Mussina and Palmer

[RHall31]

I think you have a fair point here. However, it has only been since the early 80's that the 4-man rotation went the way of the dodo bird. 20-game winners are getting more rare all the time. Heck, not a single pitcher won 20 games in 2006, and in the NL, the league leader won 16 games!

The simple fact is that winning 20 games today requires you to win 57-60% of your starts. In the 1970s it only required you to win 50% of your starts. The chances are very good that Jim Palmer, and a number of other HOF pitchers, never would have won 20 games if they had started only 33-34 times a year, instead of 39-41 times a year.

By the way, when Mussina won 19 games in the strike-shortened 1995 season, he led the league in wins.

Eh eh eh Frobby, you're leading us to believe Palmer started 39-41 games

most of time. Not true. Palmer only started 39+ 3 times and never started 41.

He did start 38 twice and 37 twice. Palmer's least # of starts to win

20 (actually 21) was 36 starts. I take your point, and its a good one, pitchers today have to win a higher pct. of their starts. But they get more

rest between starts and don't *have* to pitch a lot of innings like

they used to. You could say they should be more productive pitching on

4 days rest.

It really could be that the reason we don't see many 20 game winners

anymore is as simple as the pitchers just aren't as good as they have been in

the past.

[longflyball]

It really could be that the reason we don't see many 20 game winners

anymore is as simple as the pitchers just aren't as good as they have been in

the past.

Ding ding ding!!!

It took us 152 posts to figure out that today's pitchers just aren't as good as yesterday's pitchers. Where have you been?

[RHall31]

That's the point of my mocking posts before.

There was a time in the 1940s when all, or almost all HOF pitchers had won 30 games in a season. There was a time in the 1800s when 40 wins wouldn't come close to leading the league. There was a period in the 1930s-1950s when regular rotations were very hard to maintain, and even the best pitchers wouldn't start 35 games a year - so guys like Whitey Ford would top out at 17 or 18 wins.

If you're not going to adjust for the conditions throughout history, then you have to conclude that all of the best players who ever lived have been dead for a century. Jim Palmer's raw, unadjusted career numbers don't hold a candle to dozens of pitchers from the 1800s. There are 19th century pitchers with better records than Palmer who aren't in the Hall, and have never been seriously considered (See Bob Caruthers).

Come on. Now we're dipping back to the 1800's. They didn't even start

inductions until 1940(?). Most of the voters probably never saw the 19th

century guys play. Hell, how many people even went to the games back

then? Its a wonder they even have accurate stats.

My point is sometimes you just can't accurately compare eras. Sometimes

all the adjusted +/- for this, +/- for that just don't tell the whole story.

There always some variable that isn't taken into account.

Sometimes you just have to have seen them both play to really

know how they compared as players.

[Old#5fan]

Ding ding ding!!!

It took us 152 posts to figure out that today's pitchers just aren't as good as yesterday's pitchers. Where have you been?

Despite the risk of being accused of going off-topic or even worse hi-jacking this otherwise on point thread, I will take your assertion a step further. I espouse that today's pitchers, hitters, and fielders are all inferior to those of in baseball's golden years of the 40's to middle 80's prior to the advent of the DH, steriods, numerous expansion teams and general inferior play in comparison.

Here is why I claim this: There have been no 400 hitters or really any hitter even close to Ted Williams. There have been no Triple Crown Winners or anyone close to the accomplishments of Frank Robinson in 66 and Yaz in 67 in terms of pure dominance. There has been nobody close defensively on the par of Brooks Robinson, and younger fans cannot even imagine the type of plays he regularly made that are beyond the scope and ability of today's third basemen by a mile. There has been nobody much of a threat to the consecutive hitting streak of Dimaggio or even Pete Rose.

There has been nobody comparable to Willie Mays in both offense and defense in CF, nor Roberto Clemente in RF with his ability to gun out runners, hit with such a high average, and in the clutch. There have been no dominant pitchers like Tom Seaver, Jim Palmer, and Nolan Ryan other than the steriod enhanced and downright disgraceful Roger Clemens, a poor excuse of a human being.

There is nobody following in the footsteps of the Iron Man Cal Ripken in playing anything close to such a consecutive game streak. Sadly, I could go on and on of examples where baseball has simply deteriorated as a sport and it pretty much can be traced back to the days where the advent of steroids began, although Free Agency and the DH have also contributed to the denigration of the sport as well.

In short, baseball has declined in popularity and in the level of play and it is easily observed if you have been around long enough to have the good fortune as well as the misfortune to have at least some of the golden years up through the current sad state of affairs.

Other than Mariano Rivera, who I along with everyone else, can only guess has been steriod free and who has probably shown to be the best closer of all time, and AROD, again whom I can only guess has been steriod free, I don't see much of anything that impressive of any modern player that would stack up against the golden era players.

In short, the heros of baseball are all gone and never will be back again either. I really, truly feel sorry for those of you too young to have seen play from that era. Just as I wish I could have seen Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig play like my Grandfather did.

[RHall31]

I think this has been a pretty good debate, not that anyone's mind has been changed.

I agree. Outstanding debate. Thanks Frobby, for starting this thread.:clap3:

Its been extremely interesting to read everyone's point of view, and to consider all the different aspects of such a wide variety of opinions.

[24fps]

I think this has been a pretty good debate, not that anyone's mind has been changed.

Mine has been changed on a couple of levels, especially in the area of looking at non-traditional stats like ERA+ and the difference between a pitchers ERA vs. league ERA when trying to accomplish the ultimately impossible task of accurately comparing two players from different eras.

I've always been a Mussina fan, but wasn't aware he was so close to Palmer, who was certainly one of the best I ever saw pitch, and one of my all-time favorite Orioles.

[square634]

Despite the risk of being accused of going off-topic or even worse hi-jacking this otherwise on point thread, I will take your assertion a step further. I espouse that today's pitchers, hitters, and fielders are all inferior to those of in baseball's golden years of the 40's to middle 80's prior to the advent of the DH, steriods, numerous expansion teams and general inferior play in comparison.

Here is why I claim this: There have been no 400 hitters or really any hitter even close to Ted Williams. There have been no Triple Crown Winners or anyone close to the accomplishments of Frank Robinson in 66 and Yaz in 67 in terms of pure dominance. There has been nobody close defensively on the par of Brooks Robinson, and younger fans cannot even imagine the type of plays he regularly made that are beyond the scope and ability of today's third basemen by a mile. There has been nobody much of a threat to the consecutive hitting streak of Dimaggio or even Pete Rose.

There has been nobody comparable to Willie Mays in both offense and defense in CF, nor Roberto Clemente in RF with his ability to gun out runners, hit with such a high average, and in the clutch. There have been no dominant pitchers like Tom Seaver, Jim Palmer, and Nolan Ryan other than the steriod enhanced and downright disgraceful Roger Clemens, a poor excuse of a human being.

There is nobody following in the footsteps of the Iron Man Cal Ripken in playing anything close to such a consecutive game streak. Sadly, I could go on and on of examples where baseball has simply deteriorated as a sport and it pretty much can be traced back to the days where the advent of steroids began, although Free Agency and the DH have also contributed to the denigration of the sport as well.

In short, baseball has declined in popularity and in the level of play and it is easily observed if you have been around long enough to have the good fortune as well as the misfortune to have at least some of the golden years up through the current sad state of affairs.

Other than Mariano Rivera, who I along with everyone else, can only guess has been steriod free and who has probably shown to be the best closer of all time, and AROD, again whom I can only guess has been steriod free, I don't see much of anything that impressive of any modern player that would stack up against the golden era players.

In short, the heros of baseball are all gone and never will be back again either. I really, truly feel sorry for those of you too young to have seen play from that era. Just as I wish I could have seen Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig play like my Grandfather did.

I feel like you are making very good arguments, but for the exact opposite thing you are trying to argue. I think that the relative lack of dominance by particular players is evidence that today's level of play is much higher than it was back then. I say that because as the level of play goes up, you'd expect the standard deviation of individual player performances to go down; or in other words, the gap between the best and worst player in the league to decrease.

[Sports Guy]

I agree. Outstanding debate. Thanks Frobby, for starting this thread.:clap3:

Its been extremely interesting to read everyone's point of view, and to consider all the different aspects of such a wide variety of opinions.

Again, the real point is that there is a debate...Unless you are OldFan and want to disregard every single piece of factual evidence, you can see that these 2 are a lot closer than die hard O's fans really want to acknowledge.

[JimDH]

Despite the risk of being accused of going off-topic or even worse hi-jacking this otherwise on point thread, I will take your assertion a step further. I espouse that today's pitchers, hitters, and fielders are all inferior to those of in baseball's golden years of the 40's to middle 80's prior to the advent of the DH, steriods, numerous expansion teams and general inferior play in comparison.

Here is why I claim this: There have been no 400 hitters or really any hitter even close to Ted Williams. There have been no Triple Crown Winners or anyone close to the accomplishments of Frank Robinson in 66 and Yaz in 67 in terms of pure dominance. There has been nobody close defensively on the par of Brooks Robinson, and younger fans cannot even imagine the type of plays he regularly made that are beyond the scope and ability of today's third basemen by a mile. There has been nobody much of a threat to the consecutive hitting streak of Dimaggio or even Pete Rose.

There has been nobody comparable to Willie Mays in both offense and defense in CF, nor Roberto Clemente in RF with his ability to gun out runners, hit with such a high average, and in the clutch. There have been no dominant pitchers like Tom Seaver, Jim Palmer, and Nolan Ryan other than the steriod enhanced and downright disgraceful Roger Clemens, a poor excuse of a human being.

There is nobody following in the footsteps of the Iron Man Cal Ripken in playing anything close to such a consecutive game streak. Sadly, I could go on and on of examples where baseball has simply deteriorated as a sport and it pretty much can be traced back to the days where the advent of steroids began, although Free Agency and the DH have also contributed to the denigration of the sport as well.

In short, baseball has declined in popularity and in the level of play and it is easily observed if you have been around long enough to have the good fortune as well as the misfortune to have at least some of the golden years up through the current sad state of affairs.

Other than Mariano Rivera, who I along with everyone else, can only guess has been steriod free and who has probably shown to be the best closer of all time, and AROD, again whom I can only guess has been steriod free, I don't see much of anything that impressive of any modern player that would stack up against the golden era players.

In short, the heros of baseball are all gone and never will be back again either. I really, truly feel sorry for those of you too young to have seen play from that era. Just as I wish I could have seen Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig play like my Grandfather did.

All eras are going to have several standout players and the current era is no different. Steroids and cocaine or pep pills, gambling and spitballs, or corked bats and filing spikes or hidden balls don't change the bell curve very much in my opinion.

If anything, Ted Williams being so very much better then everyone else could just as easily be evident of the extrordinary mediocrity of his peers then some proof that his era was exceptionaly superior to the present.

[Old#5fan]

All eras are going to have several standout players and the current era is no different. Steroids and cocaine or pep pills, gambling and spitballs, or corked bats and filing spikes or hidden balls don't change the bell curve very much in my opinion.

If anything, Ted Williams being so very much better then everyone else could just as easily be evident of the extrordinary mediocrity of his peers then some proof that his era was exceptionaly superior to the present.

Maybe, but I highly doubt it. Williams reportedly had something like 20-10 vision. Which meant he could not only see the seams on Bob Feller's fast ball but practically count them. He also had the prettiest swing I have ever seen, although Stan Musial's was also pretty sweet. I just don't see anyone comparable in this day and age.

[Old#5fan]

I feel like you are making very good arguments, but for the exact opposite thing you are trying to argue. I think that the relative lack of dominance by particular players is evidence that today's level of play is much higher than it was back then. I say that because as the level of play goes up, you'd expect the standard deviation of individual player performances to go down; or in other words, the gap between the best and worst player in the league to decrease.

But see, you are arguing based on stats as your primary focus. I am arguing based on observation of the players and eras as my primary focus. These are two very distinct ways of arguing.

[square634]

But see, you are arguing based on stats as your primary focus. I am arguing based on observation of the players and eras as my primary focus. These are two very distinct ways of arguing.

Actually a lot of the points you made are stat-based (Ted Williams hitting .400, triple crowns, Dimaggio's hitting streak). As for the others, how can you accurately compare? With different equipment, stadiums, field conditions, training techniques, etc. things are so much different now. Isn't it likely that your nostalgia biases you favorably towards observations from a long time ago?

[Sports Guy]

But see, you are arguing based on stats as your primary focus. I am arguing based on observation of the players and eras as my primary focus. These are two very distinct ways of arguing.

LOL....Then why do you keep bringing up "Mr Almost"...almost 20 game winner..almost no hitters, etc....

Those are stat based answers.

If you said that you understand the stats make it closer than I thought but that I would still prefer Palmer, no one would have a problem with that.

No one would have a problem with you saying you would rather give the ball to Palmer in a big game, etc...

But you don't do that.

You basically admitted that your opinion about Moose is purely emotional...You have ignoreed every stat except the ones you choose to use and then, on top of that, you say you aren't using a stat based argument when in fact, YOU ARE!

You say Moose hasn't won a Cy...Well, what is the Cy Award based off of? STATS!!!

[Old#5fan]

Assuming your listed age on your profile is accurate, you were five years old when Ted Williams played his last game. At best, you remember seeing some video clips of him swinging a bat. Don't you think it is possible that many of the younger posters on here have seen the same video clips?

Okay, he had a pretty swing - a lot of lefthanded hitters have a pretty swing. Okay, he had 20/10 vision - I can pretty much guarantee you he isn't the only hitter ever to have 20/10 vision. Having a great swing and great vision doesn't automatically make him the best hitter of all time.

Despite what you seem to think you're not the only person on here who has watched a lot of baseball games over a very long period of time.

I don't dispute anything you have written here. Yet, niether has anyone provided anything whatsover to convince me that anybody in today's game rivals Williams as a hitter, nor has anybody really threatened to hit 400 since George Brett hit 390 quite a long time ago. Again, this shows me that the golden age of talent in baseball has came and went.

[Boy Howdy]

I don't dispute anything you have written here. Yet, niether has anyone provided anything whatsover to convince me that anybody in today's game rivals Williams as a hitter, nor has anybody really threatened to hit 400 since George Brett hit 390 quite a long time ago. Again, this shows me that the golden age of talent in baseball has came and went.

Ted Williams may very well be the greatest hitter that ever lived, and it should be noted that he fought hard against racial discrimination in baseball.

However, for a good chunk of his career he didn't have to play against African-Americans, Dominicans, etc.

Just think how some hitters today might fare if you could kick the likes of C.C. Sabathia & Johan Santana out of the league, and hit baseballs that guys like, say, Torii Hunter & Omar Vizquel weren't allowed to run down.

If anyone reading this wants to pooh pooh it's significance, go study the major league leader boards from the last half-century.