View Full Version : MLB: Worst 300 Game Winner
Swurgen
06-05-2009, 10:18 PM
Who was it?
http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/gallery/featured/GAL1155690/1/index.htm
Genius
06-05-2009, 10:40 PM
Dude, his name is Gaylord. And he spit on balls. C'mon.
Da Raider
06-06-2009, 02:02 PM
one of the lamest sports polls of all time.
300 hundred wins is 300 hundred wins.
one of the lamest sports polls of all time.
300 hundred wins is 300 hundred wins.
Not true. Glavine won thanks to pitching on one of the greatest dynasties of all time directly in his peak. (admittedly very well for a long time BUT) And Perry threw an illegal pitch and was similarly good-not-great. I went with Glavine just because Perry lasted longer.
Hannibal Lecter
06-06-2009, 02:14 PM
Odd how the SI story included three players that spent the bulk of their time pitching in Atlanta but pictured them in other team's uniforms~two NY teams and one Chicago. And where did Clemens spend the bulk of his time?
Hanover Fist
06-06-2009, 02:17 PM
And where did Clemens spend the bulk of his time?
Buying steroids from McNamee?
Hoser
06-06-2009, 02:24 PM
one of the lamest sports polls of all time.
300 hundred wins is 300 hundred wins.
They were talking about the 300 win club on sports center today and they were going on about how it is much easier to do now with deeper bullpens. A pitcher can get a win and only have to pitch half a game, where from what I understand, alot of these guys use to do full games or almost full games.
They were also saying that Halladay needs 15 wins per season for the next 10 years to make the club.
Those guys are retarded. Bullpens add another variable to wins, they don't make it "easier". Now you can pitch a beauty and have it taken away.
Hoser
06-06-2009, 02:52 PM
But it does make it so you can pitch more games, thus more chances to have wins.
But yes, your win can be taken away by someone blowing it.
Hanover Fist
06-06-2009, 02:56 PM
But it does make it so you can pitch more games, thus more chances to have wins.
But yes, your win can be taken away by someone blowing it.
I thought having a bullpen would mean you would have fewer decisions altogether. How many games are decided after the starter comes out in the 6th or 7th?
So, instead of having 40 decisions a year pitchers now only have 30 or less.
But it does make it so you can pitch more games, thus more chances to have wins.
But yes, your win can be taken away by someone blowing it.
Except you don't pitch more games because the rotation expanded as well.
Hoser
06-06-2009, 03:03 PM
I admit I am no baseball expert, I am just going by what they were saying. Pitchers get a start every 5 days or something like that now, wasnt it much longer between starts before?
I would like to see the stat on which inning the decision happened (%). I think most would be between the 5th and 8th.
I admit I am no baseball expert, I am just going by what they were saying. Pitchers get a start every 5 days or something like that now, wasnt it much longer between starts before?
No.... Pre-5-man-rotation pitchers routinely made far more starts.
I would like to see the stat on which inning the decision happened (%). I think most would be between the 5th and 8th.
That would be very difficult to work out. Closest thing would be looking at that shitty old stat they tried in the 80s, Game-Winning RBI (GWRBI) and what inning it took place in. But in that case (between the 5th and the 8th) then relievers DO take decisions away because if you're going... say 6 innings on average you don't get any of those 7th and 8th inning decisions that old schoolers used to.
TheImpossibleMan
06-06-2009, 03:56 PM
I haven't looked closely at the numbers, but it's hard to imagine a 300-game winner less impressive than Tom Glavine.
Just wait until Mark Buehrle does it.
Le Goat
06-06-2009, 10:57 PM
This poll is retarded.
Malone
06-06-2009, 11:44 PM
Gotta agree, 300 is 300. I could find something about all four of these pitchers I truly respect (my favorite being Ryan). With the way pitching rotations are headed, it's going to be harder to see these come around.
Swurgen
06-06-2009, 11:52 PM
They were talking about the 300 win club on sports center today and they were going on about how it is much easier to do now with deeper bullpens. A pitcher can get a win and only have to pitch half a game, where from what I understand, alot of these guys use to do full games or almost full games.
They were also saying that Halladay needs 15 wins per season for the next 10 years to make the club.
I remember hearing about Maddux being 5 and done for the last 5 yrs or so. Never looked it up to check.
I have never ever heard anybody mention Don Sutton as being a great pitcher. Motherfucker I just checked and realized I forgot the guy that I basically made the poll for. Christ. Can we get a mod to throw that asshole in the poll???
EDIT: Would also like to see how many Glavine would have won with Questec for his whole career. He was the epitome of that side to side benefit of the doubt that Atlanta enjoyed for a while there.
ShitBreak
06-06-2009, 11:58 PM
Where's the Worst Player with 3000 Career Hits poll?
Swurgen
06-07-2009, 12:07 AM
Where's the Worst Player with 3000 Career Hits poll?
Well Rose might not be the worst but he's tremendously overrated. A .303 hitter with no power and little speed. You run to first on a walk. Congratulations.
Gotta agree, 300 is 300. I could find something about all four of these pitchers I truly respect (my favorite being Ryan). With the way pitching rotations are headed, it's going to be harder to see these come around.
Wins are a team event, not an individual one. Dunno how often that needs to be repeated to sink in. Wins can indicate skillful pitching, but do not automatically, and certainly 300 is not simply the same all around. Bert Blyleven was roughly as good at preventing runs relative to his league, did it for 500 more innings, and did it far more efficiently (K/BB wise). Yet Glavine has 18 more wins and an almost 7% higher winning %age. Why? Because the 90s Atlanta Braves were good while the 70s/80s Twins/Rangers/Pirates/Indians were not.
Where's the Worst Player with 3000 Career Hits poll?
Rose is a great player thanks to durability regardless of his not-so-amazing career lines. Thusfar 3000 hits has managed to maintain some standards of decency, but Wade Boggs showed that teams will pay for that chase and Harold Baines came quite close to making it quite clear who the worst 3000-hitter ever was.
mongo
06-07-2009, 01:36 AM
Worst to 3000? Molitor was pretty meh.
TheImpossibleMan
06-07-2009, 04:02 AM
Paul Molitor and Robin Yount are not the most impressive 3000 hit men, good as they are.
mongo
06-07-2009, 04:12 AM
Winfield>>>>>>>>>paul & robin
Willam
06-07-2009, 08:02 AM
Dude, his name is Gaylord. And he spit on balls. C'mon.
How dare you! Gaylord Perry was a fantastic pitcher. How many pitchers can say they won the Cy Young in both leagues???????
Gaylord Perry can!
Perry pitched more than 900 more innings than Glavine, had 927 more strike outs, and has .43 better career ERA than Glavine, There's NO WAY anyone can say Glavine is a better pitcher than Perry.
TheImpossibleMan
06-07-2009, 03:25 PM
Perry>Glavine
Swurgen
06-07-2009, 03:43 PM
How dare you! Gaylord Perry was a fantastic pitcher. How many pitchers can say they won the Cy Young in both leagues???????
Gaylord Perry can!
Perry pitched more than 900 more innings than Glavine, had 927 more strike outs, and has .43 better career ERA than Glavine, There's NO WAY anyone can say Glavine is a better pitcher than Perry.
I think Glavine is way overrated but you might be ignoring the eras the two pitchers played in.
TheImpossibleMan
06-07-2009, 03:55 PM
Perry's ERA+ is 117, Glavine's is 118, but Perry's WHIP is hugely better. Combine that with more innings and more strikeouts, and it's hard not to think that Perry is the superior pitcher.
Perry's ERA+ is 117, Glavine's is 118, but Perry's WHIP is hugely better. Combine that with more innings and more strikeouts, and it's hard not to think that Perry is the superior pitcher.
What he said. Perry was as good (league relative) as Glavine at preventing runs and did it for longer, before you even start to account for defense.
Genius
06-07-2009, 09:48 PM
Well Rose might not be the worst but he's tremendously overrated. A .303 hitter with no power and little speed. You run to first on a walk. Congratulations.
Rose didn't have 3000 hits. HE HAD 4000. Think about that. 4256 hits. There's no way you can get 4200 hits and be overrated.
Rose didn't have 3000 hits. HE HAD 4000. Think about that. 4256 hits. There's no way you can get 4200 hits and be overrated.
Yes you can be. If you are a good (not great, good) for average hitter with little power or speed and barely any fielding value and just play forever, a la Pete Rose? Rose has just under 400 career BtRuns, a solid all-inclusive offensive counting stat. Vladimir Guerrero, a Hall of Famer for sure but with less than HALF as many PA as Rose? 450.
He was a Hall of Famer, yes, but playing a bunch of positions and running to first base doesn't make batting .303/.375/.409 for 3 decades at (for the most part) premium offensive positions hyper-amazing. Had he been entirely a 2B he'd be more impressive, but as it is? He's the ultimate 'career' player, but he's definitely overrated.
skyler
06-13-2009, 11:46 PM
GLAVINE
Draven X 23
06-14-2009, 12:29 AM
Glavine, Maddux and Smoltz were the reason the Braves were so good. Not the other way around. He pitched in the steroid era.
His worst full season was his first season. Where his ERA was 4.56. from '91 to 2002 he had one season with an ERA over 4. We won 20 games 5 times, had ERAs under 3 6 times. His game wasn't about strike outs. It was control. He never even struck out 200 in a season. Strike outs is a 'sexy' stat. He didn't have the fastball big strike out guys like Johnson and Smoltz had. He had to use his ability to hit his spots.
Do you want to learn how to pitch? Watch Maddux and Glavine pitch back to back days for a decade.
Worst 300 game winner? I guess Early Wynn... funny name for a pitcher.
Glavine, Maddux and Smoltz were the reason the Braves were so good. Not the other way around. He pitched in the steroid era.
His worst full season was his first season. Where his ERA was 4.56. from '91 to 2002 he had one season with an ERA over 4. We won 20 games 5 times, had ERAs under 3 6 times. His game wasn't about strike outs. It was control. He never even struck out 200 in a season. Strike outs is a 'sexy' stat. He didn't have the fastball big strike out guys like Johnson and Smoltz had. He had to use his ability to hit his spots.
Do you want to learn how to pitch? Watch Maddux and Glavine pitch back to back days for a decade.
Worst 300 game winner? I guess Early Wynn... funny name for a pitcher.
Glavine was a HoF pitcher, no one is disputing that. I forgot Early was a 300 game winner, he's definitely worse. But Glavine is pretty fucking mediocre for someone in this supposedly elite club of pitchers. I don't care about strikeouts as an independent stat, I'll be the first to tell you Nolan Ryan is overrated. But a pitcher's job is to prevent runs and for his career Glavine did that 18% better than the league. Solid, but Andy Pettitte did it 16% better than the league. Yes Glavine did it way longer and with a better peak, but you need to understand that Glavine was good for a long time (like Ryan) not GREAT.
Genius
06-14-2009, 12:04 PM
Yes you can be. If you are a good (not great, good) for average hitter with little power or speed and barely any fielding value and just play forever, a la Pete Rose? Rose has just under 400 career BtRuns, a solid all-inclusive offensive counting stat. Vladimir Guerrero, a Hall of Famer for sure but with less than HALF as many PA as Rose? 450.
He was a Hall of Famer, yes, but playing a bunch of positions and running to first base doesn't make batting .303/.375/.409 for 3 decades at (for the most part) premium offensive positions hyper-amazing. Had he been entirely a 2B he'd be more impressive, but as it is? He's the ultimate 'career' player, but he's definitely overrated.
In a game of compilers, in over a century of time, only two players are within 500 HITS of Rose. The closest active player, Ken Griffey Jr., who is 39, would have to have almost eight additional peak seasons to get to him. Even Pujols, the active leader under 30, could have 13 straight 200 hit seasons, and he still wouldn't get there. If anything, that's an underrated stat.
Swurgen
06-14-2009, 02:08 PM
In a game of compilers, in over a century of time, only two players are within 500 HITS of Rose. The closest active player, Ken Griffey Jr., who is 39, would have to have almost eight additional peak seasons to get to him. Even Pujols, the active leader under 30, could have 13 straight 200 hit seasons, and he still wouldn't get there. If anything, that's an underrated stat.
So you're saying his best skills are longevity and not getting hurt. Congrats. Definitely what I want to build a team around.
Genius
06-14-2009, 02:18 PM
No, I'm saying that he reached base via the hit far more times than any player ever did in history, and very likely more than any player ever will in history, by a wide, wide margin. Give Ted Williams his four lost years back at career-best numbers, and he doesn't even come withing 1000 hits of Rose. Same with Dimaggio. 1000 FUCKING HITS.
TheImpossibleMan
06-14-2009, 02:34 PM
The job of a hitter (and by extension the entire offense) is not to compile hits, but to score runs. It's pretty crazy that Rose had as many singles as he did (and had over 1000XBH), but don't point to that and say "I rest my case". Rose is an elite player, but he is amongst the worst players with 3000 hits.
No, I'm saying that he reached base via the hit far more times than any player ever did in history, and very likely more than any player ever will in history, by a wide, wide margin. Give Ted Williams his four lost years back at career-best numbers, and he doesn't even come withing 1000 hits of Rose. Same with Dimaggio. 1000 FUCKING HITS.
Right. And they're almost all singles. And not a bank-breaking amount of walking beyond that.
There's a reason I don't like milestones, but the 3000 hit one in particular is just silly. NO YANKEE has ever had 3000 hits, but they've had 2 (Ruth, Mantle) and possibly a third (Gehrig's usually like 11 or 12 for me) top 10 all time players. And if you're talking pure offense Gehrig's definitely top 10. Why? Because they hit for power and drew walks.
Even if you cut away Rose's seasons after 81 when he never batted above .300 again, never OPS+ed above 100, and were really generally just stretch-it-out years trying to get the hit record (except one weird stand-out stat in his 2nd to last seaon where he OBP'ed .395) he's still .310/.380/.426 (124 OPS+).
Nolan Ryan has the most strikeouts but wasn't the best strikeout pitcher of all time and certainly wasn't one of the best pitchers of all time. Pete Rose has the most hits but wasn't the best for-average hitter of all time and CERTAINLY wasn't one of the best hitters/players of all time. They were both good for a really long time, and that's their big mark.
The job of a hitter (and by extension the entire offense) is not to compile hits, but to score runs. It's pretty crazy that Rose had as many singles as he did (and had over 1000XBH), but don't point to that and say "I rest my case". Rose is an elite player, but he is amongst the worst players with 3000 hits.
Well, generate runs, not "score runs" in the sense that the all-time leader in runs scored (Rickey Henderson) is the greatest player ever.
The guys with the potential to be the 'worst' 3000 hitter all just missed it. Brooks Robinson (in terms of offense), Vada Pinson, Harold Baines, all so close. The worst is probably Craig Biggio, almost no peak (that 95 season is great for a 2B which he was that year) and just generally a tough career to evaluate. His career was very grab-bag in value, doing a lot of little things to collect bits of value. Efficient baserunner, good at avoiding DPs, fielding, positional versatility, etc. But as a simple hitter, meh.
Draven X 23
06-14-2009, 02:47 PM
Glavine was a HoF pitcher, no one is disputing that. I forgot Early was a 300 game winner, he's definitely worse. But Glavine is pretty fucking mediocre for someone in this supposedly elite club of pitchers. I don't care about strikeouts as an independent stat, I'll be the first to tell you Nolan Ryan is overrated. But a pitcher's job is to prevent runs and for his career Glavine did that 18% better than the league. Solid, but Andy Pettitte did it 16% better than the league. Yes Glavine did it way longer and with a better peak, but you need to understand that Glavine was good for a long time (like Ryan) not GREAT.
I'd say Glavine had a great 12 year run ('91 - '02). The fact he played longer then that ruined his numbers more then helped them. Sure he got 300 wins. But his ERA and WHIP both went up because he played so long. Pretty much his numbers started to die once he left Atlanta.
I'd say Glavine had a great 12 year run. The fact he played longer then that ruined his numbers more then helped them. Sure he got 300 wins. But his ERA and WHIP both went up because he played so long. Pretty much his numbers started to die once he left Atlanta.
Glavine, 91-02: 3.15 ERA (134 ERA+) over 2698.2 IP
Cutting out his first 4 years as he learned the league and his lesser years with the Mets he looks way better. But it's easy to take any pitcher's peak out alone and make them look better. Here's David Cone cutting out his first and last 2 years in the league
Cone, 88-99: 3.15 ERA (131 ERA+) over 2468.0 IP
Is anyone calling for his entry to the Hall?
Draven X 23
06-14-2009, 02:53 PM
I like Cone.
But are you going to tell me Glavine wouldn't go to the HoF if he didn't reach 300 wins?
I like Cone.
But are you going to tell me Glavine wouldn't go to the HoF if he didn't reach 300 wins?
He would, but much more via the Nolan Ryan "good for a long time" route. My point with the Cone comparison was that Glavine had basically the exact same peak (one more seasons worth of innings separating the two), the only difference is he added 1600 innings while Cone only had another 400 or so. Which means Glavine's HoF-ness (since he's a yes and Cone's a no) lies more in those 'stretching it out' years accruing counting stats that separates Cone and Glavine rather than in the 2500ish great innings that he and Cone share.
And I don't generally think of "good for a long time" guys as truly great.
Draven X 23
06-14-2009, 03:02 PM
He would, but much more via the Nolan Ryan "good for a long time" route. My point with the Cone comparison was that Glavine had basically the exact same peak (one more seasons worth of innings separating the two), the only difference is he added 1600 innings while Cone only had another 400 or so. Which means Glavine's HoF-ness (since he's a yes and Cone's a no) lies more in those 'stretching it out' years accruing counting stats that separates Cone and Glavine than in the 2500ish great innings that he and Cone share.
And I don't generally think of "good for a long time" guys as truly great.
He was great for 12 years. He was good for 10 years. So I'll say very good for a long time.
But the HoF is more of a stats place. they don't look at +ERA they look at wins and crap like that.
Is Mussina a HoF? He and Glavine might be a better comparison. They both pretty much had their prime years at the same time.
He was great for 12 years. He was good for 10 years. So I'll say very good for a long time.
He wasn't good in those other 10 years, he was mediocre, that's what dragged down his numbers.
Glavine, 87-90: 4.29 ERA (89 ERA+) over 646 IP
Glavine, 03-08: 4.06 ERA (104 ERA+) over 1068.2 IP
He allowed 790 ER over 1714.2 IP, a 4.15 ERA over 1700 innings. That's VERY mediocre, hardly something that should add much to a supposedly 'great' career.
But the HoF is more of a stats place. they don't look at +ERA they look at wins and crap like that.
Is Mussina a HoF? He and Glavine might be a better comparison. They both pretty much had their prime years at the same time.
Yes. Mussina has 900 fewer innings but a 5% better ERA+, and more important here WAY better defense independent numbers (K/9, K/BB, WHIP).
Again you can pull out a consecutive prime that looks about the same, 2600ish innings with about a 130 ERA+.
Mussina, 91-03: 3.53 ERA (129 ERA+) over 2668.2 IP
And that's being somewhat arbitrarily unfair to Moose because unlike Glavine or Cone his prime isn't entirely consecutive, he had 3 somewhat meh years in there (93, 96, 02) and 2 prime quality years (06, 08) that fall outside of it. So if you did a non-consecutive peak a bit replacing 93 and 96 w/ 06 and 08 they too would have a similar prime.
And once again the only thing separating Glavine (a pretty definite HoF yes) from Moose (should be a HoFer but will be a tough case) is what happened in their mediocre winddown years.
Genius
06-14-2009, 03:35 PM
Stax, no offense, but it seems like you're really good at using the super-stats to prove why popular players weren't as good as they're remembered. How about using them to prove why someone who isn't remembered as fondly should be more highly regarded? I just want to see it done.
Stax, no offense, but it seems like you're really good at using the super-stats to prove why popular players weren't as good as they're remembered. How about using them to prove why someone who isn't remembered as fondly should be more highly regarded? I just want to see it done.
What the hell super stat am I using? I'm using ERA, IP, and ERA+ (the only odd stat) for pitchers and AVG/OBP/SLG, OPS+ (the only odd stat) and PA for hitters. That's mind bogglingly simple.
Rose collected singles for a long time. He collected them at a good (.300 hitter) but not amazing rate, got very little other than singles, and wasn't a great fielder (could play other positions, but not brilliantly) or baserunner. That's not a GREAT player.
Glavine had some great years in the prime of his career, but ALL HoF quality pitchers do and even some not quite so HoF (as in Cone). He's not GREAT simply because he then pitched another 1600 below league average innings. Is Tim Wakefield great? Jamie Moyer? They don't have the prime that Moose or Glavine did, but you understand with them that being ok for a while doesn't really add to greatness.
Plus I think I showed Cone as a forgotten talent. Not a HoFer, but deserved more conversation like Lee Smith or Don Mattingly get.
Want a comparison for a forgotten, fun player?
Player A: 2.73 ERA (147 ERA+) over 1006.0 IP
Player B: 2.76 ERA (146 ERA+) over 1043.1 IP
2 players that couldn't BE closer, really. Lemme give you a hint. Player A has 569 career saves. Player A is Trevor Hoffman, a likely HoF lock because he racked up the record in a stat made up in the 70s to (badly) define reliever value. Player B is Dan Quisenberry, stud reliever of the 80s who fell off the ballot without a whisper.
TheImpossibleMan
06-14-2009, 04:02 PM
Stax, no offense, but it seems like you're really good at using the super-stats to prove why popular players weren't as good as they're remembered. How about using them to prove why someone who isn't remembered as fondly should be more highly regarded? I just want to see it done.
Arky Vaughn is probably the second best SS ever, and probably the best player you've never heard of. On a similar note, Bill James thinks that Craig Biggio was the second best player of the 90's (behind Bonds) and noticably better than players like Ken Griffey Jr.
Arky Vaughn is probably the second best SS ever, and probably the best player you've never heard of. On a similar note, Bill James thinks that Craig Biggio was the second best player of the 90's (behind Bonds) and noticably better than players like Ken Griffey Jr.
Yeah, but Bill James isn't always right. And in this case, while Biggio is great as an all-around player, as a hitter... :/
BTW, Tris Speaker is probably the best player you've never heard of.
TheImpossibleMan
06-14-2009, 04:13 PM
If you haven't heard of Tris Speaker, you suck.
To be honest, I'd make the case for Biggio based almost entirely on his hitting, and hitting at difficult positions. When I've got the time I'll transcribe the paragraphs in which James argues that Biggio is better than Griffey Jr.
If you haven't heard of Tris Speaker, you suck.
To be honest, I'd make the case for Biggio based almost entirely on his hitting, and hitting at difficult positions. When I've got the time I'll transcribe the paragraphs in which James argues that Biggio is better than Griffey Jr.
I have the Historical Abstract, I get it. His stretch 91-99 as a catcher for 1 season and then almost exclusively a 2B is great. (.299/.391/.451 128 OPS+ from a C/2B) But that's 9 seasons. I dunno if even an exclusively 2B guy hitting what Biggio did for his career is a HoF quality hitter (before you get into speed/defense), and Biggio played a few hundred games in the OF.
jemeske
06-14-2009, 04:39 PM
But the point is that he was the 2nd best that decade, isn't it? Not about HOF.
TheImpossibleMan
06-14-2009, 04:41 PM
I don't know if I agree either, I was just obliging Genius.
I think that Biggio is a great player, and much better than a number of guys with 3000 hits, but his 3000 is such bullshit, as he played for years after he was done in an attempt to hang around and compile the hits. His final season, he played 141 games and posted a line of .251/.285/.381. Yikes. He was basically the worst player in the majors over 2006 and 2007.
jemeske
06-14-2009, 04:48 PM
Um, Bobby Crosby?
Willam
06-14-2009, 05:33 PM
Tony Gwynn was the best all around player of the 90's.
(That should stir some shit up)
TheImpossibleMan
06-14-2009, 05:35 PM
No he wasn't. And if you're arguing that he was the most complete player, you'd still be wrong (fat guys who don't run and have only medium power usually aren't considered very complete).
Tony Gwynn was the best all around player of the 90's.
(That should stir some shit up)
Yeah.
A. He wasn't a complete player.
B. Barry Bonds
But the point is that he was the 2nd best that decade, isn't it? Not about HOF.
Barry Bonds
Ken Griffey Jr.
Frank Thomas
Jeff Bagwell
Manny Ramirez
Alex Rodriguez
Jim Thome
Gary Sheffield
Soo.... No.
Genius
06-14-2009, 06:22 PM
What the hell super stat am I using? I'm using ERA, IP, and ERA+ (the only odd stat) for pitchers and AVG/OBP/SLG, OPS+ (the only odd stat) and PA for hitters. That's mind bogglingly simple.
Rose collected singles for a long time. He collected them at a good (.300 hitter) but not amazing rate, got very little other than singles, and wasn't a great fielder (could play other positions, but not brilliantly) or baserunner. That's not a GREAT player.
Glavine had some great years in the prime of his career, but ALL HoF quality pitchers do and even some not quite so HoF (as in Cone). He's not GREAT simply because he then pitched another 1600 below league average innings. Is Tim Wakefield great? Jamie Moyer? They don't have the prime that Moose or Glavine did, but you understand with them that being ok for a while doesn't really add to greatness.
It's more a general statement, I suppose. Stats like OPS+ and ERA+ always seem to be used to say, "no, your favorite player just wasn't very good, he sucked, and here's why" instead of, "hey, remember that dude? He was awesome, look at this!"
It's more a general statement, I suppose. Stats like OPS+ and ERA+ always seem to be used to say, "no, your favorite player just wasn't very good, he sucked, and here's why" instead of, "hey, remember that dude? He was awesome, look at this!"
That's not true at all. I used it to argue for Joe Torre in the HoF as a player, for why Alan Trammell was underrated (along with his underappreciated defense), etc, etc. ERA+ and OPS+ merely more fairly evaluate a player so it doesn't seem like every Rockies hitter and Padres pitcher is an all-star, or that the 1960s didn't produce any HoF hitters or the 90s no HoF pitchers.