Cliff Lee

horseofcourse · #1 12-14-2010, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

3 all stars compared to 4 all stars?

and its not Oswalt/Hamels. its Oswalt AND Hamels.

Maddux is slightly better than Halladay, but not by much at all.

Glavine and Lee match up very very well

as well as Oswalt and Smoltx careers.

Hamels is better than any #4 the braves had... and that is what makes this rotation top the braves.

AT their best you can compare the Phils current rotation to the Braves top 4. But career wise they aren't close at this point. Not even close. Maddux 355 wins, Glavine 305 wins, Smoltz 213 wins, 154 saves. And from 1991 to 1994 Steve Avery was 55-28. He didn't last long, but for 4 years he was great. He was also 5-3 in post season with an ERA under 3. Hamels last 4 years are 51-37 with 6-4 in post season 3.45 ERA. Avery's run of 4 good years top Hamels' last 4. The funny thing about history is people tend to forget it.

slotdirt · #2 12-14-2010, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

AT their best you can compare the Phils current rotation to the Braves top 3. But career wise they aren't close at this point. Not even close. Maddux 355 wins, Glavine 305 wins, Smoltz 213 wins, 154 saves.

Ed Zachary. Those are three of maybe the top 5-10 pitchers in all of baseball over the last 20 years. I don't think the current Phillies rotation can make that claim save Roy Halladay.

Antitrust32 · #3 12-14-2010, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Ed Zachary. Those are three of maybe the top 5-10 pitchers in all of baseball over the last 20 years. I don't think the current Phillies rotation can make that claim save Roy Halladay.

We have the #1 and #2 rated pitchers in baseball. 4 out of the top 21 starters in baseball. In their prime also!

All I smell around here is jealousy. Thats fine though, I understand.

MaTH716 · #4 12-14-2010, 11:32 AM

Honestly, who gives a s.hit where they fall as far as history goes. It only thing that matters is how many rings they are able to win. Look at that Braves staff, as good as they were they only ended up with one ring.

randallscott35 · #5 12-14-2010, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaTH716

Honestly, who gives a s.hit where they fall as far as history goes. It only thing that matters is how many rings they are able to win. Look at that Braves staff, as good as they were they only ended up with one ring.

slotdirt · #6 12-14-2010, 11:36 AM

Jealousy? WHo's jealous? I just think it's silly to say they have the best rotation ever before they've even thrown a pitch in the 2011 season. Moreover, by no empirical evidence whatsoever could one say that this is close to the best rotation ever. And if you think Roy Oswalt has another 5-7 years left in him, I have a some farmland in Manhattan to sell you.

Antitrust32 · #7 12-14-2010, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Jealousy? WHo's jealous? I just think it's silly to say they have the best rotation ever before they've even thrown a pitch in the 2011 season. Moreover, by no empirical evidence whatsoever could one say that this is close to the best rotation ever. And if you think Roy Oswalt has another 5-7 years left in him, I have a some farmland in Manhattan to sell you.

your going all Riot - like saying things I didnt say.

On paper, this rotation is UP THERE with the best ever. One of. on Paper.

yeah Oswalt sure looked run down throwing a 1.74 ERA with the Phillies.

We have him for this next year, and an option for the year after. You think he's going to decline so much in that time? Keep your farmland.

horseofcourse · #8 12-14-2010, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaTH716

Honestly, who gives a s.hit where they fall as far as history goes. It only thing that matters is how many rings they are able to win. Look at that Braves staff, as good as they were they only ended up with one ring.

Lincecum, Cain, Sanchez, Bumgarner have more rings than Halladay, Oswalt, and Lee. Infinitely more. Thanks for making my point. So you are admitting the Giants as they stand have a better rotation currently. And you're stating Hamels is the Phils top starter simply because he has a "ring". The "rings" argument is always pretty silly I think.

Antitrust32 · #9 12-14-2010, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

Lincecum, Cain, Sanchez, Bumgarner have more rings than Halladay, Oswalt, and Lee. Infinitely more. Thanks for making my point. So you are admitting the Giants as they stand have a better rotation currently. And you're stating Hamels is the Phils top starter simply because he has a "ring". The "rings" argument is always pretty silly I think.

The rings are all that matters.

He wasnt saying that the best rotation ever is based off rings. He was saying it doesnt matter if you have the best rotation ever if you dont win the rings. he's right.

horseofcourse · #10 12-14-2010, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

The rings are all that matters.

He wasnt saying that the best rotation ever is based off rings. He was saying it doesnt matter if you have the best rotation ever if you dont win the rings. he's right.

It's all good. Lee didn't win a ring in 2009 with the Phils, but he was certainly by far the best pitcher that post season and it's not even debatable. Just because he didn't win a "ring" that year doesn't diminish in my mind what he did. I still say that right now, a Giants fan can certainly argue that they currently have the best rotation in the NL even with the Phils signing of Lee. The old man of the Giants 4 is Sanchez at 28. 3 of the Phillies 4 are all over 30.

MaTH716 · #11 12-14-2010, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

Lincecum, Cain, Sanchez, Bumgarner have more rings than Halladay, Oswalt, and Lee. Infinitely more. Thanks for making my point. So you are admitting the Giants as they stand have a better rotation currently. And you're stating Hamels is the Phils top starter simply because he has a "ring". The "rings" argument is always pretty silly I think.

To me as a fan I couldn't care less where history has my teams/players (in any sport) ranked. All I care about is championships.

The Patriots were 2 minutes away from being maybe the best team ever, guess what, they are nothing more than a footnote now.

Antitrust32 · #12 12-14-2010, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaTH716

To me as a fan I couldn't care less where history has my teams/players (in any sport) ranked. All I care about is championships.

The Patriots were 2 minutes away from being maybe the best team ever, guess what, they are nothing more than a footnote now.

werent you one of the guys busting my balls about my McNabb opinion?

5 NFC championship appearances... 0 super bowls?

interesting..

Antitrust32 · #13 12-14-2010, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaTH716

Honestly, who gives a s.hit where they fall as far as history goes. It only thing that matters is how many rings they are able to win. Look at that Braves staff, as good as they were they only ended up with one ring.

We already have 1 for our run so far.. and you are completely correct. the ring is all that matters. lets add more to the 1 we have!

baseball america scout said the phillies have the best young talent in their farm system compared to the rest of baseball (young talent - guys who are a few years away)

We have an infield that consists of Ryan Howard, Utley, Rollins.. and the most consistent of the group.. Polanco. We have a catcher who is the freaking man. Outfield will be interesting.

I'll take the Phillies roster and try for those rings.

horseofcourse · #14 12-14-2010, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

We have the #1 and #2 rated pitchers in baseball. 4 out of the top 21 starters in baseball. In their prime also!

All I smell around here is jealousy. Thats fine though, I understand.

We'll see how Bumgarner develops. I'm not convinced the current Phils 4 is better than the Giants 4 at this current moment. Last I checked, the Phils top 3 got outpitched by the Giants in post season and Lincecum beat Lee twice when it counted when Lee was considered a post season lock. You can debate the two rotations right now as they stand.

Antitrust32 · #15 12-14-2010, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

AT their best you can compare the Phils current rotation to the Braves top 4. But career wise they aren't close at this point. Not even close. Maddux 355 wins, Glavine 305 wins, Smoltz 213 wins, 154 saves. And from 1991 to 1994 Steve Avery was 55-28. He didn't last long, but for 4 years he was great. He was also 5-3 in post season with an ERA under 3. Hamels last 4 years are 51-37 with 6-4 in post season 3.45 ERA. Avery's run of 4 good years top Hamels' last 4. The funny thing about history is people tend to forget it.

lets compare career stats to men who are in the middle of their prime and have 5-7 years left in their career!

Hamels was miserable in 2009. that will do a funny thing to your stats. I'd take Hamels any day of the year over Steve Avery. Plus he's still a 26 year old kid! With a WS MVP!

funny thing you guys comparing career stats to people in the midst of their prime.