Spahn has said the opposite. Warren when asked about how many more games he could have won if he had not served in the military has said that his service matured him and made him a better pitcher. Without his military service, it is very possible that Spahn wins a lot fewer games and his career looks very different than it does today.

In 1942 Spahn won 0 games and gave up 15 runs, 10 earned in 15 2/3 innings before being sent back to the minor leagues.

I disagree. A pitcher's main goal is to limit the opposition in order to maximize his team's chances of winning. The metrics showing how good a player was at doing that -- which take into account any park effects -- tell us much more than mere wins and losses.

In the late 70s I attended a day game at Wrigley and that evening the Yankees were playing in Milwaukee. We made it to Milwaukee in time and got decent seats. Before long we realized that sitting behind us was Warren Spahn. He looked for all the world just like an everyday "older" guy.

Disagree. Main, perhaps sole, goal is to win. Everything else is rather secondary. What you wrote sounds rather silly compared to that fundamental fact of the sport. If a pitcher realizes his team is up big and he can stay in the game but give up some runs and still get the win so the bullpen can rest, that’s valuable to a team but won’t necessarily show up in the stats. Not sure what you’re arguing here. Spahn wasn’t elite?

Oy. So a pitcher who wins 8-7 did better than one who loses 1-0? If you really think that I can't help you. Of course Spahn is elite, who said he wasn't? I am just saying it's a legitimate point to bring up park effects.

The pitcher that wins 5 games 8-7 is better than the one that wins 2 games 1-0. But I am positive the stats will favor the latter.

A pitcher can only control how much he limits the other side. How well his own team does on any given day is a fortuity. The stats rightly focus on the former.

You don’t think guys like Maddux and Spahn have a sense of a game and can give up a run or two but secure a win rather than go all out and have to come out of the game? I feel like they’re playing chess to your checkers.

A hypothetical pitcher who goes 25-0 but gives up an average of 10 runs a game would be a terrible pitcher, not a great one. A pitcher has very low influence on his teams scoring (today with the universal DH, he has 0 influence), only on the other teams scoring.

He looked like an everyday older guy by the time he was in his early 40's.

Brian (older looking guy card not mine)

Checkers player!!:D He knew he could give up 10 runs with no impact on the game, so he intentionally eased up so he could stay in the game and save the bullpen, don't you know?

With respect players' wartime service, I know a lot of them say that the extra time would not have had a major impact on their careers, but I don't buy that. Any career in any field that is interrupted by years of doing something else entirely causes a lag in training and skill acquisition that has to be made up later.

No, because if you give up a run or two you don't know where that will lead. And who says you can just turn it back on if a game gets close?

Maybe I'm wrong but my impression was that guys like DiMaggio and Williams picked right up where they had left off?

You’re right, Spahn wasn’t supremely effective at eating tons of innings and getting wins for his team.

Show me where I said a single negative thing about Spahn? Can you not separate a discussion about park effect statistics from some imagined criticism of Spahn? Talk about a straw man or red herring or whatever it is. Man, if I'm playing checkers, I don't know what you're playing here.

Tridimensional, only beginners use a checkerboard to play a game of chess.:D

My Cardinals beat him !
Crushed him for two runs

His first loss. What a pitcher. Solid road win for the Cards.

When is the last time you saw a starter pitch into the 9th inning?

Paul Skenes last night