View Single Post
  #104  
Old 07-23-2015, 12:09 PM
rats60's Avatar
rats60 rats60 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,901
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darwinbulldog View Post

I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind, because the people who think Koufax was the greatest pitcher ever (or even in the top 5) didn't get there by caring about the statistics that empirically do a better job of quantifying a player's contributions to his team's chances of winning games, but hopefully they can at least understand the perspective of those they are arguing against.
Probably because the people who argue those stats choose to ignore the serious flaws and errors in their models. For example ERA+. Using a stat like that assumes a uniformity of pitching talent because it measures you against your peers. Comparing across generations can give a seriously flawed result. We just went through a period from Bert Blyleven to Greg Maddux when not a single starting pitcher who entered mlb made the hof. Comparing a pitcher who pitched during this time vs. one who pitched with a high number of hof pitchers is not a valid comparrison.

Above, it was poorly arguement that Koufax unfairly benefited from his home park when historically it has been pretty close to neutral. The fact that during that time, the Dodgers had the lowest staff era in the NL every year, while having one of the worst offenses (8th, 8th, 8th & 6th ) should leave anyone with an ounce of common sense to realize scoring would be abnormally low. It is not that people don't care about those advanced metrics. It is that they are often misused and result in erroneous arguements.
Reply With Quote