Mussina and Palmer

[O'sFanThruJune]

Is 533 a long haul compared to the quick "flash-in-the-pan" of 521? The reason it doesn't hold water is that they've had an almost equal number of starts and have done almost equal things with those starts. And I'm looking at W/L%, which is a era-neutral stat.

EDIT: If you'd like to cherry-pick each of their peaks, we can leave out Palmer's first 4 seasons, before he ever got a vote for Cy Young, and his last two, after his last vote. We can then subtract 44 wins and 26 losses for those years. For Mussina's peak, I'll just drop his rookie year (he finished 4th in CY-voting the next year) and keep everything else up til now and we can take away 4 wins and 5 losses. Now who looks better?

[Frobby]

Why doesn't the fact that Palmer was a truly dominant pitcher during the peak of his career (much moreso than Mike Mussina ever was or will ever be) not hold water? To me you are basing HOF quality only on stats accumulated over the long haul. If you limit yourself to this train of thought you would have ruled out some of the greatest and dominant pitchers ever like Sandy Koufax for example.

Well, that is a matter of what you think is more important -- peak value vs. consistency/longevity. But I think you are being too dismissive of where Mussina ranked among his peers in his prime. He was certainly among the top 5-6 pitchers in MLB for a pretty good stretch of time. Not quite as high a peak as Palmer's, but pretty darned high.

[DrungoHazewood]

I know you are trying to be humorous with this interjection, but I actually think it is true, and I am being dead serious. I truly don't give hitters much credit at all for intentional walks or walks due to pitcher wildness, as in the guy couldn't throw a ball over the plate if his life depended on it type of wildness. That takes no skill at all as a hitter to take a walk from a pitcher struggling so, yet your absolute reliance on stats makes no distinction over one walk to another in that they all give the same credit for OBP which I find ludicrous.

A walk should truly count as an Error to the pitcher, instead of a credit to a hitter. That is why I prefer BA over OBP as a stat. Always, have and always will.

This "opinion" was thoroughly discredited by Babe Ruth's time. Even 87-year-old curmudgeonly sportswriters had abandoned it 30 years ago.

The more you write the more people think you don't know much about baseball, or you're alias who's intentionally trying to stir people up by making outrageously false statements.

[DrungoHazewood]

As for the current era vs. past eras, that is an interesting discussion. My personal opinion is that the talent level is higher now than it ever was, and that is WITH expansion. With a couple fewer teams we would be calling this the golden age of baseball.

I believe today is the peak of talent and performance in baseball history. Tomorrow probably will take the title when it comes.

The population that baseball draws from is vastly larger than it was 20, 40, 80, 100, or more years ago. The scouting methods are vastly better than at any point 30, 50, or whatever number of years ago you'd like. Training methods are better. Sports medicine was basically invented 35 years ago and has giant breakthroughs on a regular basis - every team has multiple players who'd have been forced into retirement by injury only 20 years ago. Nutrition is better. Analysis only got serious 25 years ago. It was only with the advent of free agency in the 1970s that most players could train year round instead of working at the local feed mill or Woolworth's in the offseason to pay the bills.

I sincerely believe that if you wanted to make MLB the performance-level equivalent of 1950 you'd have to add 30-50 more teams.

[brendanmdeegan]

This "opinion" was thoroughly discredited by Babe Ruth's time. Even 87-year-old curmudgeonly sportswriters had abandoned it 30 years ago.

The more you write the more people think you don't know much about baseball, or you're alias who's intentionally trying to stir people up by making outrageously false statements.

I thought everyone thought this about Old#5 Fan. This is some guy, bored at work (and apparently @ home as well) who types absurdities then sees how fast those of us with any sabermetric or even halfway modern theories about baseball spring to our keyboards and fire back. Don't feed the troll.

[Old#5fan]

This "opinion" was thoroughly discredited by Babe Ruth's time. Even 87-year-old curmudgeonly sportswriters had abandoned it 30 years ago.

The more you write the more people think you don't know much about baseball, or you're alias who's intentionally trying to stir people up by making outrageously false statements.

Let me ask you a very simple question then. I am asking the question under the assumption that you at some point in your life, whether Little League, Pony League, Senior League, High School ball, etc. played in at least some form of organized baseball.

So under this assumption assume you are batting against a pitcher named Simply Wild. He throws equivilent to 95 mph but each pitch he throws is either in the dirt, so high it goes straight to the backstop, or so far outside you couldn't reach it with a boat paddle. You trot down to first base on four pitches. Now how difficult was that for you as a hitter? Simply wild walks the bases loaded and then hits two batters and is removed from the game.

Next inning you are batting against his twin brother who replaced him and his name is Simply Money, and he throws 90 mph with a wicked slider that he breaks in on your hands. You foul off four straight 90 plus fastballs and take two borderline sliders. You foul off another fastball and then he throws you a nasty slider that would be a strike if called and you swing and miss.

Which at bat took way more baseball skill on your part?

Which at bat looks better in your statbook?

I rest my case.

[square634]

Let me ask you a very simple question then. I am asking the question under the assumption that you at some point in your life, whether Little League, Pony League, Senior League, High School ball, etc. played in at least some form of organized baseball.

So under this assumption assume you are batting against a pitcher named Simply Wild. He throws equivilent to 95 mph but each pitch he throws is either in the dirt, so high it goes straight to the backstop, or so far outside you couldn't reach it with a boat paddle. You trot down to first base on four pitches. Now how difficult was that for you as a hitter? Simply wild walks the bases loaded and then hits two batters and is removed from the game.

Next inning you are batting against his twin brother who replaced him and his name is Simply Money, and he throws 90 mph with a wicked slider that he breaks in on your hands. You foul off four straight 90 plus fastballs and take two borderline sliders. You foult off another fastball and then he throws you a nasty slider that would be a strike if called and you swing and miss.

Which at bat took way more baseball skill on your part?

Which at bat looks better in your statbook?

I rest my case.

But hitters face the same pitchers (on average, over the long haul). Also, if Simply Wild was throwing those pitches because Barry Bonds was at the plate, then the fact that he was essentially intentionally walked is indicative of his baseball skill because the pitcher fears what he would do if he threw it over the plate.

[Old#5fan]

I believe today is the peak of talent and performance in baseball history. Tomorrow probably will take the title when it comes.

The population that baseball draws from is vastly larger than it was 20, 40, 80, 100, or more years ago. The scouting methods are vastly better than at any point 30, 50, or whatever number of years ago you'd like. Training methods are better. Sports medicine was basically invented 35 years ago and has giant breakthroughs on a regular basis - every team has multiple players who'd have been forced into retirement by injury only 20 years ago. Nutrition is better. Analysis only got serious 25 years ago. It was only with the advent of free agency in the 1970s that most players could train year round instead of working at the local feed mill or Woolworth's in the offseason to pay the bills.

I sincerely believe that if you wanted to make MLB the performance-level equivalent of 1950 you'd have to add 30-50 more teams.

I totally, absolutely 100% disagree so much it isn't even funny with your position on this. Today, U.S born and bred kids have computers, XBoxes, internet, access to every type of sport imaginable, where you don't even have to try out to make a team, and much more time on their hands then ever before in history. In their spare time, they are far less likely to be playing a neighborhood pickup baseball game, or if they live in a remote area like I did, continually practicing throwing a base ball up against a walk and learning how to field it.

The work ethic in general of today's youth is sorely lacking in almost every, way, shape or form (in general). While it is true better equipment, and training is available it is usually only accessible by the more wealthy and generally lazier individuals in society, although there are exceptions to this (not all kid from wealthy homes are lazy). As such, I think baseball skills in general have eroded.

I saw it as I grew up. As a kid their were no minor leagues in Little League. You either made the team or were cut. There was no rule that you had to play either. I recall my first year as a 10 year old I rode the bench all season and pinch hit only once. What this did was motivate me to get better, practice more and try harder. Today's kids know they will get to have an at bat and play the field at least two innings no matter what, and it is that way in all children's sports.

What this has done is develop a nation of soft kids who don't know how to compete and want everything handed to them. We are seeing the results of this now. Why do you think the Dominican supplies a higher percentage of major leaguers than it should now? I will tell you. The kids there are poor and don't have, xBoxes, internet, access to every sport imaginable or activity with soccer Moms running them everywhere. They have to compete and their choices are very limited. That means they focus on learning and developing the skills needed to excel, just like in the old days.

[Old#5fan]

But hitters face the same pitchers (on average, over the long haul). Also, if Simply Wild was throwing those pitches because Barry Bonds was at the plate, then the fact that he was essentially intentionally walked is indicative of his baseball skill because the pitcher fears what he would do if he threw it over the plate.

No, you are not getting it. Simply Wild is just that. On that particular day he cannot throw a strike if Daniel Cabrera was batting!:laughlol: Getting a walk from Simply Wild under these conditions described is about as difficult as tying your shoe. Yet folks who focus only on stats or didn't watch the two at bats would think the first at bat took more skill because the batter walked. This is a joke in my estimation.

[square634]

I totally, absolutely 100% disagree so much it isn't even funny with your position on this. Today, U.S born and bred kids have computers, XBoxes, internet, access to every time of sport where you don't even have to try out to make a team, and much more time on their hands then ever before in history. In their spare time, they are far less likely to be playing a neighborhood pickup baseball game, or if they live in a remote area like I did, continually practicing throwing a base ball up against a walk and learning how to field it.

The work ethic in general of today's youth is sorely lacking in almost every, way, shape or form (in general). While it is true better equipment, and training is available it is usually only accessible by the more wealthy and generally lazier individuals in society, although there are exceptions to this (not all kid from wealthy homes are lazy). As such, I think baseball skills in general have eroded.

I saw it as I grew up. As a kid their were no minor leagues in Little League. You either made the team or were cut. There was no rule that you had to play either. I recall my first year as a 10 year old I rode the bench all season and pinch hit only once. What this did was motivate me to get better, practice more and try harder. Today's kids know they will get to have an at bat and play the field at least two innings no matter what, and it is that way in all children's sports.

What this has done is develop a nation of soft kids who don't know how to compete and want everything handed to them. We are seeing the results of this now. Why do you think the Dominican supplies a higher percentage of major leaguers than it should now? I will tell you. The kids there are poor and don't have, xBoxes, internet, access to every sport imaginable or activity with soccer Moms running them everywhere. They have to compete and their choices are very limited. That means they focus on learning and developing the skills needed to excel, just like in the old days.

There are very, very small parts of this that I agree with, even though I am young. For example, I don't like the current trends regarding little leagues and removing scores or competitive aspects. I also sort of (in a warped sense) agree with you about the Dominican baseball players, but I don't think it is because our youth are not driven. On the contrary, I think more people in the Dominican attempt to train exclusively for professional sports because it is an option to escape poverty. On the other hand, in the U.S. it is much less risky to train to be an engineer, a doctor, a lawyer, etc. than to count on getting one of 750 roster spots in the entire world. Similarly, you don't see a lot of parents who are excited when their child is pursuing a career on Broadway. Your comments about America's youth are, in my opinion, mostly a product of nostalgia. What generation of adults doesn't think that the proceeding generation has deteriorated due to decadence? I'm sure your parents think (or thought) the same thing about your generation.

The fact that there has been more of a global expansion of baseball with an influx of Japanese, Dominican, etc. players only broadens the talent pool even further than the massive population growth that has occurred.

[square634]

No, you are not getting it. Simply Wild is just that. On that particular day he cannot throw a strike if Daniel Cabrera was batting!:laughlol: Getting a walk from Simply Wild under these conditions described is about as difficult as tying your shoe. Yet folks who focus only on stats or didn't watch the two at bats would think the first at bat took more skill because the batter walked. This is a joke in my estimation.

Well if this guy is in the league (which he wouldn't be), then the hitters that face him will balance out and their walk totals will all be inflated equally.

[Old#5fan]

Well if this guy is in the league (which he wouldn't be), then the hitters that face him will balance out and their walk totals will all be inflated equally.

You are looking at it only in a very, extremely broad scope. I am looking at it from the individual batter's very own personal perspective. This is a huge problem I have with focusing on certain stats like OBP. I view a walk as basically a pitcher mistake at least most of the time. I really don't think a hitter should get any credit for an intentional walk or a walk where he had zero opportunity to even swing the bat as the pitcher was simply wilder than a March hare.

I think many times an out and even a strike out by a batter requires much more skill than trotting to first base on a four pitch walk, which in many cases requires zero skill other than the ability to stand up and not fall down at the plate. Again, this is why I value and admire BA vastly more than OBP which I think is inflated by walks, HBP etc, where in many cases require no skill at all by the hitter whatsover. I just cannot see giving any kind of credit for that at all. In my view, that is giving a hitter credit merely for not being stupid. Now if the hitter has a 20 pitch at bat and then gets a walk, that is a horse of a different color. In that case he has bested the pitcher and the pitcher just cannot get him out. So rather than give him a fat pitch he puts him on base.

[Sports Guy]

You are looking at it only in a very, extremely broad scope. I am looking at it from the individual batter's very own personal perspective. This is a huge problem I have with focusing on certain stats like OBP. I view a walk as basically a pitcher mistake at least most of the time. I really don't think a hitter should get any credit for an intentional walk or a walk where he had zero opportunity to even swing the bat as the pitcher was simply wilder than a March hare.

I think many times an out and even a strike out by a batter requires much more skill than trotting to first base on a four pitch walk, which in many cases requires zero skill other than the ability to stand up and not fall down at the plate. Again, this is why I value and admire BA vastly more than OBP which I think is inflated by walks, HBP etc, where in many cases require no skill at all by the hitter whatsover. I just cannot see giving any kind of credit for that at all.

To score runs, you have to get ON BASE.

To win games, you have to score runs.

If you can't see how important OBP is, then you fail to figure out the easiest concept of the sport.

[Maverick2143]

Let me ask you a very simple question then. I am asking the question under the assumption that you at some point in your life, whether Little League, Pony League, Senior League, High School ball, etc. played in at least some form of organized baseball.

So under this assumption assume you are batting against a pitcher named Simply Wild. He throws equivilent to 95 mph but each pitch he throws is either in the dirt, so high it goes straight to the backstop, or so far outside you couldn't reach it with a boat paddle. You trot down to first base on four pitches. Now how difficult was that for you as a hitter? Simply wild walks the bases loaded and then hits two batters and is removed from the game.

Next inning you are batting against his twin brother who replaced him and his name is Simply Money, and he throws 90 mph with a wicked slider that he breaks in on your hands. You foul off four straight 90 plus fastballs and take two borderline sliders. You foul off another fastball and then he throws you a nasty slider that would be a strike if called and you swing and miss.

Which at bat took way more baseball skill on your part?

Which at bat looks better in your statbook?

I rest my case.

Then explain how players on the same team facing the same pitchers have drastically different walk totals over 162 games.

Such as Grady Sizemore has 94 BB's and the next closest on the Indians is Ryan Garko at 43. Same team, facing the same pitching yet, Sizemore has 51more BB's than any of his teammates.

[square634]

You are looking at it only in a very, extremely broad scope. I am looking at it from the individual batter's very own personal perspective. This is a huge problem I have with focusing on certain stats like OBP. I view a walk as basically a pitcher mistake at least most of the time. I really don't think a hitter should get any credit for an intentional walk or a walk where he had zero opportunity to even swing the bat as the pitcher was simply wilder than a March hare.

I think many times an out and even a strike out by a batter requires much more skill than trotting to first base on a four pitch walk, which in many cases requires zero skill other than the ability to stand up and not fall down at the plate. Again, this is why I value and admire BA vastly more than OBP which I think is inflated by walks, HBP etc, where in many cases require no skill at all by the hitter whatsover. I just cannot see giving any kind of credit for that at all. In my view, that is giving a hitter credit merely for not being stupid. Now if the hitter has a 20 pitch at bat and then gets a walk, that is a horse of a different color. In that case he has bested the pitcher and the pitcher just cannot get him out. So rather than give him a fat pitch he puts him on base.

This makes no sense to me at all, and I don't know why I'm even responding, but it's either this or homework, and you know how my generation is lazy

If in an equal number of at-bats on the same team hitter A walks 100 times every season and hitter B walks 20 times, is that not a demonstrable skill on the part of hitter A? You call it "not being stupid" to take a walk. I disagree with that completely because that assumes that everyone has equal pitch recognition, strike zone knowledge, and bat speed (so that they can wait longer to judge if it is a strike). But let's say hitter A is just "not being stupid." Even in that (IMO flawed) context, shouldn't hitter B be disparaged for being stupid? And yes, I know your argument will be that hitter B will get a few hits in those at-bats, but if he is hitting pitches out of the strike zone to avoid being walked, don't you think his batting average would suffer because of that?

As for intentional walks, how about this hypothetical similar to your other one (it will be equally irrelevant, but why not counter an irrelevant example with one of my own)? Pitcher X is pitching in the bottom of the 9th inning with two outs and no one on base with a one run lead. Hitter A is the equivalent of Luis Hernandez, so the pitcher is not worried about giving up a home run. Instead, to avoid a walk and bring up the top of the lineup, he throws three consecutive meatballs down the middle of the plate. Hitter A swings and misses very late at the first two pitches, but then on the third consecutive fastball down the middle, he hits a groundball between SS and 3B for a single. Now, imagine the same situation except Hitter B is at the plate and Hitter A from above is on deck. Hitter B is the equivalent of Barry Bonds and has already hit 70 home runs this season. So Pitcher X and the manager decide to intentionally walk Hitter B because they don't want him to tie the game with one swing. In both situations, the hitter at the plate reached first base. So who is more skilled, Hitter A or Hitter B?