Posted by bad_luck on 1/16/2015 5:46:00 PM (view original):
And 17 HR allowed isn't really that many. There have been 370 ERA qualified seasons with an ERA+ of 150 or better. About a third of them (92) allowed 17 or more HR.

127 allowed 15 or more.

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/16/2015 5:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/16/2015 5:46:00 PM (view original):
And 17 HR allowed isn't really that many. There have been 370 ERA qualified seasons with an ERA+ of 150 or better. About a third of them (92) allowed 17 or more HR.

127 allowed 15 or more.

A) I said elite seasons; if you're refining it to the top 370 seasons, I'm not sure I'd qualify that as elite.
B) 92 is less than 1/4 of 370, so still a small proportion of great seasons.

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/16/2015 5:57:00 PM (view original):
So, since 1900, and ignoring park effects for simplicity, there have been 49 pitchers with an ERA+ of at least 200.  That's more what I'd call elite; even so, it's still more than 1 every 3 seasons.  2000 Pedro gave up the 3rd most HR of those 49 seasons, and the 2nd-most HR/9 (behind a Randy Johnson who drops off the list if you adjust for park factors).

Posted by ncmusician_7 on 1/16/2015 5:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/16/2015 12:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ncmusician_7 on 1/15/2015 8:44:00 PM (view original):
Pitcher A -- ERA of 2.50, ERA+ of 200..............Pitcher B -- ERA of 2.00, ERA+ of 200     bad_luck, do you consider these pitchers to be equivalent (assuming the same IP, etc)?

I don't know, probably. That's the point of ERA+. It takes into account the fact that it may be easier/harder to have a lower ERA at different times throughout history.

For example, a pitcher with a 3.50 ERA in 2006 had a significantly better season than a pitcher with a 2.50 ERA in 1908, assuming equal IP, etc.

The 1908 pitcher would have a slightly lower ERA#.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/16/2015 6:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/16/2015 5:57:00 PM (view original):
So, since 1900, and ignoring park effects for simplicity, there have been 49 pitchers with an ERA+ of at least 200.  That's more what I'd call elite; even so, it's still more than 1 every 3 seasons.  2000 Pedro gave up the 3rd most HR of those 49 seasons, and the 2nd-most HR/9 (behind a Randy Johnson who drops off the list if you adjust for park factors).

I'm guessing the vast majority of those seasons are pre-1920. It makes sense that a guy pitching in the 1990's and early 2000s would give up more home runs (while still being incredibly effective at preventing run scoring, in general) than someone pre-1920.

Posted by examinerebb on 1/16/2015 6:40:00 PM (view original):
Here is the downfall of these stats, especially when it comes to the Hall of Fame.  You can use them to approximate comparative effectiveness across eras, but you can't use them to judge impact on the game.  I'm sure by these metrics that Tom Glavine was a superior pitcher to Nolan Ryan.  I've told my kids stories about watching Nolan pitch.  Seeing batters wandering up to the plate from the on-deck circle, defeated before they'd seen a pitch.  Hearing him grunt with every pitch and hearing his fastball sizzle like bacon from behind the plate in a near-empty Kingdome.  What story do I tell my kids about Tom Glavine?  "One time, he threw a fastball eight inches outside and the umpire called it a strike."  Nolan Ryan, in my mind, is a vastly superior Hall of Famer.  The same can said for Biggio.  Are you going to regale your kids with tales of Biggio being hit by a pitch?  Was there ever a point where you watched Biggio and thought "I'm watching a Hall of Famer?"  I'm not sure Biggio was ever the best 2B in baseball, maybe not even the best player on his team at any point.  Yet he is a rubber-stamped Hall of Famer.  I played baseball for 20 years.  I've been a fan for far longer than that.  You'd be hard-pressed to argue that I need to deepen my understanding of the game.  But I simply can't understand this necessity to break a player's career down to digits and have that tell his story.

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/16/2015 5:27:00 PM (view original):
You seem to be dismissing Walter Johnson out of hand anyway.  If you think Pedro would have allowed less than 20 runs in the deadball era, you have him with an ERA substantially below WJ's best seasons, way under 1.  Under .8.  Look how many HR Pedro gave up in 2000.  It's quite a lot for an elite pitching season - 17.  Maybe those aren't HRs in the 1900s, but most of them are still doubles or triples.  And with the dedication to driving in all the baserunners with smallball, a lot of those guys would have scored, presumably at least 6 or 7.  And SOME of the other guys who got on would have scored.  Pedro was pitching well, but obviously he was giving up some hard contact.  At least 17 times.  I bet it was more.  This is exactly why I don't think you can just translate using ERA+ to try to come up with an equivalent ERA for a different season on the far ends of the spectrum.  It just becomes absurd, and if you think about it very long, I don't think you honestly believe Pedro would have put up an ERA in the neighborhood of 0.75 if he pitched in 1908.

Posted by doubletruck on 1/15/2015 11:00:00 PM (view original):
At 6-10, Johnson was pitching downhill as much or more than Koufax did on the higher mound ...

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/16/2015 7:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 1/16/2015 6:40:00 PM (view original):
Here is the downfall of these stats, especially when it comes to the Hall of Fame.  You can use them to approximate comparative effectiveness across eras, but you can't use them to judge impact on the game.  I'm sure by these metrics that Tom Glavine was a superior pitcher to Nolan Ryan.  I've told my kids stories about watching Nolan pitch.  Seeing batters wandering up to the plate from the on-deck circle, defeated before they'd seen a pitch.  Hearing him grunt with every pitch and hearing his fastball sizzle like bacon from behind the plate in a near-empty Kingdome.  What story do I tell my kids about Tom Glavine?  "One time, he threw a fastball eight inches outside and the umpire called it a strike."  Nolan Ryan, in my mind, is a vastly superior Hall of Famer.  The same can said for Biggio.  Are you going to regale your kids with tales of Biggio being hit by a pitch?  Was there ever a point where you watched Biggio and thought "I'm watching a Hall of Famer?"  I'm not sure Biggio was ever the best 2B in baseball, maybe not even the best player on his team at any point.  Yet he is a rubber-stamped Hall of Famer.  I played baseball for 20 years.  I've been a fan for far longer than that.  You'd be hard-pressed to argue that I need to deepen my understanding of the game.  But I simply can't understand this necessity to break a player's career down to digits and have that tell his story.

I've found that there are plenty of people who played baseball - including guys with long Major League careers - who are very poor at evaluating players, by watching them or through statistical analysis.  So saying you played baseball isn't going to prove anything.  Especially if you are going to sit there and say you don't think Biggio was ever the best 2B in the majors.  Who, exactly, would you take over him through the mid-'90s?  Knoblauch?  Even Alomar, who was at least near his prime, was clearly a step behind Biggio from my perspective.  I was pretty young at the time, but I was also an Orioles fan.

Just because Nolan Ryan threw hard doesn't make him a great pitcher.  He walked SOOOO many guys.  I would think that would have been infuriating to fans of his various teams.  It makes him fun to watch.  But it doesn't make him better or more "impactful."

I believe ebb was trying to explain the "feel" of a HOFer.    As I've said a million times, the HOF isn't decided by numbers alone.    Now that the PED guys aren't getting elected, there is no magic number(300 wins, 500 homers, etc, etc).    Whether that "feel" is media-created or not, it's real.    That's why comparing Biggio to Jeter is folly.    Watching Jeter, you felt like you were watching a future HOF player.   Dads could tell their kids "Pay attention.   He's going to be in the HOF one day" pretty damn early in his career.  I can't imagine anyone outside the Biggio family/Astro fans saying that down in Houston. 

You knew Ryan was going to be in the HOF, if only for his "moments", not so much with Glavine.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/17/2015 7:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/16/2015 7:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 1/16/2015 6:40:00 PM (view original):
Here is the downfall of these stats, especially when it comes to the Hall of Fame.  You can use them to approximate comparative effectiveness across eras, but you can't use them to judge impact on the game.  I'm sure by these metrics that Tom Glavine was a superior pitcher to Nolan Ryan.  I've told my kids stories about watching Nolan pitch.  Seeing batters wandering up to the plate from the on-deck circle, defeated before they'd seen a pitch.  Hearing him grunt with every pitch and hearing his fastball sizzle like bacon from behind the plate in a near-empty Kingdome.  What story do I tell my kids about Tom Glavine?  "One time, he threw a fastball eight inches outside and the umpire called it a strike."  Nolan Ryan, in my mind, is a vastly superior Hall of Famer.  The same can said for Biggio.  Are you going to regale your kids with tales of Biggio being hit by a pitch?  Was there ever a point where you watched Biggio and thought "I'm watching a Hall of Famer?"  I'm not sure Biggio was ever the best 2B in baseball, maybe not even the best player on his team at any point.  Yet he is a rubber-stamped Hall of Famer.  I played baseball for 20 years.  I've been a fan for far longer than that.  You'd be hard-pressed to argue that I need to deepen my understanding of the game.  But I simply can't understand this necessity to break a player's career down to digits and have that tell his story.

I've found that there are plenty of people who played baseball - including guys with long Major League careers - who are very poor at evaluating players, by watching them or through statistical analysis.  So saying you played baseball isn't going to prove anything.  Especially if you are going to sit there and say you don't think Biggio was ever the best 2B in the majors.  Who, exactly, would you take over him through the mid-'90s?  Knoblauch?  Even Alomar, who was at least near his prime, was clearly a step behind Biggio from my perspective.  I was pretty young at the time, but I was also an Orioles fan.

Just because Nolan Ryan threw hard doesn't make him a great pitcher.  He walked SOOOO many guys.  I would think that would have been infuriating to fans of his various teams.  It makes him fun to watch.  But it doesn't make him better or more "impactful."

I believe ebb was trying to explain the "feel" of a HOFer.    As I've said a million times, the HOF isn't decided by numbers alone.    Now that the PED guys aren't getting elected, there is no magic number(300 wins, 500 homers, etc, etc).    Whether that "feel" is media-created or not, it's real.    That's why comparing Biggio to Jeter is folly.    Watching Jeter, you felt like you were watching a future HOF player.   Dads could tell their kids "Pay attention.   He's going to be in the HOF one day" pretty damn early in his career.  I can't imagine anyone outside the Biggio family/Astro fans saying that down in Houston. 

You knew Ryan was going to be in the HOF, if only for his "moments", not so much with Glavine.