Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

Snowman · #1 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 · #2 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 · #3 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 · #4 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 · #5 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 · #6 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.

BobC · #7 11-20-2021, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

Careful there Peter, you're using too much logic and sense for some people!

Peter_Spaeth · #8 11-20-2021, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobC

Careful there Peter, you're using too much logic and sense for some people!

I also question some "oh it's too small a sample size" arguments. Those always seem to me to reflect cherry-picking, to dismiss inconvenient stats that don't fit the theory. We used to see that argument all the time here to rebut the theory that Kershaw was not a good post-season pitcher; his lousy performances were just random events and couldn't possibly reflect that he wilted under pressure. Of course after a full season worth of postseason outings there's still a huge disparity so maybe that argument has been retired.

Of course when the stats do fit the theory, we don't see the sample size argument so much.

Snowman · #9 11-20-2021, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

If it gets awarded to whoever has the best W/L record and the best ERA, then yes, it is borderline meaningless. As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, the award has gone to countless pitchers over the years who clearly did not deserve it.

But it wouldn't be that difficult to make it meaningful. They just need to look at the right statistics. They finally figured this out for offensive players. Maybe they'll come around sooner or later with pitchers too? Who knows.

Peter_Spaeth · #10 11-20-2021, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

If it gets awarded to whoever has the best W/L record and the best ERA, then yes, it is borderline meaningless. As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, the award has gone to countless pitchers over the years who clearly did not deserve it.

But it wouldn't be that difficult to make it meaningful. They just need to look at the right statistics. They finally figured this out for offensive players. Maybe they'll come around sooner or later with pitchers too? Who knows.

Sample size is just as small for all statistics, no?

carlsonjok · #11 11-20-2021, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

IThey just need to look at the right statistics. They finally figured this out for offensive players.

Oh, really?

Snowman · #12 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.

Peter_Spaeth · #13 11-20-2021, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.

Those are the product of the same set of games you dismissed as being too small a sample size to be meaningful, so why are they now meaningful when they favor your argument?

Snowman · #14 11-20-2021, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Those are the product of the same set of games you dismissed as being too small a sample size to be meaningful, so why are they now meaningful when they favor your argument?

Because the sample sizes needed for those statistics is remarkably smaller than it is for ERA, and thus their corresponding confidence intervals are much narrower. This is because they are not nearly as subject to luck as ERA is. It takes years for ERA to converge. It takes months for K/9, BB/9, and even FIP.

Tabe · #15 11-20-2021, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.

So a 20% jump in FIP is "ever so slightly"?

His home runs were up 40%. OPS was up 20%. Line drive% was up 33%. All that stuff says guys were hitting the ball hard off of him A LOT more than the previous year - and the rest of 1998 and the next four years.

Please specify the EXACT number of starts and/or innings to qualify as NOT a small sample size. Just for grins.

p.s. Name-calling reflects poorly on you. Do better.

Peter_Spaeth · #16 11-20-2021, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabe

So a 20% jump in FIP is "ever so slightly"?

His home runs were up 40%. OPS was up 20%. Line drive% was up 33%. All that stuff says guys were hitting the ball hard off of him A LOT more than the previous year - and the rest of 1998 and the next four years.

Please specify the EXACT number of starts and/or innings to qualify as NOT a sample size. Just for grins.

p.s. Name-calling reflects poorly on you. Do better.

Irrelevant man. Once the ball leaves the bat, it has nothing to do with the pitcher, it's just dumb luck and coincidence, or a function of other factors beyond the pitcher's control such as fielding. BABIP is binary -- either it's a hit or it's not -- and the rest is meaningless. Besides, every number you cite suffers from small sample size and confidence interval issues -- only numbers that support the thesis that his first half was just random are reliable.

All pitchers are essentially fungible beyond their ability to strike batters out. Maddux is the same as any other 6K/9 pitcher you can name. Johnson's K's stayed up, so all the rest is noise.

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