Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[cjedmonton]

I’d like to interrupt our regularly scheduled lefty debate by saying this thread has just become only the 7th in the main forum’s history to reach 1,000 replies. That’s no easy feat, but even more remarkably, it only took 52,000 views (and change) to achieve it. A stunning lurking/chiming ratio!

As you were…

https://ibb.co/C8MDVmt

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by tschock

Then I would counter that your statistical model needs tweaking because it's not accounting for all the variables. The Dodgers weren't "The Best Team in Baseball" as they didn't win the championship. Though they may have had the best group of individuals in baseball playing for the same team. There's a difference.

Every regression model has coefficients that estimate the value of impact of each variable in the model along with confidence intervals for those estimates and an error term. That error term encapsulates both things you haven't yet accounted for but otherwise could and random chance. While it is always true that there are probably ways to account for more of the variance in the data by finding new variables to control for, and thereby reducing your error term, it is a mistake to assume that all variance is explainable if only you had built a better model with more explanatory variables. There is always an element of randomness in sports, but baseball in particular is exceptionally subject to randomness, far moreso than other mainstream sports. A slight shift in the breeze could be the difference between a grand slam and a 2nd strike, a "bad hop" is the difference between an out and a hit, the angle of the ball leaning the bat depends on whether it made contact on the seams or the leather, etc. If you set up a 5 gallon bucket at random locations on the infield and told players to hit the bucket while major league pitchers were launching 100 mph fastballs, curveballs, and change-ups at them, even the best hitters in the league would be lucky to hit the bucket 2 times out of 10. They simply don't have that level of control. It's not possible. At best, they could hit the ball within something like 10 feet of the bucket, and that's if the bucket is on the ideal side of the field for them. If they have to push to the opposite field to hit the bucket, it's even harder. A player can control directional accuracy by trying to push or pull the ball or to swing up on it or down, but once they make contact, they have little to no control over whether that ball is hit right at the shortstop or just out of his reach. They just make contact and roll the dice most of the time. The worst teams in the league can beat the best teams on any given night. A bad team often takes 3 games out of 10 against a good team. This doesn't happen in the NFL. The worst team in the league almost never beats the best teams. And the team that wins the super bowl is far more likely to have also been the best team in the regular season in football as well. Same with basketball and hockey. But baseball is different. A 7 game series is simply insufficient for determining which team is better in baseball. Luck plays too big of a role. This is evidenced by the outcomes of past seasons. Any random team can, and often does, win the world series. But that doesn't mean they are the strongest team.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by cjedmonton

I’d like to interrupt our regularly scheduled lefty debate by saying this thread has just become only the 7th in the main forum’s history to reach 1,000 replies. That’s no easy feat, but even more remarkably, it only took 52,000 views (and change) to achieve it. A stunning lurking/chiming ratio!

As you were…

https://ibb.co/C8MDVmt

Which is surprising, considering the misspelling of 'of' in the title! You would think that annoyance would keep people from posting on the thread.

Brian...I have now posted twice on the thread, both times in regard to what should have been 'of' in the title. I predict my persistence will eventually pay of (misspelled on purpose to drive home my point).

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

On the soccer question, if you had the discussion among the world's most knowledgeable fans, players, coaches, writers, etc., you might not get to a complete consensus, but the same few names would be in the discussion -- all without the benefit of statistics. The "witness of the eyes" as I think John Updike called it.

The same could be said of any sport though. Just because a player's contributions aren't currently being tracked or valued by the mainstream doesn't mean that those contributions can't be measured. The fact of the matter is that when teams look to gain an advantage over their competition, in any sport, they turn to statisticians/data scientists to tell them how they can improve. Everyone knows the Moneyball story. This is precisely how baseball changed. Some don't like the changes for various reasons, but each change that has happened was the result of someone figuring out a way to gain an edge, however small or might be, over their competition through statistical analysis. Same thing with football and when to go for it on 4th down or when to kick a field goal. And basketball as well. Watching an NBA game today is almost like watching an entirely different game than even just 20 years ago. People who don't know any better often say that "Steph Curry changed the way the game is played", but of course that's not true. It was statistical analysis that changed the way the game is played. The MIT Sloan Sports Conference, which is where most of this transformative work comes from and gets presented prior to the changes being implemented by owners, coaches, and GMs, had several talks about how the three point shot was severely under utilized in the NBA and how any team could gain a significant advantage by stocking up on 3 point shooters. It is no accident that the first team to buy into the analytics was the team from Silicon Valley, whose ownership believes in science. It's no accident that they assembled a team of multiple strong 3 point shooters and hired Steve Kerr to coach it. Steph Curry didn't change the way the game was played, data scientists did. Curry was the beneficiary. Most people think Curry is the best shooter of all time, but they aren't even aware that Steve Kerr actually had a better 3 point shooting percentage than Curry did during his playing years.

Soccer is no exception. Just because you can identify talent without statistics doesn't mean that you can't better identify talent WITH statistics. Many of the things a midfielder does to help his team win doesn't get tracked, or at least hasn't been historically. But that's changing and will continue to change in the future as more and more data savvy owners recognize the value that statistical analysis adds to their organization.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Every regression model has coefficients that estimate the value of impact of each variable in the model along with confidence intervals for those estimates and an error term. That error term encapsulates both things you haven't yet accounted for but otherwise could and random chance. While it is always true that there are probably ways to account for more of the variance in the data by finding new variables to control for, and thereby reducing your error term, it is a mistake to assume that all variance is explainable if only you had built a better model with more explanatory variables.

Those variances can always be determined but not necessarily quantified or built into a model, as you noted. But you seem to dismiss them out of hand. I see at least 2 things that could be problematic with your statistical model for declaring Koufax as the best left handed pitcher of all time. 1 ) You may be using a statistical probability analysis to determine a singularity (ie Koufax being the best). This is hinted at by your constant touting of the success of your other statistical probability models. If that's not the case, then those probability results are irrelevant and don't add any value to your claim for Koufax anyway. 2 ) You constantly ignore other intangible items that, while oft times not quantifiable, are still non-zero. This is demonstrated, in part, by claims such as athletes are better today than they were years ago. While true, you continue to ignore the fact that athletes years ago played and trained under different conditions with what was available at the time. You're implying that had those 'lesser athletes' been born and raised in today's environment, they would not have taken advantage of today's methods and still been throwing rocks at a chalk outline on a barn. Maybe try the reverse? Put Koufax back into the 1930s environment and do the analysis and you'll have different variables to consider. It is possible he wouldn't have made it out of the Dodgers or Cardinals 13 or so minor league teams.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by tschock

Those variances can always be determined but not necessarily quantified or built into a model, as you noted. But you seem to dismiss them out of hand. I see at least 2 things that could be problematic with your statistical model for declaring Koufax as the best left handed pitcher of all time. 1 ) You may be using a statistical probability analysis to determine a singularity (ie Koufax being the best). This is hinted at by your constant touting of the success of your other statistical probability models. If that's not the case, then those probability results are irrelevant and don't add any value to your claim for Koufax anyway. 2 ) You constantly ignore other intangible items that, while oft times not quantifiable, are still non-zero. This is demonstrated, in part, by claims such as athletes are better today than they were years ago. While true, you continue to ignore the fact that athletes years ago played and trained under different conditions with what was available at the time. You're implying that had those 'lesser athletes' been born and raised in today's environment, they would not have taken advantage of today's methods and still been throwing rocks at a chalk outline on a barn. Maybe try the reverse? Put Koufax back into the 1930s environment and do the analysis and you'll have different variables to consider. It is possible he wouldn't have made it out of the Dodgers or Cardinals 13 or so minor league teams.

Taylor, Great points, and part of what I've been saying all along.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by tschock

I see at least 2 things that could be problematic with your statistical model for declaring Koufax as the best left handed pitcher of all time. 1 ) You may be using a statistical probability analysis to determine a singularity (ie Koufax being the best). This is hinted at by your constant touting of the success of your other statistical probability models. If that's not the case, then those probability results are irrelevant and don't add any value to your claim for Koufax anyway.

You seem to be conflating what others claim I said with what I've actually said. I have never once claimed that Koufax is the GOAT. I just said he's in the conversation. My arguments have been that Spahn shouldn't be in the conversation at all, and that while he was great for his time, I heavily discount Grove's statistics because of the overall skill level of his contemporaries.

The model I described above is not aimed at proving Koufax is the best, or anyone else for that matter. What I described is a tool for measuring the impact that something like a change in mound heights or a widened strike zone has on performance. It can also be used to estimate something like the overall talent level decrease across the league during WW2, and pretty much anything else that you want to understand the impact of.

Then, if you want, you could use the results of that model to build a separate model to more accurately evaluate pitching performances from different eras. It would give you a better metric than WAR.

2 ) You constantly ignore other intangible items that, while oft times not quantifiable, are still non-zero. This is demonstrated, in part, by claims such as athletes are better today than they were years ago. While true, you continue to ignore the fact that athletes years ago played and trained under different conditions with what was available at the time. You're implying that had those 'lesser athletes' been born and raised in today's environment, they would not have taken advantage of today's methods and still been throwing rocks at a chalk outline on a barn. Maybe try the reverse? Put Koufax back into the 1930s environment and do the analysis and you'll have different variables to consider. It is possible he wouldn't have made it out of the Dodgers or Cardinals 13 or so minor league teams.

Yes, humans evolve. Advances in nutrition, kinesiology, sports medicine, and game theory are all part of the evolutionary process. We know more today than we did 100 years ago. We're also 3 inches taller and stronger, on average, today than we were 100 years ago. Should we add a few more inches to Babe Ruth then, and credit him with a few more HRs? Or what about amphetamine usage from before they started testing for it? It was rampant. You can make adjustments for whatever you want to control for. If you want to debate with BobC about how much humans have evolved over the past 100 years, or even whether or not you think it "counts" as evolution to begin with, be my guest. It's just a conversation I'm not interested in having.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by tschock

Those variances can always be determined but not necessarily quantified or built into a model, as you noted. But you seem to dismiss them out of hand. I see at least 2 things that could be problematic with your statistical model for declaring Koufax as the best left handed pitcher of all time. 1 ) You may be using a statistical probability analysis to determine a singularity (ie Koufax being the best). This is hinted at by your constant touting of the success of your other statistical probability models. If that's not the case, then those probability results are irrelevant and don't add any value to your claim for Koufax anyway. 2 ) You constantly ignore other intangible items that, while oft times not quantifiable, are still non-zero. This is demonstrated, in part, by claims such as athletes are better today than they were years ago. While true, you continue to ignore the fact that athletes years ago played and trained under different conditions with what was available at the time. You're implying that had those 'lesser athletes' been born and raised in today's environment, they would not have taken advantage of today's methods and still been throwing rocks at a chalk outline on a barn. Maybe try the reverse? Put Koufax back into the 1930s environment and do the analysis and you'll have different variables to consider. It is possible he wouldn't have made it out of the Dodgers or Cardinals 13 or so minor league teams.

I'd like to know how Statistician Snowman would factor in cortisone, regarding Koufax. When we talk about performance enhancing drugs, in the literal sense, Koufax is a great example. Without that drug his career might've had about a 2 year peak. Grove came back from injury without such aid.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I'd like to know how Statistician Snowman would factor in cortisone, regarding Koufax. When we talk about performance enhancing drugs, in the literal sense, Koufax is a great example. Without that drug his career might've had about a 2 year peak. Grove came back from injury without such aid.

But on the other hand, Koufax might have been able to extend his career with advances in surgical techniques.

It's all just too speculative when one tries to make direct comparisons.

Another point that has occurred to me, today's pitchers I presume have access to data that literally analyzes every pitch a hitter has ever taken or swung at and I presume there are people who can turn that into useful information. In Koufax's day, they probably had little more than anecdotal information to go on, and in pre-team meetings came up with brilliant strategies like smoke him inside. Counterpoint, I guess, is that batters now have the same information about the pitcfhers.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

Do they have the ability to handle being a professional player? Johnson obviously answered that question. Do they have the mental ability to thrive for a long time? Johnson answered that question YES.

I wouldn't give Johnson TOO MUCH credit for his mental makeup and toughness. We're talking about a guy who intentionally tanked half a season to force a trade out of Seattle.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Tabe

I wouldn't give Johnson TOO MUCH credit for his mental makeup and toughness. We're talking about a guy who intentionally tanked half a season to force a trade out of Seattle.

Can we really blame him for that though? The Mariners are the worst franchise in all of sports. Not just the MLB. All major sports. As someone who grew up in Seattle, he gets a standing ovation from me for that move. The Mariners are the only Seattle sports team that I don't root for. They basically gave the fans a big middle finger for decades, so I gave one back.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Tabe

I wouldn't give Johnson TOO MUCH credit for his mental makeup and toughness. We're talking about a guy who intentionally tanked half a season to force a trade out of Seattle.

Great point. Forget the numbers, would teammates, and many other players, and especially fans, ever consider someone as an all time great if they had turned ttheir backs on their teammates and fans to purposely lose for their own selfish purposes? i would think it could become a very serious negative part of such considerations. But don't tell that to someone who justs looks at numbers. They'll likely tell you it doesn't matter and ignore something like that because it doesn't fit their narrative or their definition of what the "greatest" should be.

Statistics often ignore the human element, like this would be. How would one ever even measure and quantify something like this from a statistical standpoint to reflect the obvious negative impact such an action by a player would bring to his perception by the public at large? Actually, I take that back. Now that I think about it, I can see some statistician quantify such actions. Upon hearing some player purposely threw some gains by performing poorly on purpose, I can see a statistician go back and remove the player's performance results from those thrown games from his overall stats, because those thrown games are not a true reflection of the players actual ability, and therefore taint his statistical database. But doing that actually helps make the player statistically better and more likely to be considered the "greatest", and not less likely as I would expect to be the case in the eyes of a majority of the public upon learning what the player had done.

And if such ever did occur, it would just reflect another disconnect between the real and statistical worlds.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobC

Great point. Forget the numbers, would teammates, and many other players, and especially fans, ever consider someone as an all time great if they had turned ttheir backs on their teammates and fans to purposely lose for their own selfish purposes? i would think it could become a very serious negative part of such considerations. But don't tell that to someone who justs looks at numbers. They'll likely tell you it doesn't matter and ignore something like that because it doesn't fit their narrative or their definition of what the "greatest" should be.

Statistics often ignore the human element, like this would be. How would one ever even measure and quantify something like this from a statistical standpoint to reflect the obvious negative impact such an action by a player would bring to his perception by the public at large? Actually, I take that back. Now that I think about it, I can see some statistician quantify such actions. Upon hearing some player purposely threw some gains by performing poorly on purpose, I can see a statistician go back and remove the player's performance results from those thrown games from his overall stats, because those thrown games are not a true reflection of the players actual ability, and therefore taint his statistical database. But doing that actually helps make the player statistically better and more likely to be considered the "greatest", and not less likely as I would expect to be the case in the eyes of a majority of the public upon learning what the player had done.

And if such ever did occur, it would just reflect another disconnect between the real and statistical worlds.

This is exactly what people do when they choose Hal Chase as the greatest dead ball first baseman.

One of the measures mentioned in this thread is "If you had one game to win, like a Game 7, who do you want?" I have often thought that the single guy I DO NOT want on my team, for a big game, would be Chase. I wouldn't want him within 20 miles of the ballpark. The bigger the game, the more lucrative it might be for Chase to throw.

So, there are some who call Chase the best first baseman of his day, while I'll call him the worst with Gandil not far behind.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Can we really blame him for that though? The Mariners are the worst franchise in all of sports. Not just the MLB. All major sports. As someone who grew up in Seattle, he gets a standing ovation from me for that move. The Mariners are the only Seattle sports team that I don't root for. They basically gave the fans a big middle finger for decades, so I gave one back.

+1 Agreed well said

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

This is exactly what people do when they choose Hal Chase as the greatest dead ball first baseman.

One of the measures mentioned in this thread is "If you had one game to win, like a Game 7, who do you want?" I have often thought that the single guy I DO NOT want on my team, for a big game, would be Chase. I wouldn't want him within 20 miles of the ballpark. The bigger the game, the more lucrative it might be for Chase to throw.

So, there are some who call Chase the best first baseman of his day, while I'll call him the worst with Gandil not far behind.

Mark, walk me through this one. Interested to learn but didn’t follow solely based on a lack of knowledge on my part. Jim

[toledo_mudhen]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Mark, walk me through this one. Interested to learn but didn’t follow solely based on a lack of knowledge on my part. Jim

Im guessing that he is referring to the 1919 Black Sox Scandal?

From wikipedia :

it was universally understood that all eight implicated White Sox players were to be banned from Major League Baseball for life. Two other players believed to be involved were also banned. One of them was Hal Chase, who had been effectively blackballed from the majors in 1919 for a long history of throwing games and had spent 1920 in the minors. He was rumored to have been a go-between for Gandil and the gamblers, though it has never been confirmed. Regardless of this, it was understood that Landis' announcement not only formalized his 1919 blacklisting from the majors but barred him from the minors as well.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by toledo_mudhen

Im guessing that he is referring to the 1919 Black Sox Scandal?

From wikipedia :

it was universally understood that all eight implicated White Sox players were to be banned from Major League Baseball for life. Two other players believed to be involved were also banned. One of them was Hal Chase, who had been effectively blackballed from the majors in 1919 for a long history of throwing games and had spent 1920 in the minors. He was rumored to have been a go-between for Gandil and the gamblers, though it has never been confirmed. Regardless of this, it was understood that Landis' announcement not only formalized his 1919 blacklisting from the majors but barred him from the minors as well.

Ah, yup, this is terrible but I forgot Chase was one of them!

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Snowman

The Mariners are the worst franchise in all of sports. Not just the MLB. All major sports.

You must not be familiar with the New York Knickerbockers.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

You must not be familiar with the New York Knickerbockers.

The Orioles aren't exactly spending up to win for their fans.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The Orioles aren't exactly spending up to win for their fans.

Agreed, the Rockies are also horribly run. They won't spend enough to win, and refuse to tank to get better in the long term.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

You must not be familiar with the New York Knickerbockers.

Ahem...

The Mariners have never made it to the World Series. I'm not talking about winning it, I'm just talking about making it there. They are the only team in the entire MLB to have never made it.

They haven't even made the Playoffs one single time in the last 20 years. And in their entire 44 year history, they've made it 4 times. Yep, that's right, they failed to make the playoffs 40 times out of their 44 seasons. All this despite having one of the greatest center fielders of all time, THE greatest shortstop of all time (and please don't come back at me with some nonsense about Honus Wagner being better), and arguably the greatest pitcher of all time in Randy Johnson ALL ON THE SAME TEAM AT THE SAME TIME.

Meanwhile, the Knicks have made it to the NBA finals 8 times, winning it twice. They've also made the playoffs 43 times! Granted, they've been around for 75 years, but even if you cut their numbers in half, hell, cut them in a fourth, they're still miles better of a franchise than the Mariners.

When I said the Mariners were the worst franchise in sports, I meant that literally. You cannot find a worse performing team than the M's in any major sport in the United States. I'm sure there's some international soccer team somewhere from some island without potable water that miiiiight have a worse record than the Mariners, so I don't know if I can say with confidence that they are the worst team on the planet in any sport ever, but they're the worst team in any sport I'm aware of, and they're definitely the worst team in any major US sport and it's really not even close.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Ahem...

The Mariners have never made it to the World Series. I'm not talking about winning it, I'm just talking about making it there. They are the only team in the entire MLB to have never made it.

They haven't even made the Playoffs one single time in the last 20 years. And in their entire 44 year history, they've made it 4 times. Yep, that's right, they failed to make the playoffs 40 times out of their 44 seasons. All this despite having one of the greatest center fielders of all time, THE greatest shortstop of all time (and please don't come back at me with some nonsense about Honus Wagner being better), and arguably the greatest pitcher of all time in Randy Johnson ALL ON THE SAME TEAM AT THE SAME TIME.

Meanwhile, the Knicks have made it to the NBA finals 8 times, winning it twice. They've also made the playoffs 43 times! Granted, they've been around for 75 years, but even if you cut their numbers in half, hell, cut them in a fourth, they're still miles better of a franchise than the Mariners.

When I said the Mariners were the worst franchise in sports, I meant that literally. You cannot find a worse performing team than the M's in any major sport in the United States. I'm sure there's some international soccer team somewhere from some island without potable water that miiiiight have a worse record than the Mariners, so I don't know if I can say with confidence that they are the worst team on the planet in any sport ever, but they're the worst team in any sport I'm aware of, and they're definitely the worst team in any major US sport and it's really not even close.

Sounds like we have different criteria for defining "worst franchise in all of sports"–ask any New York sports fan about Jim Dolan and watch them as they try in vain to suppress their outrage...

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Ahem...

The Mariners have never made it to the World Series. I'm not talking about winning it, I'm just talking about making it there. They are the only team in the entire MLB to have never made it.

They haven't even made the Playoffs one single time in the last 20 years. And in their entire 44 year history, they've made it 4 times. Yep, that's right, they failed to make the playoffs 40 times out of their 44 seasons. All this despite having one of the greatest center fielders of all time, THE greatest shortstop of all time (and please don't come back at me with some nonsense about Honus Wagner being better), and arguably the greatest pitcher of all time in Randy Johnson ALL ON THE SAME TEAM AT THE SAME TIME.

Meanwhile, the Knicks have made it to the NBA finals 8 times, winning it twice. They've also made the playoffs 43 times! Granted, they've been around for 75 years, but even if you cut their numbers in half, hell, cut them in a fourth, they're still miles better of a franchise than the Mariners.

When I said the Mariners were the worst franchise in sports, I meant that literally. You cannot find a worse performing team than the M's in any major sport in the United States. I'm sure there's some international soccer team somewhere from some island without potable water that miiiiight have a worse record than the Mariners, so I don't know if I can say with confidence that they are the worst team on the planet in any sport ever, but they're the worst team in any sport I'm aware of, and they're definitely the worst team in any major US sport and it's really not even close.

Mariners have won 47% of their games and 0 World Series games since 1977.

Padres have won 46% of their games and 1 World Series game since 1969.

I'd say it's quite close.

[egri]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Mariners have won 47% of their games and 0 World Series games since 1977.

Padres have won 46% of their games and 1 World Series game since 1969.

I'd say it's quite close.

I wish The Founder had included the part where Ray Kroc used the PA system to chastise the Padres during a game.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Can we really blame him for that though? The Mariners are the worst franchise in all of sports. Not just the MLB. All major sports. As someone who grew up in Seattle, he gets a standing ovation from me for that move. The Mariners are the only Seattle sports team that I don't root for. They basically gave the fans a big middle finger for decades, so I gave one back.

I would say if you don't blame a guy for faking an injury and intentionally tanking games, it says a lot about your character let alone the character of the guy doing it.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by cjedmonton

I’d like to interrupt our regularly scheduled lefty debate by saying this thread has just become only the 7th in the main forum’s history to reach 1,000 replies. That’s no easy feat, but even more remarkably, it only took 52,000 views (and change) to achieve it. A stunning lurking/chiming ratio!

As you were…

https://ibb.co/C8MDVmt

OMG!

CJ,

Please don't start posting all kinds of numbers and other numerical data like that. Next thing you know, some statisticians will come on here and see it, and use it to claim they have created a statistical formula or equation that will allow them to accurately predict and name the winner of every debate thread here on Net54.

And I wouldn't be surprised if they had their formulas somehow always pointed right back to them being the projected debate winners.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But on the other hand, Koufax might have been able to extend his career with advances in surgical techniques.

It's all just too speculative when one tries to make direct comparisons.

Another point that has occurred to me, today's pitchers I presume have access to data that literally analyzes every pitch a hitter has ever taken or swung at and I presume there are people who can turn that into useful information. In Koufax's day, they probably had little more than anecdotal information to go on, and in pre-team meetings came up with brilliant strategies like smoke him inside. Counterpoint, I guess, is that batters now have the same information about the pitcfhers.

Great points Peter. Though he's got other issues to deal with, it is well-known that Trevor Bauer has gone to unprecedented lengths to scientifically study pitching, aerodynamics, spin rates, and so on using equipment and technology Grove and Spahn never had. And he is also known for his somewhat unique training techniques and exercises. And he was able to parlay all that into at least one Cy Young Award.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Tabe

I would say if you don't blame a guy for faking an injury and intentionally tanking games, it says a lot about your character let alone the character of the guy doing it.

The idea that one needs to try to win at all costs while playing for a team that has made it abundantly clear that they intend to lose at all costs is pretty silly. Especially if he was being treated like shit in the process. Kudos to Randy Johnson for getting himself out of a bad situation.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by BobC

OMG!

CJ,

Please don't start posting all kinds of numbers and other numerical data like that. Next thing you know, some statisticians will come on here and see it, and use it to claim they have created a statistical formula or equation that will allow them to accurately predict and name the winner of every debate thread here on Ner54.

And I wouldn't be surprised if they had their formulas somehow always pointed right back to them being the projected debate winners.

The extent to which you guys are infatuated with my posts/opinions is rather embarrassing.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mark17

This is exactly what people do when they choose Hal Chase as the greatest dead ball first baseman.

One of the measures mentioned in this thread is "If you had one game to win, like a Game 7, who do you want?" I have often thought that the single guy I DO NOT want on my team, for a big game, would be Chase. I wouldn't want him within 20 miles of the ballpark. The bigger the game, the more lucrative it might be for Chase to throw.

So, there are some who call Chase the best first baseman of his day, while I'll call him the worst with Gandil not far behind.

Mark,

That's an absolutely great observation, agree.

And by mentioning how some people may choose to define "greatest" by whom they would pick for a single WS game, versus how they performed during their peak playing years, or alternatively over their entire career, it underscores the need for all participants in such a discussion to first come to a consensus agreement as to exactly what "greatest" means. Secondly, then deciding on what they would agree upon as the appropriate measures to make their determination. And only after all that, then would you start looking at individual player's stats and data.

And if the definition was to be defined by who you would pick to start game7 of the WS, since we're only talking about a pitcher's single best game, and not their performance over a season or their career, do you think an argument could/should be made for Don Larsen? He cleary had the greatest single game pitching performance of any WS pitcher in MLB history.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Tabe

I would say if you don't blame a guy for faking an injury and intentionally tanking games, it says a lot about your character let alone the character of the guy doing it.

Excellent point, couldn't agree more.

And besides, Johnson did sign a contract to play, and got a lot of money for doing so. If he didn't like it, still honor the contract and leave when the contract is over, if they won't otherwise trade you, right? No one put a gun to his head to originally sign, did they? And I'm guessing he didn't decline to accept, or pay back, what he got paid for any thrown games either.

[Kzoo]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Mariners have won 47% of their games and 0 World Series games since 1977.

Padres have won 46% of their games and 1 World Series game since 1969.

I'd say it's quite close.

As bad as those 2 franchises might be, the Detroit Lions are not too far behind. Granted, they won a few NFL championships from the 1930's to 1950's, but they have only won 1 playoff game since 1957, and hold the current distinction as the oldest NFL franchise to never appear in a Super Bowl.

My Dad and I gave up on them a few years ago after wasting too many Sunday afternoons watching them create new and creative ways to lose games.

Season after season of watching them snatch defeat from the jaws of victory each week felt bad for our health.

We're much happier now.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Can we really blame him for that though? The Mariners are the worst franchise in all of sports. Not just the MLB. All major sports. As someone who grew up in Seattle, he gets a standing ovation from me for that move. The Mariners are the only Seattle sports team that I don't root for. They basically gave the fans a big middle finger for decades, so I gave one back.

If you take the paychecks, you owe 100% effort. Period.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Snowman

The idea that one needs to try to win at all costs while playing for a team that has made it abundantly clear that they intend to lose at all costs is pretty silly. Especially if he was being treated like shit in the process. Kudos to Randy Johnson for getting himself out of a bad situation.

This comment has made me decide to not pay Snowman $500,000 to develop that statistical analysis he brags he could build. I think he'd be likely to take the money and give a half-@ss effort.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mark17

If you take the paychecks, you owe 100% effort. Period.

Couldn't agree more!

And along those lines, can't remember if it was Dimaggio, Mantle, or some other player who said (and I'm paraphrasing here), that they always went out and played every game as hard/well as they could, even if they were hurting or slightly injured, because they knew some kid/person had paid for their ticket to come and watch him play that day. And that's the kind of person/player you put into a conversation of greatest of all time. It's that intangible human factor that statistics can't measure.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mark17

This comment has made me decide to not pay Snowman $500,000 to develop that statistical analysis he brags he could build. I think he'd be likely to take the money and give a half-@ss effort.

Half?!?!?!

I'm thinking you're being way to generous there. Maybe a third-@ss, or even a quarter-@ss effort?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Couldn't agree more!

And along those lines, can't remember if it was Dimaggio, Mantle, or some other player who said (and I'm paraphrasing here), that they always went out and played every game as hard/well as they could, even if they were hurting or slightly injured, because they knew some kid/person had paid for their ticket to come and watch him play that day. And that's the kind of person/player you put into a conversation of greatest of all time. It's that intangible human factor that statistics can't measure.

My favorite give it all guys are Derek Jeter in baseball and Alonzo Mourning in basketball. They both seemed to give all they had all the time.

Randy being a quitter that year could be why he has such a small fan base and the reason his cards are dirt cheap.

[egri]

Originally Posted by Mark17

If you take the paychecks, you owe 100% effort. Period.

Part of the reason why less than a week after Manny Ramirez was traded, there were 'Manny who?' signs going up in Boston.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bnorth

My favorite give it all guys are Derek Jeter in baseball and Alonzo Mourning in basketball. They both seemed to give all they had all the time.

Randy being a quitter that year could be why he has such a small fan base and the reason his cards are dirt cheap.

Great point and comments!

The majority of players, especially the great ones, know one of the most important things they can ever do is play for their fans. And Jeter is a particularly great example. Heck, how many times in his career did he hurt himself trying to make a play he should have just let go?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by BobC

Excellent point, couldn't agree more.

And besides, Johnson did sign a contract to play, and got a lot of money for doing so. If he didn't like it, still honor the contract and leave when the contract is over, if they won't otherwise trade you, right? No one put a gun to his head to originally sign, did they? And I'm guessing he didn't decline to accept, or pay back, what he got paid for any thrown games either.

All of this talk is irrelevant though if it actually never happened. I, for one, have never even heard this rumor before about Randy Johnson throwing games or faking injuries. I'm just saying kudos to him for finding a way out of Seattle if he did. But if you look at his stats from the year he got traded, and even the year before that, he didn't appear to miss any time and his stats were in line with what he was doing in the years just prior to that, so I'm not so sure I buy it. If he were actually throwing games, that would show up in his stats, and if he were faking injuries, he would have been missing starts, no?

Ah, nevermind. Bad idea. Silly me thinking statistics can help answer questions. That's just like, my opinion, man.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Snowman

All of this talk is irrelevant though if it actually never happened. I, for one, have never even heard this rumor before about Randy Johnson throwing games or faking injuries. I'm just saying kudos to him for finding a way out of Seattle if he did. But if you look at his stats from the year he got traded, and even the year before that, he didn't appear to miss any time and his stats were in line with what he was doing in the years just prior to that, so I'm not so sure I buy it. If he were actually throwing games, that would show up in his stats, and if he were faking injuries, he would have been missing starts, no?

Ah, nevermind. Bad idea. Silly me thinking statistics can help answer questions. That's just like, my opinion, man.

Tell me how Joe Jackson's stats in the 1919 World Series would clue you in to the fact he was on the gamblers' payroll, paid to lose.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Randy Johnson 1st 60 percent of 1998 ERA 4.33 (SEA)
Randy Johnson 2nd 40 percent of 1998 ERA 1.28 (HOU)

His WHIP went down by .3 from SEA to HOU

Maybe the DHs were killing him.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Tell me how Joe Jackson's stats in the 1919 World Series would clue you in to the fact he was on the gamblers' payroll, paid to lose.

We've had threads on that in the past. Jackson got duped by listening to Comiskey who didn't help him when he tried to report it and asked what to do. But you're absolutely right about his play. Believe he had the highest BA of anyone in that WS, around .380 or so, and don't believe he commited any errors either. But any good statistician would have looked Jackson's stats up right away before accusing him of actually throwing a game, or so you'd think.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Randy Johnson 1st 60 percent of 1998 ERA 4.33 (SEA)
Randy Johnson 2nd 40 percent of 1998 ERA 1.28 (HOU)

His WHIP went down by .3 from SEA to HOU

Maybe the DHs were killing him.

In all fairness, part of the reason for that big ERA drop could be from switching to a new league where none of the batters had seen him before. But those are still major league hitters, and as good as Johnson was, I can't ever see such a move creating that big of a change in his ERA in such a short of a period of time. Unless maybe he had some type of injury or something during the first part of that year that contributed to the higher ERA? But I'm not aware of any such thing. It doesn't look good for Johnson otherwise though.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Snowman

The idea that one needs to try to win at all costs while playing for a team that has made it abundantly clear that they intend to lose at all costs is pretty silly. Especially if he was being treated like shit in the process. Kudos to Randy Johnson for getting himself out of a bad situation.

When you're already in a hole, stop digging.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by BobC

In all fairness, part of the reason for that big ERA drop could be from switching to a new league where none of the batters had seen him before. But those are still major league hitters, and as good as Johnson was, I can't ever see such a move creating that big of a change in his ERA in such a short of a period of time. Unless maybe he had some type of injury or something during the first part of that year that contributed to the higher ERA? But I'm not aware of any such thing. It doesn't look good for Johnson otherwise though.

Johnson complained about his back the entire first half of the season and visibly wasn't giving full effort when pitching. All that magically disappeared when he went to Houston. The assistant GM for the Mariners all but stated as much (that Johnson tanked) at the time.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

In all fairness, part of the reason for that big ERA drop could be from switching to a new league where none of the batters had seen him before. But those are still major league hitters, and as good as Johnson was, I can't ever see such a move creating that big of a change in his ERA in such a short of a period of time. Unless maybe he had some type of injury or something during the first part of that year that contributed to the higher ERA? But I'm not aware of any such thing. It doesn't look good for Johnson otherwise though.

The same hitters couldn't touch him for the next four years either. Four years, four Cys, absurd strikeout totals, total dominance. Don't think that explains it.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Johnson complained about his back the entire first half of the season and visibly wasn't giving full effort when pitching. All that magically disappeared when he went to Houston. The assistant GM for the Mariners all but stated as much (that Johnson tanked) at the time.

Was just trying to be nice because we can't actually prove it, but remember hearing the rumors and accusations as well.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The same hitters couldn't touch him for the next four years either. Four years, four Cys, absurd strikeout totals, total dominance. Don't think that explains it.

I know, I know, you're preaching to the choir. LOL

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Snowman

All of this talk is irrelevant though if it actually never happened. I, for one, have never even heard this rumor before about Randy Johnson throwing games or faking injuries. I'm just saying kudos to him for finding a way out of Seattle if he did. But if you look at his stats from the year he got traded, and even the year before that, he didn't appear to miss any time and his stats were in line with what he was doing in the years just prior to that, so I'm not so sure I buy it. If he were actually throwing games, that would show up in his stats, and if he were faking injuries, he would have been missing starts, no?

Ah, nevermind. Bad idea. Silly me thinking statistics can help answer questions. That's just like, my opinion, man.

You sound kind of like a dick sometimes. No one else does.