Derby Trail Forums

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   Sports Bar & Grill (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Cliff Lee (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40008)

Antitrust32 12-15-2010 09:14 AM

for slotdirt: according to people who know what they are talking about, on paper, they seem to match up pretty damn well.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hotsto...son&id=5920160

slotdirt 12-15-2010 09:30 AM

Says Jayson Stark the former Phillies beat writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer.

ETA that antitrust obviously didn't read the last few lines of Stark's article:

But beyond that, it's a reminder of something more important:

Great as this Phillies rotation might look, it hasn't done anything yet. It's just four names printed out on a roster. Period.

They might be four awfully famous names, with already-spectacular track records. But until they actually pitch together, dominate together and win together, anyone who tries to compare them with the great rotations in history is just speculating -- or dreaming.

slotdirt 12-15-2010 09:44 AM

ZIPS projections have the 2011 Phillies rotation as the 15th best of all time. Like I was saying yesterday, it's obviously a great rotation, but let's not get ahead of ourselves with this "best of all time" nonsense.

Antitrust32 12-15-2010 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt (Post 733907)
Says Jayson Stark the former Phillies beat writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer.

ETA that antitrust obviously didn't read the last few lines of Stark's article:

But beyond that, it's a reminder of something more important:

Great as this Phillies rotation might look, it hasn't done anything yet. It's just four names printed out on a roster. Period.

They might be four awfully famous names, with already-spectacular track records. But until they actually pitch together, dominate together and win together, anyone who tries to compare them with the great rotations in history is just speculating -- or dreaming.

yeah no shi.t... I've only posted that a few times in this thread.

I could care less about Stark's opinion... and he's absolutely correct with the above... but I posted the article so you could read the credible opinions of people in MLB who were associated with those past great rotations.

dalakhani 12-15-2010 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt (Post 733737)
When one is deciding the "best rotation ever," isn't one essentially picking the best rotation for THAT season alone? So how could I possibly be picking and choosing when picking a 4th starter's best year - given that the other three are named Smoltz, Glavine, and Maddux - to determine how the 90's Braves fall into the "best rotation ever" conversation?

Regardless, the Phillies 2011 rotation is going to have to do something pretty special to break into this conversation. On paper, they don't match up to the 60's Dodgers, 90's Braves, 70's Orioles, or even the 20's Yankees, but the actual season will obviously tell the tale.

I think comparing them to the 90's braves is fair but what you see on paper will be deceptive. First of all, Hallady and Lee both pitched mostly in the AL. Halladay pitched in the AL EAST during a run by the yankees and red sox where they both outspent their competition by a large margin. Basically, he was doing it on his own and still putting up incredible numbers. You put him in the NL for a year with a real lineup behind him and look what he did. Give me Halladay ANY DAY over any of those Braves pitchers. None of them were as nasty.

Look at Lee's NL stats. Look at some of the teams he pitched for in AL. Are you saying he isnt just as good?

The Braves were better 3-4-5 in my opinion.

The REAL question is...who had the bigger nutcase in the pen?

clyde 12-15-2010 12:33 PM

The REAL question is...who had the bigger nutcase in the pen?

Baby.....only you.

slotdirt 12-15-2010 12:49 PM

Has there been a bigger actual "nutcase" than John Rocker in recent baseball history?

clyde 12-15-2010 02:02 PM

Oh my God.

dalakhani 12-15-2010 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clyde (Post 733960)
The REAL question is...who had the bigger nutcase in the pen?

Baby.....only you.

Okay...You get a response out of me for that one. :tro:

horseofcourse 12-15-2010 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani (Post 733954)
Give me Halladay ANY DAY over any of those Braves pitchers. None of them were as nasty.

Look at Lee's NL stats. Look at some of the teams he pitched for in AL. Are you saying he isnt just as good?

Greg Maddux is one of the best pitchers of all time. His numbers he posted in peak performance enhancement era are sick. Don't insult him by comparing Halladay and Lee to him. None of the 4 are remotely close to Maddux in any way, shape, or form. This is remarkably silly even for you. Why is it so easy for everyone to forget history. The 1992-1998 run by Maddux was as dominating a run as any pitcher ever...ever. It as I said was in peak steroid days. Halladay is not anywhere near that level at any point in his career. Lee? Good God. You've lost your mind.

clyde 12-15-2010 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani (Post 733983)
Okay...You get a response out of me for that one. :tro:

You know, Dahla...........















thud

Antitrust32 12-15-2010 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by horseofcourse (Post 733991)
Greg Maddux is one of the best pitchers of all time. His numbers he posted in peak performance enhancement era are sick. Don't insult him by comparing Halladay and Lee to him. None of the 4 are remotely close to Maddux in any way, shape, or form.

Do you know who Roy Halladay is????

The one pitcher I've heard Halladay compared to by sportswriters/analysts is Greg Maddux. I've heard that many of times.

This guy Leo Mazzone, well he way Greg Maddux's pitching coach & probably knows a little bit about both Maddux and Halladay.

" Now, Mazzone looks back at his rotation, then looks at this Phillies rotation and almost feels as if he's staring into a mirror. That's how similar they look -- from a standpoint of stuff and talent -- to a man who ought to know.

"On an individual basis," Mazzone said, "Halladay is as good as Maddux. He's even got that signature Maddux pitch -- that ball he can start out of the zone on a left-handed hitter and bring it back into the zone for a called strike three. "


I dont think Lee can be compared to Maddux... but Halladay IS the Maddux of the 90's.

slotdirt 12-15-2010 02:54 PM

Halladay is indeed awesome, but in so far as career value goes, he's not in Maddux's ballpark - nor will he ever be barring several seasons of excellence - nor is he in the range of Glavine or Smoltz. Yet.

Maddux's numbers are absolutely sick when given a second glance. Fifth all time in WAR for pitchers. Four of the top 100 all-time seasons in Adjusted ERA+ (only five active players have top 100 all-time seasons, and none of them will be playing for the Phillies in 2011). Is he the greatest right hander to play the game since Tom Seaver? I'd say it's a pretty close race between Maddux, Pedro Martinez, and Clemens, though we know at least one of those guys was on roids.

horseofcourse 12-15-2010 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32 (Post 734004)
Do you know who Roy Halladay is????

The one pitcher I've heard Halladay compared to by sportswriters/analysts is Greg Maddux. I've heard that many of times.

This guy Leo Mazzone, well he way Greg Maddux's pitching coach & probably knows a little bit about both Maddux and Halladay.

" Now, Mazzone looks back at his rotation, then looks at this Phillies rotation and almost feels as if he's staring into a mirror. That's how similar they look -- from a standpoint of stuff and talent -- to a man who ought to know.

"On an individual basis," Mazzone said, "Halladay is as good as Maddux. He's even got that signature Maddux pitch -- that ball he can start out of the zone on a left-handed hitter and bring it back into the zone for a called strike three. "


I dont think Lee can be compared to Maddux... but Halladay IS the Maddux of the 90's.

That's fine. It's all hyperbole too. Halladay is one of the 3 or 4 best pitchers in the game for the last 5-10 years. It's not debatable. He's not as good as Maddux, never was, and never will be. Find me 7 consecutive years from hallady as good as Maddux was from 92-98. It can't be done, and it never will be done. Maybe Carl Crawford is the Roberto Clemente of the 60s right now. Whatever. Halladay is the Maddux of the 90s today...fine. He's simply not as good as the real Maddux.

clyde 12-15-2010 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by horseofcourse (Post 734015)
That's fine. It's all hyperbole too. Halladay is one of the 3 or 4 best pitchers in the game for the last 5-10 years. It's not debatable. He's not as good as Maddux, never was, and never will be. Find me 7 consecutive years from hallady as good as Maddux was from 92-98. It can't be done, and it never will be done. Maybe Carl Crawford is the Roberto Clemente of the 60s right now. Whatever. Halladay is the Maddux of the 90s today...fine. He's simply not as good as the real Maddux.


You tell her to stick her twat in her zipper..HC!!

slotdirt 12-15-2010 03:01 PM

Maddux has three seasons of Adjusted ERA+ that are better than Halladay's top of 185 back in 2005, the last of which happened when Maddux was...32 years old.

horseofcourse 12-15-2010 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt (Post 734021)
Maddux has three seasons of Adjusted ERA+ that are better than Halladay's top of 185 back in 2005, the last of which happened when Maddux was...32 years old.

Maddux may be the most underrated player of all time based on what he did in the era he pitched in. I can't believe how quickly people forget how good he was.

slotdirt 12-15-2010 03:05 PM

I went to look up his stats, and...well...355 wins? When did that happen? I know that stat has been bemoaned in this thread, but when a guy is the leader in that category for any player whose career started since World War II, well, that's pretty special.

horseofcourse 12-15-2010 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt (Post 734025)
I went to look up his stats, and...well...355 wins? When did that happen? I know that stat has been bemoaned in this thread, but when a guy is the leader in that category for any player whose career started since World War II, well, that's pretty special.

I think he was better than Clemens for obvious supplemental reasons, as Maddux had the typical career progression with his peak when it should be from age 26-32. He declined steadily from that point but was still very, very good into his 40s, but his decline fit what a normal career should look like of a great player. At age 37 or 40 he didn't "magically" reproduce what he was able to do 10 years earlier like others we know of.

slotdirt 12-15-2010 03:21 PM

Agreed. 8th all time in WAR (trailing only Young, Clemens, Big Train, Lefty Grove, Seaver, and two guys who played in the 19th Century). 355 wins - trailing only Young, Johnson, Spahn, Matthewson and three guys who played in the 19th Century.

Though if one believes in WAR metrics (acknowledging that WAR for pitchers is still a bit unrefined), Niekro and Gaylord Perry, and Bert Blyleven are pretty darn underrated as well.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.