Re: Re: Re: Sandy Kofax
--- "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, a guy who somewhat matches that profile is > Terrell Davis - who was one of three backs to ever > run for 2000+ yards in a season, and had several > very good years before getting injured. > > I think that Terrell Davis belongs in the pantheon > of greatest NFL backs, even if I wouldn't rate him > #1. > > JDG Yeah, that's my entire point. He's a fine running back. But it takes more than that to be "the best ever". = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Re: Sandy Kofax
---Original Message--- From: Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> If a running back ran for 2500 yards his rookie season and never played another game, would you say he was the greatest running back of all time, or one who had a really great season? >>> Actually, a guy who somewhat matches that profile is Terrell Davis - who was one of three backs to ever run for 2000+ yards in a season, and had several very good years before getting injured. I think that Terrell Davis belongs in the pantheon of greatest NFL backs, even if I wouldn't rate him #1. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Sandy Kofax
--- "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So, you are arguing that "the greatest pitcher of > all-time" *must* have had longevity? I am > surprised that you claim so confidently that it is > "foolish" to disagree with this principle. > > In my mind, if one considers injuries to essentially > be a random and rare function, I think that it would > be very sensible to make discounts for careers > cut-short by injury - even if one still wanted to > devalue a pitcher (or player) whose career seemed to > end early because of prematurely declining skills. > > JDG Of course I am arguing that the greatest pitcher of all time has to have longevity. You're a football fan. If a running back ran for 2500 yards his rookie season and never played another game, would you say he was the greatest running back of all time, or one who had a really great season? He might have had the _talent_ to have become the greatest running back of all time, but he didn't actually do it, did he? Who would you rather have on your team for his entire career, that hypothetical back or Walter Payton? Plus, declining skills are often a product of injury as much as they are of age. Tommy John went from a hard tosser to a soft one after he had his eponymous surgery, probably hurting his value as a pitcher and quite possibly keeping him out of the Hall of Fame. By your standard if he had stopped playing after he was injured we should consider him to be a better pitcher than because he was able to figure out a way to keep contributing to his teams. That doesn't make sense to me. Furthermore, injuries aren't a random or infrequent factor for pitchers. They are a non-random, frequent factor. Power pitchers are less likely to get injured that soft-tossers (Koufax, of course, was the quintessential power pitcher). Furthermore, pitchers get injured all the time (unless they play for the Oakland A's right now). The odds of a pitcher having a major injury in a season are (IIRC) over 10%. Being able to avoid getting injured is a talent just as surely as striking someone out - because if you're on the bench, you can't contribute to your team. Surely one part of Greg Maddux's remarkable ability is the fact that he is never, ever injured. That's not random - it's because he has flawless mechanics and is the most efficient pitcher in the history of the modern game. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Sandy Kofax
--- "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thus, the mere fact that Sandy Kofax isn't tops in > strikeouts - (and the fact that you didn't really > follow that up with other signgle-measures of > greatness) tells me nothing about whether or not > Kofax merits the title of "greatest pitcher of > all-time." > > JDG John, that's my point. What is the purpose of a pitcher? It's to keep runs off the board. That's it. A pitcher has only one function on a team. No-hitters, strikeouts, "stuff", they're all meaningless. The only thing that counts is keeping runs off the board. Bob was telling me about strikeouts and stuff and no-hitters. The first two of those are things that get you to a good pitcher. The third is just a fun statistic. It's impressive, but a no-hitter does no more for a team than a one-hitter. That's why we talk about ERA. Even more it's why we talk about ERA+ (that is, ERA adjusted for league and park context). As you get more sophisticated we can talk about Win Shares (Bill James's new invention) or VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) - all these wonderful tools that people have invented to measure exactly how good a pitcher is. They are designed to take into account all these varying factors that go into what makes a great pitcher. Bob, so far as I can tell, is arguing that we should just abandon all of these ideas in favor of I remember that guy, he was really great. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Sandy Kofax
---Original Message--- From: Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> If you think Sandy Koufax was the best pitcher of all time, you're simply wrong. There is no serious argument for this. If you think he was the most dominant pitcher on a per-game basis you're also wrong, but at least you have a case and we can talk about it. Arguing that he was better than Seaver or Clemens is foolish. He didn't pitch for long enough. >>> So, you are arguing that "the greatest pitcher of all-time" *must* have had longevity? I am surprised that you claim so confidently that it is "foolish" to disagree with this principle. In my mind, if one considers injuries to essentially be a random and rare function, I think that it would be very sensible to make discounts for careers cut-short by injury - even if one still wanted to devalue a pitcher (or player) whose career seemed to end early because of prematurely declining skills. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Sandy Kofax
---Original Message--- From: Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "If it's no-hitters you want, Ryan is better." I'll admit that I don't know more than the first thing about Sandy Kofax, but I feel compelled to point out that the above argument is specious - in my eyes, anyways. If arguing that Pitcher X is "the best pitcher of all-time", it is possible to argue that "the best pitcher of all-time" was the most well-rounded pitcher of all-time. As such, it is conceivable that this "best well-rounded pitcher of all-time" may not be the "top pitcher" in most categories, or even all categories. For example, a pitcher that was 2nd or 3rd in every metric of analysis might arguably be "the best pitcher of all-time." Thus, the mere fact that Sandy Kofax isn't tops in strikeouts - (and the fact that you didn't really follow that up with other signgle-measures of greatness) tells me nothing about whether or not Kofax merits the title of "greatest pitcher of all-time." JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
