NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Postwar Sportscard Forums > Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 08-08-2016, 03:06 AM
clydepepper's Avatar
clydepepper clydepepper is offline
Raymond 'Robbie' Culpepper
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Columbus, GA
Posts: 6,928
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards View Post
um, not even close.


He got you there, Bill...5 AM again? Get some sleep, sir!
__________________
.
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on others lives" - Jackie Robinson

“If you have a chance to make life better for others and fail to do so, you are wasting your time on this earth.”- Roberto Clemente
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 08-11-2016, 04:09 AM
the 'stache's Avatar
the 'stache the 'stache is offline
Bill Gregory
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Posts: 3,915
Default

You know what? I understand WAR just fine, thank you. And I'm hardly cherry picking to support my argument. I'm building a case for Murray, and against Kaat, and thus far, you've done nothing to show me they were of equal value to their teams. If two players end up with the same career wins added, only one plays four years longer, they obviously were not providing like value on an annual basis, were they? Why can't you grasp this very simple concept?

"Two guys ended with the same win total, they must be equal, right?"

NO!

If a phenom pitcher comes up (say Dwight Gooden circa 1984), and absolutely sets the baseball world on its ear, wins 19 games, strikes out 275, has an ERA of 2.2, and his advanced metrics are Godly; say his fWAR is 9.5. He blows out his arm in spring training, and never pitches again. His teammate that rookie season puts up an fWAR of 3.0 his own rookie year. The next year he puts up a 2.9 fWAR. His third season, he puts up an fWAR of 3.6. His career total is now 9.5, the same as the phenom pitcher.

Who is the better player? The guy who wins the Rookie of the Year and Cy Young going away, and has an historic first season, or the utility player who is really good with the glove, and ok with the bat? Their career fWAR to this point is identical, but they are not nearly the same player. The value they bring to their teams is not even in the same ballpark. If after that third season, the phenom pitcher has a new surgical procedure that fixes his arm, and he's able to pitch at a high level again, who do you think the team is going to keep on the 25 man roster? The utility player, or the pitcher?

"But...but....they have equal fWAR, so they're equally valuable!"

No!!

Take this same rationale, and apply it to Kaat and Murray. Murray achieved in 18.7 years of actual playing time what it took Kaat 22.4 years of actual playing time.

Using those numbers, Murray's average season by fWAR is 3.85 (72.0 divided by 18.7).
Kaat's average fWAR is 3.17 (70.9 divided by 22.4). Murray's annual contribution is more than 21% higher than Kaat's.

I'm baffled how you continually gloss over this. For them to truly be equal, from a value standpoint, Kaat would have had to produce a lifetime fWAR of 86.24.

And these metrics baseball-reference.com use were good enough for baseball scholars for decades before Fangraphs ever came around. There is variance between Baseball-reference and Fangraphs, yes. I've looked at their methodology before, and their advanced metrics, and some of the time, I disagree with their results. Admittedly, I am not as conversant with their metrics, and so I will take the time to learn them, ok? But, in the mean time, regardless of what site I utilize as my base of statistical analysis, there is not enough evidence to support your assertion that Jim Kaat and Eddie Murray were the same, from a value standpoint. There just isn't.

For the rest of this discussion, I will use only Fangraphs. The end result is still the same, but it removes that variable from the argument.

And Kaat should be high on the fWAR list in the modern era. Very high, indeed. Because, since the start of the 1920 season, only thirteen other pitchers have thrown more innings than Kaat in all of baseball. Of course a man that pitched a massive amount of innings is going to be fairly high up on the list of fWAR for live ball era pitchers. The sheer length of his career assures that. But it doesn't make him a great pitcher.

Speaking of FIP, which you brought up as a metric superior to ERA + (I agree with you), let's look at the starting pitchers of the live ball era. I wonder where Jim Kaat ranks among qualified starting pitchers from 1920 on? Since FIP considers only the things a pitcher can directly control (walk rate, strikeouts, home runs allowed, and hit batsmen), this should give us a pretty good indication of how Kaat truly stacks up against other starters that have pitched in the Major Leagues since the start of the 1920 season.

Hmm. Look at that? On a list of qualified pitchers, though Kaat ranks 27th with a career fWAR of 70.2, he ranks 130th in career FIP at 3.40, right behind Harvey Haddix, Nelson Briles, Tommy John, Wilbur Wood, Al Javery, Jim Merritt, Mike Scott, Roy Oswalt, Mel Stottlemyre, Joe Horlen, Larry Christenson...hey look, Lefty Grove, finally, another Hall of Famer, Len Barker, Claude Osteen......all of these guys are better than Kaat. And, unlike Kaat, who led the league in FIP one time, Grove did so eight times.

There are sixty-two starting pitchers in the Hall of Fame. Kaat, when considering only the things he can control as a pitcher, is only the 139th best starter of the live era.

But yes, let's put him into Cooperstown!

Let's go back to fWAR for a second, since that seems to be your island in the middle of the ocean.

"Kaat's fWAR is 27th best all-time by a starter...." yadda yadda.

First, a question for you. There are guys on the starters list, since 1920, with a higher fWAR than Kaat that are not in the Hall. Tell me, do you think these players are Hall of Famers?

Mike Mussina, 82.1 fWAR, 3559 innings pitched
Tommy John, 79.0 fWAR, 4673.0 innings pitched
Curt Schilling, 78.1 fWAR, 3079.1 innings pitched
Kevin Brown, 76.5 fWAR, 3237.1 innings pitched
Jim Kaat, 70.3 fWAR, 4242.2 innings pitched

All those guys have higher fWARs for their careers. Brown pitched over 1,000 fewer innings than Kaat. His FIP (3.32) is better than Kaat's, too. Does Kevin Brown belong in Cooperstown? All of these guys, except Tommy John, have much better fWAR metrics in far fewer innings pitched. Knowing that Major League Baseball has elected 62 starting pitchers since Cooperstown opened, are you prepared to throw five more guys in, and then Kaat??

Let's look at the guys behind him, and determine if Kaat is actually better than them as a pitcher. Because, again, while I credit Kaat for showing up day after day, year after year, just punching the time card doesn't make one great. And Cooperstown is supposed to recognize greatness, not a gold pen for spending 25 years with the company.

Let's focus, again, on the live ball era, and compare Kaat to the guys who were, in your eyes, must not be as worthy as Kaat because they had a lower fWAR career total. I'm going to limit the discussion to guys within 10 wins, by fWAR.



So, here they are. The last column is their fWAR. Obviously, standard stats are first, wins and losses, SV, G, GS, IP (as a starter), and the last grouping of three before fWAR is ERA, FIP and xFIP.

So notice Kaat's numbers. All these starters have fWAR within 10 of Kaat's 70.3.

First up, Andy Pettitte. Is he a Hall of Famer, in your eyes? He has a fWAR 1.8 below Kaat's, and his FIP is higher (3.74 to 3.40). But he also pitched 942 2/3 fewer innings. Clearly he is more valuable than Kaat, if you consider length of career, and total fWAR. Kaat averaged 202 IP per 162 games, and Pettitte averaged 214 IP per 162 games. So, let's look at average fWAR per 162 games played. Kaat pitched a total of 4530.1 innings in his career. 22.4 seasons. 3.14 fWAR per season. Pettitte pitched 3316 innings in his career. At 214 IP per 162 games, that's 15.50 actual seasons pitched. That's an average fWAR of 4.42. Pettitte was worth 1.3 more wins per season than Kaat. So, does he go in?

Next up, Rick Reuschel. Reuschel has an fWAR of 68.2. Only 2.1 wins fewer than Kaat. But, in his career, Reuschel threw 3,541 innings, averaging 222 IP per 162 games played. Reuschel's FIP of 3.22 is much better than Kaat's career 3.40. Reuschel pitched 15.95 actual seasons. His average fWAR, on a 162 game basis, is 4.28. That's 1.14 more wins per season than Kaat. Again, more wins per season, a better career FIP, and a nearly identical career fWAR. So, Rick Reuschel must be a Hall of Famer too, then, right???

Glavine and Bunning are already in. So, Roy Halladay is next up. He has a 65.1 career fWAR. He threw 2,749 innings in his career, averaging 232 innings pitched per 162 games played by his team. Halladay pitched 11.85 seasons of actual baseball. Kaat was only worth 5.2 more fWAR, even though Halladay pitched a whopping 1781 fewer innings. While their FIP is nearly identical (3.40 for Kaat, 3.36 for Halladay as a starter, 3.39 for his career), Halladay was clearly much more valuable than Kaat. Halladay was worth 5.49 wins per season by fWAR, 2.35 wins more per season than Kaat. You're going to sit here and tell me that Jim Kaat was more valuable than Roy Halladay because he had a higher career fWAR? Halladay is the more valuable pitcher. His peak is better. While Kaat's best individual seasons, by fWAR are 6.4 (1966, '67), a 5.9 (1971), a 5.4 (1962), and a 5.1 (1975), Halladay counters with an 8.3 (2011), a 7.0 (2003, '09), a 6.8 (2002, '08), and a 6.1 (2010). Halladay has five seasons better than Jim Kaat's best, by fWAR, and six of the top seven seasons thrown by either Halladay or Kaat were thrown by Halladay. So, clearly, he's a superior pitcher.

See where I'm going with this? Career fWAR is not the be all, end all, especially when a guy plays the game, to some extent, for a quarter century. And THAT is why Jim Kaat has the 22nd highest fWAR of starting pitchers in the live ball era. It's not that he was better than everybody else behind him on the list; it's that he pitched longer. Andy Pettitte was more valuable than Jim Kaat. His FIP is higher, but on an annual basis, his fWAR is better. Rick Reuschel career fWAR is only 2.1 lower than Kaat's. But he pitched 989 fewer innings, and had a better career FIP. So, he needs to go into the Hall of Fame before Jim Kaat does. So does Roy Halladay. That's two pitchers, arguably three, that were better than Kaat, though their career fWAR is lower.

Next up, Mickey Lolich. 64.5 career fWAR, or 5.8 fewer wins than Kaat. Lolich has the superior FIP (3.19 to 3.40), so that's one point in his favor. He pitched 3,638 innings in his career of which almost all were realized as a starter. Lolich averaged 229 innings pitched per 162 games played for his career, or 15.89 seasons of actual baseball played. His fWAR per 162 games played is 4.06, which is 0.92 (4.06 - 3.14), almost a full game better per season. Individual seasons? Lolich has fWAR (again, this is from Fangraphs) of 8.3 (1971), 6.1 (1972), 6.0 (1969), 5.4 (1973), and 5.1 (1965, '70). Between the two pitchers, Lolich and Kaat, Lolich has the best season (8.3), Kaat has the second best (6.4), Lolich has the third (6.1) and fourth (6.0) best. Lolich, with a better career FIP, more wins per season, and a much better peak, deserves to get in before Kaat, too.

Next up, Paul Derringer. 62.4 career fWAR. Pitched 3,645 innings in his career, averaging 242 innings thrown per 162 team games played. That's 15.06 seasons of actual baseball played. He averaged 4.14 wins per season played, compared to 3.14 fWAR/162 G for Kaat. Derringer's career FIP is 3.26. That, again, is better than Jim Kaat's 3.40. Peak seasons? 6.3 in 1939 with the Reds, 5.5 (1940), 5.2 (1936), 5.1 (1938), 4.8 (1934), 4.7 (1933). Kaat had seasons of 6.4 twice, 5.9, 5.4 and 5.1. He also had a 4.8 and a 4.7. Kaat had the best two seasons, edging Derringer's 6.3 by 0.1. Derringer had the third best season. Kaat the fourth, Derringer the fifth, and they each tied with a 5.1. Kaat had a slightly better peak, but for his career, Derringer was better by annual fWAR, and FIP. The case could be made that Derringer is every bit as deserving of Hall induction as Kaat is, if fWAR is the chief component.

I could keep going on like this for a while. The bottom line is this. Kaat is where he is on the one metric you cherry picked because of how long he played. It's that simple.

And stating "Kaat is third in fWAR for starters between 1961 and 1975", as an attempt to show "how good" he was, is a little ridiculous. Again, of course he's going to be high up on the list, merely because not many pitchers throw fifteen years in their careers. And if they do pitch during the same era Kaat played in, they likely don't have the identical coverage period. Look at the guys on the list behind him. Kaat had a 64.3 fWAR between 1961-1975. The guy behind him, Lolich, with a 61.4, didn't even come up to the Majors until 1963. Ya think that a guy with two more seasons of work is going to have a fWAR 3 wins higher?? Next up is Juan Marichal at 59.4. Marichal only threw 57 1/3 innings in 1974, and 6 innings in 1975, his last season. 63 1/3 innings in '74-'75 while Kaat threw 581 innings. Again, shocking that Kaat would have 4.9 more wins by pitching 517 2/3 more innings.

Next up, Fergie Jenkins with a 57.1 fWAR between 1961 and 1975. He wasn't even a rookie until 1965, and he threw all of 12 1/3 innings in '65. So, Kaat earned 7.2 more wins during this period....because Jenkins didn't pitch in 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, and barely pitched in 1965. Jenkins blows Jim Kaat out of the water as a pitcher. That Kaat appears high on this little fWAR list you complied (talk about cherry picking!) is a matter of time played. Again, Kaat's best fWARs in this period were a 6.4, another 6.4, and a 5.9. Jenkins has a 9.6 fWAR in 1971, a 9.5 in 1970, an 8.2 in 1969, a 7.4 in 1974. Those 6.4 fWARs of Kaat's barely beat out Jenkins' fifth best season, a 6.3 in 1968. Had Jenkins pitched more than 12 1/3 innings between the first five years of the period you selected, he'd have caught, and blown Kaat's fWAR out of the water like a German U boat.

Next up...Tom Seaver, with a 56.4 fWAR. Let me just LOL here for a minute as we reflect on his having an fWAR that is a mere 7.9 wins behind Kaat. Seaver didn't pitch in 1961. Or 1962. Or 1963. Or 1964. Or 1965. Or 1966. Despite having six full seasons head start, Kaat could only put up 7.9 more wins. Seaver had a 9.1 fWAR in 1971, an 8.3 in 1970, a 7.8 in 1975, a 7.3 in 1973. All four of those seasons blow Kaat's best out of the water.

Next up is Jim Bunning at 49.3 fWAR. He didn't pitch in 1972, 1973, 1974 or 1975. He put up a 7.3, and two 6.8s in the period specified. He was better than Kaat, too.

Sam McDowell is next with a 48.1 fWAR. He pitched 6 1/3 innings in 1961, 87 2/3 in 1962, 65 in 1963, 48 2/3 in 1974, and 34 2/3 in 1975. Yeah, he blows Kaat away, too, with seasons of 9.4 fWAR (1969), 8.7 (1965), 7.6 (1970), and 6.8 (1968).

Don Sutton is next at 47.0 fWAR. He didn't pitch in 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, or 1965. He has a 7.1 fWAR in 1971, a 6.8 in 1972, and a 6.0 in 1973. You have to figure he averages at least 3.0 fWAR a season. So, he's close, but might not have passed Kaat.

The next guy would have blown him out of the water. 1961 to 1975 is 15 seasons. Sandy Koufax only pitched between 1961 and 1966--6 seasons. And, he put up a 46.3 fWAR. He's worlds better than Kaat, and it's not even close. The only reason Kaat beats him is because of the extra years he plays. Koufax has seasons of 10.0 (1965), 9.2 (1964), 9.1 (1966), 6.3 (1961), and 6.1 (1964).

Next up? Steve Carlton with a 44.9 fWAR. He didn't pitch in 1961, 1962, 1963, or 1964. He pitched 25 innings in 1965, and 62 innings in 1966. His peak is much better than Kaat's, too, with an unbelievable 11.1 fWAR in 1972. Then he has a number of good seasons, with 4.9s in 1969 and 1974, but nothing that tops Kaat's best few seasons. The vast majority of his best seasons come from 1976 on; he has multiple 8 and 7 + fWARs. But missing four full seasons, and missing about 400 innings those first two seasons, he would have at least equaled, and likely passed Kaat's fWAR. He only needed 19.4 fWAR in 5.5 seasons (3.5 fWAR per season) to catch him.

The point here is that all of these guys, with the exception of Don Sutton, outperform Jim Kaat if they had pitched the same time period. Kaat's being third in fWAR during this period is merely the result of timing, and not a greater indication of his dominance. He was, again, a good, at times a real good pitcher. But not a Hall of Famer. Not even close.

Kaat, in his 25 year career, cracked the top 10 in fWAR in his league three times. Murray had the 6th best fWAR in all the Major Leagues for a seven year period. That's a night and day difference.



Quote:
Originally Posted by bravos4evr View Post
well, I'm done arguing with someone who either doesn't understand WAR or cherry picks it only when it supports their argument.


I'm also not going to argue with someone who uses stats like ERA+,OPS+ and JAWS. which are not very good modern stats.

72 WAR is 72 WAR, at the end of the day they provided nearly equal value for their careers. If you say one is HOF'er based on value then the other must be.... Kaat is 27th in career fWAR for pitchers (using the far superior FIP over ERA+) ALL TIME . Since 1920 (start of the "live ball era" he is 22nd, right ahead of Glavine ) In fact since 1920 only 36 starting pitchers have provided 60 WAR or more over their careers. He is 22nd.

From his first full season in 1961 to the end of his productive era in 1975 Kaat is 3rd in WAR behind only Gibson and Gaylord Perry. so it's not like he had no peak either.

stop using baseball reference, it's pretty much worthless


P.S. Murray's peak 7 seasons you mentioned put him 6th in MLB WAR over that period with 36.8. That is very good, it is NOT elite, Mike Schmidt and Rickey Henderson put up 49 over that same period , THAT'S elite. (not to mention Murray got 23 of that WAR as a DH and only 49 at first base, which is 20th all time)
__________________
Building these sets: T206, 1953 Bowman Color, 1975 Topps.

Great transactions with: piedmont150, Cardboard Junkie, z28jd, t206blogcom, tinkertoeverstochance, trobba, Texxxx, marcdelpercio, t206hound, zachs, tolstoi, IronHorse 2130, AndyG09, BBT206, jtschantz, lug-nut, leaflover, Abravefan11, mpemulis, btcarfagno, BlueSky, and Frankbmd.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 08-11-2016, 04:10 AM
the 'stache's Avatar
the 'stache the 'stache is offline
Bill Gregory
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Posts: 3,915
Default

Yeah, I'm not sure what I was thinking when I typed that. Just a brain fart. Sometimes the numbers run together.

Oh hell, it's 5 am again, lol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by clydepepper View Post
He got you there, Bill...5 AM again? Get some sleep, sir!
__________________
Building these sets: T206, 1953 Bowman Color, 1975 Topps.

Great transactions with: piedmont150, Cardboard Junkie, z28jd, t206blogcom, tinkertoeverstochance, trobba, Texxxx, marcdelpercio, t206hound, zachs, tolstoi, IronHorse 2130, AndyG09, BBT206, jtschantz, lug-nut, leaflover, Abravefan11, mpemulis, btcarfagno, BlueSky, and Frankbmd.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 08-11-2016, 03:34 PM
bravos4evr's Avatar
bravos4evr bravos4evr is offline
Nick Barnes
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: South Mississippi
Posts: 757
Default

Yes I think all of those guys should be in with perhaps the exception of Brown due to his appearing on the Mitchell list.

It's a crime Mussina wasn't a first ballot guy as he should have been.


and yes for their careers Murray and Kaat provided very similar value, overall. I don't get why you have such a hard time with this.

If you play ten years and put up 72 WAR you were a better player than a guy who put up 72 WAR over 20 years, but FOR YOUR CAREER, you provided exactly the same amount of wins above a replacement player.


do you think that 2000 pounds of dirt piled slowly is less a ton than 2000 pounds of dirt piled quickly?

Kaat was a reliever for 4 of the final 5 years of his career, thus providing very little value on a WAR basis.

Kaat 19 seasons of positive WAR contribution - total fWAR 70.9

Eddie Murray 18 seasons of positive WAR contribution- total fWAR 72.0

and like I said, Kaat's peak production period of 1961-1975 he was the 3rd best pitcher behind only Gibson and Gaylord Perry.

Eddie Murray's peak production period from 1977-1990 he was 4th best position player behind Schmidt, Henderson and Brett.

I think both compare pretty well, they are within 1 WAR for their careers had similar rankings against their peers in their prime and both had similar total years of positive WAR contribution.
__________________
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away."- Tom Waits
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 08-11-2016, 07:21 PM
CMIZ5290 CMIZ5290 is offline
KEVIN MIZE
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: VALDOSTA, GA.
Posts: 6,301
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bravos4evr View Post
Yes I think all of those guys should be in with perhaps the exception of Brown due to his appearing on the Mitchell list.

It's a crime Mussina wasn't a first ballot guy as he should have been.


and yes for their careers Murray and Kaat provided very similar value, overall. I don't get why you have such a hard time with this.

If you play ten years and put up 72 WAR you were a better player than a guy who put up 72 WAR over 20 years, but FOR YOUR CAREER, you provided exactly the same amount of wins above a replacement player.


do you think that 2000 pounds of dirt piled slowly is less a ton than 2000 pounds of dirt piled quickly?

Kaat was a reliever for 4 of the final 5 years of his career, thus providing very little value on a WAR basis.

Kaat 19 seasons of positive WAR contribution - total fWAR 70.9

Eddie Murray 18 seasons of positive WAR contribution- total fWAR 72.0

and like I said, Kaat's peak production period of 1961-1975 he was the 3rd best pitcher behind only Gibson and Gaylord Perry.

Eddie Murray's peak production period from 1977-1990 he was 4th best position player behind Schmidt, Henderson and Brett.

I think both compare pretty well, they are within 1 WAR for their careers had similar rankings against their peers in their prime and both had similar total years of positive WAR contribution.
Nick- I have tried to follow you but some of your threads don't make sense to me. You are the guy that thinks 3000 hits is drastically overrated....Jim Kaat? Really? career ERA of 3.50? And please, get off this WAR contribution bullshit. Let's talk baseball....Would you actually take Kaat over Bob Feller in a must win game? I don't think so....The verbiage on this thread is remarkable and way too extensive. I would venture to say that the book War and Peace was more simplified. Holy Crap

Last edited by CMIZ5290; 08-11-2016 at 07:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 08-13-2016, 03:14 PM
bravos4evr's Avatar
bravos4evr bravos4evr is offline
Nick Barnes
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: South Mississippi
Posts: 757
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CMIZ5290 View Post
Nick- I have tried to follow you but some of your threads don't make sense to me. You are the guy that thinks 3000 hits is drastically overrated....Jim Kaat? Really? career ERA of 3.50? And please, get off this WAR contribution bullshit. Let's talk baseball....Would you actually take Kaat over Bob Feller in a must win game? I don't think so....The verbiage on this thread is remarkable and way too extensive. I would venture to say that the book War and Peace was more simplified. Holy Crap
who ever said I would prefer Kaat over Feller? I would take Feller over a lot of guys in the HOF, that doesn't mean they don't belong there.


ERA is not a very good stat, it's better than using win and losses, but it doesn't do as good a job at describing pitching performance as we have been lead to believe over the years. FIP and peripherals are better.

WAR is the best stat at comparing players across eras in one easy number. It's not perfect, but it's a heckuva lot better than using the old counting stats everyone seems so addicted to.

I do think 3000 hits is a milestone for the player's career, but it IS NOT an indicator for a good hitter. Too many fans are hung up on the old ways of judging players, we have found those ways are mostly incorrect. Time to evolve or get left behind, this is the way of things.
__________________
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away."- Tom Waits
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 08-14-2016, 06:02 PM
the 'stache's Avatar
the 'stache the 'stache is offline
Bill Gregory
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Posts: 3,915
Default

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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CMIZ5290 View Post
Nick- I have tried to follow you but some of your threads don't make sense to me. You are the guy that thinks 3000 hits is drastically overrated....Jim Kaat? Really? career ERA of 3.50? And please, get off this WAR contribution bullshit. Let's talk baseball....Would you actually take Kaat over Bob Feller in a must win game? I don't think so....The verbiage on this thread is remarkable and way too extensive. I would venture to say that the book War and Peace was more simplified. Holy Crap
__________________
Building these sets: T206, 1953 Bowman Color, 1975 Topps.

Great transactions with: piedmont150, Cardboard Junkie, z28jd, t206blogcom, tinkertoeverstochance, trobba, Texxxx, marcdelpercio, t206hound, zachs, tolstoi, IronHorse 2130, AndyG09, BBT206, jtschantz, lug-nut, leaflover, Abravefan11, mpemulis, btcarfagno, BlueSky, and Frankbmd.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 08-15-2016, 09:40 AM
nat's Avatar
nat nat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 925
Default

The problem with simply comparing WAR totals for HOF discussions is that WAR doesn't measure value. It measures wins above replacement. Wins are the basic building blocks of value, but value isn't just their sum. How they are distributed matters also.

Look at it this way. An average player will post about 2 WAR in a season. An average team will win 81 games (give or take; more precisely, on average, a team will win 81 games). Say that it takes 90 wins to get into the post season (number for illustration purposes only). There is, therefore, a lot more value to a team to getting to 90 wins than there is to sitting at 81. A lot more value, over and above the extra 9 wins. For example, it's more important to get from 81 to 90 than it is to get from 72 to 81. So a 4 WAR season is more than twice as valuable than a 2 WAR season.

And that's the reason that not all 70 WAR careers are of equal value. It's more valuable to have that production concentrated than it is to have it spread out. It's why Sandy Koufax is a reasonably good hall of fame choice, and not a pretty bad one.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 08-15-2016, 12:59 PM
packs packs is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,317
Default

So a thread about Clayton Kershaw has devolved into a discussion about Jim Kaat?
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 08-15-2016, 02:46 PM
bravos4evr's Avatar
bravos4evr bravos4evr is offline
Nick Barnes
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: South Mississippi
Posts: 757
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the 'stache View Post
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?
__________________
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away."- Tom Waits
Reply With Quote
  #161  
Old 08-15-2016, 02:50 PM
packs packs is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,317
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 08-15-2016, 02:54 PM
bravos4evr's Avatar
bravos4evr bravos4evr is offline
Nick Barnes
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: South Mississippi
Posts: 757
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nat View Post
And that's the reason that not all 70 WAR careers are of equal value. It's more valuable to have that production concentrated than it is to have it spread out. It's why Sandy Koufax is a reasonably good hall of fame choice, and not a pretty bad one.
Kaat- 19 seasons of positive WAR , 68.3 WAR over 16 seasons

Murray-18 seasons of positive WAR, 65.4 WAR in 14 seasons

seems like both guys had about the same amount of productive years
__________________
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away."- Tom Waits
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 08-15-2016, 03:13 PM
bravos4evr's Avatar
bravos4evr bravos4evr is offline
Nick Barnes
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: South Mississippi
Posts: 757
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packs View Post
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 large print giveth and the small print taketh away."- Tom Waits

Last edited by bravos4evr; 08-15-2016 at 03:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 08-15-2016, 09:56 PM
the 'stache's Avatar
the 'stache the 'stache is offline
Bill Gregory
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Posts: 3,915
Default

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by packs View Post
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.
__________________
Building these sets: T206, 1953 Bowman Color, 1975 Topps.

Great transactions with: piedmont150, Cardboard Junkie, z28jd, t206blogcom, tinkertoeverstochance, trobba, Texxxx, marcdelpercio, t206hound, zachs, tolstoi, IronHorse 2130, AndyG09, BBT206, jtschantz, lug-nut, leaflover, Abravefan11, mpemulis, btcarfagno, BlueSky, and Frankbmd.
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 08-16-2016, 08:21 AM
packs packs is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,317
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 08-16-2016, 03:12 PM
bravos4evr's Avatar
bravos4evr bravos4evr is offline
Nick Barnes
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: South Mississippi
Posts: 757
Default

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.
__________________
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away."- Tom Waits

Last edited by bravos4evr; 08-16-2016 at 03:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 08-17-2016, 12:37 PM
steve B steve B is online now
Steve Birmingham
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: eastern Mass.
Posts: 8,083
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 08-17-2016, 01:03 PM
packs packs is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,317
Default

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.

Last edited by packs; 08-17-2016 at 02:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 08-18-2016, 09:02 PM
clydepepper's Avatar
clydepepper clydepepper is offline
Raymond 'Robbie' Culpepper
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Columbus, GA
Posts: 6,928
Default

Enough about Kaat...let's get back to Kershaw:

Here's the question:

With all the time he has missed, if Kershaw comes back in the next few weeks, is his old self and the Dodgers (who have actually played better since he went down) make the playoffs, can he win the Cy Young again?


No other candidate stands out - unless I'm forgetting someone.
__________________
.
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on others lives" - Jackie Robinson

“If you have a chance to make life better for others and fail to do so, you are wasting your time on this earth.”- Roberto Clemente

Last edited by clydepepper; 08-18-2016 at 09:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 08-19-2016, 07:37 AM
packs packs is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,317
Default

I don't think Kershaw has a realistic shot at winning if he only starts 20 or so games. He's at 16 right now and if he came back I don't think he'd get more than a handful of starts.

To me Bumgarner is the CY. His ERA is higher at 2.25 but he's also pitched 50 more innings, made 10 more starts, and has the highest WAR among pitchers in the NL. Hell, other than Kris Bryant he has the highest WAR out of everyone in the NL.
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 08-20-2016, 01:11 PM
bravos4evr's Avatar
bravos4evr bravos4evr is offline
Nick Barnes
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: South Mississippi
Posts: 757
Default

Fangraphs has Mad-Bum 5th in NL starter WAR with Thor 2nd .

But, if you go by ERA and playing on a good team...etc (stuff we all know voters look at) IMO, Hendricks has a really good shot at it. His ERA is 2.16 the Cubs are good....etc


I really think that if the Marlins make the playoffs Fernandez might deserve it. Hard to argue with nearly 13 K's/9 inn and being 3rd in fWAR. (and maybe 2nd by the time the season is over with the way Thor has sunk of late)

It's gonna be a mess,IMO, no one person is standing head and shoulders over anyone else since Kershaw's injury put him in such bad position due to inn pitched.
__________________
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away."- Tom Waits

Last edited by bravos4evr; 08-20-2016 at 01:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 09-24-2016, 10:01 PM
Topnotchsy Topnotchsy is offline
Jeff Lazarus
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,062
Default

Another scoreless outing for Kershaw. ERA down to 1.65. I don't think he'll win the Cy Young (I think Scherzer should probably win it if the season ended tomorrow) but pretty remarkable.
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 09-25-2016, 08:37 AM
Griffins Griffins is offline
Anthøny N. ex
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,282
Default

what is the minimum number of innings you need to pitch to qualify as ERA leader?
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 09-25-2016, 11:42 AM
bravos4evr's Avatar
bravos4evr bravos4evr is offline
Nick Barnes
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: South Mississippi
Posts: 757
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffins View Post
what is the minimum number of innings you need to pitch to qualify as ERA leader?
Rule 10.22(b) Comment: For example, if a Major League schedules 162 games for each club, 162 innings qualify a pitcher for a pitching championship. A pitcher with 161⅔ innings would not qualify.
__________________
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away."- Tom Waits
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Just minors black auto Clayton kershaw scottgia3 Modern Baseball Cards Forum (1980-Present) 2 01-18-2015 02:01 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:33 AM.


ebay GSB