View Single Post
  #1313  
Old 11-27-2021, 06:25 AM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 6,639
Default

No one is denying Spahn benefited from his park. Like most pitchers, his home numbers are better, and it’s one of the factors holding down his adjusted rate stats, which are still excellent.

Unlike Koufax, his ERA doesn’t double or triple each year outside of Dodger Stadium vs. being at Dodger stadium, as was broken down several times already. Unlike Koufax, he was a star pitcher before he got to County Stadium at age 32, when Koufax had been retired for 2 years.

Your comeback will be to ignore this or to compare their home/road splits on a career level to cover up Sandy’s dodger stadium difference as opposed to his other home parks that don’t have extreme problems and didn’t align perfectly with his only good years.

You’ll get no argument from me that Spahn was better than Johnson, for numerous reasons. The problem is you chose to make the absurd proclamation, supported by 0 prominent and known expert baseball statisticians, that Spahn was “above average, at best”. Not being as good as Randy Johnson after you adjust for park is not a winning argument when this is your hypothesis. It’s shifting the goalpost, very obviously and poorly. A 119 ERA+, adjusted for park, in over 5,000 IP is not “above average at best” according to any prominent baseball statistician or by common sense.

Also, isn’t your argument you just made a few hours ago that Sandy’s first 7 years should be ignored? No home park effect creates Sandy’s terrible first half of his career. Interesting how his first half matters when it helps Sandy and does not matter when it hurts Sandy. Like all the Koufax arguments, it’s an argument from conclusion in which the argument is formulated after the conclusion without any regard for consistency to previous statements.

Last edited by G1911; 11-27-2021 at 06:25 AM.
Reply With Quote