Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The 25 Worst Hall of Famers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by sturg1dj View Post

    This also sent me down quite a rabbit hole today, which was a nice relief from work.

    So the funny thing is that somewhat soon there will probably be a WAR adjustment by baseball ref that will widen the gap even further between Mathewson and Young, but the more I read the less it bothered me, because Irv Young's 1905 was so much better than his stats indicate.

    In 1905 Mathewson's Giants were 105-48 and Young's Beaneaters were 51-103.

    The Giants had the best offense in baseball, averaging 5.02 runs and leading in AVG, OBP, and Slugging

    The Beaneaters scored averaged the fewest runs 3.00 and had the worst avg, OBP, slugging (and in the context of the league were very bad with a 74 OPS+).

    The defenses were also far apart, with the Giants fielding at .960 with a +6 dWar and the Beaneaters with a .951 with a -4.5 dWar.


    Here is where WAR will eventually give Young more credit: there is a part in the calculation that includes who you actually played against. So basically if someone plays against the best team and someone plays against the worst team those will be weighted differently because the difficulty is different. Baseball reference has been able to incorporate retrosheet data to figure this out back until 1918 (I think). Prior to that it is still incomplete.

    But what we know is this:

    Mathewson never had to face the best hitting team in the NL. He was on that team. Young never got to pitch against the worst team, the historically bad Beaneaters because he was on that team. To expand on that Young pitched against the top 4 offenses in 62.8% of his games, while Mathewson did it 52.3% of the time (and once again 0 against the top team). 7 times their teams faced each other.

    In those 7 Mathewson got the easiest team and Young got the hardest team.

    And in those games Mathewson went 6-1 with a 1.15 ERA* (estimated because retrosheet doesn't yet have ER's and R's separated, so ERA is probably lower)

    Young, going against the best hitting team in the NL went 3-3 2.19 ERA.

    Then, head to head Mathewson was 2-1 but the stats are very impressive

    Mathewson 1.23 ERA
    Young 1.85 ERA.


    And then, on top of that Young's was stingier to the second best hitting team

    IY = 3.63 RA
    CM = 4.03 RA

    And did better against the third best hitting team Philly

    IY = 2.29 RA
    CM = 3.12 RA


    So the more I read into this it seems like there is more to this than just raw stats show.

    This goes into totally different territory than measuring value, or how good the person actually pitched. It's 90% hypotheticals and make believe. Who cares about who faced which team? Each guy opposed whoever they were scheduled to face, and Mathewson was infinitely better. Young was better against one team, that means he was absolutely woeful against some mediocre and bad teams, That's a credit to him?

    Mathewson had a 1.28 ERA, and the other starters on the team had ERAs of 2.87, 2.74, 2.66 and 2.47. I guess the great defense was only helping Mathewson? The guy with the 2.87 ERA wasn't just any guy by the way it was a HOFer. Christy had a Pedro 2000 or Gibson 1968 type of ERA compared to others on his team and the league. He dominated every team he faced, good and bad...you don't get a 1.28 ERA otherwise. Young was about as good as the other starters on the Giants. That is a huge difference.

    Let's put it this way: Mathewson had a 230 ERA+, and the entire rest of the Giants staff had a 108 ERA+. If there was even one other pitcher on the Giants who had numbers anywhere Christy then you may have a point about facing easy teams or having great defense..but nope.

    Put it any way you want, but the bottom line is Mathewson is being penalized for being on a good team, that was good mainly because of him. None of the other starters were apparently taking advantage of facing such weak teams. He is being penalized for having a good defense that apparently none of his teammates were benefiting from in a similar manner.

    The fact that any stat could have the two seasons as remotely comparable is an absolute joke. It's statistics and sabermetrics gone haywire.
    Last edited by willshad; 07-11-2019, 08:10 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Chadwick View Post
      No, he's mischaracterizing the approach. Matty isn't being "penalized" for pitching in front of a good offense. The metric is attempting to measure how valuable Mathewson was, in part by removing his team's offense from the equation. It's a deeper/better level of analysis for anyone asking the question "how good was Mathewson?" JR doesn't see that as isolating Mathewson's performance, he sees it as a demerit to Mathewson's value.
      I've never liked isolating players in a team sport. What is being done is coming up with a lot of "what ifs". It's like trying to figure out if Ulysses S Grant could have commanded D-Day.


      This goes into totally different territory than measuring value, or how good the person actually pitched. It's 90% hypotheticals and make believe. Who cares about who faced which team? Each guy opposed whoever they were scheduled to face, and Mathewson was infinitely better. Young was better against one team, that means he was absolutely woeful against some mediocre and bad teams, That's a credit to him?

      Mathewson had a 1.28 ERA, and the other starters on the team had ERAs of 2.87, 2.74, 2.66 and 2.47. I guess the great defense was only helping Mathewson? The guy with the 2.87 ERA wasn't just any guy by the way it was a HOFer. Christy had a Pedro 2000 or Gibson 1968 type of ERA compared to others on his team and the league. He dominated every team he faced, good and bad...you don't get a 1.28 ERA otherwise. Young was about as good as the other starters on the Giants. That is a huge difference.

      Let's put it this way: Mathewson had a 230 ERA+, and the entire rest of the Giants staff had a 108 ERA+. If there was even one other pitcher on the Giants who had numbers anywhere Christy then you may have a point about facing easy teams or having great defense..but nope.

      Put it any way you want, but the bottom line is Mathewson is being penalized for being on a good team, that was good mainly because of him. None of the other starters were apparently taking advantage of facing such weak teams. He is being penalized for having a good defense that apparently none of his teammates were benefiting from in a similar manner.

      The fact that any stat could have the two seasons as remotely comparable is an absolute joke. It's statistics and sabermetrics gone haywire.
      +10000000000000000
      This week's Giant

      #5 in games played as a Giant with 1721 , Bill Terry

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JR Hart View Post

        +10000000000000000
        You're really reaching when you quote something shad said as if it's credible.
        .


        19th Century League Champion
        1900s League Champion
        1910s League Champion

        1930s League Division Winner
        1950s League Champion
        1960 Strat-O-Matic League Regular Season Winner
        1960s League Division Winner
        1970s League Champion
        1971 Strat-O-Matic League Runner Up
        1980s League Champion
        All Time Greats League Champion

        Comment


        • Originally posted by SavoyBG View Post

          You're really reaching when you quote something shad said as if it's credible.
          I disagree

          He hit my sentiments right on the button.
          This week's Giant

          #5 in games played as a Giant with 1721 , Bill Terry

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JR Hart View Post

            I disagree

            He hit my sentiments right on the button.
            That should tell you something.
            .


            19th Century League Champion
            1900s League Champion
            1910s League Champion

            1930s League Division Winner
            1950s League Champion
            1960 Strat-O-Matic League Regular Season Winner
            1960s League Division Winner
            1970s League Champion
            1971 Strat-O-Matic League Runner Up
            1980s League Champion
            All Time Greats League Champion

            Comment


            • Originally posted by SavoyBG View Post

              That should tell you something.
              What would that be?
              This week's Giant

              #5 in games played as a Giant with 1721 , Bill Terry

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JR Hart View Post

                What would that be?
                I think we all know.
                .


                19th Century League Champion
                1900s League Champion
                1910s League Champion

                1930s League Division Winner
                1950s League Champion
                1960 Strat-O-Matic League Regular Season Winner
                1960s League Division Winner
                1970s League Champion
                1971 Strat-O-Matic League Runner Up
                1980s League Champion
                All Time Greats League Champion

                Comment


                • Originally posted by willshad View Post
                  It's 90% hypotheticals and make believe. Who cares about who faced which team?
                  So, its hypothetical that they played on separate teams, and pitched against different lineups?



                  Originally posted by willshad View Post
                  He dominated every team he faced, good and bad...you don't get a 1.28 ERA otherwise.
                  I gave you numbers, this is a false statement.



                  Originally posted by willshad View Post
                  Let's put it this way: Mathewson had a 230 ERA+, and the entire rest of the Giants staff had a 108 ERA+. If there was even one other pitcher on the Giants who had numbers anywhere Christy then you may have a point about facing easy teams or having great defense..but nope.
                  Your response is actually bordering on comical in how upset you seem. Mathewson had an 8.9 WAR that season. By no measure is anyone claiming he wasn't great. That fact that you just want to argue how good he was is silly. Nobody is denying that. Instead I just went through and showed how Irv Young's season is better than you give him credit for. I am not even making the statement that he was better than Mathewson, you just literally sparked my interest enough to do some research at work and I found it interesting.


                  Originally posted by willshad View Post
                  Put it any way you want, but the bottom line is Mathewson is being penalized for being on a good team, that was good mainly because of him. None of the other starters were apparently taking advantage of facing such weak teams. He is being penalized for having a good defense that apparently none of his teammates were benefiting from in a similar manner.
                  Oh boy, this is even funnier. I want to believe you read what I wrote, but if you did you did not comprehend it. Let me try to be more clear: The current WAR that you are so upset with DOESN'T do what I wrote about. It may in the future, but not because of the defense or the record, but because of the lineup. And it is less he gets penalized, but Smith will get credit because he did not get 7 starts against the worst hitting team in the NL.



                  I will say this, Irv may be the answer to a trivia question: According to baseball reference which player had the highest single season WAR while also having a career WAR lower than that number?


                  "Batting stats and pitching stats do not indicate the quality of play, merely which part of that struggle is dominant at the moment."

                  -Bill James

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JR Hart View Post

                    I've never liked isolating players in a team sport. What is being done is coming up with a lot of "what ifs".
                    Attributing wins to the pitcher or RBI's to a hitter is doing this. So you are not THAT against it.

                    Originally posted by JR Hart View Post
                    It's like trying to figure out if Ulysses S Grant could have commanded D-Day.
                    It is literally not anything like it at all. It is like instead of only using the result of the war, actually taking into account how the General performed with what they had.






                    "Batting stats and pitching stats do not indicate the quality of play, merely which part of that struggle is dominant at the moment."

                    -Bill James

                    Comment

                    Ad Widget

                    Collapse
                    Working...
                    X