[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

And yet, throughout the entirety of baseball history, we have great pitchers who are not strikeout pitchers (and thus getting their outs on contact) having very long careers and performing far above most pitchers. If there is no such thing as a great contact pitcher, how are pitchers like Maddux great? Or do you think Maddux and the numerous other pitchers like him are all sheer luck?


I'm familiar with McCracken's article and Bill James' positive take on it. I think some of the points are true indeed. But I also am aware that some contact pitchers have high inning careers of greatness. These sample sizes seem unreasonable to chalk up to sheer dumb luck. If it was purely the team defense behind them, pitchers like Maddux and the number 5 starter on the team who isn't a strikeout pitcher would chalk up about the same numbers on the whole. Maddux is a good example, he wasn't a great K pitcher. He pitched to contact. And he won 4 ERA crowns, 4 FIP crowns, led the league in fewest hits per 9 once. How do we explain his 5,000IP career if contact pitchers are all bad or mediocre?


Are you capable of making any argument whatsoever without insulting anyone? I think you've actually started to bring up good points that can coalesce into a coherent, rational argument, but your absurd egotism and propensity to just resort to the ad hominem at every single turn obscures even your good points.

Plus one. And I without looking at stats I will just say the eye test can tell a great pitcher. It’s fun to watch a guy where no one can touch the ball - thinking DeGrom when he’s actually healthy - but it’s also fun to watch a guy that paints corners and throws junk down the middle that ends up with dribblers.