$heriff Tom
Administrator 
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 26, 2008 13:59:39 GMT -5
The two are so close that you can't separate them,
Oh really? Then why is there so much more a push for Blyleven, and his numbers are so much better than John in the votes?
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 26, 2008 14:29:03 GMT -5
Because a lot of people are dumb. There is an anti-Yankee bias among writers and people named Tom. But anyone who can actually read a stat sheet can see they are the same.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 2, 2009 17:31:29 GMT -5
Our old buddy Scott Proctor has signed with the Marlins, and Tony Clark is going back to the desert to play for the DBacks.
|
|
|
|
Post by nobeernofun on Jan 2, 2009 23:05:00 GMT -5
The Marlins sign Scott Proctor but let Joe Nelson go ? Nelson was 3-1 with one save and a 2.00 earned run average in a career-high 59 relief outings last season for Florida. He surrendered just 42 hits while striking out 60 in 54 innings after his recall from the minors in late May, and his ERA ranked third among National League relievers.
Why did the Yankees not sign him ?
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 3, 2009 14:25:23 GMT -5
Nelson had a breakthrough season last year, but he's been around for a long time (he was drafted in 1996, for crying out loud, and is going to be 35 years old) - lets see if he can do it again. Lets hope he doesnt, as he is going to pitching for the Rays)
I am glad the Yankees did not sign this one-year wonder.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Jan 3, 2009 16:43:41 GMT -5
Like Chris Hammond.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 3, 2009 16:59:53 GMT -5
Again, in Chris Hammond's one year with the Yankees, he had an ERA of only 2.86, which was better than any other year in his career aside from the year before he joined the Yankees. So while the Yankees jumped too high for him, he did fine while here.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 3, 2009 17:36:07 GMT -5
If you actually watched Chris Hammond pitch, you would know that he let up many inherited runners which kept his ERA down.
That's a big reason Torre thought so little of him that he didn't make the post season roster.
He sucked.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 3, 2009 18:00:17 GMT -5
you would know that he let up many inherited runners which kept his ERA down.
Are you talking about Hammond, or Mike Stanton? If you remember, Stanton would regularly lead the league in allowing inherited runners to waltz home.
|
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 3, 2009 18:38:45 GMT -5
The two are so close that you can't separate them, Oh really? Then why is there so much more a push for Blyleven, and his numbers are so much better than John in the votes? John: no rings Blyleven: two rings Also, don't forget he has FIFTEEN HUNDRED MORE STRIKEOUTS than John, pitched more innings, more complete games, was a better pitcher overall..... |
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 3, 2009 18:44:04 GMT -5
Rings are won by teams, not individuals. Their ERAs were very close, which means that John got outs differently.
He was not a better pitcher than John.
And Chris Hammond was no Mike Stanton. But again, which is why Stanton kicked ass in the postseason, while Hammond didn't make the roster.
|
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 3, 2009 19:14:52 GMT -5
Every hall of fame in existence looks at things other than stats. You can ignore it but that doesn't make it so.
Thus why voters are told "voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." AKA did they help the team win or cherry top stats. You ignore everythign else because you are gay for Yankees and love gay sex with Hulk Hogan.
Yeah, he got outs in a different way, which also could mean he played for better defensive teams than Blyleven, who played on some shit teams. He ranks in the top 20 in wins, shutouts, and strikeouts. John doesn't.
The ERA is similar but Blyleven has 200+ more innings pitched, which means he pitched a greater amount of better innings than John, who has his cock in your mouth.
Blyleven is much better.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 3, 2009 19:17:59 GMT -5
In the end, you either have the stats or you don't. If two people have similar numbers, they need to be treated the same. No one is better than the other. Intangibles simply doesn't work as an argument when 2 people are that close.
Yes, there are all those factors that you mentioned, and there is not one of those factors that prove Blyleven was superior to John in anyway, other than of course, Blyleven has his cock in your mouth.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 3, 2009 23:56:37 GMT -5
If two people have similar numbers, they need to be treated the same
And, AGAIN, they dont . John gave up 70 more hits than innings pitched, Blyleven gave up almost 400 LESS hits than innings pitched. I mean, Christ.
To say nothing of the 1500 strikeouts, which are apparently only an important stat when you seem to think it is.
Bottom line, there is a reason Blyleven is constantly on the cusp, and John is but a mere whimper.
Oh, and we already know Balls makes a habit of playing himself vs EVERYONE ELSE, but just now I stumbled upon a website poll, where Blyleven is running 68.9% of the votes needed, while John has 13.4%.
I mean, Christ, its not just us.
|
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 4, 2009 1:49:11 GMT -5
Yeah, how the hell do you just ignore K's?
Yeah, in the end you have stats and the stats favor Blyleven. LOL! FAGGOT! YOU SUCK AT SOFTBALL!
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 4, 2009 9:35:34 GMT -5
You ignore Ks because an out, is an out. A strikeout is no more effective than a groundout. Yes, in the context of a game, groundouts can move runners and drive in runs, however, given how close their ERAs were, it didn't mean shit with these 2 guys.
Who gives a shit about hits, when they don't score runs? Blyleven also averaged more walks per year than John.
It doesn't matter though. 3.34 ERA v. 3.31 ERA.
It's all insignificant.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 4, 2009 10:33:33 GMT -5
You ignore Ks because an out, is an out
Harrumph. So an "out is an out" when its Bert Blyleven and Tommy John pitching and striking guys out, but an out is NOT an out when its Mike Cameron and Melky Cabrera batting, when Cameron strikes out.
LOL!
If it makes NO DIFFERENCE wether a pitcher strikes a batter out or not, why does it make a difference if a batter strikes out or pops up?
Just last night on MLB Network (you know, the channel you wont watch until they start airing The Baseball Bunch) they were comparing Burnett with Derek Lowe, and talking in depth how much better it is to have Burnett on the mound cause of the punchouts. As Harold Reynolds said, "if Burnett has the bases loaded and one out and needs two punchouts, he can reach back and get them."
To say that strikouts as a pitcher mean nothing is beyond ignorant. On top of that, when a pitcher "pitches to contact" like Lowe does, or our buddy Wang, better chance of those contacts finding holes, and becoming hits. The more times you leave the batter walking back with a whiff, the less trouble you are opening yourself up to.
You're a dick.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 4, 2009 10:44:42 GMT -5
Are you kidding? Did you not read a word I said?
Their ERAs were also the same. The true test of a pitcher is how many times the other team scores. Nothing else matters except keeping the other team from scoring.
In your dumb example with Burnett, you are putting the pitcher in a situation where a run is likely to score. However, as noted, when the ERAs are the same, it doesn't matter how the outs score. So Blyleven will strike someone out and give up a hit next. A run scored is a run scored, no matter how it happens.
So a strikeout v. a groundout is like comparing getting hit by a pitch v. a walk. Either way, you're on first base.
But with a hitter, a strikeout v. another way out is completely different. Grounders can lead to errors. Grounders can move runners over. Grounders can score runs.
Strikeouts don't do that.
You really don't know baseball very well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 4, 2009 15:23:01 GMT -5
You certainly DON'T ignore Ks because Ks are one sure fire way of measuring a pitcher's pitch quality without any outside variables.
Strikeouts and Walks are a function of a pitcher versus hitter.
Outs recorded other ways are a function of pitcher, hitter, defense, the field you're playing on, etc.... Balls you're way off on this one.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 4, 2009 16:04:50 GMT -5
Of course he is. He always is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 4, 2009 16:18:39 GMT -5
It's like saying, if Balls and I played Trivial Pursuit against eachother as a measurement of knowledge.....an equal measurement of knowledge would be if Balls and I play Who Wants To Be A Millionaire against eachother and his lifeline was a Harvard grad and mine was a kindergarten student.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 4, 2009 16:46:33 GMT -5
Actually, it's more like saying, we played Trivial Pursuit, and we tied.
Strikeouts mean jackshit if the ERAs are the same. If you give up 4 runs in 9 innings, and I give up 4 runs in 9 innings, we had the same day, whether you struck out 10 or 0.
|
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Jan 4, 2009 22:50:21 GMT -5
Fine, then if player A has an on-base percentage of .450 and player B has an on-base percentage of .450, they had the same season, regardless of whether player A had 100 hits and 100 walks or 175 hits and 25 walks. So there go all of your Giambi arguments, at least about hitting. Fielding, yeah, he blows.
|
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 5, 2009 2:36:44 GMT -5
Actually, it's more like saying, we played Trivial Pursuit, and we tied. Strikeouts mean jackshit if the ERAs are the same. If you give up 4 runs in 9 innings, and I give up 4 runs in 9 innings, we had the same day, whether you struck out 10 or 0. Yeah, but Blyleven pitched almost 300 more innings. So it's more like: 'MetsSuckBalls makes the stupidest fucking arguments and only argues for Yankees to make the Hall of Fame and has never one argues for anyone else' So things like innings, complete games, whip, ect mean shit now also? ERA is the be all end all? |
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 5, 2009 6:45:27 GMT -5
ERA is the be all end all. Because all that matters is how many runs you give up.
It doesn't matter if you load the bases with no one out or go 3 up 3 down. If no one scores, it's the same.
260 innings over 25 years is just over 10 innings a year, you retard. And given that John lost a season in his prime due to injury, it's garbage.
And it's more like, "Grover will argue that a guy who was never a Yankee must make the HOF, and a Yankee can't, even if the two are virtually the same, to show he's a 'baseball' fan, even if there is no logical distinction between the two players."
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 5, 2009 13:05:02 GMT -5
"And given that John lost a season in his prime due to injury, it's garbage."
Tommy John was injured? What was wrong with him? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 5, 2009 14:46:32 GMT -5
Oh, so if ERA is the only stat that matters, then John must be on the same level as guys like Feller or even teammate Sutton? Doesn't matter that in a time when guys were still going deep into games John couldn't?
So, according to you, every other stat means shit for a pitcher except ERA? So if a guy plays one year, retires with a super low ERA, he's hall eligible? I mean, that's your stupid fucking logic, mr. be all end all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 5, 2009 14:53:40 GMT -5
Balls really doesn't buy that.
He's just angling for justification of another one-time Yankee getting into the Hall.
I am every bit as over-zealous as Balls is when it comes to overrating Yankees versus non-Yankees, but at least I cop to my Yankee blinders.
At various points over the past few years, you could have, at one time or another, got me to agree to:
Andy Phillips being the 1st baseman of the future
Aaron Small becoming the next Ron Guidry
Hideki Matsui being better than Ichiro
But again, at least I cop to my Yankee bias, and I'm usually accountable when those types of prediction backfire on me.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 5, 2009 15:01:10 GMT -5
When you're talking about a full career. Feller was better, though clearly not by as much as one might thing.
Though Feller was certainly better in his prime years. And Feller lost some of that prime time to WWII. Different eras too.
And no dummy, I never said that a 1 year player could get into the HOF. I guess you should read up on the eligibility rules.
And there are no Yankee blinders here at all. That's a common lame argument by people who have an anti-Yankee bias. If anything, people like Grover are going anti-John because he was a Yankee.
You can come up with many ridiculous examples of things I didn't say. But the bottom line is that John and Blyleven had careers that mirrorred each other, in many categories.
Yankee or not, the two are linked in numbers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 5, 2009 15:04:04 GMT -5
Talking about Tommy John's numbers due to longevity versus Bob Feller's numbers due to being GOOD is like kinda like the guy driving a Yugo telling the guy driving a Mercedes, "Hey....they both get us to where we want to go."
|
|
