Quote:
Originally Posted by bravos4evr
sigh...... WAR is cumulative, it is not a score. so a borderline HOF'er who threw for 24 years like Perry will have a higher score than Mathewson , seriously go lookat the innings counts and it will show both who A- had the better peak and B- who had the slowest decline. it depends on the rater on which of those two they value.
and why the argument against Nolan Ryan? 9.55 K rate when avg was under 6, a career ERA of 3.19 and an FIP of 2.98 nearly 5400 innings pitched. that's pretty damn elite stuff.
look at this table showing most innings pitched and see how it impacts total WAR score
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.asp...ers=0&sort=8,d
and yes fangraphs is simply better. It uses park and league adjusted stats instead of treating a sub 2 ERA in the deadball era as equal to one in the steroid era. |
Steroid era? You forgot one major fact that most people neglect....pitchers weren't immune to taking steroids as well (let's start with Clemens who rescued his career with PEDs) and good pitching ALWAYS stops good hitting. I can prove that notion by a .300 average or 70% failure rate making a hitter a hall of fame candidate. Bottom line is when a statistical methodology places pitchers like Perry & Blyleven (I'll give you Ryan although he could NEVER measure up to Grove and Seaver...NEVER!) are rated ahead of the likes of Seaver, Grove, Pedro, Matty, etc., it's philosophy has more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese!