Should the Orioles retire Mussina’s number?

[dystopia]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Nope.

But I don't think you'd be dismissing it if it agreed with you.

I wouldn't need it because all other stats back up my position.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, dystopia said:

I wouldn't need it because all other stats back up my position.

Like ERA+?

[dystopia]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Like ERA+?

Palmer has a better ERA+ than Mussina

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, dystopia said:

Palmer has a better ERA+ than Mussina

Sure.  But it's extremely comparable.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, dystopia said:

Pitching WAR is quite flawed and this is a good example as any as to why. 

I definitely don’t think it’s perfect.   If I looked at rWAR for that same group it probably would come out differently.  

But, what they do is take some accounting of the defense behind the pitcher and the era in which they played.  I do think that guys like Blyleven were underrated by playing on mediocre teams with mediocre defense, and guys like Palmer were probably a bit overrated because they played on great teams with great defense.  Mind you, I’m not saying Palmer wasn’t a great pitcher, and a big reason why his teams were great.  But he had one hell of a supporting cast.  
 

[emmett16]

2 hours ago, dystopia said:

But it is laughable. That’s not being rude or condescending. Saying Mussina was better than Palmer and that it’s “not even really close” is a laughable statement and needs to be called out as such. 
 

Not sure what the Babe comment is supposed to prove - he had 719 career home runs. That just makes him look better given that wasn’t a home run era. 
 

Batters prioritized contact more in Palmer’s era than Mussina’s, and pitchers pitched to contact more too. That’s just a fact. 
 

Yes, Mussina pitched in the steroid era and he deserves some slack on that. He did get slack - he got into the HoF (deservedly) despite having the fourth highest ERA of any pitcher in the Hall. But there were plenty of pitchers that put up better numbers than Mussina during the same era. Pedro Martinez, Maddux, Clemens (I know, roids), among others. Not really the case in Palmer’s era. 

I don’t consider a 25 WAR gap to be particularly close.  Sorry.  

[ExileAngelos]

All I can say is after losing the Redskins,  Mussina going to the MFY's was my worst moment as a sports fan in my lifetime.  I will never get over either one.

[Sports Guy]

 

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, dystopia said:

I wouldn't need it because all other stats back up my position.

Except they don’t.

[dystopia]

There are so many fancy stats these days you could probably find one that says Jeff Fiorentino was the best player of all time if you tried hard enough. 
 

If we’re going to get obsessed with WAR for pitching, then I can easily point to Palmer’s higher career RA9 WAR (which is probably the best WAR for pitching honestly) to say that Palmer was the better pitcher. 

[Sports Guy]

5 minutes ago, dystopia said:

There are so many fancy stats these days you could probably find one that says Jeff Fiorentino was the best player of all time if you tried hard enough. 
 

If we’re going to get obsessed with WAR for pitching, then I can easily point to Palmer’s higher career RA9 WAR (which is probably the best WAR for pitching honestly) to say that Palmer was the better pitcher. 

Moose had a better K and BB rate.

FIP, WHIP and ERA+ favor Palmer ever so slightly but they are basically identical.

Moose was the better pitcher at old ages.

A lot of their career numbers are very close.

Palmer even only threw 400 more innings than Moose in a similar amount of games which over long careers isn’t that big of a difference, especially when you consider the era difference with how pitchers are handled.

Moose won 1 more GG.

It’s very close by traditional stats and WAR makes Moose the clear winner.

Either way, acting definitively that one was better than the other is completely wrong and peak seasons make it close to.

 

[FlipTheBird]

34 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

 

Truthfully, Olney only going after the O's on this - despite Mussina's equally long stretch with the Yankees, including even more postseason starts - is him kind of telling on himself. Dude has a grudge with Baltimore ownership and has for a long, long time.

[dystopia]

5 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Moose had a better K and BB rate.

FIP, WHIP and ERA+ favor Palmer ever so slightly but they are basically identical.

Moose was the better pitcher at old ages.

A lot of their career numbers are very close.

Palmer even only threw 400 more innings than Moose in a similar amount of games which over long careers isn’t that big of a difference, especially when you consider the era difference with how pitchers are handled.

Moose won 1 more GG.

It’s very close by traditional stats and WAR makes Moose the clear winner.

Either way, acting definitively that one was better than the other is completely wrong and peak seasons make it close to.

 

But pitching WAR sucks, and I already addressed the K and BB rate by arguing how strikeouts were less prioritized in Palmer’s era. Even a heavy strikeout pitcher like Steve Carlton only had a 7.1 K/9 career which pales in comparison to someone like Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, or even John Smoltz. 
 

Mussina had a better walk rate but also was way more hittable than Palmer, so that evens out. 

[Sports Guy]

Just now, dystopia said:

But pitching WAR sucks, and I already addressed the K and BB rate by arguing how strikeouts were less prioritized in Palmer’s era. Even a heavy strikeout pitcher like Steve Carlton only had a 7.1 K/9 career which pales in comparison to someone like Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, or even John Smoltz. 
 

Mussina had a better walk rate but also was way more hittable than Palmer, so that evens out. 

He was more hittable because Palmer had the greatest defense of all time behind him and he pitched in a more pitcher friendly era with larger parks.

Pitchers WAR sucks because it doesn’t support your claim. Sorry, it’s a largely recognized stat amongst scholars of the game, whether or not you like it is irrelevant.

As for Ks being less prevalent.  Lol

So what? No matter what era you are in, missing bats and getting Ks is a better way to get outs. Just because they didn’t realize that back then doesn’t mean anything. It’s still the stat.

The bottom line is this…Palmer relied more on his teammates than Moose did. As a pitcher, you can only control a few things. One thing you can’t control are the fielders. When you rely on your teammates, you open yourself up to more trouble, which is why Ks and misses bats are so important and that has even figured out.

Palmer happened to play on the perfect team and in a great stadium to do that. 
 

 

[dystopia]

13 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

He was more hittable because Palmer had the greatest defense of all time behind him and he pitched in a more pitcher friendly era with larger parks.

Pitchers WAR sucks because it doesn’t support your claim. Sorry, it’s a largely recognized stat amongst scholars of the game, whether or not you like it is irrelevant.

As for Ks being less prevalent.  Lol

So what? No matter what era you are in, missing bats and getting Ks is a better way to get outs. Just because they didn’t realize that back then doesn’t mean anything. It’s still the stat.

The bottom line is this…Palmer relied more on his teammates than Moose did. As a pitcher, you can only control a few things. One thing you can’t control are the fielders. When you rely on your teammates, you open yourself up to more trouble, which is why Ks and misses bats are so important and that has even figured out.

Palmer happened to play on the perfect team and in a great stadium to do that. 
 

 

Palmer wasn't stupid, he knew the type of defense he had behind him and played to that. Who's to say he wouldn't have been more strikeout-focused if that wasn't the case? Sure, missing bats is always the best way to get outs but don't pretend it's a fair comparison. 

Anyway, back to WAR. RA9-WAR is basically a superior bWAR, and fWAR for pitching is problematic because it's FIP-based which means it's largely based on hypetheticals vs. actual results. FIP is mainly used as a predictive stat so it doesn't make much sense to go back to so-and-so's 1987 season and point to their FIP as if it means anything.