Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dougaiton
These are all not translated apart, from stuff, which I'll get to in a minute.
If we translate them, than Finley has an ERA+ of 115 to Ryan's 112. Advantage Finley.
PRAA is better if it is higher (I know, it's back to front!). Advantage Finley.
Delta-H is a measure of luck (if that's what you believe BABIP to be). Finley had +51 bad luck (i.e., he allowed 51 hits in his career more than he should have), whereas Ryan was -93 (he allowed 93 hits less than he should have. Advantage Finley (although this isn't a measure of effectiveness, just a measure of how lucky the could/should have been).
STF is interesting. You'll need to talk to Josh, but there's a thread on Miguel Batista where we discuss it. I like it, but others don't. Advantage Ryan!
EDIT: More on STF:
STF is not really a measure of effectiveness, but rather pitching 'talent'.
I've defended it, so it's a bit hypocritical of me to disagree with using it. It isn't about results though, although maybe that's not what we're talking about.
|
This is valid and with merit, I recognize it now. It still doesn't change the fact that Nolan Ryan was more overpowering than Chuck Finley, but I agree now, looking at it, that Finley has a stronger case on an individual game basis against Ryan than he does on a career basis against Ryan. I'd still take Ryan 100% of the time, and that has nothing to do with my personal bias.
I have issues about the math of some of the all time statistics on baseballprospectus, too. I'm not the math head to challenge these guys, but by their math, Finley was as good on a game to game basis as Ryan, which just, logically, isn't true, or FINLEY would be the one with 5,714 K's (or a proportion of such based on his career IPs), not Ryan. I think it's supposed to be in reference to consistency overall, but it seems like semantics when Ryan's ERA is almost a run better. Perhaps there's something I don't understand about it, but it seems suspect, to me.