MLB 2011

Originally posted by sh76
Oh my, what a bad example. If you searched through baseball history, you could not possibly have come up with a worse example than David Wells for the proposition that Sabbathia will "blow up."

Through age 30, Wells had all of 58 wins and no all star appearances. His BEST seasons, by far, came in his 30s and he was an effective pitcher well into his 40s. If Sabbathia performs comparably to Wells after age 30, he'll finish with well over 300 wins.

The example was precise, and not meant to validate your "pro Yankee" bias.
Wells best years were in NY when he had the monsters playing behind him.

The same is true of Sabbathia, although he did have some success in Cleveland.

As a pitcher, it was always easier to pitch knowing that your team could put up a
crooked number on the scoreboard at any minute. You didn't have to be as precise.
If Sabbathia pitched for the Astros, you wouldn't be supporting his case, because
his numbers wouldn't be that good.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
The example was precise, and not meant to validate your "pro Yankee" bias.
Wells best years were in NY when he had the monsters playing behind him.

The same is true of Sabbathia, although he did have some success in Cleveland.

As a pitcher, it was always easier to pitch knowing that your team could put up a
crooked number on the scoreboard at a ...[text shortened]... he Astros, you wouldn't be supporting his case, because
his numbers wouldn't be that good.

Actually, Sabbathia's 2 best years so far were 2007 and 2008, both before he came to the Yankees. He went 17-10 in both years with the two best ERA+ of his career. In the 2 years he struck out 460, walking only 96, a ratio of almost 5:1!

Yes, wins are an incomplete stat (though it is important); that's why other stats like ERA+, WHIP, and K:BB also have to be taken into account.

Originally posted by sh76
Actually, Sabbathia's 2 best years so far were 2007 and 2008, both before he came to the Yankees. He went 17-10 in both years with the two best ERA+ of his career. In the 2 years he struck out 460, walking only 96, a ratio of almost 5:1!

Yes, wins are an incomplete stat (though it is important); that's why other stats like ERA+, WHIP, and K:BB also have to be taken into account.

Baloney!!

Look at 1987. Nolan Ryan had the best ERA in the National League at 2.76.
His WHIP was a 1.138.
He struck out 270 while walking 87 for a 3.1 ratio.
He pitched 211 2/3 innings. He averaged 1.276 K's per inning.
His record was 8 wins 16 losses.
He DID NOT win the CY Young award.
Steve Bedrosian did. How did his numbers compare?

Bedrock's ERA was 2.83 for 89 innings vs 2.76 for 221.67 innings for Ryan
Bedrock's WHIP was 1.202 vs 1.138 for Ryan
Bedrock had 74 K's in 89 IP for 0.83 K/IP vs Ryan's 270K's in 211.67IP for 1.28 K/IP
Bedrock had 74 K's and 28 BB for a 2.64 ratio vs Ryan's 3.1 ratio.
Bedrock's record was 5-3 with 40 saves vs Ryan's 8-16 record.

The Phillies team record in 1987 was 80-82.
The Astros team record in 1987 was 76-86.

Bedrosian won the award because he figured in 45 of the Phillies 80 wins,
whereas Ryan figured in only 8 of the Astros 76 wins.
Ryan pitched 2.5 times more innings, with better stats per inning that Bedrosian,
but they gave the award to Bedrosian.

Don't even start to diminish the wins or saves. They are a bigger determiner than you give them credit for.

That being said, Getting more wins for the powerhouse Yankees helps his numbers.
Furthermore, his Yankee ERA's have all been better than his Cleveland ERA's except for 2007.
IN 2008 his AL ERA was actually 3.83. His stint with Mil is where he posted a 1.65.
The time frame was virtually a 50-50 split. That second half got him the big money Yankee deal.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Baloney!!

Look at 1987. Nolan Ryan had the best ERA in the National League at 2.76.
His WHIP was a 1.138.
He struck out 270 while walking 87 for a 3.1 ratio.
He pitched 211 2/3 innings. He averaged 1.276 K's per inning.
His record was 8 wins 16 losses.
He DID NOT win the CY Young award.
Steve Bedrosian did. How did his numbers compare?

Bedro me was virtually a 50-50 split. That second half got him the big money Yankee deal.

Dude, you're all over the map.

First you won't give credit to Sabbathia for leading the AL 2.5 years in a row in wins because he's with the Yankees. Then you don't want to give him credit for his other numbers in 2007 and 2008 because he didn't have as many wins. Then you aren't impressed with his back to back 17-10 records for mediocre teams in 2007 and 2008 because you compare 17-10 to Ryan's 8-16 in 1987. Huh? When did 17-10 become comparable to 8-16?

This business about bifurcating 2008 is nonsense. First, CC has always been a better second half pitcher and in 2008, his second half happened to be in Milwaukee. Second, the whole season counts. Dismissing 2008 because his first half wasn't as good when his whole season was clearly CY level is downright bizarre.

Finally, as an aside, if you think that wins or saves are as important as ERA+ in determining a pitcher's effectiveness, you know nothing about sabermetrics. I couldn't care less what the idiot voters in 1987 did. There was a time that you had to lead the league or come close to leading the league in wins to win the CY as a starter. Jack McDowell won the CY in 1993 although he was the 4th best pitcher in the AL because he won 22 games. Thankfully, the voters are smarter now as is evidenced by Felix Hernandez' CY last year with a 13-12 record.

Furthermore, his Yankee ERA's have all been better than his Cleveland ERA's except for 2007.

There is a simple explanation: The Yankees have a better ERA than the Indians because they have better pitchers.

As for Ryan, his 8-16 with great secondary numbers was a crazy year but so is Nolan Ryan's career. It seemed that he was always more about trying to throw a no hitter and striking guys out rather than winning games. Perhaps if he had his insane durability but also had a closer and better hitter he could have pitched to win and won 400 games. But he didn't and in the end 7 no hitters is seven wins but he walked way too many guys and lost too many games.

Originally posted by sh76
Dude, you're all over the map.

First you won't give credit to Sabbathia for leading the AL 2.5 years in a row in wins because he's with the Yankees. Then you don't want to give him credit for his other numbers in 2007 and 2008 because he didn't have as many wins. Then you aren't impressed with his back to back 17-10 records for mediocre teams in 2007 and 200 are smarter now as is evidenced by Felix Hernandez' CY last year with a 13-12 record.

Sabathia's a slightly better 2nd half pitcher; 91-51 with a 3.71 ERA in the first half and 78-41 with a 3.31 ERA in the 2nd. Those type of numbers aren't uncommon; last year for example, AL pitchers had a 4.22 in the first half and 4.05 in the 2nd. If you factor out the 2008 2nd half, he's lifetime ERA after the break is around 3.55, so that difference looks about normal.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Sabathia's a slightly better 2nd half pitcher; 91-51 with a 3.71 ERA in the first half and 78-41 with a 3.31 ERA in the 2nd. Those type of numbers aren't uncommon; last year for example, AL pitchers had a 4.22 in the first half and 4.05 in the 2nd. If you factor out the 2008 2nd half, he's lifetime ERA after the break is around 3.55, so that difference looks about normal.

Well, okay, but of course there's no reason to factor out the 2008 second half (you can discount it slightly for being in the NL, but you can't factor it out). So, Sabbathia's second half ERA is 40 points better than his first half ERA, which is more than double that average difference that you cited. So, he's only a slightly better second half pitcher than a first half pitcher. Okay.

Either way, Sabbathia's best years were 2007 and 2008 based on all the secondary numbers. Plus, 17-10 with Cleveland and Milwaukee is probably more impressive than his slightly better records with the Yankees. He's been an excellent pitcher for the Yanks, but was even better right before signing with them.

My point was that Sabbathia's success is obviously not due primarily because he pitches for the Yankees. It's an obvious point that I'm sure everyone else would concede, but SC seemed to imply the reverse, hence my point.

Originally posted by sh76
Well, okay, but of course there's no reason to factor out the 2008 second half (you can discount it slightly for being in the NL, but you can't factor it out). So, Sabbathia's second half ERA is 40 points better than his first half ERA, which is more than double that average difference that you cited. So, he's only a slightly better second half pitcher than a f ...[text shortened]... m sure everyone else would concede, but SC seemed to imply the reverse, hence my point.

It certainly helps his win totals to pitch for the Yankees rather than the Royals for example though. And increased win totals help you get in the HOF.

Originally posted by quackquack
There is a simple explanation: The Yankees have a better ERA than the Indians because they have better pitchers.

As for Ryan, his 8-16 with great secondary numbers was a crazy year but so is Nolan Ryan's career. It seemed that he was always more about trying to throw a no hitter and striking guys out rather than winning games. Perhaps if he had his ...[text shortened]... in the end 7 no hitters is seven wins but he walked way too many guys and lost too many games.

Ryan's career was truly bizarre. Some of the time he was Sandy Koufax but more of the time he was A.J. Burnett. He routinely led the league in both strikeouts and walks and in many years, his winning % was comparable to that of his team. His ERA+ was under 110 in 14 of his 26 seasons.

Don't get me wrong. He belongs in the HOF. His longevity and raw numbers in things like strikeouts and no hitters and 324 wins is enough to get his there. But he's not one of the best pitchers of all time. The numbers make that plain.

Originally posted by sh76
Ryan's career was truly bizarre. Some of the time he was Sandy Koufax but more of the time he was A.J. Burnett. He routinely led the league in both strikeouts and walks and in many years, his winning % was comparable to that of his team. His ERA+ was under 110 in 14 of his 26 seasons.

Don't get me wrong. He belongs in the HOF. His longevity and raw numbers i ...[text shortened]... et his there. But he's not one of the best pitchers of all time. The numbers make that plain.

Maybe it is YOU who don't understand numbers or the game.

Ryan fans more than any other human ever has or ever will.
He out-distanced himself from his closest competitor by over 1000 K's!!
He throws more No-hitters than anyone ever has (by nearly doubling his closest rival).
More than likely his No hitter number will never be matched.
His 324 wins were amazing in that he played for all crap teams.
The Mets, Angels, Astros and Rangers made it to a whopping ONE world series,
and that was the Mets when Ryan wasn't a factor and was learning how to pitch.
Look at his total innings pitched. Look at his complete games.
When you play for crap teams you don't get many wins....yet he managed 324 of them!!
He was an effective starting pitcher for 24 of his record 27 seasons in the bigs.
Find me any other pitcher who was an effective starter that long,
The list will be extremely short, I guarantee it!!

Ryan knew how to pitch. He was intimidating. He was determined.
If he had pitched his entire career for the Yankees or the Dodgers, he would
have a candy bar, a street, and a suburb named after him.
His numbers would have been huge.

So, please don't try to say he wasn't one of the greatest pitchers of all time.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Maybe it is YOU who don't understand numbers or the game.

Ryan fans more than any other human ever has or ever will.
He out-distanced himself from his closest competitor by over 1000 K's!!
He throws more No-hitters than anyone ever has (by nearly doubling his closest rival).
More than likely his No hitter number will never be matched.
His 324 wi ...[text shortened]... n huge.

So, please don't try to say he wasn't one of the greatest pitchers of all time.

First of all, Ryan didn't play for crap teams. He played for fairly good teams; contending teams who happened to have never won pennants; part of the reason for which is that Ryan didn't pitch well enough for them to do so.

Originally posted by sh76
First of all, Ryan didn't play for crap teams. He played for fairly good teams; contending teams who happened to have never won pennants; part of the reason for which is that Ryan didn't pitch well enough for them to do so.

Is Felix Hernandez a HOF pitcher?
He won the CY over Sabbathia, right?
Sabbathia is HOF caliber in your mind.
Of course, Hernandez' record was only 13-12, so that is why the Royals didn't go to the World Series.

Doh!!!

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Is Felix Hernandez a HOF pitcher?
He won the CY over Sabbathia, right?
Sabbathia is HOF caliber in your mind.
Of course, Hernandez' record was only 13-12, so that is why the Royals didn't go to the World Series.

Doh!!!

I think it is too early to discuss Sabathia's for the Hall of Fame (despite the fact that Sabathia has a winning record all 11 years of his career with a win total that is 114% greater than Felix Hernandez).

Felix Hernandez is 25 years old. He is 79-60 in his career and including last year has three seasons in his career with more wins than losses. It is beyond premature to put him in the Hall of Fame. He might end up being great -- he has tremendous talent -- but you do actually have to do it, right?

Originally posted by quackquack
I think it is too early to discuss Sabathia's for the Hall of Fame (despite the fact that Sabathia has a winning record all 11 years of his career with a win total that is 114% greater than Felix Hernandez).

Felix Hernandez is 25 years old. He is 79-60 in his career and including last year has three seasons in his career with more wins than losses. ...[text shortened]... ght end up being great -- he has tremendous talent -- but you do actually have to do it, right?

I am not suggesting that Hernandez is HOF caliber.
I was using him as an example of Sabbathia isn't either, at least at this point.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Is Felix Hernandez a HOF pitcher?
He won the CY over Sabbathia, right?
Sabbathia is HOF caliber in your mind.
Of course, Hernandez' record was only 13-12, so that is why the Royals didn't go to the World Series.

Doh!!!

Felix Hernandez is obviously a Hall of Fame talent. Anyone who can't see that is simply not looking. Whether he'll make the Hall of Fame obviously depends on whether he can stay healthy and effective. If he pitches on this level for another 10 years, he'll ride into the Hall of Fame on a golden chariot.

Sabbathia is also clearly a HOF talent. Even No1's entire argument rests on the assumption that Sabbathia may break down or get hurt or become ineffective. Everyone agrees that if Sabbathia continues to do what he's been doing for another, say, 7 years, he's a no-doubt-about-it hall of famer.

It's one thing to say you think Sabbathia will break down because he's fat or a power pitcher or whatever. But to say that Sabbathia is not pitching like a hall of fame pitcher now and for the past 5 years is absolutely absurd.

And what to the Royals have to do with any of this?? 😕