of years, and had no value outside of that. Pedro's peak was longer and higher than Kiner's, and Ryan's career was not at the level of Aaron's, so while I understand what you're saying perfectly, I don't think it really fits the case well.

Ryan's and Aaron's careers parallel fairly well, actually. While Ryan didn't have peaks as high as a few of Aaron's, Ryan did turn in an amazing finish to his career. At the age of 42, Aaron hit .229 with 10 HR and retired from baseball. Ryan pitched a 16-10 record for a lousy team, bested the league ERA by 3/4ths of a run, and struck out 301.

That's the finishing kick to end all finishing kicks, and I think that's what stands out for me (perhaps given my *ahem* veteran age . When you're comparing Pedro's best seasons to Ryan's, you're absolutely right - he's head and shoulders above an exceptional pitcher in Ryan. But when you compare Ryan's final years to Pedro's, you're comparing an exceptional pitcher to zero, nothing, nada. That could change, obviously, but I'm not so sure that any advantage built up prior wouldn't be wasted while Pedro is on the rocking-chair circuit.

[HoustonGM]

Um, sorta. The difference in offensive eras wasn't that great with the exception of a period in the late 1960s, the difference in defense isn't that pronounced (both had better than average arms; Aaron won 3 Gold Gloves in a 23 year career), and Aaron wasn't all that dominant next to other offensive producers of his time (Willie Mays, Frank Robinson, etc.)

What I've heard of Kiner's outfield defense was that it was atrocious, to say the least.

As for the offensive environment, they were decidedly different. Baseball-Reference has a stat meant to tell how the offensive environment is in a given year compared to the historical average:

AIR - I call this AIR because it is how pumped up a player's stats are by the park and leagues they played in. I looked at the median league OBP and SLG from 1901 to the present and it historically is around .335 for league OBP and .400 for league slugging. Not quite, but those are the closest round numbers. Next I take, 100*((park-adjusted Lg OBP/ .335) + (park-adjusted Lg SLG /.400) - 1) to come up with the player's AIR factor. 100 means they hit in historically average settings. Over 100 means higher offensive environment than usual. Under 100 means lower offensive environment than usual.

Aaron's career AIR is 96, Kiner's 105. Aaron only played in 4 years with an AIR > 100, and 2 exactly 100. Kiner played in 2 years where it was under 100, at 94 and 99, and only one other year which was under his 105 career average (and that was 104).

Ryan's and Aaron's careers parallel fairly well, actually. While Ryan didn't have peaks as high as a few of Aaron's, Ryan did turn in an amazing finish to his career. At the age of 42, Aaron hit .229 with 10 HR and retired from baseball. Ryan pitched a 16-10 record for a lousy team, bested the league ERA by 3/4ths of a run, and struck out 301.

Ryan had a better finish, yes, but their overall careers really aren't that close. Not only were Ryan's peak seasons not as high as Aaron's, but Aaron was, year in and year out, from 1955 to 1972, one of the top offensive performers in the league. That's 18 consecutive seasons...he had an OPS+ in the top 10 in the league, 13 of those, he was in the top 5. Pick any offensive measure, and Aaron was in the top 5/10 in the league EVERY year for nearly two decades.

Ryan simply was not at that level, which is why I don't think thier careers match up at all. Ryan had 7 years in which he had a top 10 ERA+, only 3 years in the top 5. Ryan was not consistently among the best pitchers in the league. He was very up and down, mixing in average and below average seasons with great seasons. Aaron never waved from his top-flight performance, which is what sets them apart (drastically, in my opinion).

That's the finishing kick to end all finishing kicks, and I think that's what stands out for me (perhaps given my *ahem* veteran age . When you're comparing Pedro's best seasons to Ryan's, you're absolutely right - he's head and shoulders above an exceptional pitcher in Ryan. But when you compare Ryan's final years to Pedro's, you're comparing an exceptional pitcher to zero, nothing, nada. That could change, obviously, but I'm not so sure that any advantage built up prior wouldn't be wasted while Pedro is on the rocking-chair circuit.

But, why only focus on their final years, or even, why place so much more weight on their final years than their peak years? The whole career needs to be taken into account.

[oriole^]

Aaron's career AIR is 96, Kiner's 105. Aaron only played in 4 years with an AIR > 100, and 2 exactly 100.

Ah...now we can say you're pulling out the SABR stats!

But, why only focus on their final years, or even, why place so much more weight on their final years than their peak years? The whole career needs to be taken into account.

Exactly. If one is focused on the entire career, the peaks can't be assessed by themselves, as an isolated case. All aspects need to be given a weight. You can talk about how much better one guy is than the other at their peak, but sooner or later, if you are talking careers, the other guy has got to weigh in (and as I pointed out, he's competing against a complete absence in those seasons). It's not a matter of focusing on one or the other; these two pitchers were dominant in completely different aspects of the game, and there's no magic formula that makes one aspect more important than the other. I'm going on my opinion, just as you are.

[HoustonGM]

Ah...now we can say you're pulling out the SABR stats!

Honestly (and I know you're not at all smug about it at other people are), I don't find any stats to be "sabr" stats or not. All sabermetrics is is statistical analysis. All statistics, then, by definition, are "sabermetric." Some stats are more advanced than others, and yes, I'm using some more advanced metrics, because there is no "simple" or "traditional" metric to measure the run environment.

Exactly. If one is focused on the entire career, the peaks can't be assessed by themselves, as an isolated case. All aspects need to be given a weight. You can talk about how much better one guy is than the other at their peak, but sooner or later, if you are talking careers, the other guy has got to weigh in (and as I pointed out, he's competing against a complete absence in those seasons). It's not a matter of focusing on one or the other; these two pitchers were dominant in completely different aspects of the game, and there's no magic formula that makes one aspect more important than the other. I'm going on my opinion, just as you are.

Pretty much, as I've said. It's all a matter of one's opinion on weighting career and peak value.