|
Post by grover on Jan 5, 2009 15:13:59 GMT -5
I'm not anti-John, I'm Pro-Blyleven. I feel he is a damn solid pitcher who is being held off by typical God complex writers who make up stupid arguments. If you took time out to be a baseball historian you'd know this.
And saying Feller and John are even in the same league is silly. Six time 20+ win seasons. SIX! Better winning %, has almost as many wins, more K's, about 100 more complete games, in 8 fucking less seasons.
Wow, just wow. Hecklehouse.com sucks because of MetssuckBalls.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 5, 2009 15:23:26 GMT -5
You can be BOTH. I think Blyleven WAS a solid pitcher, and at no point have I ever said that John was BETTER. I just am pointing out that John was just as good, and the numbers back that up.
Tommy John had 3 20+ win seasons. And at no point did I say John was better than Feller. If you read, which you obviously didn't so you could make your little diatribe, I said that Feller was better than John. I also pointed out that Feller at his best was better, and that Feller lost a good chunk of his prime. And I added that it's a bad example given that the two played in different eras.
We're not arguing Feller v John. But Feller also blew his arm out in his early 30s and stopped being dominant after age 28. He was still good, but hardly great at that point. You can't compare either career. But after age 30, I would take John or Blyleven in a heart beat.
That's like making any argument with Koufax. For 5 years, the guy was one of the best ever. But it was only 5 years.
But again, this is John and Blyleven, two pitchers who pitched in the same era, and put up the same numbers.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 5, 2009 18:31:14 GMT -5
But Feller also blew his arm out in his early 30s and stopped being dominant after age 28. He was still good, but hardly great at that point.
Bob Feller - after that point
118-80 from then. ERAs over 4 only twice in 10 years. 2nd in wins 2 of those years. 1st in WHIP 4 of them. It goes on and on. Wow.
Even Yankee dicksucker Michael Kay, who has to elbow Balls out of the way to get a Yankee penis in his mouth, had Feller on Centerstage, calling him "one of the greatest pitchers of all time" - and you are trying to disparege the guy here???
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Jan 5, 2009 18:51:34 GMT -5
LOL @ "who has to elbow Balls out of the way to get a Yankee penis in his mouth!"
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 5, 2009 19:03:18 GMT -5
Um, from age 20-28, Feller's highest ERA was 3.15, and that was one time.
From age 28-37, his lowest ERA was 3.06, and that was one time.
His ERA from ages 28-37 was 3.70.
That's not a HOFer. That's not dominance. That's not even all that good in the 1950s.
Michael Kay is an idiot and his inability to judge things is second only to Tom "I bend over for Chris Hammond" Brown.
Of course, anyone with a brain would know that Kay was talking about the point in Feller's career where he actually WAS one of the best pitchers of all time. Not the shit end.
That's like pointing to Koufax's first 5 years and trying to argue he was great then.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 5, 2009 19:20:11 GMT -5
But again, this is John and Blyleven, two pitchers who pitched in the same era, and put up the same numbers. No they didn't. They have similar ERAs. Number. Singular. You picked one stat, and ran with it. Your have this idea that ERA is a flawless stat, even though it can be effected by playing on a shit team (hence why voters look at other factors other than stats). Good job genius.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 5, 2009 20:25:49 GMT -5
Well, they also were 1 win apart, and ERA is one of the stats LEAST effected by a shit team. WINS certainly are a factor of a shit team, but even a team with bad defense is going to allow more UNEARNED runs.
That's why I don't bring up John's higher winning PCT. Or the fact that John was 20 games 3 times compared to Blyleven's single time doing it, where he also had 17 losses.
In fact, Blyleven had 17 losses 4 times. That happened to John just once.
Both had their share of good teams too, and both kicked ass in the postseason. Very similar there too.
All the funny sig pics in the world wont change that.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 5, 2009 21:02:35 GMT -5
A bad defensive team doesn't need to commit an error to hurt an ERA. Letting balls drop, not turning an out or double play. Again, your black and white perspective is retarded, and again you're proving why people look at things other than stats.
And yeah, they are one win apart, even though Blyleven pitched less games, years, yet amassed more innings. Oh and he got 1500 more K's than John, but somehow that's not important.
It's funny how the criteria used to observe someone for the Hall is discarded. You just pick and chose what you want to argue about and fight everyone. Look at you, you fucking asshole. You're arguing in every thread. Every thread I went into over the past few days, you're arguing in it. Wrestling, Baseball, everything. You are power tripping so hard it's not funny.
Hey, guess how many arguments are going on over on 39? Not as many as here. Peace dickface. Be lucky I don't ban you from softball.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 6, 2009 7:03:56 GMT -5
Yes, I understand that, but both John and Blyleven played on good teams and bad teams. Yes, Blyleven pitched less, but again, it came out to about 10 innings per year, which is garbage.
John shouldn't be punished for being good enough to last in the majors longer.
And over the course of a career, Blyleven started just 15 games less than John. That's almost half a start a year. Big deal.
Given the close ERAs, the strikeouts are irrelevant. Who cares how they got out? They got out? In terms of earned runs allowed, it was the same.
You're the asshole. And you're the one discarding the truth. There is no difference between these two guys, other than because one was not a Yankee, you are arguing in favor of him to show how you're "not a Yankee mark," as if that means anything. If the stats were reversed, and Blyleven was a career Yankee, you would be arguing that he was no better than Tommy John.
They were both good pitchers. But their numbers are not so far apart that one belongs in the Hall and one does not. It's just a dumb line of thinking.
You're whining about me is just a sign that you have no argument.
As for what's going on at 39? Who gives a shit? I stopped reading that board after the XMas party because half of the posts are people like you, sweating me and this board.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 6, 2009 11:42:36 GMT -5
And again, what Balls is failing to acknowledge is that in any measure of statistics, the truest, most pure form of measurement is one that eliminates reliance on as many outside factors or intangibles as possible.
ERA is a function of more outside factors and intangibles than probably any other stat in baseball, aside from wins.
Strikeouts and walks are probably the two single stats I can think of in baseball, that are a function only of the quality of the pitcher and the hitter. The fielders, the field, the score of the game, and other factors are largely uninvolved in these stats.
Not to say that ERA and Wins are unimportant. Clearly a pitcher with 25 wins and 125 losses who walked few batters and struck out a batter per inning is still not a good pitcher (although I would doubt such a pitcher would exist). But clearly, if two pitchers have similar wins and ERAs, and one has far superior strikeout numbers and fewer hits allowed, then the High-K guy is better.
But this started as Moyer vs. John, not Blyleven. I don't think any of the three should ever ever sniff the Hall.
Balls isn't failing to realize this. He is ignoring it because it's convenient to his argument.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 6, 2009 12:13:41 GMT -5
By that logic, then no stat should matter, and everyone should be in the HOF.
Wins are unimportant in the sense that they are halfway the result of the offense. Randy Johnson won 17 games with an ERA of 5.00. That was not his doing. At the same time, you can lose 17 games with an ERA of 3.00. Again, not your fault.
And no, the high K guy is NOT better when the two have similar ERAs and wins. Why? Because again, an out is an out, and it doesn't matter if you get the guy with a grounder or a strikeout.
John and Blyleven are indistinguishable when it comes to the HOF. Either they both deserve it or neither deserve it.
But both pitchers are on a MUCH higher level than Moyer. John and Blyleven are borderline. Moyer isn't.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 6, 2009 12:49:17 GMT -5
Balls, stop playing Ostrich on purpose.
The whole Tom Hanks in "BIG" gimmick is lame..."I don't get it."
An out is an out only on the scoreboard....You think a guy who gets all ground ball outs is as good as a strikeout pitcher? No he's not, because inevitably that ground ball pitcher is going to give up more hits. OK, maybe in the case of some pitchers, those hits don't manifest themselves as runs allowed, but generally that's not the rule.
A ground ball out is a function of pitcher, hitter, fielder, field conditions, umpires, etc.
A strikeout is a function of pitcher and hitter...period.
Take the Hall of Fame out of the conversation. Pretend this is only a comparison of John vs. Blyleven in quality of pitching.
Blyleven's overall stats clearly show that he is much more of a self-contained, self-reliant pitcher - he went out and got the job done on his own, mano y mano, as opposed to John. These stats are evident via the delta in complete games (John relied much more on relief), Strikeouts (John relied much more on his fielders...I mean holy crap Balls, we're talking 1500 Ks here).
And let's not forget the fact that Blyleven compiled these stats in 4 fewer seasons.
Blyleven is better.
Neither are Hall Worthy because both were compilers more than dominant pitchers.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 6, 2009 13:07:15 GMT -5
Um, an out is an out in the stat sheet, and that's all that matters.
Blyleven averaged giving up 228 hits a year. John averaged 222. Not a major difference, but again, in this particular case, John did not give up more hits per year.
Yes, in GENERAL, a groundball pitcher will give up more hits, which translates to more runs. That didn't happen with these 2 pitchers as shown by their similar ERAs.
In the strikeout category, there's no comparison, but that's one category and given the ERAs, it didn't end up being that important--FOR THESE 2 GUYS.
At no point have I ever argued that John was BETTER than Blyleven. But we're talking HOF here, and the two are so close that to argue one belongs and the other doesn't is just another lame "I'm a baseball fan, and trying not to be a Yankee mark" argument.
If you want to say Blyleven was BETTER, that's fair. But if you want to say one belongs in the HOF and one doesn't, that's stupid.
You're at least consistent in saying BOTH don't belong.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 6, 2009 13:31:51 GMT -5
Blyleven WAS BETTER.
Neither belongs. Compilers.
Thankfully the writers have been smart enough to realize this.
But if one were voted in, and it were Blyleven, I certainly wouldn't consider it a travesty that John was left out.
But, fuck them both....not worthy.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 6, 2009 22:55:40 GMT -5
Blyleven was much better, and by the support he gets as compared to the tepid support John garners, shows that people recognize this.
Anyway, back to business. Jason Giambi, who remains one of my favorite players, returns to Oakland. Quite the paycut, too - under $4 million for the year, and its a one-sy, with a club option for 2010.
Oh, and Carl Pavano heads to Cleveland, where you just KNOW he will stay healthy.
|
|
|
Post by pags03 on Jan 7, 2009 2:26:56 GMT -5
Watch Pavano come back to cleveland be a Yankee killer!! haha....Pavano's next injury will be due to a midge attack!!!
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 7, 2009 6:45:53 GMT -5
There's a reason Giambi got that paycut.
HE FUCKING SUCKS.
Fortunately, the Yankees were smart enough to realize that.
I hope Giambi gets beaned in the head by Carl Pavano, making him too retarded to enjoy the money he stole from George, and the next batter hits a line drive off Pavano's face, making him too retarded to enjoy the money he stole from George.
I also hope that Giambi and Pavano go into the HOF as a Yankee.
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Jan 7, 2009 11:30:56 GMT -5
Pavano will pull his scrotum getting off a golf cart in spring training and never pitch an inning for Cleveland.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 7, 2009 12:12:23 GMT -5
He is SO winning the 2009 Cy Young,
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 7, 2009 12:21:33 GMT -5
At that money we should have bought him back as the potential 5th starter. By not doing so I guess its our way of "punishing him" for not living up to the ridiculous money we threw at him.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 7, 2009 12:22:47 GMT -5
Hey, you know what...injuries and attitude aside, I still think Pavano can pitch.
I would not be at all surprised to see him win 14 or 15 games, if healthy.
Mark it down, bitches.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 7, 2009 12:30:29 GMT -5
Im 100% with you on that, I've been saying that all along as well.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 7, 2009 12:43:37 GMT -5
Hard to argue with that--except given the history. You can't blame any team for not wanting Pavano, at any price. In addition to being brittle, he was stupid, and had no heart. In theory you're right, but in reality, Pavano should never wear pinstripes. Enough is enough.
I'd rather spend the same money on another oft injured jackass with some upside. At least it's not OUR injured jackass.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 7, 2009 15:36:14 GMT -5
I'll tell you this much....at 10 mill per year, going into next year, I would MUCH RATHER give that money to Pavano than Pettitte.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 7, 2009 17:08:26 GMT -5
You know, this Pavano "has no heart" flippancy is starting to wear on me. I am no Pavano fan, never was. But some of you dont get it. The guy went through a RIDICULOUS amount of rehab. From a heap of insider accounts, heart is not what should be questioned. Insiders said he worked like mad to get healthy, and put himself through a TON of pain.
Laugh if you will about his injured buttocks, or coming out of games as soon as he got in, but the guy put himself through a lot trying to get back on the field to justify some of his salary. To question is heart is ignorant indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 7, 2009 17:17:44 GMT -5
That "no heart" shit stemmed from Mussina.
The guy was dishonest and a bit shady with the Yanks....but he's a professional athlete. To imply that he'd rather sit in a hot tub in rehab and collect his guaranteed money as opposed to step on the mound to pitch and collect is guaranteed money is absurd.
I wish I could find the thread, but I said, right here on this board toward the end of last season, that based on the somewhat decent way he pitched I wouldn't mind the Yanks bringing him back at a discounted rate.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 7, 2009 18:22:25 GMT -5
Going through rehab isn't heart. That's an obligation so you don't get sued.
And I think I remember you saying that, so no need to search.
|
|
|
Post by nobeernofun on Jan 7, 2009 23:50:07 GMT -5
Pavano did try to pitch with a broken rib. so he has heart.... Brains, not so much.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 8, 2009 11:35:16 GMT -5
More importantly, he has an arm.
That's a great pick up for Cleveland, the more I think about it.
Watch Pavano go Chuck Finley all over our asses!!!
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 13, 2009 12:18:16 GMT -5
Derek Lowe to the Braves. 4 years, $60 million.
Probably a good fit for him.
|
|