Why is Glavine's Top Card Only a 95
-
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Why is Glavine's Top Card Only a 96:
@Bob_Loblaw1984 said in Why is Glavine's Top Card Only a 96:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Why is Glavine's Top Card Only a 96:
@Bob_Loblaw1984 said in Why is Glavine's Top Card Only a 96:
I don't know why people are so adamantly defending Ozzie > Maz and using one statistic to do it. It's a good comp. Recency effect? Confirmation bias?
As I've said repeatedly in this thread. There is no single statistic that can quantify a player's value. Both are flawed. This was my point when I brought up Nick Ahmed vs. Josh Bell in 2019. And then someone conveniently chose a different variation of their favorite stat to try and discredit that point.
Clearly you have no idea what you’re talking about.
If Player A has double the WAR of Player B, than Player A is undeniably the better player. That’s too big of a gap to make any kind of argument over.
Also, I used fWAR because 1. You didn’t specify which WAR you were using, a mistake people tend to make when they don’t know what they’re talking about, and 2. fWAR is much better to use when looking at position players.
Thank you for your analysis of my baseball knowledge. I'll strive to use your preferred method of single statistic analysis so that I can "know what I'm talking about" in the future...
No problem, it’s always good to educate the ignorant.
Thank you as well for your gentle and condescending nature.
-
@Bob_Loblaw1984 said in Why is Glavine's Top Card Only a 96:
Here's some food for thought.
https://apnews.com/5f309f5ab974173b3bc686c33e99ec63 [Warning: more than one statistic is used for the comparison.]
Luckily it's not 1996 anymore, and we can better value players... It's also terribly written in favor of Maz. Some guy calls him the greatest defender at 2B because of how many DPs he got? Or completely writes off the fact there is an insane difference in baserunning?
This article was written by someone who believed RBIs and fielding percentage are the proper way to compare players..
-
@Bob_Loblaw1984 said in Why is Glavine's Top Card Only a 96:
Here's some food for thought.
https://apnews.com/5f309f5ab974173b3bc686c33e99ec63 [Warning: more than one statistic is used for the comparison.]
The only stats they used in that article are AVG, HR, RBI, SB, and hits. How many double plays or assists a guy had doesn’t mean much of anything, neither do gold gloves.
It was also written in 1996, by a biased Pirates writer.
-
So nothing substantive about the argument then? Only alleged bias and completely discrediting something because it is old.
In my view it is silly to base your entire argument on one statistic. But it is absurd to attack someone that simply asks you to see a bigger picture. This is like looking at Hitler and saying he was a great leader because the German economy did well under him.
Boom. We made it to Hitler. Good night literally and figuratively! lol
-
@Bob_Loblaw1984 said in Why is Glavine's Top Card Only a 96:
So nothing substantive about the argument then? Only alleged bias and completely discrediting something because it is old.
In my view it is silly to base your entire argument on one statistic. But it is absurd to attack someone that simply asks you to see a bigger picture. This is like looking at Hitler and saying he was a great leader because the German economy did well under him.
Boom. We made it to Hitler. Good night literally and figuratively! lol
Do you not realize that every version of WAR encompasses many other stats?
It gives you the entire picture. And when the entire picture says one guy is 2x more valuable than another guy, you can’t argue that. It blows my mind that somebody could actually be this dense. You have no idea what you’re talking about. If you’re this ignorant on a subject, you shouldn’t give your opinion on it.
Also, it does matter that the article is from 1996. We’ve had many, many statistical advancements since then. I mean, the guy didn’t have any advanced metrics whatsoever in his article. Oh, and the writer being biased is just a fact, not alleged. If you look him up, he writes for Pittsburgh news outlets.
-
@GradektheBard said in Why is Glavine's Top Card Only a 96:
It would have been a 99, but SDS couldn’t figure out how to give him strike calls a foot and a half out of the zone as a perk.
This right here made my day.
-
Because Felix Hernandez was flat out better than Tom Glavine, he just had a much shorter career, or period of effectiveness at least.
Before you flip out go loo at the numbers. Glavine has a career 3.1 BB9 and 5.3 SO9, his career WHIP is 1.314. Even in the very best year of his career he had a 2.5 BB9 to 7.0 SO9 to go with a 8.8 H9... that's not that great. He did have a 7.3 H9, which is great, but at the end of the day in his bestyear he only had a 1.09 WHIP... The only year his WHIP ever touched below 1.10, and rarely below 1.20. His WHIP was routinely 1.20+. In his best year of his career he had a 3.06 FIP.
King Felix, however, thus far has a career 8.3 H9 to go auth his 2.7 BB9 and 8.3 SO9 -- superior walk to strike out ratio to go with a care 1.20 WHIP, a level Glavine only beat once, and that's Felix career average.... But look at his peak, in his best year he turned in WHIP below 1 -- 0.915 as a result of his 6.8 H9, 1.8 BB9, 9.5 SO9 -- numbers that blow Glavine out of the water, and he didn't even win the Cy that year... Had a 2.14 ERA that year in 2014 Glavine never sniffed that level of dominance, his FIP was 2.56!
Glavine was a very popular player on a team that was very popular, he had a very long successful career of pitching great but never dominant. King Felix played on teams no one cared about and has had a great career but much shorter peak, but he was dominant in his peak.
Both at their best, Felix was better.
-
@notoriousHEB said in Why is Glavine's Top Card Only a 96:
Because Felix Hernandez was flat out better than Tom Glavine, he just had a much shorter career, or period of effectiveness at least.
Before you flip out go loo at the numbers. Glavine has a career 3.1 BB9 and 5.3 SO9, his career WHIP is 1.314. Even in the very best year of his career he had a 2.5 BB9 to 7.0 SO9 to go with a 8.8 H9... that's not that great. He did have a 7.3 H9, which is great, but at the end of the day in his bestyear he only had a 1.09 WHIP... The only year his WHIP ever touched below 1.10, and rarely below 1.20. His WHIP was routinely 1.20+. In his best year of his career he had a 3.06 FIP.
King Felix, however, thus far has a career 8.3 H9 to go auth his 2.7 BB9 and 8.3 SO9 -- superior walk to strike out ratio to go with a care 1.20 WHIP, a level Glavine only beat once, and that's Felix career average.... But look at his peak, in his best year he turned in WHIP below 1 -- 0.915 as a result of his 6.8 H9, 1.8 BB9, 9.5 SO9 -- numbers that blow Glavine out of the water, and he didn't even win the Cy that year... Had a 2.14 ERA that year in 2014 Glavine never sniffed that level of dominance, his FIP was 2.56!
Glavine was a very popular player on a team that was very popular, he had a very long successful career of pitching great but never dominant. King Felix played on teams no one cared about and has had a great career but much shorter peak, but he was dominant in his peak.
Both at their best, Felix was better.
Glavine pitched to contact as most did back then. It was a completely different game.. to compare I would focus more on ERA+ and FIP, and if course bWAR to compare pitchers from today vs. someone who pitched in the steroid era...
They have nearly identical ERA+, and FIP a bit better for Felix.. you're right, Felix was more dominant, and had a better peak. He was an ace for a short time. Glavine pitched more like an excellent #2... But for a very long time.
For their careers I'd take Glavine. Longevity is something to be valued highly... Not a strike against... Felix flamed out badly, way too early.. which is why there is a 30 bWAR difference
-
@Nanthrax_1 said in Why is Glavine's Top Card Only a 96:
@notoriousHEB said in Why is Glavine's Top Card Only a 96:
Because Felix Hernandez was flat out better than Tom Glavine, he just had a much shorter career, or period of effectiveness at least.
Before you flip out go loo at the numbers. Glavine has a career 3.1 BB9 and 5.3 SO9, his career WHIP is 1.314. Even in the very best year of his career he had a 2.5 BB9 to 7.0 SO9 to go with a 8.8 H9... that's not that great. He did have a 7.3 H9, which is great, but at the end of the day in his bestyear he only had a 1.09 WHIP... The only year his WHIP ever touched below 1.10, and rarely below 1.20. His WHIP was routinely 1.20+. In his best year of his career he had a 3.06 FIP.
King Felix, however, thus far has a career 8.3 H9 to go auth his 2.7 BB9 and 8.3 SO9 -- superior walk to strike out ratio to go with a care 1.20 WHIP, a level Glavine only beat once, and that's Felix career average.... But look at his peak, in his best year he turned in WHIP below 1 -- 0.915 as a result of his 6.8 H9, 1.8 BB9, 9.5 SO9 -- numbers that blow Glavine out of the water, and he didn't even win the Cy that year... Had a 2.14 ERA that year in 2014 Glavine never sniffed that level of dominance, his FIP was 2.56!
Glavine was a very popular player on a team that was very popular, he had a very long successful career of pitching great but never dominant. King Felix played on teams no one cared about and has had a great career but much shorter peak, but he was dominant in his peak.
Both at their best, Felix was better.
Glavine pitched to contact as most did back then. It was a completely different game.. to compare I would focus more on ERA+ and FIP, and if course bWAR to compare pitchers from today vs. someone who pitched in the steroid era...
They have nearly identical ERA+, and FIP a bit better for Felix.. you're right, Felix was more dominant, and had a better peak. He was an ace for a short time. Glavine pitched more like an excellent #2... But for a very long time.
For their careers I'd take Glavine. Longevity is something to be valued highly... Not a strike against... Felix flamed out badly, way too early.. which is why there is a 30 bWAR difference
That's fair, but we aren't talking careers... We are talking cards. And the reason i selected those stats is because that's was translates to their in game attributes.
The high peak is going to get the better card. The better career will get more variations of good cards is basically how the game will end up working out.
Felix is a shot of vodka, Glavine is a good craft brew. You want a shot? Or you want to chill and have a beer? That's their careers in a nutshell.
-
How many backflips did Mazeroski do?
-
It really is ridiculous how many Braves cards there are this year. That franchise hasn't won a playoff series in almost 20 years and yet they're all over the place. I guess the developers are Braves fans which helps explain why they produced such a lousy game this year.
-
@NatsChampions19 said in Why is Glavine's Top Card Only a 96:
It really is ridiculous how many Braves cards there are this year. That franchise hasn't won a playoff series in almost 20 years and yet they're all over the place. I guess the developers are Braves fans which helps explain why they produced such a lousy game this year.
The Nationals/Expos finally win something after 53 years and you're spouting off about one of the most winning franchises in the last 30 years..
Before last year, they never won a series since 1981.. one time... Let's try to be humble -
@Jeviduty said in Why is Glavine's Top Card Only a 96:
Felix in his 20s > Glavine in his 20s
You can not base anything from 90s pitchers and modern day pitchers stats.
The pitchers in the mid 90s to the early 2000s are the best pitchers of all time because of the steroid era. Those that dominated then would absolutely obliterate competition today.
Guys like DeGrom, Scherzer, Kershaw would do just as good in the 90s. But, take Maddux, Glavine, Kevin Brown, hell even Mike Mussina, and they would put up Cy Young numbers year in and year out today. Forget about Pedro today, he may get to 400 strikeouts in a season if he pitched today.
-
@samguenther1987 said in Why is Glavine's Top Card Only a 96:
I have a feeling were not done with the Smoltz/Glavine/Maddux cards. If you look under nameplates there's one for all 3 combined that makes me think there's a program still coming this summer possibly making all 3 of them 99s? There's also nameplates for Griffey, Ortiz, Nolan Ryan, and Babe Ruth.
Those will be for moments or prestige cards.
-
@i_Am_McLoViN8 said in Why is Glavine's Top Card Only a 96:
@Jeviduty said in Why is Glavine's Top Card Only a 96:
Felix in his 20s > Glavine in his 20s
You can not base anything from 90s pitchers and modern day pitchers stats.
The pitchers in the mid 90s to the early 2000s are the best pitchers of all time because of the steroid era. Those that dominated then would absolutely obliterate competition today.
Guys like DeGrom, Scherzer, Kershaw would do just as good in the 90s. But, take Maddux, Glavine, Kevin Brown, hell even Mike Mussina, and they would put up Cy Young numbers year in and year out today. Forget about Pedro today, he may get to 400 strikeouts in a season if he pitched today.
This is why we have ERA+....
-
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Why is Glavine's Top Card Only a 96:
@i_Am_McLoViN8 said in Why is Glavine's Top Card Only a 96:
@Jeviduty said in Why is Glavine's Top Card Only a 96:
Felix in his 20s > Glavine in his 20s
You can not base anything from 90s pitchers and modern day pitchers stats.
The pitchers in the mid 90s to the early 2000s are the best pitchers of all time because of the steroid era. Those that dominated then would absolutely obliterate competition today.
Guys like DeGrom, Scherzer, Kershaw would do just as good in the 90s. But, take Maddux, Glavine, Kevin Brown, hell even Mike Mussina, and they would put up Cy Young numbers year in and year out today. Forget about Pedro today, he may get to 400 strikeouts in a season if he pitched today.
This is why we have ERA+
And all those pitchers had seasons, multiple, including many I did not mention in the 90s (Randy Johnson, for example) in which they led their league in ERA+ and have some of the highest career ERA+ of all time.
-
@i_Am_McLoViN8 said in Why is Glavine's Top Card Only a 96:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Why is Glavine's Top Card Only a 96:
@i_Am_McLoViN8 said in Why is Glavine's Top Card Only a 96:
@Jeviduty said in Why is Glavine's Top Card Only a 96:
Felix in his 20s > Glavine in his 20s
You can not base anything from 90s pitchers and modern day pitchers stats.
The pitchers in the mid 90s to the early 2000s are the best pitchers of all time because of the steroid era. Those that dominated then would absolutely obliterate competition today.
Guys like DeGrom, Scherzer, Kershaw would do just as good in the 90s. But, take Maddux, Glavine, Kevin Brown, hell even Mike Mussina, and they would put up Cy Young numbers year in and year out today. Forget about Pedro today, he may get to 400 strikeouts in a season if he pitched today.
This is why we have ERA+
And all those pitchers had seasons, multiple, including many I did not mention in the 90s (Randy Johnson, for example) in which they led their league in ERA+ and have some of the highest career ERA+ of all time.
Yeah, and? The best pitchers will have high ERA+. Nobody thinks Randy Johnson was bad lmao.
Just to bring it back to Felix Hernandez, his 2010 season was better in terms of ERA+ than any season Glavine had. His 2009 season was as well. They were better than any of Mussina’s seasons too. Kevin Brown had one outstanding season with 215.
Did the 90’s have some great pitchers? Yes of course. But just being good in the 90’s doesn’t mean they would be any better today.
-
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Why is Glavine's Top Card Only a 96:
@i_Am_McLoViN8 said in Why is Glavine's Top Card Only a 96:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in Why is Glavine's Top Card Only a 96:
@i_Am_McLoViN8 said in Why is Glavine's Top Card Only a 96:
@Jeviduty said in Why is Glavine's Top Card Only a 96:
Felix in his 20s > Glavine in his 20s
You can not base anything from 90s pitchers and modern day pitchers stats.
The pitchers in the mid 90s to the early 2000s are the best pitchers of all time because of the steroid era. Those that dominated then would absolutely obliterate competition today.
Guys like DeGrom, Scherzer, Kershaw would do just as good in the 90s. But, take Maddux, Glavine, Kevin Brown, hell even Mike Mussina, and they would put up Cy Young numbers year in and year out today. Forget about Pedro today, he may get to 400 strikeouts in a season if he pitched today.
This is why we have ERA+
And all those pitchers had seasons, multiple, including many I did not mention in the 90s (Randy Johnson, for example) in which they led their league in ERA+ and have some of the highest career ERA+ of all time.
Yeah, and? The best pitchers will have high ERA+. Nobody thinks Randy Johnson was bad lmao.
Just to bring it back to Felix Hernandez, his 2010 season was better in terms of ERA+ than any season Glavine had. His 2009 season was as well. They were better than any of Mussina’s seasons too. Kevin Brown had one outstanding season with 215.
Did the 90’s have some great pitchers? Yes of course. But just being good in the 90’s doesn’t mean they would be any better today.
I’m pretty sure we’re agreeing with each other and it’s getting lost through text
-
A admin locked this topic on
