1968 Denny McClain

[ASURay]

Originally Posted by David Watts

But if McLain is called McLain68 why would a three year average come into play? To me that is confusing matter to say the least. If three year averages are being used, McLain should be listed as McLain 67-69.

I don't think 3-year averages are used for PT cards. Using the 3-year average is an option in historical leagues, though.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Leo_The_Lip

PT seems to take a three-year average (at best) of players and this rating makes sense for McClain.

Only on the All-Time Legends card series. The McLain is a Record Breaker.

[zrog2000]

Originally Posted by Leo_The_Lip

WHIP in a league in which 8 players hit over .275 SHOULD be terrific. the LEAGUE WHIP was 1.18. So, no, he wasn't that great.

And only THREE pitchers allowed more than 23 HRs that season, so again, not so great.

He had the 4th highest WAR in the league, which adjusts for season and league. Having the 4th highest WAR is pretty great.

Pitching wins and WHIP is a terrible judge of any pitcher. It relies on the team's offense and defense, which are completely out of the pitcher's control.

[Splitter24]

Originally Posted by zrog2000

He had the 4th highest WAR in the league, which adjusts for season and league. Having the 4th highest WAR is pretty great.

Pitching wins and WHIP is a terrible judge of any pitcher. It relies on the team's offense and defense, which are completely out of the pitcher's control.

One of the advantages that a pitcher like McLain has in WAR calculations is the amount of innings that he pitched. Being able to pitch at an All Star level for 336 innings is valuable, but it doesn't make you more effective than the guy who is putting up the same numbers in 265 innings. And this shows up in his Fielding Independent Pitching numbers, where he ranks 4th in the league.

There is a IP/9 component in WAR calcs. This really shows up in the 1800's and into the Dead Ball era. If you believe that WAR is reflective of a pitchers ratings as opposed to his share of wins or value to a team, than you would be forced to conclude that almost all of the greatest pitcher ratings of all-time should belong to the ones who pitched before 1920.

[zrog2000]

Originally Posted by Splitter24

One of the advantages that a pitcher like McLain has in WAR calculations is the amount of innings that he pitched. Being able to pitch at an All Star level for 336 innings is valuable, but it doesn't make you more effective than the guy who is putting up the same numbers in 265 innings. And this shows up in his Fielding Independent Pitching numbers, where he ranks 4th in the league.

There is a IP/9 component in WAR calcs. This really shows up in the 1800's and into the Dead Ball era. If you believe that WAR is reflective of a pitchers ratings as opposed to his share of wins or value to a team, than you would be forced to conclude that almost all of the greatest pitcher ratings of all-time should belong to the ones who pitched before 1920.

Yeah, I'm fully aware. His FIP was 4th and his WAR was 4th as I mentioned. But saying he wasn't that great in 1968 is pretty inaccurate by any advanced stat measures. That was the only reason why I posted in this thread.

[Splitter24]

Originally Posted by zrog2000

Yeah, I'm fully aware. His FIP was 4th and his WAR was 4th as I mentioned. But saying he wasn't that great in 1968 is pretty inaccurate by any advanced stat measures. That was the only reason why I posted in this thread.

But it might help to explain to the earlier posters in the thread as to why, historically speaking, his ratings aren't all that special.

[Comedian2004]

Stuff: 80
Movement: 26
Control: 74
Fastball: 78
Curveball: 66
Slider: 48
Changeup: 88
93-94 speed
Ability to get in a fight with a marshmallow salesman: 120

[Comedian2004]

I just created a historical league from 1968 and ran it.

Denny won 19 games.. I used historical lineups and real transactions. I did not turn injuries off.. just remembered that...

But, what I noticed is his individual ratings are different than in PG.

BTW, the Tigers finished 3rd and the Twins won. Carew batted .388. Twins beating the Tigers out? Ah, now that is a bug!

[Leo_The_Lip]

Originally Posted by David Watts

But if McLain is called McLain68 why would a three year average come into play? To me that is confusing matter to say the least. If three year averages are being used, McLain should be listed as McLain 67-69.

I thought I've seen one of the developers say that. At least that more than one year is used.

[Janks]

Originally Posted by Leo_The_Lip

I thought I've seen one of the developers say that. At least that more than one year is used.

The All-Time Legend cards are based on 5 seasons.

[Leo_The_Lip]

Also, it should not be forgotten that 1968 was THE historical outlier year for dominant pitching--particularly in the AL. So much so they had to change the rules. Twisting 1968 into historical context simply won't work. It was too far off normal to even come close to a trend line.

McClain had a wonderful year, and we all enjoyed it--even those of us who weren't Tiger fans. However there was a lot of teamwork and good fortune involved in his season.