Most undervalued HOFers

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I'm not even a Ryan fan. Give me Seaver or Carlton. But I know pitching, and Ryan was simply a better pitcher than Perry. Unfortunately, if anyone disagrees with G1911's hot takes (which he knows is controversial, which is why he posts it), he calls them blind fanboys thinking with emotion. Ironically, he is so convinced Ryan is overrated that he is emotionally tied to that position and can't stand that people disagree.

Surely you don't expect your say so to convince anyone, though. With 48 years of data, I think you'll need a persuasive argument based on numbers.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Surely you don't expect your say so to convince anyone, though. With 48 years of data, I think you'll need a persuasive argument based on numbers.

I don't have a need to convince anyone of anything (although I disagree the stats don't support Ryan's dominance). It's 1911 trying to push an agenda.

[packs]

Anyone who watched Ryan and Perry warm up next to each other is never going to choose Perry over Ryan for the same reasons no one is going to invest in Perry over Ryan.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Anyone who watched Ryan and Perry warm up next to each other is never going to choose Perry over Ryan for the same reasons no one is going to invest in Perry over Ryan.

Maddux didn't look very impressive warming up either.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Maddux didn't look very impressive warming up either.

These are the two players being compared because they ended their careers with similar numbers. Maddux isn’t part of the conversation. There is no one on earth who would select Perry over Ryan.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

These are the two players being compared because they ended their careers with similar numbers. Maddux isn’t part of the conversation. There is no one on earth who would select Perry over Ryan.

Bill James, remember?

[packs]

Can you quote him saying he would start Perry over Ryan or are you talking about a ranking list he made?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

These are the two players being compared because they ended their careers with similar numbers. Maddux isn’t part of the conversation. There is no one on earth who would select Perry over Ryan.

Your rationale was that Ryan looked better warming up. So Maddux is relevant to challenge that rationale.

[jchcollins]

Gaylord Perry has a better ERA than Nolan Ryan, a better winning percentage, a LOT better BB percentage, a higher career WAR in 5 fewer seasons played, (2) more Cy Young awards, a lower career WHIP, more 20-win seasons, and a LOT more lube under his belt buckle.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Gaylord Perry has a better ERA than Nolan Ryan, a better winning percentage, a LOT better BB percentage, a higher career WAR in 5 fewer seasons played, (2) more Cy Young awards, a lower career WHIP, more 20-win seasons, and a LOT more lube under his belt buckle.

Trivia: how many games did Perry get thrown out of for doctoring pitches?

[Kutcher55]

From Baseball Prospectus - Author: Derek Zumsteg:

Without any doubt, though, the greatest cheater of all was Gaylord Perry.

Perry spent two years bouncing between the minors and the Giants before he started cheating. He then carved out a 22-year career that put him in Cooperstown. Perry wasn't only a great cheater, though, he was a great pitcher with enormous talent: he won two Cy Young Awards, becoming the first pitcher to receive the honor in both leagues, finished in the top 10 in ERA 11 times and strikeouts 12 times, and went to the All-Star Game five times. He was a better-than average pitcher as late as 1980, when he was 40 and had been pitching for 18 seasons.

Though he's known as a spitball artist, Gaylord Perry didn't throw a spitter when he cheated, for the most part. He threw greaseballs. Vaseline was his mainstay, but as a great cheating mind, Perry was open to experimentation. "Man, I tried everything," Perry once said. "When my wife was having babies the doctor would send over all kinds of stuff and I'd try that, too. Once I even used fishing line oil."

Perry cheated as much for the psychological effect as for the movement on the ball. Opposing hitters knew he threw greaseballs, and Perry loved it. Perry's success drove rule changes in 1973 about what pitchers could do while on the mound. Section 8.02 is made much more clear if you imagine exactly what Gaylord Perry would have done had those specific instances not been spelled out: 8.02 (a) 3: "expectorate on the ball, either hand or his glove ... "

Even with baseball making rules changes to catch up to him, the next year Perry published an autobiography titled "Me and the Spitter." In his book he talked about his career doctoring balls, and wrote that from that point afterwards he would be a clean and law-abiding citizen of the game ... and then went on to throw the greaseball for another nine seasons.

He loved playing with the minds of batters -- he would fidget on the mound, touching his cap, his glove, his uniform, his face. Umpires frequently went over his person and his uniform with a thoroughness that presaged modern forensic investigation.

"The day before I'd pitch, I'd put grease on my hands and go shake their hands just to get them thinking," he said. "Sometimes I'd roll a ball covered with grease into their dugout."

Perry was so adept at his craft that he wasn't ejected for throwing a doctored ball until August of 1982, some 20 years into his craft. His Dukes of Hazzard ability to elude the law for so long owed much to his foresight, planning, and what must have been a rabbinical understanding of the rules.

He concealed Brylcreem in his hair, Vaseline on a locket he'd wear around his neck, his hat, anywhere he could manage: "I hid it mainly on my face. The umpires never noticed because I sweat a lot."

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Trivia: how many games did Perry get thrown out of for doctoring pitches?

Only one!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Only one!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah.

[Peter_Spaeth]

See Table 1.
https://sabr.org/journal/article/the...s-long-career/

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Surely you don't expect your say so to convince anyone, though. With 48 years of data, I think you'll need a persuasive argument based on numbers.

Nah, we've already rejected the concept of using math to speak to value (it can be used only to speak to what type of way a pitcher recorded his outs). One just has to practice the art of knowing pitching, in a way that they cannot define or show. I wish I had this magical intuition our other members possess, but alas, I am an idiot stuck with using math.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by G1911

Nah, we've already rejected the concept of using math to speak to value (it can be used only to speak to what type of way a pitcher recorded his outs). One just has to practice the art of knowing pitching, in a way that they cannot define or show. I wish I had this magical intuition our other members possess, but alas, I am an idiot stuck with using math.

You use the word "math" a lot. I'm not sure you know what it means.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

You use the word "math" a lot. I'm not sure you know what it means.

True. I am the worst and stupidest man alive, I am not even aware of math even is as a concept or a word.

Now, it is still true that Perry and Ryan produced pretty similar value over their careers while being two different types of pitchers.

[Kutcher55]

He’s the only one here who understands math. Also everyone else is getting emotional, even though he’s the one who has written like 100 posts and 20,000 words on the subject today. What a total lack of self awareness.

[Kutcher55]

The argument is not without merit. I only wish you had chosen someone who wasn’t a (self professed) blatant cheater who actually took pride in his cheating. The man does not belong in the HOF not that I consider myself much of a moral arbiter.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

The argument is not without merit. I only wish you had chosen someone who wasn’t a (self professed) blatant cheater who actually took pride in his cheating. The man does not belong in the HOF not that I consider myself much of a moral arbiter.

Sincere question, was there ever a serious movement to keep him out, or even a serious objection to him while he was active? I don't recall there being any. He won two Cy Youngs, for example, and I don't recall anyone (at least in 82) saying but but there should be an asterisk blah blah.

[Kutcher55]

He made it in the third ballot with some saying the delay was due to his various shenanigans.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

The argument is not without merit. I only wish you had chosen someone who wasn’t a (self professed) blatant cheater who actually took pride in his cheating. The man does not belong in the HOF not that I consider myself much of a moral arbiter.

I don't know how many of the stories are true and how much was Perry blowing smoke for attention or to keep people guessing. If he did cheat frequently I would be sympathetic to an argument that he doesn't belong in the Hall.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

He’s the only one here who understands math. Also everyone else is getting emotional, even though he’s the one who has written like 100 posts and 20,000 words on the subject today. What a total lack of self awareness.

And he refuses to engage any other discussion outside the extremely limited and pedantic parameters he has set, like a petulant child. His pedantry in this is only eclipsed by his extremist abuse of a figure of speech by insisting it be taken literally. Ironically, he isn't pedantic enough to recognize the distinction between ranking a career and choosing a person as a better player.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

And he refuses to engage any other discussion outside the extremely limited and pedantic parameters he has set, like a petulant child. His pedantry in this is only eclipsed by his extremist abuse of a figure of speech by insisting it be taken literally. Ironically, he isn't pedantic enough to recognize the distinction between ranking a career and choosing a person as a better player.

I already concede that I am the worst man to ever live and the stupidest. Now, can you finally put together a coherent, logical argument not relying on your magical ability to artistically analyze pitchers free of math, that my claim that Perry and Ryan had pretty similar value over their careers is false?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

And he refuses to engage any other discussion outside the extremely limited and pedantic parameters he has set, like a petulant child. His pedantry in this is only eclipsed by his extremist abuse of a figure of speech by insisting it be taken literally. Ironically, he isn't pedantic enough to recognize the distinction between ranking a career and choosing a person as a better player.

That one is still lost on me. How can I rank A higher than B but think B is a better pitcher? Isn't the essence of the ranking to order who I think the best pitchers were? Seems non-Euclidean or something.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That one is still lost on me. How can I rank A higher than B but think B is a better pitcher? Isn't the essence of the ranking to order who I think the best pitchers were? Seems non-Euclidean or something.

My expectations are low but even I am a little surprised this is the argument they want to stick with. That ranking pitchers by their careers and choosing Perry 16th and Ryan 24th is not ranking Perry over Ryan is just... seriously lol. The response always has an advantage in the Socratic over a claim. I set the claim, they just have to get 1 argument that disproves it, with unlimited tries while I don't get to reset my claim. Surely there is a better argument against my claim than this absurdity that James' ordered rankings of the best pitchers are not ranking who is better.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That one is still lost on me. How can I rank A higher than B but think B is a better pitcher? Isn't the essence of the ranking to order who I think the best pitchers were? Seems non-Euclidean or something.

Let me give an example. Len Bias is on no one's list of the top 100 basketball players of all time. Yet if I were choosing a team and he was available, I'm picking him. Career rankings of players take far more into account than just a player's ability. I'm not saying James would choose Ryan, just that his list of career rankings doesn't answer that question.