Cliff Lee - Page 4

Antitrust32 · #61 12-15-2010, 10:14 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 · #62 12-15-2010, 10:30 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 · #63 12-15-2010, 10:44 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 · #64 12-15-2010, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

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 · #65 12-15-2010, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

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 · #66 12-15-2010, 01:33 PM

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

Baby.....only you.

slotdirt · #67 12-15-2010, 01:49 PM

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

clyde · #68 12-15-2010, 03:02 PM

Oh my God.

dalakhani · #69 12-15-2010, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clyde

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.

horseofcourse · #70 12-15-2010, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

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 · #71 12-15-2010, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

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

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

thud

Antitrust32 · #72 12-15-2010, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

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 · #73 12-15-2010, 03:54 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 · #74 12-15-2010, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

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 · #75 12-15-2010, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

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 · #76 12-15-2010, 04:01 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 · #77 12-15-2010, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

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 · #78 12-15-2010, 04:05 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 · #79 12-15-2010, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

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 · #80 12-15-2010, 04:21 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.