NFL HoF

[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.

[slotdirt]

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!

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

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.

[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.