How do you deal with the Jacob DeGrom problem?

[Kblaze8855]

I don’t know how much you follow baseball....I don’t really. But I have an occasional interest in the history as just a fan of sports. Right now there’s a guy on the Mets who is widely considered the best pitcher ever. His play this season is such an outlier it’s hard to put into context. These numbers wont mean much to most of you but you can still tell he’s killing it:



The .113 batting average against deGrom this season is the lowest in any 12-game span since at least 1901 (https://twitter.com/slangsonsports/status/1407107612072681479?s=21) (minimum 70 innings)

Pitchers in MLB are hitting .112 this season, just one point lower (https://twitter.com/PaulHembo/status/1407308022683213827) than the batting average deGrom has allowed

DeGrom has allowed one or zero earned runs in 12 straight starts, the longest streak (https://twitter.com/slangsonsports/status/1407106619486445572?s=21) since earned runs became official in both leagues in 1913

DeGrom's 0.50 ERA is the lowest by any pitcher (https://twitter.com/slangsonsports/status/1407104466072002563?s=21)through his first 12 starts since at least 1913

DeGrom has a career ERA of 2.49 with a 10.7 K/9 rate in 155 starts. He is the only pitcher in MLB history (https://twitter.com/mlbrandomstats/status/1407116405850398727?s=21) to have a sub-2.50 career ERA and 10+ K/9 rate at any point in their career (minimum 70 starts)

Stats and Pace

DeGrom is leading the majors in ERA (0.50), WHIP (0.51), H/9 (3.4), K/9 (14.16), FIP (0.87), SO/W (11.70), and ERA+ (777).



Hes near unhittable. Normal players hit vs him like pitchers hit vs normal pitchers. And unrelated but he’s actually batting like .400 or was recently at least. It’s just totally out of hand.


But here’s the problem....


Nobody can hit today. The league has its worst batting average in like 50 years. It’s easier to get strikeouts and shut teams down because analytics have taught hitters striking out doesn’t matter. Out is out. And a slow hit into a double play is 2 outs. So swing hard as you can and hope for a home run. Don’t look for contact. Don’t try to avoid striking out for pride. Just swing for the fences. ****s up your averages and inflates striking out. Pitchers have straight dominated all year to the point they are making them stop use the sticky shit they ignored for 100 years. No hitters are crazy common. Teams just can’t hit a good pitcher.

That said.....

He’s also an insane pitcher by any eras standards. He throws 100-101 like....10 times in a row with crazy precision. It’s not all the stat guys saying he’s a god. The old school fans have seen nothing like him either. He throws hard like Nolan Ryan(almost) but with the control of Greg Maddux(almost).

He’s objectively amazing by eye test or stats but still....

The era he’s in simply destroys the numbers we traditionally used to judge hitters and pitchers dominate hitters so much now the league changed enforcement mid season trying to give hitters a chance.

The nba comparisons are easy to make.

I won’t go into all the changes we talk about every day but we can just look at the numbers of like...middling or low tier all stars....a Lavine...KAT...whoever. Compared to many legends? They make them look like crap.


Lavine is 27/5/5 on 51/42/85 which is....ridiculous. Harden, Luka, Steph and so on. Everyone has unprecedented numbers.

All of them....like DeGrob...objectively great. But how do you put it in context?

And it’s not just this era. The 60s also had outlier numbers. Some eras for rules reasons or play style....simply didn’t allow some things production wise. Giannis is a beast. Is he having prime Shaq numbers in 31 minutes a game in 2003? Of course not.

Some era just...give you more chances to shine. A better opportunity to produce.

How do you balance knowing that fact and respecting the obvious insane talents of our Jacob DeGrom types in basketball?

You able to both admit they have an easier league to do these things in....and give them full credit for doing them when compared to others?

The easiest thing is to just say “You did what you did....throw out the era” and respect everyone for what they did in their time. And then you realize if you do that....you gotta rank a lot of 60s players as better than you want to.

You just kinda arbitrarily pulling out of your ass who you respect and who you don’t? Any kind of real policy? Does Bird get respect for 86 numbers while Kiki Vandeweghe doesn’t?

We giving Steph 100% credit for his numbers but pretending Lavine doesn’t kinda shit on a lot of legends by the offensive numbers?

Dudes out here hitting stepback one legged fading 32 footers during 45/15/9 playoff games so obviously they’re talented....but you know....knooooooow....the rules, pace, and style would not allow it to happen in 1998. Not as easily at least.

Long story short....does anything matter other than what you did? Can you even try to factor in the “How and why” and not look like a hater?


Can DeGron just be the GOAT and not have us bring up what Randy Johnson might look like if guys stopped caring about batting average 30 years ago?


Can you just take all production at face value? Or do you insist on deciding who to give credit?

[ShawkFactory]

When it comes to these crazy numbers I think you have to take skill and their peers hugely into the equation. Lavine is putting up Kobe numbers but can he do things Kobe can't? Can Kobe do things Lavine can't? Certainly.

Also, is Lavine doing things that other guys aren't? Not really.

Degrom is doing things from the mound that no one has really done before. Exploding 100-101 MPH with pinpoint control. 94 MPH slider that moves 2 and half feet. It'd be like if Nolan Ryan didn't walk anyone.

I heard a stat on a podcast a couple weeks ago and they were saying that there had at that point been like 87 instances of a starting pitcher throwing a 100 pitch...Degrom had 68 of them. Second place was Ohtani I believe with 6. And only 8 guys have done it at all.

He's above his peers when it comes to what he can offer. The numbers just happen to reflect that. I'm not going to say he's the GOAT or anything but I don't think it's absurd to say he's absolutely on par with your Randy Johnson's, Roger Clemens, Pedro Martinex, Maddux, etc. just based on what he can do.

[imdaman99]

He's 'struggled' his last 2 starts by his standards. Allowed 2 runs in 6 innings to the Phillies and last night 3 runs in 7 innings (bad first inning but then mowed them down after that). DeGrom is as special as it gets, even the old heads are chiming in. I know it was Felix Hernandez that made wins no longer matter for pitchers, but Jake has master classed past him winning 2 straight cy youngs with barely over .500 records. This year he's getting more wins even though the Mets hitting still stinks. I really don't know how to put it into context since it's swing for the fences or strikeout that's being taught. But he was great 2 years back (when the ball was juiced) and he's great now even past the sticky stuff has been banned.

Modern sports has an advantage in everything. I say we just stick to their respective eras and not compare to past greats even though I understand how inevitable that is. Lavine is an empty stats guy, certainly no Kobe. He can dunk and he can shoot. But there is more to winning than that.

[ShawkFactory]

And the ridiculous part about Degrom is that he has 4 effective pitchers but only really uses the fastball and slider. Imagine having an awesome changing but just not needing to use it.

Regarding him "struggling" his last couple outings...he gave up 3 first inning runs last night and still went 7 and struck out 14.

[Kblaze8855]

When it comes to these crazy numbers I think you have to take skill and their peers hugely into the equation. Lavine is putting up Kobe numbers but can he do things Kobe can't? Can Kobe do things Lavine can't? Certainly.

Also, is Lavine doing things that other guys aren't? Not really.

Degrom is doing things from the mound that no one has really done before. Exploding 100-101 MPH with pinpoint control. 94 MPH slider that moves 2 and half feet. It'd be like if Nolan Ryan didn't walk anyone.

I heard a stat on a podcast a couple weeks ago and they were saying that there had at that point been like 87 instances of a starting pitcher throwing a 100 pitch...Degrom had 68 of them. Second place was Ohtani I believe with 6. And only 8 guys have done it at all.

He's above his peers when it comes to what he can offer. The numbers just happen to reflect that. I'm not going to say he's the GOAT or anything but I don't think it's absurd to say he's absolutely on par with your Randy Johnson's, Roger Clemens, Pedro Martinex, Maddux, etc. just based on what he can do.



Im not saying he isn’t the goat. I don’t follow baseball enough to be confident I should even have an opinion.

What I’m saying is....I understand people asking what ____ numbers would be if the whole league was hitting like shit and didn’t care about missing the ball by 2 feet because strike outs don’t matter.

He might well be the best ever. But you can be the best....and in an era that benefits you. Not that any era will be totally beneficial. It always goes both ways.

Hitters don’t care about striking out....but you also have like 6 great relievers do you don’t go full games to rack up more of them. Lot of factors as always.

[Carbine]

Degrom the GOAT pitcher? Widely considered by who? Delusional Mets fans?

I can promise you he is not regarded like that. Why would he be? Yeah he is having one of the single best 80 inning stretch of all time, but the rest of his career doesn't even make him a top 10 pitcher all time let alone widely considered the best of all time.

[Carbine]

This era isn't really hitting like shit either. They just don't hit for average as much. They still put up RUNS at the same clip as any other era not including the height of steriods. Which is all that matters. This year is like tied for 4th highest since 2010 in runs per game as a league.

The last full year prior to Covid was 4.83 runs per game and the height of the roid era was 5.14...... misinformed post by Kbald

[tpols]

I'm going to citi field next week to see him pitch.

[Kblaze8855]

Degrom the GOAT pitcher? Widely considered by who? Delusional Mets fans?

I can promise you he is not regarded like that. Why would he be? Yeah he is having one of the single best 80 inning stretch of all time, but the rest of his career doesn't even make him a top 10 pitcher all time let alone widely considered the best of all time.


Ive heard it from quite a few baseball people lately. Usually worded like “Best I’ve ever seen” or “The best ever” and not greatest....greatness is kinda abstract.

[HoopsNY]

What makes deGrom's performances so amazing is that his ERA+ blows Pedro's 2000 ERA+ out the water.

deGrom's ERA+ this year is 403. Pedro's in 2000 was something like 291. ERA+ adjusts for ballpark and the league averages in your era, showing how much more dominant you are against your league as opposed to the average pitcher.

He looked human in his last outing, with just 7 IP allowing 3 ER, 0 BBs, and just a meager 14 strikeouts. But that's deGrom for ya.

It's tough to place him in the all time rankings. Best to wait a few years and see if he accumulates some more postseason outings. But as of now, he's on pace to end up as one of the best. I mean, why not? 2-3 more years of this and he'll have a 5-6 year stretch similar to the Koufaxs, Pedros, Scherzers, RJs, Kershaws etc.

[Kblaze8855]

This era isn't really hitting like shit either. They just don't hit for average as much. They still put up RUNS at the same clip as any other era not including the height of steriods. Which is all that matters. This year is like tied for 4th highest since 2010 in runs per game as a league.

The last full year prior to Covid was 4.83 runs per game and the height of the roid era was 5.14...... misinformed post by Kbald

Which I’m sure is why they do it. But runs aren’t the only pitching stat and they are rarely a matter of one pitchers work.

Teams go for home runs and figure it averages out...and it well may. And a while back there were complaints about the ball being rigged to help. But not having a gang of Tony Gwynn types trying to hit singles obviously changes these individual numbers.

[Clifton]

The answer is to talk about the game qualitatively. To stop looking at numbers to tell you what's going on, watch the games, and try to describe what's going on.

If you're watching a Nets-Bucks game with someone who doesn't follow basketball, and Durant and Middleton both have 38 points, can you explain to this person why Durant is better? Heck, even why his 38 points are better than Middleton's?

If you can't, all the analytics in the world won't save you. You're a slave to numbers that are becoming increasingly meaningless.

I don't think their shot charts would look very different. They're both clutch. They both glide around the halfcourt in a similar sort of way, I guess. (What I mean is, you could talk yourself into considering them similar, even though they're really not, not in any important way.)

There is probably some formula out there that does part of the job explaining why Giannis scoring 34 in the 2021 playoffs isn't as good as when Duncan would drop 25 in the 2003 playoffs. Pace, etc. is part of it. But it's much better to watch what's going on, understand what's going on, and be able to explain it to people.

...

Do you immediately understand that Curry is a better player than Damian Lillard? Most everyone seems to agree with this, and it's true. Maybe it's the resume or the flashiness that convinces them of this, I don't know.

But everyone also seems to understand that Chris Paul is better than Booker, even though Booker is more exciting and scores more points. People even seem to understand that Paul is much better than Zach Lavine, despite the numbers-- and they knew it last year too, even though Paul wasn't leading a contender.

It's only when you bring in numbers that people start to second-guess this stuff. People think advancing as a basketball fan means understanding VORPs and such. It doesn't. It means being able to immediately and reliably understand, and also intelligently explain the stuff that's right before our eyes.

[Carbine]

What makes deGrom's performances so amazing is that his ERA+ blows Pedro's 2000 ERA+ out the water.

deGrom's ERA+ this year is 403. Pedro's in 2000 was something like 291. ERA+ adjusts for ballpark and the league averages in your era, showing how much more dominant you are against your league as opposed to the average pitcher.

He looked human in his last outing, with just 7 IP allowing 3 ER, 0 BBs, and just a meager 14 strikeouts. But that's deGrom for ya.

It's tough to place him in the all time rankings. Best to wait a few years and see if he accumulates some more postseason outings. But as of now, he's on pace to end up as one of the best. I mean, why not? 2-3 more years of this and he'll have a 5-6 year stretch similar to the Koufaxs, Pedros, Scherzers, RJs, Kershaws etc.

Which is exactly why this thread is misinformed. Degrom doing this be compared to Randy Johnson or Pedro because baseball is such a numbers sport. If Degrom was truly playing in a weak era, the advanced numbers would account for this. This isn't a weak era at all for hitting. It's pretty strong actually.

As far as Degroms all time ranking, Baseball is such a sport where career totals matter so much. It really has an impact on who the GOAT players are. Degrom simply doesn't have enough on his resume currently.

He ranks 172nd in career WAR. Yes you read that right. WAR is baseball is basically the #1 thing people look at for value.

He only has 1200 inning pitched which is very very light. He basically has no playoff resume whatsoever.

He's never going to touch any win leaderboards or strikeout leaderboards. I don't think he's even top 200 all time in either, with many of his peers above him. Bottom line he just hasn't pitched enough and he's turning 34. Still an all-time great peak though. You need more than that in baseball to be up there with Randy ****ing Johnson.

[Kblaze8855]

Which is exactly why this thread is misinformed. Degrom doing this be compared to Randy Johnson or Pedro because baseball is such a numbers sport. If Degrom was truly playing in a weak era, the advanced numbers would account for this. This isn't a weak era at all for hitting. It's pretty strong actually.

As far as Degroms all time ranking, Baseball is such a sport where career totals matter so much. It really has an impact on who the GOAT players are. Degrom simply doesn't have enough on his resume currently.

He ranks 172nd in career WAR. Yes you read that right. WAR is baseball is basically the #1 thing people look at for value.

He only has 1200 inning pitched which is very very light. He basically has no playoff resume whatsoever.

He's never going to touch any win leaderboards or strikeout leaderboards. I don't think he's even top 200 all time in either, with many of his peers above him. Bottom line he just hasn't pitched enough and he's turning 34. Still an all-time great peak though. You need more than that in baseball to be up there with Randy ****ing Johnson.


Randy Johnson is exactly who the people I was listening to were bringing up. Wel the one who was an ex player at least. I don’t know these people
by voice. The question was about DeGrom being the best whoever it was ever saw and the other guy was like “But In Randy Johnsons day....” which feels like the same argument had all across sports.

How hard scorers, quarterbacks, and so on all had it 30 years ago. Brought me immediately to the discussions we seem unable to stop having.

[Shogon]

Objective truth is unknowable. The amount of variables that go into these things, particularly in a team(read for stupid people: not a 1 on 1 contest) sport with an untold number of intricacies make it unknowable.

Even if all players throughout all of NBA history played in the same era under the same rule-set with the same societal at large external factors, the amount of variables in day to day real life from player to player, the amount of variables from team to team and so on and so forth are so large that none of this means anything.

It's not a reach to say that Michael Jordan was better than... Brook Lopez. But when we're talking about the upper echelon of players, the objective truth is unknowable.

Anyone who says otherwise is a stupid human being that is operating on a strong conviction of... belief.

This is all very entertaining, and it is for that reason that we shouldn't not do it. But none of it means anything and anyone who acts like it does is stupid.

[Shogon]

BTW, it is completely and utterly unfair to compare basketball to baseball in any real way.

Basketball is a team sport. Baseball is a bunch of 1 on 1 contests with a bunch of static parts. There is no real in game strategy in terms of player movement. They're all a bunch of static pieces participating in a bunch of different 1 on 1 contests.

Basketball is extremely deep from an analytics viewpoint compared to baseball. The amount of in game variables from sport to sport are literally exponentially separated.

I realize that you were just simply using it as a way to compare players from different eras argument, but I'm just saying.

[Carbine]

Randy Johnson is exactly who the people I was listening to were bringing up. Wel the one who was an ex player at least. I don’t know these people
by voice. The question was about DeGrom being the best whoever it was ever saw and the other guy was like “But In Randy Johnsons day....” which feels like the same argument had all across sports.

How hard scorers, quarterbacks, and so on all had it 30 years ago. Brought me immediately to the discussions we seem unable to stop having.

I don't even know what that means TBH. In Randy Johnsons day they had 9 inning games, umpires calling balls and strikes, 4 bases to run around, the runs scored per game pretty much the same as is it now besides the two years above 5 runs per game...... this isn't like comparing the game of basketball from the late 90's to early 2000's where a 91-87 game was a pretty standard thing to see. Now it's not surprising to see 120-116 final scores. Or more.

Baseball still scores the same. Pretty much. So this back in the day bullshit..... what does it even mean?

[MaxPlayer]

BTW, it is completely and utterly unfair to compare basketball to baseball in any real way.

Basketball is a team sport. Baseball is a bunch of 1 on 1 contests with a bunch of static parts. There is no real in game strategy in terms of player movement. They're all a bunch of static pieces participating in a bunch of different 1 on 1 contests.

Basketball is extremely deep from an analytics viewpoint compared to baseball. The amount of in game variables from sport to sport are literally exponentially separated.

I realize that you were just simply using it as a way to compare players from different eras argument, but I'm just saying.

This.

Baseball statistics are far less context-dependent than are basketball statistics (and the context is generally more controllable form a data perspective.)

[Kblaze8855]

I don't even know what that means TBH. In Randy Johnsons day they had 9 inning games, umpires calling balls and strikes, 4 bases to run around, the runs scored per game pretty much the same as is it now besides the two years above 5 runs per game...... this isn't like comparing the game of basketball from the late 90's to early 2000's where a 91-87 game was a pretty standard thing to see. Now it's not surprising to see 120-116 final scores. Or more.

Baseball still scores the same. Pretty much. So this back in the day bullshit..... what does it even mean?


Id obviously be better able to explain it in basketball. On baseball I’m not even a casual fan. Jeff Passan is getting into it with fans on Twitter though. Had a thing about this being better than Gibson in 68 or Pedro 2000. Mentioned the people downplaying Degrom due to era and how they don’t go a full 9 like Gibson. Saying Gibson wouldn’t go 9 today either...but conceded he’d have more strikeouts. Really similar to our “But it used to be tougher” conversations.

The discussion is being had but I’m more of a spectator.

[HoopsNY]

Which is exactly why this thread is misinformed. Degrom doing this be compared to Randy Johnson or Pedro because baseball is such a numbers sport. If Degrom was truly playing in a weak era, the advanced numbers would account for this. This isn't a weak era at all for hitting. It's pretty strong actually.

As far as Degroms all time ranking, Baseball is such a sport where career totals matter so much. It really has an impact on who the GOAT players are. Degrom simply doesn't have enough on his resume currently.

He ranks 172nd in career WAR. Yes you read that right. WAR is baseball is basically the #1 thing people look at for value.

He only has 1200 inning pitched which is very very light. He basically has no playoff resume whatsoever.

He's never going to touch any win leaderboards or strikeout leaderboards. I don't think he's even top 200 all time in either, with many of his peers above him. Bottom line he just hasn't pitched enough and he's turning 34. Still an all-time great peak though. You need more than that in baseball to be up there with Randy ****ing Johnson.

Yea, but we said the same for Sandy Koufax for years. Koufax had that five year stretch but where is he in career totals? Pedro is an interesting case, too, because his six year stretch between 1997-2002 is really his claim to fame.

deGrom might just win MVP and the CYA this year. If he strings together 2-3 more years of similar play to what we've seen the last few seasons, then you have to enter him into that conversation of the top 5 or 10 pitchers ever. The only way he's disqualified from that discourse is if he bombs it in the postseason.

But if he pitches this well in the playoffs, then that only solidifies his case even more. I feel like we are all too often dependent on longevity when weighing the strengths and successes of players in sports, historically.

A lot of people rank Mays over Mantle. I don't. And I know I'm probably on an island where that one is concerned.

[Carbine]

Yea, but we said the same for Sandy Koufax for years. Koufax had that five year stretch but where is he in career totals? Pedro is an interesting case, too, because his six year stretch between 1997-2002 is really his claim to fame.

deGrom might just win MVP and the CYA this year. If he strings together 2-3 more years of similar play to what we've seen the last few seasons, then you have to enter him into that conversation of the top 5 or 10 pitchers ever. The only way he's disqualified from that discourse is if he bombs it in the postseason.

But if he pitches this well in the playoffs, then that only solidifies his case even more. I feel like we are all too often dependent on longevity when weighing the strengths and successes of players in sports, historically.

A lot of people rank Mays over Mantle. I don't. And I know I'm probably on an island where that one is concerned.

Pedro is 56th all time in WAR for all players. Degrom was currently 172nd just for pitchers alone.

If all Pedro did was that 5 year stretch he wouldn't be that high up on the career value.

There is a reason Mays is ranked higher. He has over 45 WAR more than Mantle. Considering a HOF'er baseline is 60 WAR, he's 3/4ths of a HOF career ahead of Mantle in value over a career. Longevity holds so much more weight in baseball than it does in basketball.

[Carbine]

I have no problem whatsoever if Degrom strings together another 3 years of this type of Cy Young winning stuff putting him top 10 all time.

Just based on the peak alone. He would deserve that.

[Charlie Sheen]

By the numbers, players strike out more frequently.

That doesn't prove it's any easier for Degrom to shut down MLB hitters for 85 innings than it was for Pedro or Bob Gibson. That's a hater's conclusion.

[MaxPlayer]

By the numbers, players strike out more frequently.

That doesn't prove it's any easier for Degrom to shut down MLB hitters for 85 innings than it was for Pedro or Bob Gibson. That's a hater's conclusion.

Bob Gibson's peak also coincided with a terrible hitting era.

[HoopsNY]

Pedro is 56th all time in WAR for all players. Degrom was currently 172nd just for pitchers alone.

If all Pedro did was that 5 year stretch he wouldn't be that high up on the career value.

There is a reason Mays is ranked higher. He has over 45 WAR more than Mantle. Considering a HOF'er baseline is 60 WAR, he's 3/4ths of a HOF career ahead of Mantle in value over a career. Longevity holds so much more weight in baseball than it does in basketball.

Yea, but again, that goes back to longevity, and not the actual ability of the player in question.

The same with Mantle and Mays. Mantle was a better peak performer and superior in postseason/World Series play. Yet Mays gets the nod, largely because of his longevity.

[Charlie Sheen]

Bob Gibson's peak also coincided with a terrible hitting era.

That's the problem when you start minimizing one player's accomplishments. It begins a never ending cycle of Skip Bayless arguments.

I'm actually agreeing with your post if that makes sense :cheers:

[HoopsNY]

Bob Gibson's peak also coincided with a terrible hitting era.

Which is why Pedro's 2000 season is more impressive than Gibson's 1968 season. The league ERA in 1968 was 2.99 if I'm not mistaken. I think the league ERA in 2000 was like 4.94, and the second best individual ERA was Clemens at a 3.70 clip. Pedro's was 1.73. Insane dominance.

[Carbine]

Yea, but again, that goes back to longevity, and not the actual ability of the player in question.

The same with Mantle and Mays. Mantle was a better peak performer and superior in postseason/World Series play. Yet Mays gets the nod, largely because of his longevity.

Peak performer is close enough where it's not a definitive answer either way. Mantle peaked at 11.3 and Mays 11.2 WAR seasons.

Mantle was a better hitter in his peak but Mays was probably THE premier defender and still knocked the ball around at an elite clip.

[GOBB]

Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson are to dudes who I saw who were filthy at their peaks. I heard the Degrom goat pitcher and can’t help but ask myself how? Pedro was so damn dominant at one point. There’s other pitches from back in the day I didn’t see play (sandy koufax). Then you have Greg Maddux painting corners and Roger Clemens. People today are quick to give a player a “best ever” crown.

[FKAri]

Been enjoying baseball much more than basketball lately. DeGrom pitching like a 0.6, Vladdy threatening the triple crown and of course Shohei GOATani.

As for OP's point. Really strange comparing baseball stats to basketball. Stuff isn't that era dependent like it is in basketball. There is no "I wonder how Randy Johnson would do in this era" type questions necessary. A better question would be how would Randy Johnson do with the sticky stuff or what would hitting have looked like at the turn of the century without roids. Other than that it's a lot easier to compare across eras than it is in basketball.

[StrongLurk]

I don't understand why people use a guy like Lavine as a good example of this era having inflated stats?

The dude is an athletic freak who can absolutely shoot the ball. Why can't he be in the same realm as Vince Carter?

[ralph_i_el]

Peak performer is close enough where it's not a definitive answer either way. Mantle peaked at 11.3 and Mays 11.2 WAR seasons.

Mantle was a better hitter in his peak but Mays was probably THE premier defender and still knocked the ball around at an elite clip.

Mays also missed ~1.5 seasons due to the Korean War. Probably missed out on 60 more career homers because of getting drafted.

[ShawkFactory]

Mantle was a better hitter. That isn’t arguable.

In baseball I tend to pick the better hitter unless there’s a huge disparity in other areas, which there kind of was with he and Mays.

[HoopsNY]

Peak performer is close enough where it's not a definitive answer either way. Mantle peaked at 11.3 and Mays 11.2 WAR seasons.

Mantle was a better hitter in his peak but Mays was probably THE premier defender and still knocked the ball around at an elite clip.

True say, but Mantle's hitting and playoff performances can't be ignored. Furthermore, Mantle from 1955-64 posted a 1.057 OPS an 188 OPS+. Mays from 1954-65 posted a .997 OPS and 167 OPS+.

Mays put up a .668 OPS in the postseason. Mantle, .908. Mays had just 1 home run in 117 ABs. Mantle had 18 in 230.

The difference there is just too great. And Mantle was no slouch on the bases or in the field, either. He fell off after his knee injury early on in his career, but that's just it, injuries. In addition, Mantle was successful on 80% of his SB attempts.

[iamgine]

Can you just take all production at face value? Or do you insist on deciding who to give credit?

Out of these two, I would insist on deciding who to give credit. It has its flaws but just taking all production at face value is...just retarded.


There's a reason why Lavine or Mitchell isn't on Curry's level. Or why CP3 is not just better, but a MUCH better player than Booker. We wouldn't know it just taking all production at face value.

[MadDog]

Was a big Dodger fan in the 90s and early 2000s. Gagne, Park, Karros, Lo Duca, Mondesi, Sheffield. Good times. Stopped watching sometime after Boston came back on the Yankees, and won the series. The numbers I followed were RBI's, slugging percentage, batting average, ERA, hits, SBs and obviously homers. Lot has changed since then. Have no idea what "WAR" is. :oldlol: And apparently striking out is OK.

[HoopsNY]

Was a big Dodger fan in the 90s and early 2000s. Gagne, Park, Karros, Lo Duca, Mondesi, Sheffield. Good times. Stopped watching sometime after Boston came back on the Yankees, and won the series. The numbers I followed were RBI's, slugging percentage, batting average, ERA, hits, SBs and obviously homers. Lot has changed since then. Have no idea what "WAR" is. :oldlol: And apparently striking out is OK.

Haha, I hear you. I took a breather myself after a while but as early as 2000 I was into Bill James' Sabermetrics. I remember those Dodgers teams. Good times, though the steroid era really f***** us over.

[ShawkFactory]

Was a big Dodger fan in the 90s and early 2000s. Gagne, Park, Karros, Lo Duca, Mondesi, Sheffield. Good times. Stopped watching sometime after Boston came back on the Yankees, and won the series. The numbers I followed were RBI's, slugging percentage, batting average, ERA, hits, SBs and obviously homers. Lot has changed since then. Have no idea what "WAR" is. :oldlol: And apparently striking out is OK.

:lol

RBIs and batting average don’t matter anymore, particularly RBIs. I don’t even think they’re listed when discussing a players numbers anymore.

People put more focus on slug and OBP (and thus obviously OPS) than average. So you can sacrifice a single and strikeout if that means you can sell out to go deep or to draw and walk. Kind of like how people have gone away from FG% and focus on true shooting.

Wins above replacement considers several different aspects to attempt to assign value. It’s flawed though because until recently the statcast measures like exit velocity and launch angle weren’t taken into account. Beforehand a lazy pop out to shallow center and a screaming line drive to the same guy counted the same. But now more value is assigned to the person who hit the ball harder, regardless of outcome. This isn’t the only metric involved in WAR but now it’s considered.

[Carbine]

:lol

RBIs and batting average don’t matter anymore, particularly RBIs. I don’t even think they’re listed when discussing a players numbers anymore.

People put more focus on slug and OBP (and thus obviously OPS) than average. So you can sacrifice a single and strikeout if that means you can sell out to go deep or to draw and walk. Kind of like how people have gone away from FG% and focus on true shooting.

Wins above replacement considers several different aspects to attempt to assign value. It’s flawed though because until recently the statcast measures like exit velocity and launch angle weren’t taken into account. Beforehand a lazy pop out to shallow center and a screaming line drive to the same guy counted the same. But now more value is assigned to the person who hit the ball harder, regardless of outcome. This isn’t the only metric involved in WAR but now it’s considered.

I don't think this is true. Launch angle and Exit Velo have no direct equation in the totality of someone's WAR unless it was recently changed within the last year or so that I didn't know of.

[ShawkFactory]

I don't think this is true. Launch angle and Exit Velo have no direct equation in the totality of someone's WAR unless it was recently changed within the last year or so that I didn't know of.

Fangraphs starting using it in their calculations in 2019 I believe. Some of the disparities between them and baseball reference and bigger now. Like Acuña has an almost 1 win difference, which is crazy.

[Clifton]

I don't understand why people use a guy like Lavine as a good example of this era having inflated stats?

The dude is an athletic freak who can absolutely shoot the ball. Why can't he be in the same realm as Vince Carter?
I think it's fair to say Lavine and Carter are in the same "realm." It's not as great a difference as Durant and Middleton, for example.

But if you didn't have access to individual statistics and could only watch footage, would it ever occur to you that they might be equal? Both explosive, both can get hot from 3, sure... and they'd go toe to toe with anyone on a good night. But I remember Carter exerting more control on a game than I see Lavine doing. I also remember him being better on defense and fitting in with other players more smoothly. (Carter was a Next-Jordan on Toronto, then a running mate on the mid-2000s Nets with Kidd, then joined the Dwight Magic, then the post-championship Mavs for a while, and even some bright late-career player-coach years with Memphis and then Atlanta. All totally different types of teams and roles. Lavine meanwhile hasn't even made anything happen on the one team he's been on.)

That said, I continue to be wrong about Lavine: he keeps improving as a real impact ballplayer, and I secretly dread that he'll be hitting game winners in the conference finals in a couple years... he is talented and fearless.

[GOBB]

Mantle was a better hitter. That isn’t arguable.

In baseball I tend to pick the better hitter unless there’s a huge disparity in other areas, which there kind of was with he and Mays.

Mays > Mantle

[tpols]

What has Lavine done but put up empty stats on all time bad teams? Vince Carter had the Raptors in the playoffs going off at the same age. And then the Nets every year too.

[HoopsNY]

What has Lavine done but put up empty stats on all time bad teams? Vince Carter had the Raptors in the playoffs going off at the same age. And then the Nets every year too.

Yea, though to be fair, Vince's cast in 2000 was a lot better than what LaVine has been playing with.

[Carbine]

Fangraphs starting using it in their calculations in 2019 I believe. Some of the disparities between them and baseball reference and bigger now. Like Acuña has an almost 1 win difference, which is crazy.

I don't see anything that says they use those two things into their equation of someone's WAR.

They use position adjustment, runs created (with the bat and base running) and defensive advanced stats. Maybe they use those things in some other stat.

[GOBB]

What has Lavine done but put up empty stats on all time bad teams? Vince Carter had the Raptors in the playoffs going off at the same age. And then the Nets every year too.

Booker was once said to be empty stats. Now he’s not.

[Kblaze8855]

What has Lavine done but put up empty stats on all time bad teams? Vince Carter had the Raptors in the playoffs going off at the same age. And then the Nets every year too.


Kevin Love or Rasheed Wallace?

Go.

[StrongLurk]

What has Lavine done but put up empty stats on all time bad teams? Vince Carter had the Raptors in the playoffs going off at the same age. And then the Nets every year too.

You don't know what "empty stats" means.

Empty stats ultimately refer to players who put up volume stats INEFFICIENTLY...Think of guys who may score 25ppg but on like 50 TS%, or guys who may average 8 assists but also average 5.5 turnovers...their basic box score stats are "empty" because they only got them through sheer volume/inefficient possessions.

Lavine is pretty efficient with his play.

Lavine PER 100/POSS (age 23-25): 35.5/6.7/6.3 with 4.8 turnovers on 59.1 TS%

VC PER 100/POSS (age 23-25): 35.2/7.5/5.3 with 3.1 turnovers on 53.8 TS%

They are pretty similar players. I give VC the edge factoring in that his stats came in the middle of a very tough defensive era, but it's pretty close. If VC is a 9/10, Lavine is probably an 8.5/10. Both are hyperathletic guys who can really shoot the three ball and are also decent playmakers, but not great defenders.

[MaxPlayer]

You don't know what "empty stats" means.

Empty stats ultimately refer to players who put up volume stats INEFFICIENTLY...Think of guys who may score 25ppg but on like 50 TS%, or guys who may average 8 assists but also average 5.5 turnovers...their basic box score stats are "empty" because they only got them through sheer volume/inefficient possessions.

Not necessarily. It can also refer to players who don't contribute as much to winning basketball games as their stats might indicate. (Of course this is often difficult to prove, as we can't generally know the counterfactual of how the team would have performed had a different player been substituted.)

[GOBB]

You don't know what "empty stats" means.

Empty stats ultimately refer to players who put up volume stats INEFFICIENTLY...Think of guys who may score 25ppg but on like 50 TS%, or guys who may average 8 assists but also average 5.5 turnovers...their basic box score stats are "empty" because they only got them through sheer volume/inefficient possessions.

Lavine is pretty efficient with his play.

Lavine PER 100/POSS (age 23-25): 35.5/6.7/6.3 with 4.8 turnovers on 59.1 TS%

VC PER 100/POSS (age 23-25): 35.2/7.5/5.3 with 3.1 turnovers on 53.8 TS%

They are pretty similar players. Lavine has an edge scoring but VC is a slightly better playmaker.

I of course give VC the edge factoring in that his stats came in the middle of a very tough defensive era, but it's pretty close. If VC is a 9/10, Lavine is probably an 8.5/10.

Zing!

[FKAri]

Not necessarily. It can also refer to players who don't contribute as much to winning basketball games as their stats might indicate. (Of course this is often difficult to prove, as we can't generally know the counterfactual of how the team would have performed had a different player been substituted.)

More often than not, it's used by fans/analysts who are just looking to blame someone but have no evidence to support their argument. It's the perfect way to put blame on someone who is otherwise playing well.

That being said, I do think the concept does exist but it's used a cop out more often than not.

[HoopsNY]

You don't know what "empty stats" means.

Empty stats ultimately refer to players who put up volume stats INEFFICIENTLY...Think of guys who may score 25ppg but on like 50 TS%, or guys who may average 8 assists but also average 5.5 turnovers...their basic box score stats are "empty" because they only got them through sheer volume/inefficient possessions.

Lavine is pretty efficient with his play.

Lavine PER 100/POSS (age 23-25): 35.5/6.7/6.3 with 4.8 turnovers on 59.1 TS%

VC PER 100/POSS (age 23-25): 35.2/7.5/5.3 with 3.1 turnovers on 53.8 TS%

They are pretty similar players. I give VC the edge factoring in that his stats came in the middle of a very tough defensive era, but it's pretty close. If VC is a 9/10, Lavine is probably an 8.5/10. Both are hyperathletic guys who can really shoot the three ball and are also decent playmakers, but not great defenders.

That's just it though, Vince led his team to the playoffs, with those numbers, in the toughest defensive era, ever. I think that matters significantly when comparing the two.

The league was averaging 97.5 PPG with a 93 pace in 2000. The league averages 112 points now with a pace just under 100.

In 2001, it got worse. The league averaged less than 95 PPG with a 91 pace. And as you mentioned, it was the height of the defensive era.

[GOBB]

Peak vince off eye test was just better than Lavine at this point.