The knock against Cliff Lee from this mythical perspective is not Lee blowing big leads but that Lee kept losing those 1-0, 2-1, 3-2 games. Those are games where Lee needed to pitch to the score because he should have known he couldn't afford to give up those 1, 2, 3 runs that day.

A lot of people on Phillies message boards are convinced that Cliff Lee's contract is an albatross of hilariously ludicrous proportions. All the anxiety over all the Phillies' big contracts is transferred to Cliff Lee. Probably because he came back to the team in such a surprising way - fans were already expecting a future of a high-priced team without Cliff Lee, and suddenly he was added to the team as well.

This team is wildly over budget! They have X million dollars already committed for 2015! Hurry up and trade Cliff Lee already! He's way past his prime!

This team is wildly over budget! They have X million dollars already committed for 2015! Hurry up and trade Cliff Lee already! He's way past his prime!

Of course from the thinking fan's perspective*, you might well make a very similar argument -- you're wildly over budget, hurry up and trade Cliff Lee already, he's the only long-term, high-priced player you've got that anybody would want.

* I am THE thinking fan, right? :-)

I saw both Morris and Blyleven with my naked eyes.

Morris isn't worthy of washing Blyleven's jockstrap.

Since the 'writer' doesn't mean "eye", but actually some combination of his eye, cerebellum, memory, spinal column, and so on, and since he doubts your judgment, isn't this thread more aptly titled "Donnellon: Better let me jduge baseball talent"?

Now ... I do think the sabermetric debate of Schilling vs. Blyleven would be rather interesting. They're about even on peak. Blyleven wins on career but that's basically 250 more starts of average or slightly worse pitching (Schilling wins on WAA). Schilling wins on black ink, Blyleven on gray. Neither won a CYA although Schilling came closer. Both had lots of Ks -- Blyleven more thanks to career length, Schilling at a better rate (but maybe not relative to league) and better K/BB. Schilling gave up many fewer UER allowing them at half the rate Blyleven did. Both pitched great in the postseason but Schilling takes that one.

If Schilling had the obviously better peak, he'd win this one pretty clearly. As is, it's Blyleven's solid but unspectacular additional career value vs. a lot of ancillary stuff that is in Schilling's favor. It probably comes down to the UER difference.

Sure we want it clean, but we realize there are going to be days where the guy doesn't feel like doing his best and just kind of phones it in.

There's no excuse for phoning it in. For the bathroom guy maybe. But when you write something, it's online theoretically forever with your name on it. That ought to be a pretty bracing thought. It's not OK. The analogy shouldn't be to the bathroom guy but to an athlete. Everybody has those nights when they strike out four times or give up five runs in the first inning. Happens to the best of 'em, and crap columns happen to the best of writers.

But if a player phones it in? We don't forgive that.

Sugar Bear has "He was treated as an ace throughout his career, by all factions of the game, as measured in a variety of ways. No one's "lying" about that.

It's even refutable!!!"

Was this a typo or meant as a joke or what? You write enough that's it's hard for me to think you got the word wrong. "Refutable" means "easy to beat in a debate." It's "IRrefutable" that means "impossible to beat in a debate." - Brock Hanke

My eyes, the goggles do nothing!

Was this a typo or meant as a joke or what? You write enough that's it's hard for me to think you got the word wrong. "Refutable" means "easy to beat in a debate." It's "IRrefutable" that means "impossible to beat in a debate." - Brock Hanke

I think by "refutable" he means "falsifiable", as in, this assertion could be proved wrong because we have actual data. An unfalsifiable assertion is unscientific because there could be no evidence either for it or against it.

Falsifiability

In this case, the point is that you can tell that people treated him as an ace because he was paid a lot of money, he was the opening-day starter on multiple occasions, etc. as SugarBeak has told us time and time again.

If you seriously believe in "pitching to the score" here's how you can win on the cheap:

1. Sign the 5 starters who best pitch to the score.
2. Spend nothing above league minimum on your position players. You'll have an offense that makes the 2010 Mariners look good, but that does not matter.
3. Even if your pitchers have career ERAs of 4.50, they will challenge Bob Gibson's 1968 this year. Because they have to. They can pitch to the score.
4. Profit!

Really, really awful article.

Clearly, statistics are not irrelevant. But they should be used to support the naked eye, not create an alternate reality.

In other words, decide first based on your gut, pick the stats that agree with your assumption, and ignore anything that makes you question that assumption. Oy....

Here's another thing that bothers me: The valuation of regular-season statistics over postseason ones.

Because as we all know, small sample sizes are way cooler than large ones.

You know these guys. They get all frothy-mouthed each time a new acronym is invented to try and quantify value, yet show little or no reaction when a difficult doubleplay is executed, or a well-thrown pitch is fought off by a batter down in the count.

Of course statheads never get any kind of emotional/visceral thrills out of watching a ballgame. Besides, strawmen are fun to create.

Thing is, I saw Jack Morris pitch, and he was great. Great enough for the Hall of Fame? All I know is there are less great players in there.

If you're looking at career ERA+, there are only two such worse HoF pitchers than Morris (105) would be, Catfish Hunter at 104 and Rube Marquard at 103. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Once, when the Internet was not as friendly and we sought to observe athletic greatness rather than quantify it, sports was a simpler world. You watched under well-lit skies and inside of electrified arenas and amid pivotal moments and you did not need to look anything up afterward to understand what you saw.

And just to make things worse, Donnellon wants those pesky kids to get the Sam Hill off his lawn.