Women's World Cup

[slotdirt]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Verlander 20 starts 12-4 2.15 era 151 IP 101 H 12HR 31BB 147K 4CG WAR 4.5
Halladay 19 starts 11-3 2.45 era 143 IP 129 H 8HR 17BB 138k 6CG WAR 5.1

Considering that Verlander pitches in a decidedly pitchers park and Halladay pitches in a decidedly hitters park it splitting hairs either way.

And if you are going to use advanced metrics as Slotdirt often does it should be noted that Halladays Wins above replacement (WAR) is not only the best in the MLB but Verlander isnt 2nd (4th)

My point remains that there is no way that 99% of managers/GM's are taking Verlander based on this seasons results.

And the irony is I probably would take Verlander too.

WAR is obviously subjective depending on who is calculating it, as other websites list Verlander at 5.4 to Halladay's 4.9. Based on what I've seen of both pitchers so far this season, that would be a more accurate indicator of each pitcher's player value.

Also, based on park factor statistics for 2011, the Tigers and Phillies both play in parks that are, on average, friendlier to pitchers than hitters. In 2010, the park factors for Comerica and Citizens Bank were virtually identical (16th and 17th in the league, respectively). In 2009, both parks ranked friendlier to hitters than pitchers (the Cit one spot higher than Comerica 12th versus 13th), and in 2007 and 2008, Comerica was actually a friendlier park to hitters than was Citizens Bank. SO really, the evidence doesn't show that Citizens Bank Park is more of a hitters park than Comerica (not to mention the fact that Halladay's former home field of the old Skydome almost always in recent years yielded fewer runs than the average park).

[slotdirt]

P.S. - Alex Morgan is still hot.

[clyde]

She doesn't look hot to me...at all.

Alex Morgan, I mean.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

WAR is obviously subjective depending on who is calculating it, as other websites list Verlander at 5.4 to Halladay's 4.9. Based on what I've seen of both pitchers so far this season, that would be a more accurate indicator of each pitcher's player value.

Also, based on park factor statistics for 2011, the Tigers and Phillies both play in parks that are, on average, friendlier to pitchers than hitters. In 2010, the park factors for Comerica and Citizens Bank were virtually identical (16th and 17th in the league, respectively). In 2009, both parks ranked friendlier to hitters than pitchers (the Cit one spot higher than Comerica 12th versus 13th), and in 2007 and 2008, Comerica was actually a friendlier park to hitters than was Citizens Bank. SO really, the evidence doesn't show that Citizens Bank Park is more of a hitters park than Comerica (not to mention the fact that Halladay's former home field of the old Skydome almost always in recent years yielded fewer runs than the average park).

So you still want to stick with that 99% number?

[slotdirt]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So you still want to stick with that 99% number?

99 percent was antitrust's number if you've read the entire thread.

[clyde]

Now they're arguing about the source of 99%...as well as the real value of 99%.



Raw data cooking is next.

I'm leaving.

[slotdirt]

I liked the hot female soccer player talk better if that helps.

[clyde]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

I liked the hot female soccer player talk better if that helps.

lol

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

99 percent was antitrust's number if you've read the entire thread.

false. did you read the thread?

the only 99% i used was that managers would agree the phillies have the best rotation in baseball. i still think that is true.

it had nothing to do with verlander vs halladay. it wouldnt be smart to say 99% when you are comparing the two best pitchers in baseball. I would assume that number would be close to 50/50 if you are talking about having a pitcher for this year only. long term contract Verlander would be more inticing based on age only.

[slotdirt]

It wouldn't be smart to say "99 percent" in the context of anything. I think 99 out of 100 is just as ridiculous to describe a Verlander versus Halladay argument as it is in describing a Phillies versus Braves argument. If one reads the thread, the only reason I used 99 out of 100 was to mimick your equally as asinine statistic that 99 out of 100 GM's, players, or whatever, would take the rotation of the Phillies over that of the Braves.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

99 percent was antitrust's number if you've read the entire thread.

LOL

[slotdirt]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

LOL

Touche...

hahhahahahah.

so you read an article... meaning you havent watched baseball.

zero credibility. 99 out of 100 scouts / managers would say the phillies have the best rotation.
and the braves have a better bullpen... the best in the majors. not a better rotation.

just give up, you have no leg to stand on.

[Antitrust32]

lol..... okaaaaay

[Antitrust32]

Listen, the braves still have a few years to go until they get there. they are young and have no limits.

If you are going on overall pitching (including bullpen) you have a good arguement. Based on what we have been talking about (rotation) I'd personally take the Giants over the Braves. Braves would 3rd best IMO.