The W
Views: 98458556
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
27.8.14 0405
The W - Baseball - And the NEW Hall of Famers are... (Page 3)
This thread has 88 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 6.03
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
(1105 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (63 total)
Net Hack Slasher
Banger








Since: 6.1.02
From: Outer reaches of your mind

Since last post: 3532 days
Last activity: 1952 days
#41 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.44
    Originally posted by Big Bad
    I didn't figure Joe Carter was Hall-bound, but off the ballot after his first try? That's cold

I agree, not to sound like a total homer but come on! Consistent RBI guy, was the power hitter for what most consider the best team from the early to mid 90s and one of the few players in history who had a walk off homerun to win a World Series... Maybe he might not be hall of fame bound first time in, but OFF THE BALLOT first ballot. That's weak on the writers part.



smark/net attack wienerville advisory is on ORANGE alert - High (Due to Bob Holly WWE Title match, Kliq/Kliq PPV World Title match, Mae Young appearance) 1/6

2003 Smackdown: Matt Hardy = Mattitude Version 1
2004 Raw: Matt Hardy = Marc Mero Version 2
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 277 days
Last activity: 270 days
#42 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.48

In response to whatever the hell Downtown Bookie recently posted:

I certainly have to congratulate you for managing to twist things around to the point that you can avoid answering my questions by pretending to be confused by them.

You also manage to somehow convince yourself that I have somehow contradicted myself when I certainly haven't in any way. You should run for government.

If Bill James truly thinks that Dave Concepcion is a HoF candidate, then he must think that the 25 SS he rated above him must be as well. I await his push to get Jim Fregosi in the HoF.

And if the top 26 in every category is considered HoF material, then I guess we will soon see 26th-rated catcher Tom Haller in soon?

Bill James wouldn't contradict himself, right?



"In the sky. Lord, in the sky..."
The Atomic Tomato
Pinkelwurst








Since: 6.12.03
From: Hazleton, PA

Since last post: 3831 days
Last activity: 3831 days
#43 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.00
I can't believe a discussion actually took place where someone was comparing Bert Blyleven to Jack Morris.

Bert has had 1 (one) 20 win season in his 22 year career when he went 20-17. He pitched 15 seasons with losses in the double digits, and 6 seasons with losing records.

Jack Morris, on the other hand, has only had 3 seasons under .500, is a 3 time 20 game winner and was a World Series MVP.

Blyleven's only saving grace was his high career strikeout total and his longevity. Morris is clearly the better pitcher, both in their primes and overall careers.
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 7 hours
#44 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.57
Thats what I've been trying to tell them, but nobody will listen!
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 49 days
Last activity: 11 hours
#45 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.80
    Originally posted by The Atomic Tomato
    I can't believe a discussion actually took place where someone was comparing Bert Blyleven to Jack Morris.

    Bert has had 1 (one) 20 win season in his 22 year career when he went 20-17. He pitched 15 seasons with losses in the double digits, and 6 seasons with losing records.

    Jack Morris, on the other hand, has only had 3 seasons under .500, is a 3 time 20 game winner and was a World Series MVP.

    Blyleven's only saving grace was his high career strikeout total and his longevity. Morris is clearly the better pitcher, both in their primes and overall careers.


Let’s look at little deeper at the won-loss record and also look at some actual pitching statistics.

First off, all things being equal, a pitcher with a good team will win more games than a pitcher with a bad team. Morris may have only had three seasons below a .500 winning pctage, but in his 18 year career, only TWO of his teams won less than half their games (so Morris had a losing record more often than his team). On the other hand, Blyleven had, according to baseball-reference.com, 5 losing seasons (1976,1980,1983,1988,1992) whereas his teams had a losing record eleven times.

Furthermore, Morris’ teams had a aggregate winning percentage of 54.38%, meaning that his average team was roughly 14 games over .500 while Blyleven’s teams had an aggregate winning percentage of 50.53%, meaning that they were roughly 2 games over .500. I would argue that Blyleven would have more than 300 wins had he played for the kinds of teams Morris enjoyed and Morris would have won fewer than 250 games had the converse been true. Furthermore, as I mentioned in an earlier post, Blyeven’s postseason record was superior to that of Morris.

However, none of that is certain.

What is certain are all the other numbers. While I would argue that wins and losses have a significant luck component, other pitching statistics do not.

ERA—Blyeven had a career ERA of 3.31, which correcting for park and league effects, was 18 percent better than average. On the other hand, Morris had a career ERA of 3.90, which after the correction was only 5 percent better than average. Big edge to Bert.

Strikeouts—Blyeven averaged 181 strikeouts per season, while Morris averaged 138. Blyeven is fifth on the career strikeout list. Huge edge to Bert

Control—Blyeven had a career K/BB ratio of 2.8, while Morris’ career K/BB was 1.78. Huge edge to Bert.

In sum, Morris had some impressive win totals for some really good teams, and he had an outstanding Game 7 for Minnesota. But, Blyeven had far more impressive pitching numbers. Don't get me wrong, Morris was a great pitcher. He also benefited from being on really good teams. I’m just saying that he’s not HOF worthy and that Blyeven should get in before Morris (but I’d put Gossage and Sutter in before Blyeven).
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 7 hours
#46 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.38
Please, PLEASE stop swinging from Burts nuts! They'll be too swollen to do him any good. Look at the facts, while Morris' teams may have been "winning" more than losing, they only placed above third, in the 80s, TWICE. So, a third place team isnt exactly terrific to pitch for.

Break down all the little, meaningless numbers you want, and cry about how he was always on bad teams, but the truth is, Burt Blylevin meant less to his teams than Jack Morris did. Also, please, for the love of all that is decent stop with the "Morris wasnt as good because his teams won more games" because, perhaps his team WOULDNT have won so many games if HE hadnt pitched for them.

If Sandy Kofax was pitching on a sub 500 team, would that make him a Worse pitcher?

In his career, Morris's teams won a total of 1355 games, of which he was responsible for 254 of them, or, one win every 5.37 games the team won.

Blylevins teams won 1861, or one win per every 6.4 win. So, if Blylevin was such an outstanding pitcher, who, according to a lot of people here, played on a LOT of bad teams, wouldnt HIS win % compared to his teams be HIGHER? If you are winning LESS games on "BAD" teams doesnt that make you a worse pitcher than somebody who is winning MORE games on BETTER teams?

Morris teams averaged third place finishes, while Blylevin was 4th, not a HUGE difference in quality of teams.

Morris had 33 less wins while playing 9 less seasons. he had 64 less losses as well. If morris had pitched NINE 3-7 seasons, his totals would be nearly identical, yet, you would point to those NINE losing seasons as a reason to exclude him, yet, with the same record win/loss wise, you think Blylevin is a better pitcher. I dont get it.



(edited by StaggerLee on 14.1.04 1305)
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 49 days
Last activity: 11 hours
#47 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.80
Please, PLEASE stop swinging from Burts nuts! They'll be too swollen to do him any good. Look at the facts, while Morris' teams may have been "winning" more than losing, they only placed above third, in the 80s, TWICE. So, a third place team isnt exactly terrific to pitch for.

I’ll ignore the nuts comment this time. As for the rest of the comment—Detroit finished second in 1983, first in 1984, first in 1987 and second in 1988. Additionally, he played for first place teams in 1991, 1992, 1993 and a second place team in 1994.

Also, please, for the love of all that is decent stop with the "Morris wasnt as good because his teams won more games" because, perhaps his team WOULDNT have won so many games if HE hadnt pitched for them.

Of course they wouldn’t. As I mentioned in my previous post, Morris was a great pitcher. Similarly, Blyeven’s teams wouldn’t have won as many games if he wasn’t on the team. Your point?

So, if Blylevin was such an outstanding pitcher, who, according to a lot of people here, played on a LOT of bad teams, wouldnt HIS win % compared to his teams be HIGHER? If you are winning LESS games on "BAD" teams doesnt that make you a worse pitcher than somebody who is winning MORE games on BETTER teams?

Morris career win percentage was .577, while his teams posted an aggregate win percentage of .544. Therefore, his win percentage was roughly 6.1 percent better than his teams’. Blyleven’s career win percentage was .534, versus his team’s winning percentage of .505, which computes to roughly 5.7 percent better. I’d argue that this is statistically insignificant. And, as the numbers show, Blyleven’s win percentage was higher than that of his teams.

Lastly, team record aside, Blyleven posted superior (and I would even argue far superior) career numbers in every other meaningful statistical category (ERA, Ks, K/BB ratio). All you have done is insult me and rail about the performance of the respective teams (which also includes 24 other players). What about the factors that the pitcher controls more directly?
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 7 hours
#48 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.38
Hey, sorry if I insulted you, that was not my goal.
Second, I believe you are the one who was throwing out the teams success, not I.

Anyhow,breaking down the stats that you were talking about, Blylevin averages 65BB/year and 182K/year. Morris averaged 87bb/year and 165K/yr. So, where that stat is concerned, Morris gave up 22 walks more a year that Blylevin. Blylevin struck out 17 a year more. However, both averaged 34 games a year. That means Blylevin struck out 17 a season more, or one half strikeout more per game. Morris walked 1.5 more per game. Not really that big a difference.

Blylevin appeared in 143 more games than Morris, yet managed to win only 33 more games.

Morris was less effective in the postseason, But he played in 5 more post season games.

And, if you take in the Baseball reference ranking system, morris leads in the BLACK INK categories, and the HOF Monitoring categories. Blylevin has a small lead in the Grey Ink category.

(black in messures league leading numbers in the major statistical categories, Grey ink messures the top ten finishes)

(edited by StaggerLee on 14.1.04 2105)
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 49 days
Last activity: 11 hours
#49 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.80
I guess what it all boils down to in the Blyeven vs. Morris debate is whether wins are more important than ERA, Ks, control, runners allowed (Bert's career WHIP is 1.19 vs. 1.29 for Morris) or shutouts (Blyeven is 9th on the career shutout list, Morris isn't in the top 100). And, again, in these other statistics, Morris isn't even close to Blyeven.

Personally, I think that being on a good team helps a pitcher's win total, all other things being equal. Therefore, the other stats are more important in judging a pitcher's performance (not that wins aren't important, I'm just saying that they're not the most important variable). And, I'd even argue that being on better teams will allow a pitcher to pitch in more postseason games. So, although Morris was a great pitcher, IMHO he would have been a little less great had he not been on great teams all his career (see also vsp's post about Sutton vs. Blyeven).

For example, I think that Pedro should have won the Cy Young in 2002 over Zito, even though Zito won 3 more games because Pedro posted a better ERA, WHIP, Ks. And, I'd also argue that Nolan Ryan, even though he was 8-16, should have finished better than 5th in the 1987 NL Cy Young voting. That season, he lead the league in ERA, Ks and was third in WHIP but got no support from his teammates (Disclosure--I'm an Astro fan so I would have voted him first, which may not be reasonable. That aside, he should have been higher than Sutcliffe, who finished 2nd). So, Ryan was brilliant, as reflected in his pitching stats, but his team was crap for him, as reflected in his win-loss record.

EDIT: And, the better Black HOF numbers for Morris are, again, largely explained by higher win totals because he played for better teams that gave him more run support and better relief pitching.

(edited by Corajudo on 15.1.04 0840)
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 7 hours
#50 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.15
I'm sorry, I thought they took score to see who won the game. I didnt realise it was just another statistic. If you were going to sign a pitcher would you sign one with a 500 record and low era? Or would you sign one with a 750 record and a higher era?
Its all about WINNING, and for pitchers, thats basically all they should get into the hall with, is win/loss. era and base on ball stuff might be great if you are playing fantasy baseball, but in the real world, a team will take a guy who knows how to pitch and knows how to win and is a proved winner, over somebody who gives up a lot of homers, but doesnt walk a lot of people.
Whitebacon
Boudin blanc








Since: 12.1.02
From: Fresno, CA

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#51 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.37
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    I'm sorry, I thought they took score to see who won the game. I didnt realise it was just another statistic. If you were going to sign a pitcher would you sign one with a 500 record and low era? Or would you sign one with a 750 record and a higher era?
    Its all about WINNING, and for pitchers, thats basically all they should get into the hall with, is win/loss. era and base on ball stuff might be great if you are playing fantasy baseball, but in the real world, a team will take a guy who knows how to pitch and knows how to win and is a proved winner, over somebody who gives up a lot of homers, but doesnt walk a lot of people.


I'd go for the one with the better ERA, after taking into consideration ballpark effects and things of that nature. Wins are not necessarily a very good indication of how well a pitcher performs.

To use a modern comparison.

Pitcher A: 5.10 ERA, 1.52 WHIP (Walks plus Hits per Innings Pitched), 1.5 K/BB ratio, 15 wins, 9 losses.

Pitcher B: 3.24 ERA, 1.11 WHIP, 4.2 K/BB ratio, 13 wins, 12 losses.

You know what, you're right. Give me Jeriome Robertson over Javier Vazquez any day of the week. He won more, so he must be the better pitcher, right?

(edited by Whitebacon on 15.1.04 1000)


StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 7 hours
#52 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.10
    Originally posted by Whitebacon
    I'd go for the one with the better ERA, after taking into consideration ballpark effects and things of that nature. Wins are not necessarily a very good indication of how well a pitcher performs


If you are giving up 4 runs a game, but winning 65-70% of your games, are you not more valuable to your team than a pitcher who gives up 3 runs a game and wins 40-50%?

If a man can go on the mound, and hang in and pitch better than the other teams pitcher, and get a victory, having a guy who can get a lower ERA but win LESS GAMES isnt doing your team any better.
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 10 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#53 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.48
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    If you are giving up 4 runs a game, but winning 65-70% of your games, are you not more valuable to your team than a pitcher who gives up 3 runs a game and wins 40-50%?


You know, I agree with you on the whole Morris/Blyleven HoF debate, but you are really making NO sense there. A pitcher who gives with a 4.00 ERA who has a better record than a pitcher than a 3.00 ERA either has (a) better run support or (b) better defense accounting for less unearned runs. There might be no correlation between the stats and ability whatsoever.

Here are two pitchers. You tell me which one is better.

A: 179 IP, 164 H, 84 ER, 80 BB, 100 SO, opponent's OPS .729
B: 163 IP, 145 H, 77 ER, 87 BB, 118 SO, opponent's OPS .745

Pitcher A is Paul Abbott in 2000. He went 9-7 with a 4.22 ERA in 27 starts.

Pitcher B is also Paul Abbott, this time in 2001, the year the Mariners won 116 games. That year he went 17-4 (!) with a 4.25 ERA in 27 starts.

He was the exact same pitcher in both seasons, yet his won-loss record was wildly different. He didn't have a "career year" in 2001 but he won 17 games and lost only four. FOUR!

Abbott didn't suddenly become more valuable in 2001. He was still the M's 4th starter. He just got better circumstances and the best run support in baseball (I believe) that season. His ERA AND OPS were worse in 2001, fergawdsakes!

I don't think Blyleven deserves to be in the Hall just like I don't think guys like Fred McGriff should be in the Hall. It's not a reward for sticking around so long (22 years in Blyleven's case) that you can't help but be high up in several meaningful stats.





“To get ass, you’ve got to bring ass." -- Roy Jones Jr.

"Your input has been noted.
I hope you don't take it personally if I disregard it." -- Guru Zim
The Atomic Tomato
Pinkelwurst








Since: 6.12.03
From: Hazleton, PA

Since last post: 3831 days
Last activity: 3831 days
#54 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.00
    Originally posted by JayJayDean
    I don't think Blyleven deserves to be in the Hall just like I don't think guys like Fred McGriff should be in the Hall. It's not a reward for sticking around so long (22 years in Blyleven's case) that you can't help but be high up in several meaningful stats.




I cannot possibly think of a reason that Fred McGriff doesn't belong in the Hall Of Fame. The man is going to retire having hit 500 home runs. Come on! It's not like he's just some utility player sticking it out.

Right now, he's 21'st on the all time home run list...two HR's behind Lou Gehrig. He could be as high as 14'th when he does retire at the pace he hits them.

By that logic, Nolan Ryan didn't deserve to be in the Hall despite having one of the greatest careers in baseball history. After all, many of his accomplishments and milestones took place after Ryan turned 40 (6'th & 7'th no hitter, 500'th k, 300'th win), which is McGriff's age today.

Just as an added fact, EVERYONE who ranks in the top 25 in career home runs is in the hall of fame, with the exception of Bonds, McGwire, Sosa and Palmeiro, who will each make it in on their first ballot.

(edited by The Atomic Tomato on 15.1.04 2250)
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 7 hours
#55 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.10
JayJay, I see your point, but people who were defending Blylevin kept pointing out his ERA was lower, along with a few other stats, while Morris, was consistant in his entire career, except the 89 (I think it was 89) season. In the case you mentioned, that may be accurate, but to consistantly win, and be able to do it while giving up more ERs, the guy is still pitching great.

JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 10 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#56 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.48
    Originally posted by The Atomic Tomato
    I cannot possibly think of a reason that Fred McGriff doesn't belong in the Hall Of Fame. The man is going to retire having hit 500 home runs. Come on! It's not like he's just some utility player sticking it out.


I really didn't expect this to turn into an "is Fred McGriff HoF material" debate...

Here are baseball-reference.com's HoF grades for McGriff:

Black Ink: Batting - 9 (233) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 105 (195) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 47.9 (83) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 100.0 (136) (Likely HOFer > 100)

Those are (at best) borderline numbers. I'll give you that he finished in the top four in home runs 7 years in a row and finished in the top ten of the MVP voting 6 times (but never above fourth and above 6th only once).

Your Nolan Ryan comaprison is ludicrous. Nolan Ryan didn't have to pitch until he was 40 to break the all-time strikeout record...he was 36 when he broke it and put it out of distance in his 40s. Also, he did not pitch in an era more conducive to strikeouts like Fred McGriff hit in a home run friendly era.

In 50 years, will Ryan still lead the all-time strikeout list? Likely. Will he still hold the record with 7 no-hitters? Likely. Will he still be in the top 20 of career wins? Likely as he is 12th today and 300 wins is still a monumentally difficult number to achieve.

Now ask yourself this: In 50 years, where will Fred McGriff rank in the all-time home run list? Ken Griffey Jr., Juan Gonzalez, Jeff Bagwell, Frank Thomas, Jim Thome, Mike Piazza, Manny Ramirez, and Alex Rodriguez are the active players behind McGriff on the home run list and I'd argue that they'll all pass McGriff before he's eligible for HoF voting, knocking him out the top 25. I wouldn't be surprised if he's not in the top 40 or 50 in 50 years...and his home run total is really the only stat that puts him "in", unless he plays long enough to get 3000 hits, but he's just under 2500 now so I doubt he'll get there.

Batting stats are so skewed anymore with the smaller ballparks and better hitting technology (like video study and improved workout routines) that I think at some point the voters are going to start saying that hitting bombs isn't enough to get you in the Hall if you weren't spectacular or you didn't dominate (in a McGwire/Sosa/A-Rod way) the game for a period of time.

Look at Jose Canseco. He's 26th on the home run list, won the Rookie of the Year (McGriff didn't), the MVP (again, McGriff didn't), and had a 40-HR/40-SB season. His HoF scores are almost identical to McGriff's but he's not getting in.



“To get ass, you’ve got to bring ass." -- Roy Jones Jr.

"Your input has been noted.
I hope you don't take it personally if I disregard it." -- Guru Zim
The Atomic Tomato
Pinkelwurst








Since: 6.12.03
From: Hazleton, PA

Since last post: 3831 days
Last activity: 3831 days
#57 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.00
Actually, Ryan DID pitch in an era that was more strikeout friendly, or do you think it was just coincidence that Ryan, Seaver and Carlton all passed Walter Johnson at around the same time, with Blyleven, Clemens and Randy Johnson joining the pack in the 80's and 90's.

If you look at the top twenty in strikeouts for batters, all of them played in the Ryan/Carlton/Seaver era or later, with the exception of Lou Brock & Micky Mantle.

Ryan wouldn't have reached the 300 win mark if not for his longevity. He never won a single Cy Young award in his career, and only had TWO 20 win seasons, and the only World Series ring he has, he had very, very little to do with (69 Mets).

I think the comparison is very fair. His induction was based largely on stats and milestones achieved through longevity.
JoshMann
Andouille








Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2235 days
Last activity: 2232 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#58 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.60
    Originally posted by AWArulz
      Originally posted by Eddie Famous
      Can anyone give me a reason why Dave Concepcion keeps getting votes?

      He was a decidedly average hitter (.267 lifetime), an okay fielder with a weak arm (therefore bouncing his throws to first from the hole)....




    4 world series as a starter. 5 LCS, 19 in the bigs, a seemingly good guy. 9 all star appearances, 5 gold gloves, Similar numbers to Pee Wee Reese and Luis Aparicio, PLayed with the same team his whole career.

    (edited by AWArulz on 6.1.04 1935)


And also the GREATEST clutch hitter in Strat O Mat Baseball history. If you needed a base hit with the game on the line, Concepcion never EVER failed to come through.

Plus I met him about 8 years ago at Mark Light Stadium and he was genuinely good people...although I think telling him that about his Strat O Mat attributes would have been off the surreal scale as far as having a Chris Farley moment.



Welcome To The Bryant Street Theater...have a Fruit Roll-Up
The Atomic Tomato
Pinkelwurst








Since: 6.12.03
From: Hazleton, PA

Since last post: 3831 days
Last activity: 3831 days
#59 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.00

    Played with the same team his whole career.


Why should that matter?
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 10 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#60 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.55
    Originally posted by The Atomic Tomato
    Actually, Ryan DID pitch in an era that was more strikeout friendly, or do you think it was just coincidence that Ryan, Seaver and Carlton all passed Walter Johnson at around the same time, with Blyleven, Clemens and Randy Johnson joining the pack in the 80's and 90's.

    If you look at the top twenty in strikeouts for batters, all of them played in the Ryan/Carlton/Seaver era or later, with the exception of Lou Brock & Micky Mantle.


Citing the all-time top 20 leaders is NOT an indicator of a more strike-out friendly era. True, there are more strikeouts per game in this era than in the 30s and 40s, but throughout Ryan's career the strikeout totals did NOT go up throught his career like home run totals went up during McGriff's. In fact, Ryan achieve his HIGHEST strikeout totals during the years of his career when strikeouts were DOWN.

Strikeouts per game:
1966: 5.89 (Ryan's debut season)
'68-'71: 5.63 (4 part-time seasons for Ryan)
1972: 5.48 (Ryan: 329 K's)
1973: 5.07 (Ryan: 383 K's)
1974: 4.89 (Ryan: 367 K's)
1975: 4.93 (Ryan: 186 K's in 198 IP)
1976: 4.73 (Ryan: 327 K's)
1977: 4.97 (Ryan: 341 K's)

The league strikeout per game average didn't go above 5.00 until 1983 and above 6 until 1994, the year AFTER Ryan retired.

McGriff's homerun stats are the opposite of Ryan's strike-out stats.

Home runs per game:
1987: 1.16
1988: 0.84 (McGriff hits 20 HR as a rookie)
1989: 0.76
1990: 0.79
1991: 0.86
1992: 0.78

McGriff is one of the top HR hitters in the league and the HR average hasn't really gone up since 1953. However, in 1993 the league average jumped to 0.91 and in 1994 it jumped to 1.11, where it's stayed ever since. That's almost a 40% jump in home runs per game, yet McGriff's production didn't increase in accordance with the rest of the league's. Isn't it safe to assume that quite possibly McGriff's home run total would be closer to 400 than 500 if not for the changes the game went through in the 90s? If he stays closer to 400 HR I don't think it's even a topic that comes up.

(edited by JayJayDean on 16.1.04 1315)


“To get ass, you’ve got to bring ass." -- Roy Jones Jr.

"Your input has been noted.
I hope you don't take it personally if I disregard it." -- Guru Zim
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Thread rated: 6.03
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Thread ahead: Maddux a Cub again?
Next thread: Vlad Guerrero to the Mets?
Previous thread: Thank you, San Diego
(1105 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Howie Clark is a mystery. Every time he gets called up, he hits around .400, and yet never gets a chance to play regularly. A stocked minor league and a dollar will buy you a Coke.
Related threads: Super Tuesday (Colon, etc) - Automatic steroid testing in '04 - Silly Award Voting - More...
The W - Baseball - And the NEW Hall of Famers are... (Page 3)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.157 seconds.