If Happ, Stroman and Hutch win one more game each

[Dick_Pole]

And I would say 1-5, the 2014 rotation has been better than the 1993 rotation.

 

Buehrle > Guzman

Dickey < Hentgen

Stroman > Stottlemyre

Hutchison = Stewart

Happ >>> Morris

[KingKat]

Really? Who was the ace of this team:

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/TOR/1993.shtml

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]830[/ATTACH]

 

Holly s***! Anyone else kind of floored by those pitching numbers? I remember the 1993 team being not nearly as consistent as the 1992 team pitching wise but this is worse than I remembered. Really shows how little concern people had for K/BB back then. The only people with ratios of 2 or better were in the bullpen.

[KingKat]

Holly s***! Anyone else kind of floored by those pitching numbers? I remember the 1993 team being not nearly as consistent as the 1992 team pitching wise but this is worse than I remembered. Really shows how little concern people had for K/BB back then. The only people with ratios of 2 or better were in the bullpen.

 

So for shits and giggles, I looked up the 1992 Blue Jays to compare them to 1993 since it's a team that I remember as a much better pitching team. Although it did have one starting pitcher have a K/BB over 2 (Juan Guzman with 2.29) and another that fell just short (Jimmy Key with 1.98), the overall results are still not very impressive by today's standards. Guzman was the only starter who got a lot of strikeouts. So what's the deal? Where these pitchers just not very good? was league babip much lower in those days making strikeouts less important?

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/TOR/1992.shtml

[Mikeleelop]

So for shits and giggles, I looked up the 1992 Blue Jays to compare them to 1993 since it's a team that I remember as a much better pitching team. Although it did have one starting pitcher have a K/BB over 2 (Juan Guzman with 2.29) and another that fell just short (Jimmy Key with 1.98), the overall results are still not very impressive by today's standards. Guzman was the only starter who got a lot of strikeouts. So what's the deal? Where these pitchers just not very good? was league babip much lower in those days making strikeouts less important?

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/TOR/1992.shtml

 

team defence was strong up the middle especially - White, Alomar, Lee (92, Fernandez 93)

[Dick_Pole]

No way, Guzman > Buehrle

 

Using what metric?

 

WAR, FIP, ERA+, K/BB all come in Buehrle's favour, albeit most of it just marginally.

[eastcoastjaysfan]

So for shits and giggles, I looked up the 1992 Blue Jays to compare them to 1993 since it's a team that I remember as a much better pitching team. Although it did have one starting pitcher have a K/BB over 2 (Juan Guzman with 2.29) and another that fell just short (Jimmy Key with 1.98), the overall results are still not very impressive by today's standards. Guzman was the only starter who got a lot of strikeouts. So what's the deal? Where these pitchers just not very good? was league babip much lower in those days making strikeouts less important?

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/TOR/1992.shtml

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=sta&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2014&month=0&season1=1992&ind=0&team=0,ss&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0

 

There has definitely been a shift since 1993.

 

K/9 is up almost two per nine innings since then.

 

Hitters get on base much less and strike out a lot more (not just due to bullpen specialization either.... pitchers are either much better or hitters are a lot worse.... probably the former).

[GD]

The '92 team has a 95 FIP-. '93 had a 94 FIP-. It was just a different era.

[Dick_Pole]

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=sta&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2014&month=0&season1=1992&ind=0&team=0,ss&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0

 

There has definitely been a shift since 1993.

 

K/9 is up almost two per nine innings since then.

 

Hitters get on base much less and strike out a lot more (not just due to bullpen specialization either.... pitchers are either much better or hitters are a lot worse.... probably the former).

 

Pitchers throw a lot harder that's for sure. Whether they are better is another debate. You could say the league is a lot less diluted now than back then. 1993 was an expansion year which meant 22-25 pitchers who would not normally have jobs in 1992 had them. Same goes for position players though. It's been 16 seasons since any expansion so teams have had a lot of time to restock top talent from a growing local population and expanded international pool.

[Dick_Pole]

The only metric that matters..... WINZ

 

Also Guzman had higher WAR, not Buehrle

 

He's got 4 more starts though to change things.

 

Awww f*** it...baseball reference says Buehrle has a 3.6 WAR in 2014 and Guzman 3.4 in 1993. I'm sure you'll say back to me that some other dipshit site has some other numbers and that Guzman is higher.

 

I'll tell you what...these new stats will not gain prominence among mainstream and casual fans until they are consistent among all these sources. You don't see Baseball Reference saying Joe Carter has 121 RBI in 1993 then Fangraphs says he had 115. Some people might have enough time and care enough to look up the "right" WAR stat. I am not one of them.

[KingKat]

Season K/9 BB/9 HR/9 BABIP

1970 5.78 3.54 0.89 0.278

1971 5.42 3.25 0.74 0.272

1972 5.57 3.16 0.68 0.269

1973 5.25 3.38 0.80 0.278

1974 5.02 3.34 0.68 0.277

1975 5.00 3.47 0.70 0.277

1976 4.83 3.19 0.58 0.276

1977 5.18 3.28 0.87 0.283

1978 4.81 3.26 0.71 0.275

1979 4.81 3.27 0.82 0.281

1980 4.80 3.14 0.73 0.283

1981 4.75 3.18 0.64 0.274

1982 5.04 3.16 0.80 0.280

1983 5.18 3.22 0.79 0.281

1984 5.37 3.18 0.78 0.282

1985 5.37 3.31 0.86 0.277

1986 5.90 3.40 0.91 0.282

1987 6.01 3.45 1.07 0.285

1988 5.58 3.10 0.76 0.278

1989 5.64 3.23 0.74 0.279

1990 5.72 3.32 0.79 0.283

1991 5.81 3.33 0.81 0.281

1992 5.60 3.26 0.72 0.281

1993 5.85 3.36 0.90 0.290

1994 6.22 3.50 1.04 0.296

1995 6.35 3.56 1.02 0.294

1996 6.50 3.57 1.10 0.298

1997 6.66 3.49 1.03 0.297

1998 6.61 3.41 1.05 0.296

1999 6.48 3.73 1.15 0.298

2000 6.53 3.80 1.18 0.296

2001 6.74 3.29 1.13 0.292

2002 6.53 3.38 1.05 0.289

2003 6.40 3.30 1.08 0.291

2004 6.60 3.36 1.13 0.293

2005 6.38 3.17 1.04 0.292

2006 6.59 3.30 1.12 0.298

2007 6.67 3.33 1.03 0.299

2008 6.83 3.39 1.01 0.296

2009 6.99 3.46 1.05 0.295

2010 7.13 3.28 0.96 0.293

2011 7.13 3.11 0.94 0.291

2012 7.56 3.05 1.02 0.293

2013 7.57 3.02 0.96 0.294

2014 7.70 2.92 0.88 0.295

 

BABIP 5-YEAR RANGE

0.275 1970-1974

0.278 1975-1979

0.280 1980-1984

0.280 1985-1989

0.286 1990-1994

0.297 1995-1999

0.292 2000-2004

0.296 2005-2009

0.293 2009-2014

 

That is quite interesting. I would assume that there was a concurrent increase in number of pitches taken with hitters desiring to be more selective. There's a bit of a chicken and egg thing going on with these trends. A decreased desire on the part of the pitcher to surrender contact gets combined with a desire to be more selective on the part of the hitter.

[theblujay]

That is quite interesting. I would assume that there was a concurrent increase in number of pitches taken with hitters desiring to be more selective. There's a bit of a chicken and egg thing going on with these trends. A decreased desire on the part of the pitcher to surrender contact gets combined with a desire to be more selective on the part of the hitter.

 

Then why are walk rates the same

[Dick_Pole]

That is quite interesting. I would assume that there was a concurrent increase in number of pitches taken with hitters desiring to be more selective. There's a bit of a chicken and egg thing going on with these trends. A decreased desire on the part of the pitcher to surrender contact gets combined with a desire to be more selective on the part of the hitter.

 

You could ask WTF happened between 1992 and 1994 where the BABIP increase was drastic and permanent. Coors didn't have that much of an impact on offense! Maybe the expansion effect didn't have impact on pitching or hitting but on fielding.

[KingKat]

[TABLE=width: 418]

[TR]

[TD]k/9[/TD]

[TD]bb/9[/TD]

[TD]hr/9[/TD]

[TD]babip[/TD]

[TD]5-year range[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]5.41[/TD]

[TD]3.33[/TD]

[TD]0.76[/TD]

[TD]0.275[/TD]

[TD]1970-1974[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]4.93[/TD]

[TD]3.29[/TD]

[TD]0.74[/TD]

[TD]0.278[/TD]

[TD]1975-1979[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]5.03[/TD]

[TD]3.18[/TD]

[TD]0.75[/TD]

[TD]0.280[/TD]

[TD]1980-1984[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]5.70[/TD]

[TD]3.30[/TD]

[TD]0.87[/TD]

[TD]0.280[/TD]

[TD]1985-1989[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]5.84[/TD]

[TD]3.35[/TD]

[TD]0.85[/TD]

[TD]0.286[/TD]

[TD]1990-1994[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]6.52[/TD]

[TD]3.55[/TD]

[TD]1.07[/TD]

[TD]0.297[/TD]

[TD]1995-1999[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]6.56[/TD]

[TD]3.43[/TD]

[TD]1.11[/TD]

[TD]0.292[/TD]

[TD]2000-2004[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]6.69[/TD]

[TD]3.33[/TD]

[TD]1.05[/TD]

[TD]0.296[/TD]

[TD]2005-2009[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]7.42[/TD]

[TD]3.08[/TD]

[TD]0.95[/TD]

[TD]0.293[/TD]

[TD]2009-2014[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 4]as a percentage of 45-year average[/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]k/9[/TD]

[TD]bb/9[/TD]

[TD]hr/9[/TD]

[TD]babip[/TD]

[TD]5-year range[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]90[/TD]

[TD]101[/TD]

[TD]84[/TD]

[TD]96[/TD]

[TD]1970-1974[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]82[/TD]

[TD]99[/TD]

[TD]81[/TD]

[TD]97[/TD]

[TD]1975-1979[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]84[/TD]

[TD]96[/TD]

[TD]83[/TD]

[TD]98[/TD]

[TD]1980-1984[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]95[/TD]

[TD]99[/TD]

[TD]96[/TD]

[TD]98[/TD]

[TD]1985-1989[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]97[/TD]

[TD]101[/TD]

[TD]94[/TD]

[TD]100[/TD]

[TD]1990-1994[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]108[/TD]

[TD]107[/TD]

[TD]118[/TD]

[TD]104[/TD]

[TD]1995-1999[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]109[/TD]

[TD]103[/TD]

[TD]123[/TD]

[TD]102[/TD]

[TD]2000-2004[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]111[/TD]

[TD]100[/TD]

[TD]116[/TD]

[TD]103[/TD]

[TD]2005-2009[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]123[/TD]

[TD]93[/TD]

[TD]105[/TD]

[TD]102[/TD]

[TD]2009-2014[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

Pretty crazy how the k rate goes up but the walk rate stays the same. You would think those would be co-related with both being tied to contact rates. Fascinating stuff even I really have no idea what to conclude from it.

[Maahfaace]

Pretty crazy how the k rate goes up but the walk rate stays the same. You would think those would be co-related with both being tied to contact rates. Fascinating stuff even I really have no idea what to conclude from it.

 

I have a feeling more teams added over the years resulting in diluted k stats with reference to all the scubs the league has now compared to earlier era's. Just a thought.

[Deadpool]

Holy s***, moogy was banned? s*** be cray-cray up in this bitch!

[RealAccountant]

K rates are up because since the early 90s homeruns became sexy and heavy hitters got paid combined with PED hitters try to hit the homerun and strike out

[jaysblue]

Holy s***, moogy was banned? s*** be cray-cray up in this bitch!

 

Finally the administrators woke up and did something. Ridiculous that they allowed that crap to go on for as long as it did.

[John_Havok]

Finally the administrators woke up and did something. Ridiculous that they allowed that crap to go on for as long as it did.

 

That's the problem though, technically he broke very few rules, he was just a giant douchebag

[TheHurl]

Finally the administrators woke up and did something. Ridiculous that they allowed that crap to go on for as long as it did.

 

 

For every Moogy know-it-all argument on here...someone was arguing with him. I wouldn't have banned him (he did very little wrong). Everyone that says 5 days isn't enough, well if they respond to him when he's back, they will be getting a time out.

[jays4life19]

For every Moogy know-it-all argument on here...someone was arguing with him. I wouldn't have banned him (he did very little wrong). Everyone that says 5 days isn't enough, well if they respond to him when he's back, they will be getting a time out.

 

Google narcissism.

 

I don't argue with the guy, but he derails SO MANY threads because he's such a narcissistic dick. The guy knows baseball and if he would just just stick to baseball i don't think anyone would have a problem with him. He likes to pick apart irrelevant points in people posts and will not end it until he has the last word. I know better enough to get involved in any discussion with him.

 

If he talks baseball. Awesome. But he picks a fight with EVERYONE.

[GD]

He's really not hard to deal with.

[Vincent]

He's really not hard to deal with.

 

Agreed. Never argue with him or tell him he's wrong and you'll get along perfectly. Also remember to kiss his feet and compliment him on his masterhood.

[BTS]

He's really not hard to deal with.

 

He's pretty much the definition of someone who's hard to deal with. When you can't even discuss ideas with someone who doesn't agree with you, you're hard to deal with.

[GD]

@Vincent Or just make jokes about him a lot and don't take everything he says so damn seriously. That works too.

 

@Queen BeeTDumn it's all about expectations. You don't expect a brick wall to converse with you, do you? no i don't count

[Orgfiller]

@Vincent Or just make jokes about him a lot and don't take everything he says so damn seriously. That works too.

 

@Queen BeeTDumn it's all about expectations. You don't expect a brick wall to converse with you, do you?

 

Regardless of whether or not you expect him to be an idiot, it's still pretty frustrating for him to constantly take up 90% of a page with senseless arguments and ruining an otherwise interesting thread.

[GD]

Regardless of whether or not you expect him to be an idiot, it's still pretty frustrating for him to constantly take up 90% of a page with senseless arguments and ruining an otherwise interesting thread.

 

The trick I'm quickly learning is to not really give a f***. It's just a message board comprised of maybe a dozen respectable human beings. And then one psychotic nut job.

[BTS]

@Queen BeeTDumn it's all about expectations. You don't expect a brick wall to converse with you, do you? no i don't count

 

So what you really meant was that he's so hard to deal with that nobody should have any expectation of being able to deal with him?

[jays4life19]

The trick I'm quickly learning is to not really give a f***. It's just a message board comprised of maybe a dozen respectable human beings. And then one psychotic nut job.

 

Hopefully he learns that trick.

[GD]

So what you really meant was that he's so hard to deal with that nobody should have any expectation of being able to deal with him?

 

If that's how you view a brick wall or a TV stand or a desk, I guess you could say that.

[Dick_Pole]

The irony is that this thread has been derailed with people discussing his banning, when he was actually contributing useful data to this particular conversation.