Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

Snowman · #1 11-19-2021, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobC

Excellent point, couldn't agree more.

And besides, Johnson did sign a contract to play, and got a lot of money for doing so. If he didn't like it, still honor the contract and leave when the contract is over, if they won't otherwise trade you, right? No one put a gun to his head to originally sign, did they? And I'm guessing he didn't decline to accept, or pay back, what he got paid for any thrown games either.

All of this talk is irrelevant though if it actually never happened. I, for one, have never even heard this rumor before about Randy Johnson throwing games or faking injuries. I'm just saying kudos to him for finding a way out of Seattle if he did. But if you look at his stats from the year he got traded, and even the year before that, he didn't appear to miss any time and his stats were in line with what he was doing in the years just prior to that, so I'm not so sure I buy it. If he were actually throwing games, that would show up in his stats, and if he were faking injuries, he would have been missing starts, no?

Ah, nevermind. Bad idea. Silly me thinking statistics can help answer questions. That's just like, my opinion, man.

Mark17 · #2 11-19-2021, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

All of this talk is irrelevant though if it actually never happened. I, for one, have never even heard this rumor before about Randy Johnson throwing games or faking injuries. I'm just saying kudos to him for finding a way out of Seattle if he did. But if you look at his stats from the year he got traded, and even the year before that, he didn't appear to miss any time and his stats were in line with what he was doing in the years just prior to that, so I'm not so sure I buy it. If he were actually throwing games, that would show up in his stats, and if he were faking injuries, he would have been missing starts, no?

Ah, nevermind. Bad idea. Silly me thinking statistics can help answer questions. That's just like, my opinion, man.

Tell me how Joe Jackson's stats in the 1919 World Series would clue you in to the fact he was on the gamblers' payroll, paid to lose.

Peter_Spaeth · #3 11-19-2021, 10:12 PM

Randy Johnson 1st 60 percent of 1998 ERA 4.33 (SEA)
Randy Johnson 2nd 40 percent of 1998 ERA 1.28 (HOU)

His WHIP went down by .3 from SEA to HOU

Maybe the DHs were killing him.

BobC · #4 11-19-2021, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Randy Johnson 1st 60 percent of 1998 ERA 4.33 (SEA)
Randy Johnson 2nd 40 percent of 1998 ERA 1.28 (HOU)

His WHIP went down by .3 from SEA to HOU

Maybe the DHs were killing him.

In all fairness, part of the reason for that big ERA drop could be from switching to a new league where none of the batters had seen him before. But those are still major league hitters, and as good as Johnson was, I can't ever see such a move creating that big of a change in his ERA in such a short of a period of time. Unless maybe he had some type of injury or something during the first part of that year that contributed to the higher ERA? But I'm not aware of any such thing. It doesn't look good for Johnson otherwise though.

Tabe · #5 11-19-2021, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobC

In all fairness, part of the reason for that big ERA drop could be from switching to a new league where none of the batters had seen him before. But those are still major league hitters, and as good as Johnson was, I can't ever see such a move creating that big of a change in his ERA in such a short of a period of time. Unless maybe he had some type of injury or something during the first part of that year that contributed to the higher ERA? But I'm not aware of any such thing. It doesn't look good for Johnson otherwise though.

Johnson complained about his back the entire first half of the season and visibly wasn't giving full effort when pitching. All that magically disappeared when he went to Houston. The assistant GM for the Mariners all but stated as much (that Johnson tanked) at the time.

BobC · #6 11-19-2021, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabe

Johnson complained about his back the entire first half of the season and visibly wasn't giving full effort when pitching. All that magically disappeared when he went to Houston. The assistant GM for the Mariners all but stated as much (that Johnson tanked) at the time.

Was just trying to be nice because we can't actually prove it, but remember hearing the rumors and accusations as well.

Peter_Spaeth · #7 11-19-2021, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobC

In all fairness, part of the reason for that big ERA drop could be from switching to a new league where none of the batters had seen him before. But those are still major league hitters, and as good as Johnson was, I can't ever see such a move creating that big of a change in his ERA in such a short of a period of time. Unless maybe he had some type of injury or something during the first part of that year that contributed to the higher ERA? But I'm not aware of any such thing. It doesn't look good for Johnson otherwise though.

The same hitters couldn't touch him for the next four years either. Four years, four Cys, absurd strikeout totals, total dominance. Don't think that explains it.

BobC · #8 11-19-2021, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The same hitters couldn't touch him for the next four years either. Four years, four Cys, absurd strikeout totals, total dominance. Don't think that explains it.

I know, I know, you're preaching to the choir. LOL

BobC · #9 11-19-2021, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark17

Tell me how Joe Jackson's stats in the 1919 World Series would clue you in to the fact he was on the gamblers' payroll, paid to lose.

We've had threads on that in the past. Jackson got duped by listening to Comiskey who didn't help him when he tried to report it and asked what to do. But you're absolutely right about his play. Believe he had the highest BA of anyone in that WS, around .380 or so, and don't believe he commited any errors either. But any good statistician would have looked Jackson's stats up right away before accusing him of actually throwing a game, or so you'd think.

Carter08 · #10 11-19-2021, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

All of this talk is irrelevant though if it actually never happened. I, for one, have never even heard this rumor before about Randy Johnson throwing games or faking injuries. I'm just saying kudos to him for finding a way out of Seattle if he did. But if you look at his stats from the year he got traded, and even the year before that, he didn't appear to miss any time and his stats were in line with what he was doing in the years just prior to that, so I'm not so sure I buy it. If he were actually throwing games, that would show up in his stats, and if he were faking injuries, he would have been missing starts, no?

Ah, nevermind. Bad idea. Silly me thinking statistics can help answer questions. That's just like, my opinion, man.

You sound kind of like a dick sometimes. No one else does.

Snowman · #11 11-20-2021, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carter08

You sound kind of like a dick sometimes. No one else does.

No one else does? LMFAO. What'd you do, filter out everyone's posts but mine? This entire thread has been others posting their opinions, them me providing my opinions, others shitting on me for having them, and then me throwing shit back.

And what about this very post of yours? Not a dickish post?

Snowman · #12 11-20-2021, 04:24 AM

I tried to find an article about Randy throwing games and faking injuries to get out of Seattle. I couldn't even find one. Sure seems like you guys are just making shit up. I did, however, find articles about him having back surgery. Twice.

His K/9 was 12.0 while he was in Seattle in 1998. It was 12.3 the year prior. His BB/9 was 3.4. It was 3.3 the year prior. And while, yes, his ERA was 4.33, his FIP was 3.35, almost a full run lower, and is also right in line with his FIP from the two seasons prior to that. Which means a full run per game of that 4.33 ERA was due to circumstances outside of his control.

I'd wager good money that this rumor about him throwing games and faking injuries (if it even was an actual rumor) came about because people who don't understand variance and sample sizes looked at the borderline irrelevant discrepancies between his ERA in Seattle and Houston that season and just pulled that explanation out of their ass because that's how stupid people attempt to explain away variance.

I'll say it again. Stop looking at wins, and stop looking at ERA if you want to evaluate pitching performance. I understand that this may be a difficult habit to break because it's been pounded into your heads for decades, but all it's doing is confusing you, whether you recognize it or not.

Carter08 · #13 11-20-2021, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

No one else does? LMFAO. What'd you do, filter out everyone's posts but mine? This entire thread has been others posting their opinions, them me providing my opinions, others shitting on me for having them, and then me throwing shit back.

And what about this very post of yours? Not a dickish post?

Your second point is valid. My apologies.

Snowman · #14 11-20-2021, 07:45 AM

Randy also posted a 0.337 BABIP during his time with Seattle in 1998 before being traded, which was almost the highest BABIP he posted in his entire career. This means that the ever so slightly elevated numbers he posted that season in Seattle were entirely explainable simply by bad luck. Nothing about his statistics from 1998 are indicative of him throwing games or pitching worse than he was capable of during his stint with Seattle. This is not just my opinion or me trying to say something controversial. It's a simple fact. If you disagree, you simply don't understand how statistics works with sample sizes, variance/luck, and confidence intervals.

Tabe · #15 11-20-2021, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

Randy also posted a 0.337 BABIP during his time with Seattle in 1998 before being traded, which was almost the highest BABIP he posted in his entire career. This means that the ever so slightly elevated numbers he posted that season in Seattle were entirely explainable simply by bad luck. Nothing about his statistics from 1998 are indicative of him throwing games or pitching worse than he was capable of during his stint with Seattle. This is not just my opinion or me trying to say something controversial. It's a simple fact. If you disagree, you simply don't understand how statistics works with sample sizes, variance/luck, and confidence intervals.

"ever so slightly elevated numbers", LOL.

Peter_Spaeth · #16 11-20-2021, 02:21 PM

If 2/3 of a season is too small a sample size to make any meaningful observations that exclude good or bad luck, as apparently is the case for Randy Johnson 1998 and his slightly elevated first 2/3 numbers, why is a full season really that much better? Maybe we should just junk the Cy Young award, since it's just rewarding randomness.

Snowman · #17 11-20-2021, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabe

"ever so slightly elevated numbers", LOL.

Laugh all you want, but the numbers that actually matter, the ones that aren't subject to luck were nearly identical to his prior years (12.0 K/9 vs 12.3, 3.4 BB/9 vs 3.3, 3.35 FIP vs 2.82 and 3.42). If that's not "ever so slightly elevated", then I don't know what is.

But you can keep looking at ERA if you want to. The imbeciles always do.

Tabe · #18 11-20-2021, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

But if you look at his stats from the year he got traded, and even the year before that, he didn't appear to miss any time and his stats were in line with what he was doing in the years just prior to that, .

His ERA was over 2 full runs higher in 1998 before the trade compared to 1997 but, sure, his stats were right in line.

Snowman · #19 11-20-2021, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabe

His ERA was over 2 full runs higher in 1998 before the trade compared to 1997 but, sure, his stats were right in line.

This is the type of nonsense I'm talking about. The fact that he posted an ERA of 2 runs higher than he did the year before in Seattle at the trade deadline literally means absolutely nothing. It tells you nothing about how well he was pitching without also looking at his other stats like FIP, BABIP, K/9 and BB/9. The data clearly shows that he simply got unlucky over the course of the first 2/3s of the season but was still every bit as dominant with the factors that were within his control.

mrreality68 · #20 11-20-2021, 08:19 AM

Beware of Stats.

1. that do not always mean anything
2. Different people value different stats differently
3. Some people use the Same Stats and read it differently to make their points

cjedmonton · #21 11-20-2021, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Beware of Stats.

1. that do not always mean anything
2. Different people value different stats differently
3. Some people use the Same Stats and read it differently to make their points

Or more colloquially�

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/statistics

Peter_Spaeth · #22 11-20-2021, 10:37 AM

I thought a pitcher's BABIP could be indicative of his ability to induce weak contact and therefore having a higher one than typical could indicate he was not pitching as well as before and not just random bad luck.

Anyhow I guess his bad luck just disappeared the day he was sent to Houston and his BIP then dropped by over .3 for the rest of the season. Just regression to the mean, inconsequential.

BobC · #23 11-20-2021, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I thought a pitcher's BABIP could be indicative of his ability to induce weak contact and therefore having a higher one than typical could indicate he was not pitching as well as before and not just random bad luck.

Anyhow I guess his bad luck just disappeared the day he was sent to Houston and his BIP then dropped by over .3 for the rest of the season. Just regression to the mean, inconsequential.

Yeah Peter, I vaguely seem to remember someone on here posting about how they used that same statistic to declare that Spahn was just lucky and not so great a pitcher. Good thing his luck didn't last for more than 363 wins or 20 or so successful winning seasons. Otherwise, people might actually begin to question the infallibility of such a statistical measure and the thoroughly conclusive answer that can be gleaned and ultimately drawn from it in regards to something as readily and objectively measurable as the level of Spahn's luck. But of course, we all know that a loss of faith in statistical infallibility would never happen, especially when such a conclusive and non-arguable determination of Spahn's luck is drawn from such totally unbiased and all-inclusive statistical and intangible data by qualified data scientists in their unrivaled capacity and knowledge, the results of which they so unselfishly bestow upon and honor us with. For without them, we, the unknowing minions, would truly be in the dark. But fortunately for us, we have our beloved statisticians and data scientists to instead smile down upon us with their sage and benevolent wisdom, and lead us unto the light! Amen.

(Shoot! Did I just cross a line and post something religious? If so, my apologies, no offense meant to anyone............well, almost!

)

Snowman · #24 11-20-2021, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I thought a pitcher's BABIP could be indicative of his ability to induce weak contact and therefore having a higher one than typical could indicate he was not pitching as well as before and not just random bad luck.

Anyhow I guess his bad luck just disappeared the day he was sent to Houston and his BIP then dropped by over .3 for the rest of the season. Just regression to the mean, inconsequential.

Yes, it did. This happens all the time. He even got lucky in Houston. His HR% was half of what it normally is for him during those 10 starts. Anything can happen in 11 starts. It's just way too small of a sample size. Hell, nearly anything can happen even over the course of a full season too, let alone 11 games.

A pitcher's BABIP is almost entirely outside of his control. There are some who suggest that they may be able to exercise some minuscule amount of control over it, to the tune of a few points, but that's not an easy sell even at that. Either way, large fluctuations above and below the league average BABIP is indicative of a pitcher having gotten either lucky or unlucky that season. Just go look up your favorite 10 pitchers and look at their best and worst seasons with respect to their ERAs and WHIPs. You'll usually find that those were usually just seasons where every bounce or wind gust went their way (or failed to when their numbers were "bad"). Especially when there is a discrepancy between their ERA and their FIP.

If I want to know how well a pitcher performed, I look at the stats that are within their control.

BobC · #25 11-20-2021, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjedmonton

Or more colloquially�

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/statistics

Those quotes are hilarious..............and at the same time, pretty much spot on!

So true, so true.

cjedmonton · #26 11-20-2021, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobC

Those quotes are hilarious..............and at the same time, pretty much spot on!

So true, so true.

One more famous one that didn’t make the first page cut:

“Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital”

Aaron Levenstein, economist, November 1951

Peter_Spaeth · #27 11-20-2021, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobC

Those quotes are hilarious..............and at the same time, pretty much spot on!

So true, so true.

As this thread shows all too well, raw data may be objective, but how one presents and interprets it is anything but.

Deertick · #28 11-20-2021, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Beware of Stats.

1. that do not always mean anything
2. Different people value different stats differently
3. Some people use the Same Stats and read it differently to make their points

63% of all statistics are fake.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lefty Grove = Lefty Groves... And Lefty's 1921 Tip Top Bread Card	leftygrove10	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	12	10-15-2019 01:55 AM
62 koufax ,59 mays,72 mays vg ends monday 8 est time sold ended	rjackson44	Live Auctions - Only 2-3 open, per member, at once.	3	05-22-2017 06:00 PM
Final Poll!! Vote of the all time worst Topps produced set	almostdone	Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)	22	07-28-2015 08:55 PM
Long Time Lurker. First time poster. Crazy to gamble on this Gehrig?	wheels56	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	17	05-17-2015 05:25 AM
It's the most wonderful time of the year. Cobb/Edwards auction time!	iggyman	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	68	09-17-2013 01:42 AM