Don -- It is interesting to me how some stats struck nerds can come up with the darnedest stats in order to support their arguments that are really not factual but a product of their bias...
Rog -- A statistic is a fact. An argument is a reason given in proof or rebuttal, or a discourse intended to persuade. In other words, an argument can be based on facts, but it is itself not factual.
dk..here is where your argument reasally stinks ...there is nothing factual about adjusted ERA....any stat that depends on someones stadium rating is false to begin with....stadium rating that changes every year is a fools way of trying to adjust a true stat to his bias.....this stat is not factual it is opinion...nothing more, but it is a type of stat than modern day nerds use to twist the real facts around
Don -- and so we down play some one like Hubbell because you compare him to Lefty Grove, even though they played their entire careers in different leagues, pitching in mostly different ball parks and pitching to different batters...
Rog -- Carl's career ERA was 2.98, slightly lower than Lefty's 3.06. Yet Carl's ERA+ was 130, while Lefty's was 146. You are right that the two pitchers pitched in different circumstances. And those circumstances were far tougher for Lefty.
dk...now, once more you really full of BS....one of the big difference in comparing AERA is that Lefty's is adjusted more because he was better than the rest of the AL where Hub had more competition in the NL....does that make Lefty better or the rest of the league lacking in good pitchers??? Shibe Park was a much bigger ball park than the Polo Grounds....and both were in 3 World Series with the same record...4-2....Carl faced 6 future AL HOF'ers in the first All-Star game and struck them all out....and another hitter later....
The league average ERA, park adjusted, over Carl's career was 3.87. The league average ERA, park adjusted, was 4.47 during Lefty's career. Carl's career ERA was 0.89 runs below league average, while Lefty's career ERA was 1.31 runs below.
dk...just because the AL scored more runs against lesser pitchers doesn't make Lefty the greatest....what percent better than the league were the 2 pitchers...when you talk total difference it doesn't give a true picture,,,,
So, yeah, your point is right on. But it shows how much better Lefty was compared to his peers than Carl was, even though Carl had the lower ERA.
dk...doesn't show a thing because percentage wise, I don't think there was as much difference between the two and how they rated in their different leagues....,.
Don -- so someone like Rog, knowing almost nothing about either guy can say that Grove towered over Hubbell because his adjusted ERA is higher than Hubbell's...
Rog -- Well, yeah. That's pretty much what ERA+ implies. Towered over Hubbell is a big overstatement, but pitched better than seems logical.
dk...well, you could have saved a whole lot of time if you didn't use the term "towered" ...and now, after my think Grove was a little better than Hub, I am starting to have some doubts because I can see so many flaws in your argument...
Don -- let's look into a little of the details...Baseball Encyclopedia rates the 3 best pitchers in the era between 1921-1942 by Adjusted Earned Run Average....Grove 1, Hubbell and Dean tied for 2nd....of course Grove was in the AL and Dizzy and Carl were in the NL....things get a little funny after that...Groves actual ERA was 3.06, Hubbell was at 2.98 and Dean 3.02...so it is clear that you have to do a lot of funny things in order to reverse the standings of these pitchers...
Rog -- What is funny about comparing various pitchers compared to their peers, taking park adjustments into account? That's an objective, and reasonable, things to do. That the Baseball Encyclopedia itself mentions it shows that it likely ISN'T funny business.
dk...there isn't a thing wrong with comparisons when you can see the guys pitch in the same ball parks and against the same hitters.....BS when you compare 2 pitchers in 2 different leagues pitching to different type batters...
Don -- they do figure in the pitchers on your team and in the league, stir in some factor for the ball park and add one for the road and you come up with a figure that doesn't really mean crap.
Rog -- This is a vivid illustration of your bias here, Don. You are talking about something that is well accepted and calling it crap. You're implying that the Baseball Encyclopedia is -- or at least contains -- crap. If it is crap, why are you citing it?
dk...it was Baseball Encyclopedias job to sell books...and sadly it didn't work as they went out of business after falling into the new stat trap...they did much better when they stuck to actual facts....
Don -- and no where is there an allowance for Hubbell pitching 4 straight years of over 300 innings a year, Grove never, Dean 3 years...
Rog -- You are absolutely right here. That said, Wins Above Replacement (WAR) DOES make such an allowance, since the more a pitcher pitches, the more wins above a replacement pitcher he can be. Lefty's career WAR was 103, while Carl's was 65.
dksurely you jest...you claim there is an adjustment for innings and the higher inning guys gets the low end.....we pretty much know that a guy who pitches fewer innings can put up better stats, but does that make him more valuable???
Both are clearly excellent, but Lefty's was half again as high as Carl's. That is one of the reasons most consider Lefty to be even better than Carl was. Many consider Lefty to be the best, uh, lefty, ever.
dk...the best in the AL, anyway...and Carl was the best LH in the NL during his time...but neither towered over the other and we have no way to compare the two....
Don -- as far as dissing the last .400 hitter you shake in lack of walks and , gosh, number of sacrifices...wow, 6 out of 7 years with over 200 hits (254 in his .400 season), other years with hit totals in the 180 and 190's..
Rog -- Ted Williams, Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds are considered by many to be the three best hitters of all time, clearly ahead of Terry. They won a combined nine batting titles to Bill's one, and most of all, they had far more power and made many fewer outs. Williams, Ruth and Bonds had three 200-hit seasons between them. You're barking up the wrong tree here.
dk..here we go with the fewer outs, again,....how many productive outs....Bonds doesn't belong in the discussion....as he did squat before he juiced....and Williams finally learned when he became a manager that it was better to swing and the boderline pitches than to take a walk.....and I never compared Terry to any of the guys you mentioned, just didn;t like you trashing him with so new born stats...
Don -- and the fact Terry only had 449 K's in his career is not in the mix...
Rog -- That's a good point -- except that it doesn't mean nearly as much as you seem to be making it out to be. The object of a hitter is to avoid making outs and to advance himself and runners as many bases as possible. Even though Williams, Ruth and Bonds struck out a lot more often than Terry, they made many fewer outs and advanced runners many more bases.
dk....not many, a few...and please don't lump Bonds into any discussion except one that considers the extent of juicing in the majors...
In other words, despite all their strikeouts, the "Big Three" were far better hitters than even Bill Terry, who was great in his own right.
dk...ah, now you were willing to call Terry great.....again, it would save a lot of time on how you start off dissing these old time Giants......I always thought Terry was terrible because he popped up for the last out of the first Giantss game I ever saw...with the tying and winning runs on base.....although, I have always thought it was the highesr pop=up I have ever saw.....
Don -- as far as sacs., did you ever hear about the game under John McGraw...the bunt was a big weapon in the 20's and 30's, for all teams....lets compare some of the players that did some of their playing during Terry's years....Terry..137 sacs, Gehrig..106, Ruth..113, Jim Bottomley..177, Joe Cronin..166....all wimps, per Rog...
Rog -- Where did I say those guys were wimps, Don? Have I ever mentioned that I am never dumber than when you put words into my mouth?
dk...gosh, did I put words in your mouth...the worst thing you could say about Terry was the amount of sacs, so it seemed logical you would think poorly about these other guys, too....
Your point is actually a good one. But what it shows most is how dumb managers were back in those days. Except in unusual circumstances, why would you have Babe Ruth bunt?
Even without sacrificing, Ruth advanced runners more than half the time -- almost always withoiut making an out. If Ruth were successful with his sacrifice, it made it easy for the opponents to intentionally walk Lou Gehrig, or at least pitch him very carefully.
And why would you have Gehrig bunt, in order to bring a lesser hitter to the plate? Gehrig himself advanced about half the runners he had the opportunity to advance -- again, usually without costing his team an out.
Your point is a good one, although it should be pointed out that Terry had 52 of his sacrifice bunts after 1930, whereas during that time Ruth and Gehrig had only 8 between them.
In 1934, the entire Giants team had 108 sacrifices. Terry himself had 19 of them. There were four other Giants that season who had between 12 and 22 sacrifices. It could have made sense for at least threee of the other four hitters to bunt. Their respective OPS were .575, .584, .632 and .752.
Terry grounded into just 8 double plays that season. Why in the world would you have him bunt? Terry hit a robust .354 that season -- yet his OPS was only .878.
The closest Babe Ruth came to hitting .354 was in 1927 when he hit .356. Ruth's OPS that season was 1.258.
Williams hit .356 in 1942. His OPS was 1.147. Bonds hit .363 in 2004. His OPS was 1.422.
Let's compare Bonds' season with Terry's. In 1934, Bill made 497 outs and accumulated 360 bases via walks, hits, hbp and sacrifices. Bonds accumulated 547 bases in 2004 while making 246 outs. Bonds made only .43 outs per base, while Terry made 1.38 outs per.
dk..why oh why use 1934 for Terry??? How much allowance did you give for Terry being a playing manager from 1933 until he retired after 1936....can you picture any of Your Big 3 being player managers...Ruth and Bonds couldn't manage themselves and Williams wasn't that great as a manager after he stopped playing...Terry got to 3 world series...won one...when Ott hit a game winner in the 10th of the 5th game...and Terry hit one in the 4th game that Hub won 2-1 in 11 innings....and I became a Giant fan for the next 79 years......good thing Rog wasn't around to tell me that Terry, Hub and Mel didn't really measure up to all these other guys....especially to Juicer,inc...
Terry made more than THREE times as many outs per base as Bonds did. We're comparing Bonds' BEST season in that regard to something of an average one for Terry, but still -- THREE times as many outs per base?
dk...score board....who played championship ball and who has the juicer reputation....
Now we know why Terry wasn't quite as good a hitter as his .401 average (and .341 career) would indicate. I'm not trying to say Terry wasn't great. What I am saying though, is that he wasn't anywhere close to the level of greatness enjoyed by Mays, Bonds, Mathewson or Ott.
dk..yes, sir, isn't the new math great when we all know that .400 hitters are a dime a dozen and the guys that take the walks are really better ball players....oh, they have no rings, too bad.....
And his level of greatness wasn't as high as Carl Hubbell's or, thus far, Buster Posey's. It wasn't as high as Juan Marichal's or Willie McCovey's. It was higher than Orlando Cepeda's.
dk..much too early to put Posey into the class of these guys....seems you still haven't learned anything from the demise of Tim from a sure HOF'er to a guy who could make a comeback....
Read more:
sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1438#ixzz2JId0h2r4
