Derby Trail Forums
Page 3 of 3 < 12 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   Sports Bar & Grill (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   NFL HoF (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40854)

Cannon Shell 02-09-2011 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by slotdirt (Post 750730)
Hunter's WAR ratings are affected by the fact that he was a modestly above average pitcher playing for the two big dynasties of the 1970's. If he had pitched for, say, the Indians in those years, he'd have ended up with a sub .500 career record and would be remembered as an inferior pitcher to Luis Tiant. I give him credit, he ended up in two great situations in his career, but pound for pound, Mark Buerhle has been a better pitcher than he, and I'm only 40 percent sure he'll ever make the HOF.

To Crown - so what if the average WAR seasons for Sandberg and Whitaker were just barely slanted in Sandberg's favor, it doesn't change the fact that one of them was inducted on their second ballot and the othe was dismissed with like seven votes his first year of elibility. They were, for all intents and purposes, basically the same player playing in the exact same era.
Ridiculous. Hunters first 3 years were with the KC A's which was a dreadful franchise. Even during the A's run they only won 100 games once winning 93, 94, and 90 the other 3 years. If you want to use WAR as your only evidence then you should know better than trying to also use a players teams against him.

Cannon Shell 02-09-2011 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by slotdirt (Post 750734)
Hunter led the league in ERA precisely one time. He led the league in ERA+ precisely zero times.

Also, re: 1973, 21-5 and 3.34 are great, but as anybody who's watched a baseball game ever knows, wins are literally 50% influenced by somebody other than the pitcher, and aside from finishing 4th in wins and first in HR's allowed, Hunter missed finishing in the top 10 that year in any single measurable pitching category for the season.

His career ERA+ was basically the level of a replacement player. There are no amount of phony award votes that can argue him out of the fact he was a perfectly average pitcher for some very, very awesome teams.
Well win may be a overrated stat but losing 5 games while starting 36 games, pitching 250 innings and completing 11 of them is pretty impressive regardless of how you want to degrade it. Yes he was 16th that year in ERA (one spot above fellow HoF'er Gaylord Perry) but his er was still well above the league average. Of course he was 6th in h/9 and 9th in BB/9 that year but why bother with that. And we are talking about his supposed "average" year.

Cannon Shell 02-09-2011 06:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by slotdirt (Post 750734)
Hunter led the league in ERA precisely one time. He led the league in ERA+ precisely zero times.

Also, re: 1973, 21-5 and 3.34 are great, but as anybody who's watched a baseball game ever knows, wins are literally 50% influenced by somebody other than the pitcher, and aside from finishing 4th in wins and first in HR's allowed, Hunter missed finishing in the top 10 that year in any single measurable pitching category for the season.

His career ERA+ was basically the level of a replacement player. There are no amount of phony award votes that can argue him out of the fact he was a perfectly average pitcher for some very, very awesome teams.
His career ERA is unduly influenced by his last three subpar years where he was battling well known arm issues and never made it through the season. He has a good career and if you took out the last injury riddled years his rankings would be even better

slotdirt 02-09-2011 06:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 750744)
Well win may be a overrated stat but losing 5 games while starting 36 games, pitching 250 innings and completing 11 of them is pretty impressive regardless of how you want to degrade it. Yes he was 16th that year in ERA (one spot above fellow HoF'er Gaylord Perry) but his er was still well above the league average. Of course he was 6th in h/9 and 9th in BB/9 that year but why bother with that. And we are talking about his supposed "average" year.
His ERA+ for the season in question, IIRC, was 107. Not exactly "well" above average.

slotdirt 02-09-2011 06:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 750749)
His career ERA is unduly influenced by his last three subpar years where he was battling well known arm issues and never made it through the season. He has a good career and if you took out the last injury riddled years his rankings would be even better
I'll let you take out his last four season, and you know what his career ERA+ becomes? 109. Still not HOF caliber. He also goes down below 200 wins at that point. With his career peak and the (relatively) short career, I'd say the fact that he lasted those last four years are the reason why he made it to the HOF.

Still, no denying there are about a dozen currently active pitchers with superior metrics to Catfish Hunter. I'd be about five of them end up in the HOF.

Cannon Shell 02-09-2011 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by slotdirt (Post 750754)
His ERA+ for the season in question, IIRC, was 107. Not exactly "well" above average.
Not exactly average. He didnt lose a game that year from May 29th till September 9th.
He gave up 5, 4, 6, 4, and 4 runs in his losses. The A's scored 3,2,1,2,1 runs in those games. They twice were shutout in his starts.

slotdirt 02-09-2011 09:17 PM
Obviously, we disagree on the relative value of Catfish Hunter's career. I think you could have transported Bill Gullickson circa 1991 into Catfish Hunter's body for his 15 seasons and Bill Gullickson would have won 224 games and had 21 wins in 1973. Hunter just wasn't special in so far as MLB pitchers go at the end of the day.

slotdirt 02-09-2011 09:21 PM
Really thinking about a peer of Catfish Hunter's who was, generally speaking, his relative equal in career peak and ability, and I think I've figured it out:

Frank Tanana.

Frank Tanana for HOF!

dalakhani 02-09-2011 10:14 PM
[quote=ddthetide;750522]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalakhani (Post 750505)
deion was a poor CB. he was constently out of postion but his speed made up for it. deion did NOT play the run. Rod Woodson was an excellent CB. Woodson could cover, blitz and play the run. deion was a good kick returner.
i didn't say Ray Guy was a better athlete, i said he was a excellent athlete and should have been in the HOF LONG before this. and there is NO Way deion should be in the HOF and Ray Guy not.:wf
Deion was a poor CB? LOL

It was nothing special to play QB and punt back in those days DD. If I'm not mistaken, Danny White was a punter as well.

Nascar1966 02-10-2011 06:08 AM
[quote=dalakhani;750822]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddthetide (Post 750522)

Deion was a poor CB? LOL

It was nothing special to play QB and punt back in those days DD. If I'm not mistaken, Danny White was a punter as well.
You are correct about Danny White being both. He was a QB and Punter for the Cowboys.

horseofcourse 02-12-2011 12:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by slotdirt (Post 750811)
Really thinking about a peer of Catfish Hunter's who was, generally speaking, his relative equal in career peak and ability, and I think I've figured it out:

Frank Tanana.

Frank Tanana for HOF!
HOly crap, frank tanana and catfish hunter showing up on a NFL HOF thread. That is pretty much awesome. They might be better than Willie Roaf I guess, but not likely.

slotdirt 02-12-2011 11:21 AM
Frank Tanana, the man who threw in the 90's in the 70's and in the 70's in the 90's.

slotdirt 01-03-2013 08:45 AM
I caught this recent article and thought Cannon would appreciate the Catfish Hunter reference:

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/ey...hall-of-famers

Starting pitcher - Catfish Hunter (1987, BBWAA)

In addition to the obvious cool nickname factor here, we have the overvaluation of pitcher wins. Catfish won at least 20 games in five consecutive seasons. Of course, four of those five teams made the playoffs and three of those teams were World Series champions. They were great teams. Great teams win games and when a workhorse pitcher (Hunter was an animal, averaging 294 innings pitched in those five seasons) pitches, he's bound to rack up wins. And Hunter still amassed only 224 wins in his 15-year career while basically being a league-average pitcher in terms of run prevention (104 ERA-plus). You can argue Hunter was a Hall-of-Fame caliber pitcher for five seasons -- and I'd agree -- but other than that, he was either average or below average. Is five years enough peak? Or rather, if Tim Lincecum had one more great season followed by eight league-average seasons, he'd have a similar resume to Hunter.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:45 PM.
Page 3 of 3 < 12 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.