NFL HoF

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

The statistic that counts - IMHO - is WAR, and Whitaker killed Sandberg over the course of his career. I know I'm not the only one who thinks Whitaker is one of the truly underappreciated players of all time.

Hunter is 195th in career WAR for pitchers, and has the lowest ERA+ of any starting pitcher in the baseball HOF. He basically had three above average seasons and 12 really average (or even below average in many cases) ones. Red Ruffing had three seasons of ERA+ better than Hunter's top of 140, Dizzy Dean had two. Catfish Hunter was probably a better pitcher than Rube Marquard, however, who basically was enshrined because he wrote a book that was filled with lies.

P.S. - and yes, of course I want to penalize Hunter for having an injury plagued career. It's fine to have an injury shortened career and make the HOF, but Pedro Martinez or Sandy Koufax (or even Dizzy Dean) Hunter surely was not.

He had 3 above average seasons? LOL.
From 1971-1975 (5 seasons)
Hunter was 111-49 with a 2.65 era
96 complete games with 25 shutouts in those 5 years
Led league in winning % 2 of those years, led league in win 2 other years, led league in era, complete games, whip, h9, IP
Finished 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th in Cy Young voting in those 5 years
Was an all star every year

Hunters WAR ratings are effected by his HR rates. He did give up a lot of HRs. But to say his 1973 seson of 21-5 with a 3.34 era and finished 3rd in the Cy young voting because he gave up 39HR's and his WAR is not high enough is silly.

[slotdirt]

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.

[slotdirt]

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

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.

[slotdirt]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

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]

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

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]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

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.