Clayton Kershaw

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Forget it, Kevin, his mind is made up, and logic doesn't seem to apply when his mind's made up. He's like a little kid sticking his fingers in his ears, screaming "lalalalalala" 70.9 and 72.0 are the same thing. Never mind that one player played 20% longer. They clearly provided the same value to their teams.

2,000 pounds of dirt is 2,000 pounds of dirt....really? LOL

3.75 more years played is 3.75 more years played, and stating that "Kaat was a reliever the last four years" is irrelevant. When he was a reliever, he obviously got fewer innings per season. That was factored in by averaging innings pitched per 162 team games played.

Murray was an elite player, and was a first ballot Hall of Famer. Kaat was on the ballot for fifteen years, and never even broke 30% of the vote. 75% is required to get into Cooperstown, and Kaat couldn't even get 40% of what was required.

A- 20% longer is inaccurate when measuring pitcher versus hitter

B- you seem to ignore the part where I showed you Eddie Murray was not an elite player (and provided evidence to this FACT)

C- you get snarky about my example of value but don't have an argument against it.

D- you keep ignoring the part where I showed you Kaat is a top 30 pitcher all time and top 22 since the live ball era. why the omission?

[packs]

In one thread you argue that Ichiro was more or less an average player and now in this thread you're arguing that Jim Kaat is one of the all time best pitchers.

I will use your own methods against you to demonstrate why it doesn't make sense to view baseball players the way you do. You said Ichiro was only 5 percent better than an average player based on RC+. Well, Jim Kaat's ERA+ is only 108, that makes him just 8 percent better than a league average pitcher.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by packs

In one thread you argue that Ichiro was more or less an average player and now in this thread you're arguing that Jim Kaat is one of the all time best pitchers.

I will use your own methods against you to demonstrate why it doesn't make sense to view baseball players the way you do. You said Ichiro was only 5 percent better than an average player based on RC+. Well, Jim Kaat's ERA+ is only 108, that makes him just 8 percent better than a league average pitcher.

I don't think much of ERA+ or any other proprietary BR stat (and it would be dishonest for me or anyone else to use a fangraphs stat for one player and compare it to a baseball reference stat for another) Kaat's FIP is 28th in the live ball era of all pitchers with at least 3000 innings pitched. Ahead of Spahn, Tiant, Feller, Robin Roberts, Jim Palmer, Niekro and Catfish Hunter.

PLUS, if folks want to throw voting and awards into the mix, Kaat has 16 GG's.

I never said I didn't think Ichiro was a HOF'er either, nor did i say he was an avg PLAYER, he IS a slightly above avg HITTER for his career though. (as he is a HOF PLAYER because of his total game, but not just on his bat alone) plus Ichiro has 58.2 fWAR in 16 seasons which ,considering his late entry into MLB, is surely good enough. In his prime, Ichiro was around 20% above avg with the bat, but he's hurt his career avg because of playing these last 4 or 5 seasons as it now sits at 105%

[the 'stache]

Forget it. I've given up. Again, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. His mind is made up, and if Jesus came down from the heavens, and told him he was wrong, he'd argue with him.

Originally Posted by packs

In one thread you argue that Ichiro was more or less an average player and now in this thread you're arguing that Jim Kaat is one of the all time best pitchers.

I will use your own methods against you to demonstrate why it doesn't make sense to view baseball players the way you do. You said Ichiro was only 5 percent better than an average player based on RC+. Well, Jim Kaat's ERA+ is only 108, that makes him just 8 percent better than a league average pitcher.

[packs]

People always have an excuse why their facts are more important than your facts and their facts are the ones that really matter. It's just like when you're at a card show and the dealer's cards always seem to be worth more than your cards because they own them.

[bravos4evr]

I don't understand why people have to make things personal when they feel like they are losing an argument. I have been consistent in my use of fangraphs, presented a reasonable argument and been met with personal jabs and snarky derision, that isn't cool.

I happen to think baseball reference is an antiquated site in their proprietary stats and that Fangraphs is more up to date, evolved and simply better. I am not going to use BR for some stuff then Fangraphs for others as that would be cherry picking.

No I don't think that the % of votes received has any bearing nor validity on the merits of a candidate as the voters have shown over and over again they are fairly worthless at defining a HOF player. (Maz and Rice are in, Dick Allen and Trammel are not)

If you don't think WAR is a good measuring stick for a player's career then why use it at all? I happen to think that there are 3 paths to the HOF, being amazing for a shorter period of time (Koufax) being really good for a looong period of time (Murray, Kaat) or a combo of the two (Aaron, Mays) You can argue against this sure, but I don't see the need to get so flippant and dickish about it.


ETA: look at Glavine for example, he's really a borderline guy, sure he has the Cy Young awards, but for a career, it's sketchy. I have a hard time, even as a biased Braves fan, to accept his being in there and keeping Kaat, Mussina or Shilling out.

[steve B]

I like the three paths thing, I think it's fairly accurate.

I also think we all use (And in some cases invent) stats to attempt making difficult comparisons. So the old stats sort of work, and newer ones like WAR also work. The relative success of teams using newer stats seems to support those stats, most of which I haven't really gotten into.

All stats have some failings, things they don't and in many cases can't account for.

One of the things that's come to fascinate me about sports are what are usually called the "intangibles" Stuff that just can't be readily handled by stats.

My impressions of some of the players mentioned- all without resorting to stats, just how I recall them being a fan.
Kaat - Solid pitcher with some really good days and seasons. Lasted a long time I think because he was a reasonable negotiator who would take decent pay in return for being a player pretty much as long as he wanted.

Shilling - Also pretty solid, and a throwback who pitched a lot more innings than most modern pitchers.

Mussina- Decent pitcher, especially on a good team, and I don't really recall him pitching for a bad team, sure, the Orioles weren't the Yankees, partly because they had to play the Yankees fairly often. Could he have carried a bad team? Hard to say.

Rice - I'll admit bias here, one of my favorite players. He took a lot of heat from the press, some with reason some not. Pretty much every player in Boston does. His later years were not great, but weren't horrible. Even the better years some said he was disappointing simply because the season he had wasn't 78 (A really good maybe great season by most standards)

Glavine- Another dependable occasionally brilliant pitcher. Also a guy who kept pretty low key and went for the long view of things.

Trammell - Again, solid, durable, reliable, and constantly outshone by flashier players.

Many of the others I didn't see in their prime, or at all.

Some examples of intangible stuff?
Don Baylor - Went to the WS four straight years for four diferent teams all when he was older, and easily cut loose in favor of a younger cheaper player. But he must have had some positive effect right?

Tim Wakefield - Spotty, as most knuckleball pitchers, amazing sometimes, horrible at others. But a number of times he was asked to go out and take whatever happened over several innings to give the bullpen some rest. And hardly ever a complaint about that despite it wrecking his individual stats. How can you figure what the value that is to a team?

The modern stats I think need to be balanced with a bit of the old. The best example I can think of is the As right when modern stats were getting popular. They regularly fielded entire teams of inexpensive slightly above average players with a handful, usually pitchers who were a good deal better. And they did very well even with a lack of budget. But.......They weren't generally all that exciting. So the fans stayed away, and that's a piece of why they were stuck in the small budget category. Spending on a couple hitters who might be about the same by the numbers but might be more entertaining to watch would have served them a bit better.

Steve B

[packs]

Tom Glavine was one of the best pitchers in the league every year at the absolute height of the steroid era. Kaat led the league in wins once vs 5 times for Glavine. Kaat led the league in CG and shutouts once, as did Glavine. Glavine has 102 more wins than loses. Kaat has less than 50. They both pitched roughly the same amount of innings but Glavine played 3 less seasons. Kaat got CY votes once; granted for the first 5 seasons they only gave out one award. Glavine won 2, finished 2nd twice, and 3rd twice.

I give my nod to Glavine.