True talent level!!?? What do you think caused the 61 HRs, 50+ HR, and Cy Young years?

Yes, talent gave those men the ability to do those superhuman feats. However, you want to ascribe these outlier seasons as some ability on the individual. Well why didn’t they always perform like that? Why is there such a significant drop off for Maris compared to his ’61 season? Did he not care? Was he hurt every other year other than ’61?

People use stats to lie, draw conclusions they want to believe to be true, and perpetrate theories that support their biases. People are human, thank God. Some years they outperform others. But their accomplishments are real. So are their sins, slumps, and stumbles.

I highlighted the important part. Stats don’t lie, people lie. People manipulate them to say what they want them to say. If I take a poll of 10 people on whether they like oj or not, and 6 respond saying yes. saying 60% like oj isn’t an issue. It’s when I turn around and manipulate those numbers (like saying 60% of america, based on a small sampling likes oj) is when it becomes a problem. But no where did I say that a sampling said 80% or 20%. That’s a lie

Stats are tools, that help us understand the game we share. But that is all they are

No, stats are a record of what happened. They help us complete the story, but they are a factual basis of what occurred

To scoff at unusual achievements as anomaly is to slip into a Statistical Solipsism that reminds me of one of Dante’s levels of Hell

I never scoffed at any achievement, but this metaphor is terrible. How does doing this equate to any sin in the eyes of the Catholic Church is beyond me.

It would be like assessing the “Miracle on Ice”, as an occurrence that falls outside the norm, and therefore should be ignored or shuffled onto the bone pile of anomalies.

And here we finally get to why you have such a backlash against the previous posts. The Miracle on Ice happened, Bob Beamon shattered a WR in the long jump in Mexico City, Fernando Tatis hit two grand slams in one inning. All of those things happened. However, they are all outliers on people’s particular abilities. The US was clearly an inferior team in ’80, and benefited greatly when Tretiak was pulled after the first period. If they played that game 100 times, maybe the US wins 5/100. Beamon uncorked an amazing long jump that was significantly enhanced by the thin air. It took 30 years before someone came close to him.

All of this happened, but if it was indicative of their true talent level, why wasn’t it repeated?

To excuse it as a return to normality, is disrespecting his remarkable achievements in 2005 and 2009 when he pitched superbly. Like Maris hit superbly in 1961 and Batista did in 2010. To dismiss their accomplishments as an anomaly is a slippery slope.

No, it’s not. It’s saying that it’s not indicative of the individual’s true talent level. And funny you should pick a guy like Maris, who outside of his career ’61 season had highs of 39, 33, and 28 HRs. The 61 HR season was an anomaly.

The joke about How to Lie with Statistics is as hacky as it is old. Baseball stats don’t lie, people do.

PART I
In 1976, I was just out of college and working my first job at the Port Chester (NY) Daily Item, covering a Babe Ruth 13-year-old tournament. The starting pitcher for the team from Rye was supposed to be their star, a big kid named Rich Surhoff, whose father Dick had played for the NY Knicks in the 1950s. Surhoff did, in fact, make it t the major leagues, spending nine games with the Philadelphia Phillies. But that day, the pitcher’s younger brother was the one who caught my attention. He was only 12 years old and playing with the older kids, playing shortstop. On consecutive plays, I saw him range behind third base to the left field line and throw out a runner, then range the other way all the way behind first to catch a tricky pop that eluded a teammate.
After that game, I told BJ I thought that someday, I’d be watching him in the major leagues. For the next few years, I watched BJ become a local star at Rye HS, covering his games occasionally. And I remember telling him then that someday, I’d be voting for him for the Hall of Fame. Surhoff, went on to a career at UNC, became the No. 1 pick of the draft, played on our first Olympic baseball team. He had a very good (though not great) career for 18 years in MLB. And then there he was on my ballot (I’ve been a BBWAA member since 1985 and have had a Hall of Fame vote since ’95). So I remembered that promise (though I honestly can’t say if BJ does) and checked the box.
PART 3
The reaction to that astounds me. I expected people who didn’t know the story to question that vote. But the sheer level of nastiness, the anger, amazes me. I really didn’t think BJ would get elected. I’d be surprised if he got another vote besides mine. And I’m fine with that. BJ was a very good player and a good guy (check out the work he’s done for autism, sparked by his autistic son). He earned the fulfillment of that 35-year-old promise. And who, exactly did that hurt? If voting for BJ cost someone who deserved entry, I wouldn’t have done it. And if the rules said that everybody who got one vote got in, then I definitely wouldn’t have done it. But it didn’t.

1.) Auto-refresh on here sucks big time—and it not only wipes out what you’ve written and not posted, but it also separates the comment from where you were replying. I’m assuming that has something to do with the problem on this particular post.

2.) I am not saying that exclusively DHs should be excluded simply because they were exclusively DHs. I am, however, saying that they should not be INcluded simply because they are DHs. For one thing, the DH was—and still is—an asinine rule change that applies to only one league. For another, they could potentially keep out as-good, but more well-rounded players, especially with the 10 vote limit.

You would agree that it takes two things, pitching AND defense, to prevent runs, right? If I filled my lineup card — CF, SS, everything — with Jason Giambi clones, no pitcher would be expected to do a terribly good job of preventing runs, right, because every little dribler up the middle and every looping fly ball into the outfield would fall for a hit?

So say Lincecum 2009 is on the team with Jason Giambi clones. He strikes out more than 10 guys per nine innings, barely walks anyone and keeps the ball in the park, but because every ball that is put in play falls for a hit, he winds up with an ERA of say 4.50. And Giambi doesn’t hit all that much anymore either, so he goes 12-13 on the season.

Then, say, Nick Blackburn 2009 is on a team with Troy Tulowitzki clones. Good control, but he never strikes anybody out and gives up his share of home runs just because everybody puts the ball in play, so some are going to leave the park. But the defense gobbles up almost everything hit near them, so Blackburn ends up with a 3.50 ERA. And Tulo can hit, too, of course, so that’s good for a 17-9 line.

Everything a pitcher can possibly do, Lincecum has done better than Blackburn has. But your contention is still that Blackburn had a better season? Why? Why would we give the Cy Young — explicitly meant to go to the best pitcher in the league — to a guy who was outpitched in every possible way?

I did understand that, and you’re very wrong. If you’re the team, you’d rather have pitcher A’s line than pitcher B’s for that one game, after the fact, because that means your team allowed fewer runs and more likely won the game. But in your examples here, pitcher B was clearly the better pitcher on that day, and there’s no reason not to treat him as such. Fewer runs scored while Pitcher A was on the mound, but he didn’t do anything to make that happen. Pitcher B pitched better, and A got better results through luck or better defense or both. Pitcher A’s team allowed fewer runs, but Pitcher B did a much better job at the only things a pitcher can control, himself, that help prevent runs. The Cy Young Award is meant to go to the best pitcher, not the pitcher who happens to be on the team whose defense allows him to give up the fewest runs or whose offense allows him to get credited with a “win” the most times.