Quote:
Originally Posted by rats60
You cannot use ERA+ to compare pitchers between eras. Here are the Topps RCs of starting pitchers elected to the HOF by the BBWAA.
1955 Koufax
1957 Drysdale
1959 Gibson
1961 Marichal
1963 Perry
1964 Niekro
1965 Carlton
1965 Hunter
1966 Palmer
1966 Sutton
1966 Jenkins
1967 Seaver
1968 Ryan
1971 Blyleven
1987 Maddux
Between 1955 and 1967 13 starting pitchers elected by the BBWAA to the HOF made their MLB debut. From 1971-1985 zero. MLB talent is not the same from era to era.
I have already shown that why people discount stats of Rockies players, average park factors 118. So, you think picking a Rockies player makes a valid comparison? Lol.
It is not like Bichette faced anywhere near the pitching talent that Mays or Aaron did.
There is a simple reason for the above. MLB was integrated between 1947-1960 seeing an increase in talent in baseball. The rise of the NFL in the 70s and NBA in the 80s has diverted talent from MLB to the NBA and NFL. Jackie Robinson played pro football before baseball. If he was playing pro sports today, it would be in the NFL. Bob Gibson played with the Globetrotters before baseball. If Gibson were playing today, most likely it would be the NBA.
I will take Koufax over Johnson or any other lefty and win championships.
|
Nice try, but wrong on every count.
So NOW you understand park factor when it pertains to the Rockies??? But ignore it when it pertains to Koufax? Hilarious. Superb. Nice try.
And if your criteria is Championships, then Whitey Ford or Madison Bumgarner are your pitchers.
And if winning is all that mattered, how do you pick a pitcher who only won 165 games over someone who won 304??
Population and talent is a whole other exercise I can take you through....but it is long and won't look pretty on your end of the debate. In short, African American participation declined in MLB, but Latino participation rose at a higher rate than that decline.
There were also many more people to draw from in general in the 1990's onward, compared to 1960's and previous.
Over time, players have continued to be bigger, faster, and stronger in every aspect. The athletes are getting better...not worse. NOT EVEN CLOSE.
When is the last time you worked with growing athletes to draw your conclusions from?? Athletes are better than ever right now. Period. Romantic viewpoints of yesteryear does not change that fact.
World Wild inclusion also became far more impactful. So instead of just drawing American born talent, it was from all over the world. You had millions upon millions more people to draw from, from other countries.
All that adds up to far more available MLB talent that any expansion or popularity of basketball or football.
Kids that can throw 98 MPH with success, play baseball regardless how good they are at other sports. So those other sports are not taking pitchers away from MLB. Sorry. The average MLB fastball has risen steadily over the years. Based on your premise, it should be declining...not rising. They are not only throwing harder, they are taller too. They can also place the ball better. They also have an array of pitches as well. Nasty ones.
Fielding percentages in baseball have risen steadily over time...another sign of the superior athlete. EVERY shortstop today makes throws from the hole with ease now...throws that only an elite few could make even as late as the 1970's. There is zero comparison between the arms of now compared to the arms of then. If basketball and football are taking athletes away from baseball...then how are the fielders continually getting better over time?? How are their arms getting stronger if athletes are being lost to other sports??? How are they running FASTER? If your premise that competition was better then, then the players should be running SLOWER now, NOT FASTER!
So the players now can catch the ball better, throw it better, and run faster. Yet they aren't as good??? Yeah that makes total sense...lol.
Please...football and basketball were both mainstays already in the 1960's. Basketball was actually the more popular high school sport even then.
In the meantime, you enjoy taking Joe Horlen and company over Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens, Max Scherzer, etc...and all those other pitchers from the 1960's who had better ERA's than superior pitchers.
You are picking it based on an illusion of the rules, not on the talent of the players.
Otherwise who would pick a pitcher who is ten inches shorter, throws seven MPH slower, has less command, and less MENTAL CAPACITY? NOBODY. Unless someone was fooled because the rules of the time dictated that his numbers 'looked' a tad better. You got fooled. NOt going to fault you for it, but you did.
Yes, Koufax had less mental attributes. Koufax quit...which makes him soft. I would use another word, but don't want to offend anyone. If he isn't soft, then he is unreliable. Neither are good attributes. If he isn't unreliable, then he is made of glass. Again, not a good attribute in an athlete when there are others who don't have those issues.
Lets go have a contest you and me.
We will play a baseball game against each other. When I am pitching, I will pitch off of a mound that is 15 inches high, will use a dead ball, and the strike zone will be strictly from the arm pits to the knees. We will play in the largest field at a local complex.
When you pitch, you will have to pitch off of flat ground, use the live ball from last MLB season, and the strike zone will be from the knees to my waist. For your pitching, we will move to the smallest field at the local complex(but you will still be pitching from 60 feet 6).
Put your money where your premise is. If you don't think those factors matter, then lets make a wager and have that contest.