Most undervalued HOFers

[G1911]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Several people have listed stats they believe show more value. You just choose to ignore them. You reply with, "Yeah, but the strikeouts are balanced by the walks..." Statisticians are learning just how valuable strikeouts are, and the walk rate must be much higher than Ryan's to balance it out. There are many benefits to a ball not being put in play.

But again, I never said you can't evaluate value how you want. You are free to believe they provided similar value. Myself and others just disagree. While baseball is tied closely to numbers, it's also an art to evaluate value. There are 9 players on defense, and no two pitchers are facing the same circumstances. It's just not as simple as you are trying to make it. But I get it, you have a conclusion you want to reach, and you can choose numbers to bear it out. No big deal. No need to get so defensive about it. For someone so worried about removing emotion, you sure employ a lot of it in your responses.

The only numbers other people have put forth are K's (and that BB's don't really matter, even when they end up scoring, for reasons that remain mysterious). I said at the very start and have repeated again and again and again and again that my argument is that they produced similar value while being different types of pitchers. Ryan got different outs than Perry did. That is the starting point I made and have made over and over and over that you all want to object too but cannot find an argument against. Yet again, the starting point is that Ryan and Perry gave up runs and saved runs in different ways. We know that. Ryan struck out way more, Perry walked way less and had the better SO/B ratio. Perry got more outs via other means, Ryan gave up less runs on hits. Over a very, very large sample size of 5,350 and 5,386 innings, they added up to very similar career values.

Can you identify any mathematical basis on which to criticize this claim? You are only able to identify that you agree with half of what I said at the very start, that Ryan is a K pitcher and Perry really wasn't so much. If your argument is that you reject any career value based numbers, agree with half of my original assertion, and the half you disagree with is because you are practiced artist at evaluating value in a way you cannot define or show, that is not a compelling argument, or logical. If someone made your same argument for a pitcher you didn't like or demand come out on top just because of the art of undefinable evaluation, you would surely recognize this makes no sense. Just say you like Ryan better, instead of trying to argue against a specific claim you cannot find an argument against.


Additionally, statisticians are not finding out how valuable K's are. This is false. That is precisely why we aren't punishing batters for striking out all the time anymore, driven by the modern analytics.