Yankees sweep white sox... [Archive] - TheGangGreen.com Message Board

AlioTheFool

07-17-2006, 02:14 AM

What a great series this weekend. Two hard fought wins, and one total blowout. This is the team I thought we had back in April.

I was actually surprised to see Wright on the mound today. I figured with Ponson here now, he would be one of the odd men out. I didn't even consider Chacon getting bumped to the pen. Pretty good move IMO.

It's definitely getting interesting now. We may actually be able to take Boston, and knock them out of the race altogether.

Congrats to Mo. Yes, his HOF ticket was punched years ago, but I really hope he ends up as the career saves leader. I remember hating Ekersley (sp?) growing up for being so dominant. It's nice to see the save specialist here in our camp so long now. Anyone remember when Rags was automatic?

I really hope the Yanks either go after another pitcher, or better yet, just stick with the team as is. What we have right now is more than capable. And just think, Cano is still not back in the lineup yet!

GreenMachine

07-17-2006, 02:15 AM

I really hope the Yanks either go after another pitcher, or better yet, just stick with the team as is. What we have right now is more than capable. And just think, Cano is still not back in the lineup yet!
I heard Cano could be back vs. Toronto...but most likely vs. Texas

AlioTheFool

07-17-2006, 02:18 AM

I heard Cano could be back vs. Toronto...but most likely vs. Texas

Yeah, they were saying they wouldn't bring him back for a turf series, which is smart. Cairo is more than capable of filling the role for a few more games. No sense reinjuring the kid. We want him healthy for another great run in October.

nyjunc

07-17-2006, 07:56 AM

great series by the yankees, we need to keep that up to stay in the wil card hunt..... Mariona Rivera got his ticket punched into the 400 saves club.

WC hunt? We are tied in the L column for the div lead, the WC is a nice fall back option and we are just 2 back in the L column but I think they are thinking div title not WC. Great series now let's hope they can keep it up.

ny2dave

07-17-2006, 08:00 AM

Yankees only a half game out of 1st place in the AL East, 3 games out of the wild-card... Playoff chances looking better all of a sudden.
This four game series in Toronto is going to be very interesting.......

AlioTheFool

07-17-2006, 08:11 AM

This four game series in Toronto is going to be very interesting.......

If we can take two, I think it will be a good springboard for us. If we can sweep, we might build enough momentum to carry us through October.

You know, I think the best thing for us is being out of first. It's been so long since it was this late in the season and we were struggling just to think about the playoffs. It's lighting a fire under everyone's asses now. The youth movement is definitely helping out too.

I just wish we were playing Boston sooner. Right now, riding as high as we are, we could beat them down, and put ourselves in the driver's seat.

The big question mark right now is Ponson. If he can pull a Small/Chacon, we might just be too tough to beat in the second half. From here on out, we need to win every series.

It's really going to get interesting when Matsui comes back.

ny2dave

07-17-2006, 08:41 AM

If we can take two, I think it will be a good springboard for us. If we can sweep, we might build enough momentum to carry us through October.

You know, I think the best thing for us is being out of first. It's been so long since it was this late in the season and we were struggling just to think about the playoffs. It's lighting a fire under everyone's asses now. The youth movement is definitely helping out too.

I just wish we were playing Boston sooner. Right now, riding as high as we are, we could beat them down, and put ourselves in the driver's seat.

The big question mark right now is Ponson. If he can pull a Small/Chacon, we might just be too tough to beat in the second half. From here on out, we need to win every series.

It's really going to get interesting when Matsui comes back.
Yeah, I figure that we need at least a split in Toronto. They area tough team though.
The kids are really helping and I don't want to see any of them traded away. I was pretty pissed when I heard that teams were asking for Melky.
Ponson could be a difference maker. But could you, please, tell me how Wright stays in the rotation? Hes horrible.

ButtleMan

07-17-2006, 09:45 AM

Yeah, I figure that we need at least a split in Toronto. They area tough team though.
The kids are really helping and I don't want to see any of them traded away. I was pretty pissed when I heard that teams were asking for Melky.
Ponson could be a difference maker. But could you, please, tell me how Wright stays in the rotation? Hes horrible.

Wright has been pitching better that Chacon, thats the major reason why he stays and Chacon goes to the BP.
Chacon also has BP experience so he would handle the move better than Chacon.
Yankees also have more invested in Wright than Chacon.
I like the move, Chacon should be able to help when the long reliver is needed and take some of the stress off of the other relievers arms.
I do think that Ponson is on a short leash thought. A few bad starts right away and he will be back on the scrap heap.

ny2dave

07-17-2006, 10:34 AM

Wright has been pitching better that Chacon, thats the major reason why he stays and Chacon goes to the BP.
Chacon also has BP experience so he would handle the move better than Chacon.
Yankees also have more invested in Wright than Chacon.
I like the move, Chacon should be able to help when the long reliver is needed and take some of the stress off of the other relievers arms.
I do think that Ponson is on a short leash thought. A few bad starts right away and he will be back on the scrap heap.
Chacon was our fifth starter and Wright our fourth. I know that we have money invested in Wright, but he can't pitch past the 5th innning for Pete's sake. I do think Chacon can have success out of the BP. And, no doubt Ponson's chances will be limited. So, he'd better make the most of it.

ShadeTree#55

07-17-2006, 10:46 AM

Now Mariano can finally be mentioned in the same breath as John Franco.

nyjunc

07-17-2006, 10:48 AM

Now Mariano can finally be mentioned in the same breath as John Franco.

:beer: :lol:

nyjunc

07-17-2006, 11:14 AM

Here's a pic i'm sure all Jeter lovers like Shade will love:grin: :

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

ShadeTree#55

07-17-2006, 11:27 AM

Wow a lot of emotion for an early season game. Jeter should act like he has been there before.

This game is not nearly as important as a game in September.

nyjunc

07-17-2006, 11:39 AM

Wow a lot of emotion for an early season game. Jeter should act like he has been there before.

This game is not nearly as important as a game in September.

They just swept the defending World Champs tying us in the L colum for 1st, it's worthy off a small fist pump which he gave.

ShadeTree#55

07-17-2006, 11:41 AM

What a showboating tool.

nyjunc

07-17-2006, 11:45 AM

What a showboating tool.

Yeah he's such a showboater:drunk: :rofl:

ShadeTree#55

07-17-2006, 11:48 AM

I know he is leading the injury plagued Yanks, with only 2 MVP's in the lineup, what a guy.

nyjunc

07-17-2006, 11:51 AM

I know he is leading the injury plagued Yanks, with only 2 MVP's in the lineup, what a guy.

The yanks have lost so many players to have a better record than the inflated Mets record(thanks to playing in the weak NL), to be tied in the l column for 1st and be just a few games out of the best record is nothing short of amazing.

jaywayne12

07-17-2006, 11:53 AM

Considering some of the names out their over the weekend...that was one damn impressive series by the 26 time world champions.

The 26 time world champions pitched well....hit in the clutch...fielded well..and looked like a team ready to hit stride for the second half.

Didnt see any other 26 time world champions take charge like that. :wink:

On a side note to my Met friends...Mets are trailing 5-2 sixth inning..so Im on the deck with a couple neighbors...and my son tells me (disgusted..and trained well) that the Mets just hit a grand slam and its 6-5...I told him dont worry.its early...15 minutes later he comes outside and says they hit another grand slam....I asked..the same inning? He says yes...he then tells me its 13-5...and I tell my neighbors hes young...and probably doesnt understand its like the eighth inning now.

Very impressive inning by the 2 timing Mets...very.

ShadeTree#55

07-17-2006, 11:56 AM

Rextasy

07-17-2006, 11:56 AM

The yanks have lost so many players to have a better record than the inflated Mets record(thanks to playing in the weak NL),
Did the Yanks still get to celebrate all their championships eevn though they played in an extremely week AL?

ButtleMan

07-17-2006, 11:58 AM

Some great defense by the Yankees yesterday.
Arod starting the double play.
Melky throwing out Crede
and Guiel forcing Thome at 2nd on a line drive to right.

Great job guys!

ShadeTree#55

07-17-2006, 12:00 PM

What the F was Thome doing? Talk about a brain cramp.

nyjunc

07-17-2006, 12:13 PM

Did the Yanks still get to celebrate all their championships eevn though they played in an extremely week AL?

When was the AL extremely weak? in '96 the O's and Indians were big time teams, in '98 the Indians would have won the WS if they beat us, in '99 Boston and Cle were really good and in '00 Seattle would have won the WS had they beaten us. During the dynasty years the only time the Yanks ran away w/ a division like the Mets have was one they won 114 games, sure we had bad teams like Tor and TB in the div but we had good Bos and Bal teams which is 2 mroe good teams that than the Mets have to deal w/. The AL has been better for a LONG time it just hasn't been this much better.

nyjunc

07-17-2006, 12:14 PM

I know they only have 2 MVP's in their lineup to go with their prized FA centerfielder and god like SS. The poor guys.

I mean Big Unit and Moose have been banged u...oh wait, the pitching staff is intact....Hmmmm?

just like the poor Mets haven't had the resources to be as good as the yankees b/c the Yanks play in a big market City while the Mets play in...oh wait we play in the SAME City!

jonnyd

07-17-2006, 12:14 PM

What a showboating tool.

id rather watch lastings milledge high fiving met fans with his 3 career hits:breakdance:

ShadeTree#55

07-17-2006, 12:14 PM

He is referring to the late 40's early 50's where the NL was the better league.

jonnyd

07-17-2006, 12:24 PM

When was the AL extremely weak? in '96 the O's and Indians were big time teams, in '98 the Indians would have won the WS if they beat us, in '99 Boston and Cle were really good and in '00 Seattle would have won the WS had they beaten us. During the dynasty years the only time the Yanks ran away w/ a division like the Mets have was one they won 114 games, sure we had bad teams like Tor and TB in the div but we had good Bos and Bal teams which is 2 mroe good teams that than the Mets have to deal w/. The AL has been better for a LONG time it just hasn't been this much better.

not to mention beating the braves in 8 straight world series games,after they dominated the nl for years and years

ShadeTree#55

07-17-2006, 12:30 PM

It may surprise some Yankee fans, but there was baseball before 1996.

Just saying...

boomer

07-17-2006, 12:37 PM

I know he is leading the injury plagued Yanks, with only 2 MVP's in the lineup, what a guy.
David Wright's on sterioids.

ButtleMan

07-17-2006, 12:39 PM

It may surprise some Yankee fans, but there was baseball before 1996.

Just saying...

Yep we know considering that only 4 of the 26 were won after 1996.
That what, about 1/5th of the total. :smile:

3rdAnd15Draw

07-17-2006, 12:54 PM

David Wright's on sterioids.

This might work better if it weren't a completely baseless accusation, or if you were a fan of a team that didn't have several admitted steroid users on their roster.

DonnieIsTheKing

07-17-2006, 12:57 PM

May I ask what ticket Rivera punched?

If you're figuring the Hall of Fame, that happened about 6 years ago.
And btw, Mariano's ticket to the hall of fame was not punched in about 6 years ago. It was punched in very recently... with only 1 pure reliever in the Hall of Fame right now, he's going to have to continue to impress the old, stingy voters that don't like voting relievers in to get him in.

He deserves to be in for sure, but there are asses in the HOF voting that are reluctant to vote relievers in. I think he'll probably get in on the 2nd or 3rd ballot, once the voters that refuse to vote people in their first year vote for him.

DonnieIsTheKing

07-17-2006, 12:59 PM

David Wright's on sterioids.
And what is your reasoning for this? He is a fantastic natural hitter that uses his excellent offensive fundamentals to be a great hitter - not power.

Penny2Moss

07-17-2006, 01:12 PM

david wright is the man and most definitly not on roids

AlioTheFool

07-17-2006, 01:53 PM

This thread is just too funny. What is it with Met fans? It's not our fault your team plays in the most god-awful eyesore in all of sports. It's not our fault your organization has been plagued by mismanagement for so long. It's not our fault you say Carter, I say Yogi. It's not our fault you scream 'roids, and I scream cokeheads.

Jeez, it took a guy who not only played many years in our house, but also helped coach us to WS wins in the 90's to straighten out your team.

And yes, I know there was baseball before '96. Matter of fact, I spent a few of those years hating baseball for letting money come before the WS. Hell, I was a Yankee fan when we had guys like Balboni, Winfield, Claudell Washington, Pags, Rags, Doug Drabek (you know, the guy who housed you guys for years in Pittsburgh?)

It's funny, I have been singing the Mets praises all year. Yes, they have been dominant. They look like they have their act together. Amazingly enough, they did it the same way Mets fans have been bitching about the Yankees for years, with the almighty dollar.

Oh screw it, I am just feeding into this. I know there will be a dozen pro-Met, anti-Yank comments after this. It's fine. You guys enjoy the ride while it lasts. If we don't do what we did in 2000 to you this year, we will next year.

BTW: David Wright is one of the most talented players I have ever seen. I honestly think he has a great career ahead of him.

Gator

07-17-2006, 01:58 PM

BIG COUNTRY

07-17-2006, 02:02 PM

Yeah, gotta bring out a new avatar to represent for the Yanks.

AlioTheFool

07-17-2006, 02:13 PM

Jeez, it took a guy who not only played many years in our house, but also helped coach us to WS wins in the 90's to straighten out your team.

------------

Didn't Joe Torre manage the Mets before he managed the Yanks?

Hmmm, I think that is correct. There would be a difference here though.

He actually wins with the Yanks, what did he do with the Mets?

Willie won for the Yanks before being lured across the TriBoro.

ShadeTree#55

07-17-2006, 02:13 PM

Gator

07-17-2006, 02:19 PM

You haven't won one without him since the 60's.

Willie is the key, and you let him slip away.

Yet they keep the human bad luck charm. # 23. Donnie Baseball. Have the Yankees ever won a playoff SERIES with him in uniform? He's loved, though. Hell, I'm a Met fan and I love him.....but only when he is in uniform, cause I know the Yankees are going home. Hi-Yoooooooo!

ButtleMan

07-17-2006, 02:21 PM

You haven't won one without him since the 60's.

Willie is the key, and you let him slip away.

Willie was on the IR during for the last part of 78 and missed the entire playoffs and world series.
Mr. Brian Doyls was our savior that year hitting over .400 in the World Series to lead the Yankees to the championship!

Rextasy

07-17-2006, 02:25 PM

Jeez, it took a guy who not only played many years in our house, but also helped coach us to WS wins in the 90's to straighten out your team.

When did Omar Minaya play or coach for the Yankees??

DonnieIsTheKing

07-17-2006, 02:29 PM

Jeez, it took a guy who not only played many years in our house, but also helped coach us to WS wins in the 90's to straighten out your team.

------------

Didn't Joe Torre manage the Mets before he managed the Yanks?
Willie can be a great manager in this league, but so far he has done very little. Manaya was the one that put together this team - Pedro, Beltran, Lo Duca, Delgado, Nady, Valentin, Chavez, Wagner, Sanchez, Bradford, Oliver, El Duque, and Franco are all key components to this team that he has brought in over his 2 years. This team is by far the most talented team in the National League, and I think this is a playoff team even if Art Howe was the manager. All Willie has to do is manage them and keep them on the same page and we're NL Champs easily. Has he done this? Not exactly. Even for a second year manager, he handles a bullpen and bench horrifically and it leaves us scratching our heads a lot. I was actually shocked when he took out El Duque that early yesterday because typical Willie would leave him in the game until he gave up 8 runs and then pull him.

Good with the players? We wouldn't be sure. Good at getting us play as a team? Yes. Good at making on field decisions? NO.

ShadeTree#55

07-17-2006, 02:30 PM

Willie was on the IR during for the last part of 78 and missed the entire playoffs and world series.
Mr. Brian Doyls was our savior that year hitting over .400 in the World Series to lead the Yankees to the championship!

Willie got the ring, and in Yankee land, that is all that matters.

AlioTheFool

07-17-2006, 02:31 PM

Yet they keep the human bad luck charm. # 23. Donnie Baseball. Have the Yankees ever won a playoff SERIES with him in uniform? He's loved, though. Hell, I'm a Met fan and I love him.....but only when he is in uniform, cause I know the Yankees are going home. Hi-Yoooooooo!

And if not for Boston's historic bad luck, Bill Buckner would have sent your Amazin's home in '86. Let's not talk luck here. 26 championships is the most in all sports. It's no fluke.

ShadeTree#55

07-17-2006, 02:32 PM

The game was tied when the ball went through Buckners leg. FYI

AlioTheFool

07-17-2006, 02:34 PM

Good at getting us play as a team? Yes.

And that's what really matters. Jeez, did anyone on this board ever play a team sport, or is this board filled with Micheal Kay clones?

ShadeTree#55

07-17-2006, 02:37 PM

Michael Kay would know that Game 6 was tied when the ball went through Buckners legs.

3rdAnd15Draw

07-17-2006, 02:43 PM

oh the "play as a team" crap. what nonsense. the mets have a talented roster and that's why they win games.

AlioTheFool

07-17-2006, 02:46 PM

Michael Kay would know that Game 6 was tied when the ball went through Buckners legs.

I wasn't going to respond to the last post, but I guess I just can't help but be egged on.

Why is it that there is always an excuse coming from Shea? There is always a reason why.

"The Yankees win because they spend so much money" Okay, so what exactly have the Mets done now?

"The game was tied when Buckner blew it." So the Mets would have won that game anyway huh?

What happened in 2000? Classy Derek Jeter told you it was the toughest series they had played to that point. Guys, hate to break it to you, he lied.

Your heroes list includes names like Carter, Mookie, HoJo.

Mine includes names like Bambino, the Mick, Yogi, The Iron Horse, Joltin' Joe.

My team has made heroes of guys like Aaron Boone and Bucky Dent.

And sure, Giambi almost definitely used steriods, but is anyone naive enough to think Dykstra didn't?

Come on. There is a ton of history to the Yankees organization. The Mets don't even compare. You guys can't even make the argument that we have won so many because we have been around longer. We won more in the 90's than you guys have in your history.

AlioTheFool

07-17-2006, 02:50 PM

oh the "play as a team" crap. what nonsense. the mets have a talented roster and that's why they win games.

So the Yankees overbearing roster automatically makes them winners?

I'll bet if you ask a Boston fan if it mattered that "the idiots" were like a family of misfits, it mattered.

Team sports require teams to win titles. If you believe anything less, you are just lying to yourself. Even Jordan credited his supporting cast, and if ever there was one idividual who could solely claim credit for a team's success, it was him.

Gator

07-17-2006, 02:51 PM

And if not for Boston's historic bad luck, Bill Buckner would have sent your Amazin's home in '86. Let's not talk luck here. 26 championships is the most in all sports. It's no fluke.

I think that in New Zealand.....the Maori won 27 rowing championships. That's going back a ways of course. 26 is still good though, dude

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

ShadeTree#55

07-17-2006, 02:56 PM

Your heroes list includes names like Carter, Mookie, HoJo.

Mine includes names like Bambino, the Mick, Yogi, The Iron Horse, Joltin' Joe.

My team has made heroes of guys like Aaron Boone and Bucky Dent.

Ever hear of Tom Seaver? He was better then the any pitcher the Yankees ever produced. Curious that you omitted him from your list.

Gator

07-17-2006, 02:58 PM

Ever hear of Tom Seaver? He was better then the any pitcher the Yankees ever produced. Curious that you omitted him from your list.

Nothing wrong with Gary Carter either. He's not in the class of Seaver or Ruth, Gehrig, Dimag.............but certainly an all-time great.

ButtleMan

07-17-2006, 02:59 PM

Ever hear of Tom Seaver? He was better then the any pitcher the Yankees ever produced. Curious that you omitted him from your list.

Okay and Mickey Mantle was better than any player the Mets produced.
So what?

3rdAnd15Draw

07-17-2006, 02:59 PM

So the Yankees overbearing roster automatically makes them winners?

I'll bet if you ask a Boston fan if it mattered that "the idiots" were like a family of misfits, it mattered.

Team sports require teams to win titles. If you believe anything less, you are just lying to yourself. Even Jordan credited his supporting cast, and if ever there was one idividual who could solely claim credit for a team's success, it was him.

Seeing as how the Yankees have made the playoffs for however many straight years, I would say yes, that their roster "automatically" makes them a good team.

Baseball is, at its heart, a sport about one on one matchups. Batter vs pitcher, etc. Not to mention that over the course of an 162 game season it is very rare that the cream does not rise to the top. In the NFL if your team gets in a funk and you lose 4 in a row that can cost you your season.

What you mention about Boston is more of a team chemistry issue, which really has nothing to do with the manager. Either people like each other and get along or they don't. The manager is not going to make teammates friends.

ButtleMan

07-17-2006, 02:59 PM

Nothing wrong with Gary Carter either. He's not in the class of Seaver or Ruth, Gehrig, Dimag.............but certainly an all-time great.

Mets didnt produce him. The Expos did.

ButtleMan

07-17-2006, 03:00 PM

Seeing as how the Yankees have made the playoffs for however many straight years, I would say yes, that their roster "automatically" makes them a good team.

Baseball is, at its heart, a sport about one on one matchups. Batter vs pitcher, etc. Not to mention that over the course of an 162 game season it is very rare that the cream does not rise to the top. In the NFL if your team gets in a funk and you lose 4 in a row that can cost you your season.

What you mention about Boston is more of a team chemistry issue, which really has nothing to do with the manager. Either people like each other and get along or they don't. The manager is not going to make teammates friends.

God knows that the Yankee teams of 77 & 78 absolutlety hated each other but were talented enough to win.

Gator

07-17-2006, 03:02 PM

Mets didnt produce him. The Expos did.

Yeah, but that wasn't the argument. Alio posted the your heroes versus our heroes thing, and Carter was one of 'our heroes'. My point is that there's nothing wrong with Gary Carter. He was a great player.

ButtleMan

07-17-2006, 03:08 PM

Yeah, but that wasn't the argument. Alio posted the your heroes versus our heroes thing, and Carter was one of 'our heroes'. My point is that there's nothing wrong with Gary Carter. He was a great player.

Shades point was how Seaver was the best better than any Pitcher the Yankees produced.
If that is not the case than no way was Seaver was better than Ruth.

ShadeTree#55

07-17-2006, 03:14 PM

Doesn't that go with the Carter thing?

My point is, start talking about Met heroes with one name. Tom Seaver.

ButtleMan

07-17-2006, 03:16 PM

Doesn't that go with the Carter thing?

My point is, start talking about Met heroes with one name. Tom Seaver.

That I agree with which is why I used MM in the beginning.
Tom is by far the best player ever for the Mets. Produced or not.

3rdAnd15Draw

07-17-2006, 03:17 PM

which is what makes his short lived broadcasting career all the more disappointing

AlioTheFool

07-17-2006, 03:19 PM

Ever hear of Tom Seaver? He was better then the any pitcher the Yankees ever produced. Curious that you omitted him from your list.

W L ERA G GS CG SHO SV SVO IP H R ER HR HBP BB SO
Seaver
311 205 2.86 656 647 231 61 1 --- 4782.2 3971 1674 1521 380 76 1390 3640
Whitey Ford
236 106 2.75 498 438 156 45 10 --- 3170.1 2766 1107 967 228 28 1086 1956
Red Ruffing
231 124 3.47 426 391 261 40 8 --- 3168.2 2995 1406 1222 200 31 1066 1526
Mel Stottlemeyer
164 139 2.97 360 356 152 40 1 --- 2661.1 2435 1003 878 171 44 809 1257
Lefty Gomez
101 3.34 367 319 173 28 9 --- 2498.1 2286 1087 927 138 19 1090 1468
Ron Guidry
170 91 3.29 368 323 95 26 4 --- 2392.0 2198 953 874 226 13 633 1778

Now keep in mind, Seaver's stats there are for his entire career. All of the Yankees, are just their stats in Ruth's House.

Seaver's stats with the Mets, including the second time around for a year.
198 124 2.62 401 395 171 44 1 --- 3043.7 2431 953 870 212 52 847 2541

Still want to talk history?

ShadeTree#55

07-17-2006, 03:20 PM

I believe it was a mutual thing, he is concentrating on his winery.

ShadeTree#55

07-17-2006, 03:21 PM

W L ERA G GS CG SHO SV SVO IP H R ER HR HBP BB SO
Seaver
311 205 2.86 656 647 231 61 1 --- 4782.2 3971 1674 1521 380 76 1390 3640
Whitey Ford
236 106 2.75 498 438 156 45 10 --- 3170.1 2766 1107 967 228 28 1086 1956
Red Ruffing
231 124 3.47 426 391 261 40 8 --- 3168.2 2995 1406 1222 200 31 1066 1526
Mel Stottlemeyer
164 139 2.97 360 356 152 40 1 --- 2661.1 2435 1003 878 171 44 809 1257
Lefty Gomez
101 3.34 367 319 173 28 9 --- 2498.1 2286 1087 927 138 19 1090 1468
Ron Guidry
170 91 3.29 368 323 95 26 4 --- 2392.0 2198 953 874 226 13 633 1778

Now keep in mind, Seaver's stats there are for his entire career. All of the Yankees, are just their stats in Ruth's House.

Seaver's stats with the Mets, including the second time around for a year.
198 124 2.62 401 395 171 44 1 --- 3043.7 2431 953 870 212 52 847 2541

Still want to talk history?

WTF is that?

AlioTheFool

07-17-2006, 03:27 PM

What you mention about Boston is more of a team chemistry issue, which really has nothing to do with the manager. Either people like each other and get along or they don't. The manager is not going to make teammates friends.

I guess as a National League fan you wouldn't be exposed to the same news stories we were as AL East fans. Nothing wrong with that, but allow me to clarify.

It was widely publicized how Terry Francona kept control over the media exposure to the team. There were huge problems with Pedro, but Francona would let him leave the park early so he could avoid the media. The team freaked out initially, but Francona was able to diffuse it, so much so that the team actually embraced the idea of Pedro making it back to the hotel before the game was done.

He also handled Manny like a genius. Hence the whole "Manny being Manny" thing.

By contrast, let's look at Herm Edwards. He had more than enough talent to win big games. And we still spent too many Januarys watching other teams play for the title.

AlioTheFool

07-17-2006, 03:29 PM

Yeah, but that wasn't the argument. Alio posted the your heroes versus our heroes thing, and Carter was one of 'our heroes'. My point is that there's nothing wrong with Gary Carter. He was a great player.

Don't misundestand. I liked Carter, a lot. He was beyond a class act, and is rightfully a hero. All I was saying was that when comparing club history, our hero list spans quite a few more pages in the books than the Mets.

I'll never knock Carter, like I said, he was always a class act.

AlioTheFool

07-17-2006, 03:36 PM

WTF is that?

Umm, looks like a lot of numbers. W means wins, L means losses, ERA is Earned Run Average, do I need to go on?

Point being, you claim Seaver was better than any pitcher the Yankees ever produced. I would have to beg to differ. None of those Yankee stats include post-season performance either.

In terms of strike outs, Seaver pretty much trumps all. In terms of everything else, he is pretty much even. If you look closely, you can see that Seaver has about 1600 more strikeouts than Ford. If you look even more closely, you will see he also has about 1600 more innings pitched. Not that one K per inning is anything to knock, but if Ford had the same number of innings, I'm not so sure the sheer count would be so different.

ShadeTree#55

07-17-2006, 03:44 PM

GreenMachine

07-17-2006, 03:57 PM

And to think, this thread was about the Yankees sweeping the defending champs...

ButtleMan

07-17-2006, 04:02 PM

And to think, this thread was about the Yankees sweeping the defending champs...

As always, you can thank Shade for steering a Yankee thread off course.
One dig and the rebuttles fly. :rofl:
He's the CJ69 of the BS forum. :smile:

ShadeTree#55

07-17-2006, 04:03 PM

He's the CJ69 of the BS forum. :smile:

I only bad mouth other peoples team, not my own.

I resemble that remark.

AlioTheFool

07-17-2006, 04:03 PM

Your so off base its not even funny.

Ford was a great pitcher, Seaver is one of the best ever.

Inner circle Hall of Fame. Seaver recieved the highest % of votes for the Hall of fame. Higher then Ruth, Cobb, Aaron, Walter Johnson, anyone.

Sure, I am not denying Seaver was one of the best ever, but to say Whitey Ford wasn't is pretty off-base.

What do HoF votes have to do with anything? It just means that he was well liked by the sportswriters. Aaron was a great home run hitter, but his skin color hurt him. Ruth was a Yankee, and Yankees are hated by everyone who isn't a Yankee fan.

I'm not denying Seaver was a phenominal pitcher, and arguably the best ever. But you act as though the Yankees haven't had any pitching at all over their history. Hell, Ruth could well have been the greatest pitcher ever, but a contract clause while with Boston turned him into an outfielder.

My initial point was that our list of greats is longer, by far. I intentionally left out Seaver from the initial post, simply to avoid this argument. Positional players can be compared by their stats. A pitcher's most telling stats are the W/L columns.

You can argue that his # of K's makes him the better pitcher all you want. However, it is impossible to prove. Pitching is very subjective. I could argue that Seaver faced a lot of National League hitting. How many times did he strike out a pitcher? On the other hand, you can compare RBI production, number of errors, OBP, number of HRs, etc. for positional players. This makes for a more objective argument.

Again, I agree that Seaver is one of the best pitchers ever. My point was that the Yankees have more heroes over the course of their history.

And this conversation has gone way OT at this point. It started as a discussion of the Yankees sweeping Chicago.

ButtleMan

07-17-2006, 04:07 PM

Sure, I am not denying Seaver was one of the best ever, but to say Whitey Ford wasn't is pretty off-base.

What do HoF votes have to do with anything? It just means that he was well liked by the sportswriters. Aaron was a great home run hitter, but his skin color hurt him. Ruth was a Yankee, and Yankees are hated by everyone who isn't a Yankee fan.

I'm not denying Seaver was a phenominal pitcher, and arguably the best ever. But you act as though the Yankees haven't had any pitching at all over their history. Hell, Ruth could well have been the greatest pitcher ever, but a contract clause while with Boston turned him into an outfielder.

My initial point was that our list of greats is longer, by far. I intentionally left out Seaver from the initial post, simply to avoid this argument. Positional players can be compared by their stats. A pitcher's most telling stats are the W/L columns.

You can argue that his # of K's makes him the better pitcher all you want. However, it is impossible to prove. Pitching is very subjective. I could argue that Seaver faced a lot of National League hitting. How many times did he strike out a pitcher? On the other hand, you can compare RBI production, number of errors, OBP, number of HRs, etc. for positional players. This makes for a more objective argument.

Again, I agree that Seaver is one of the best pitchers ever. My point was that the Yankees have more heroes over the course of their history.

And this conversation has gone way OT at this point. It started as a discussion of the Yankees sweeping Chicago.

Yankees should have more heroes since they have a much longer history than the Mets.

Just like the Giants have more heroes than the Jets.

ShadeTree#55

07-17-2006, 04:11 PM

You can argue that his # of K's makes him the better pitcher all you want. However, it is impossible to prove. Pitching is very subjective. I could argue that Seaver faced a lot of National League hitting. How many times did he strike out a pitcher?
Dude you are clueless, Ford never faced a DH, and Seaver did.

Damn your bad.

PM junc and tell him to help you out.

AlioTheFool

07-17-2006, 04:37 PM

Dude you are clueless, Ford never faced a DH, and Seaver did.

Damn your bad.

PM junc and tell him to help you out.

Okay, so basically, this conversation, as long as it goes on, is going to be you twisting my words to mean what you choose it to, correct?

Could you please identify where I claimed Ford ever faced a DH? Actually, don't bother. I didn't.

That point was supposed to be to show that Seaver pitched in what I consider a lesser hitting league. Again, it's subjective.

But forget it. You're right, and I am wrong. There are you satisfied? See you in October. Just be sure to bring your Kleenex. :up:

ShadeTree#55

07-17-2006, 04:50 PM

That point was supposed to be to show that Seaver pitched in what I consider a lesser hitting league. Based on what? Inter league 2006?

How many times did Ford strike out a pitcher?

The NL was stacked in Seavers day. BTW

ShadeTree#55

07-17-2006, 04:59 PM

NL Out scored the AL in:

67
68
70
71
72
74

69, 73, 75 the years the AL led. Guess who won the Cy Young in the NL?

ButtleMan

07-17-2006, 05:01 PM

I have a call to do and cant do the research but please list the WS winners from those same years.

ShadeTree#55

07-17-2006, 05:04 PM

67-Cards
68-Tigers
69-Mets
70-O's
71-Pirates
72-A's
73-A's
74-A's
75-Reds

:drunk: :up:

ButtleMan

07-17-2006, 05:07 PM

:drunk: :up:

Okay.

67-Cards
68-Tigers
69-Mets
70-O's
71-Pirates
72-A's
73-A's
74-A's
75-Reds

9 year span AL wins 5 and NL wins 4. Not that much domination.

If you use Runs scored as a barometer as to the NL being a better league I would counter with the NL pitching overall was worse which is why they scored more runs.
What about league era's over the same time frame?

1 stat will not show what you want it to.

ShadeTree#55

07-17-2006, 05:10 PM

He just painted the NL as a "lesser hitting league", which might be true now, but not historically and surely not in the 60's and 70's.

ButtleMan

07-17-2006, 05:14 PM

He just painted the NL as a "lesser hitting league", which might be true now, but not historically and surely not in the 60's and 70's.

Hitting goes hand and hand with pitching. The reason as to why the NL was a better hitting league in the 60's and 70's (according to you) could be because the weaker pitching was in the NL as well.
It doesnt necessarily mean that the hitters themselves were better but their stats may have been due to subpar pitching.
AL had some great hitters during that time as well but since they might have gone up against better pitchers overall, the stat would sway towards the NL.
You cant cant the one stat without the other.

devilonthetownhallroof

07-17-2006, 05:22 PM

Shades point was how Seaver was the best better than any Pitcher the Yankees produced.
If that is not the case than no way was Seaver was better than Ruth.

Ruth wasn't produced by the Yankees, he was produced by Boston. :cool:

ButtleMan

07-17-2006, 05:28 PM

Ruth wasn't produced by the Yankees, he was produced by Boston. :cool:

I know. That was in response to a previous post that wanted to add Carter for the Mets and I responded to him about Carter not being produced by the Mets.

You have to read the whole thread Devil...:smile:

ShadeTree#55

07-17-2006, 05:29 PM

This thread is all over the place.

Sorry.

devilonthetownhallroof

07-17-2006, 05:58 PM

As always, you can thank Shade for steering a Yankee thread off course.
One dig and the rebuttles fly. :rofl:
He's the CJ69 of the BS forum. :smile:

Look above ^ :rofl:

eyedea

07-17-2006, 10:31 PM

All that matters is the mets will be world series champs this year.

ViLmAfAn5128

07-17-2006, 11:15 PM

when is the first game against the BLue Jays, if we can manage to sweep them thats it, we got the division so far, but we can keep working at securing that spot.

28rogerblaze51

07-18-2006, 02:26 AM

yankees motherfing rule.... what what.

GreenMachine

07-18-2006, 02:27 AM

yankees motherfing rule.... what what.
Hi defense wins....

GreenMachine

07-18-2006, 02:53 AM

Ever hear of Tom Seaver? He was better then the any pitcher the Yankees ever produced. Curious that you omitted him from your list.

Gratutious Chico Escuela thread-thank you, Hane!
To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

Chico Escuela

Chico Escuela, played by Garrett Morris, was the Weekend Update sports correspondent. A retired Hispanic ballplayer with limited command of the English language, he wrote the tell-all book Bad Stuff About the Mets (sample: "Tom Seaver - he once borrow Chico's soap and no give it back"). In spring training 1979, Chico's unsuccessful comeback attempt was documented on several Update segments. The character was first introduced in a St. Mickey's Knights of Columbus sketch, but subsequently Escuela appeared solely on Update.
Typically he would be introduced by Jane Curtin, thus compelling him to say, "Thank you, Hane." Soon would follow his standard catchphrase: "Baseball been berry, berry good to me!" Sammy Sosa, at the peak of his stardom in the late 1990s, would sometimes repeat that line as a joke, to the media, albeit in his true-to-life strong Hispanic accent.

28rogerblaze51

07-18-2006, 02:57 AM

american dominates national league... small ball wins too.

nyjunc

07-18-2006, 08:40 AM

Ever hear of Tom Seaver? He was better then the any pitcher the Yankees ever produced. Curious that you omitted him from your list.

Best STARTING Pitcher, Mariano is the best pitcher either team has produced.

MSUJet85

07-18-2006, 08:51 AM

Best STARTING Pitcher, Mariano is the best pitcher either team has produced.
Considering that Mariano failed as a starter early in his career, you can't accurately compare a HOF starting pitcher to a HOF reliever, which is why so few relievers are in the HOF

ShadeTree#55

07-18-2006, 09:55 AM

Best STARTING Pitcher, Mariano is the best pitcher either team has produced.

No chance.

AlioTheFool

07-18-2006, 10:07 AM

No chance.

That's a fantastic rebuttle! It makes so much sense too!

It's just not worth fighting about. It's an argument between the guy who is probably the greatest starter of all-time, versus the guy who is probably the greatest closer of all time.

As far Ruth being a product of Boston, that's more than fair enough. We still have Mickey Mantle, Joe DiMaggio, Yogi Berra, the list goes on and on.

But it's really not worth fighting about. The best fight is going to be in October when they face each other in the WS, just like 2000.

I really want to see that. This Met team is much better than 2000's. While I don't think this Yankee team is as good as 2000, but I would still like to see it.

3rdAnd15Draw

07-18-2006, 10:15 AM

That's a fantastic rebuttle! It makes so much sense too!

It's just not worth fighting about. It's an argument between the guy who is probably the greatest starter of all-time, versus the guy who is probably the greatest closer of all time.

I agree it's not worth fighting about, but you've said all that needs to be said to conclude that Seaver was better. Seaver was an all time great starter, Mariano is an all time great reliever and that is the end of the story.

ShadeTree#55

07-18-2006, 10:17 AM

nyjunc

07-19-2006, 08:31 AM

Considering that Mariano failed as a starter early in his career, you can't accurately compare a HOF starting pitcher to a HOF reliever, which is why so few relievers are in the HOF

He didn't fail, he was moved to the pen. We don't know if he would have been a good SP or not but h IS the BEST reliever of all time and Seaver is not the best SP of all time so therefore I'd say Mo is the best pitcher of the 2.

I agree it's not worth fighting about, but you've said all that needs to be said to conclude that Seaver was better. Seaver was an all time great starter, Mariano is an all time great reliever and that is the end of the story.

Mariano has been the single most important player in the latest Yankee dynasty and is w/o a doubt the best closer in the history of the game. he has been dominant since the '95 playoffs and has had to pitch the equivalent of another season and a half from all his postseason innins. Seaver was great but he held on way too long to get his 300th win, after about 9 or 10 years Seaver was no longer great. Mariano has ben great for over 10 years now.

If Mariano was that good, he would have anchored the rotation for years, not been a "closer", he is a great reliever, probably the best, but no where in the league of a Seaver, Spahn, Gibson, Clemens, or any of the all time great starters.

Hmmm, why didn't the Twins make Santana a closer, or Verlander.

Oh that's right, Mariano was a failed stater who became a great "closer"

Just because he is the best closer, doesn't mean he has anywhere near the value of a #1 starter ACE.

Who cares about the circumstances? The FACTS are he is the best closer of all-time and was the MVP of a team that won 4 titles in 5 years.

In the postseason in 8 starts Seaver lost 3 games while in 72 appearances Mo has lost just once, in just over 61 innings Seaver has given up 19 earned runs while in over 111 innings Mo has given up just 10 earned runs.

I don't care if Mo could or could not have been a great starter- in today's game the closer is as important, if not more, as a great starter and Mo has been a more dominant reliever than Seaver was a starter. Both all-time great pitchers but one stands just a bit higher.

kinghenry89

07-19-2006, 08:39 AM

If Mariano was that good, he would have anchored the rotation for years, not been a "closer", he is a great reliever, probably the best, but no where in the league of a Seaver, Spahn, Gibson, Clemens, or any of the all time great starters.

Hmmm, why didn't the Twins make Santana a closer, or Verlander.

Oh that's right, Mariano was a failed stater who became a great "closer"

Just because he is the best closer, doesn't mean he has anywhere near the value of a #1 starter ACE.
Do you honestly believe that Rivera sucked too badly to be a starter, so they made him the greatest closer of all time? The reason that he doesn't start is because he never had the arm strength to go a ton of innings and because he only throws one pitch (until a few years ago he mixed in a 2 seamer.)

Criticizing Mo for coming out of the bullpen instead of starting is totally ridiculous, and comparing him to a starter is equally insane. Most of these Yankees/Mets arguements are just mind bogglingly dumb.

3rdAnd15Draw

07-19-2006, 09:22 AM

I don't care if Mo could or could not have been a great starter- in today's game the closer is as important, if not more, as a great starter

You've said some crazy things junc but this might just take the cake. Was Mo more important then Schilling or Randy in 01? Was he more important then Beckett in 03? A top notch starting pitcher is ALWAYS more valuable then a top notch closer. And we're talking about the postseason here. In the regular season it isn't even a question. Billy Wagner hasn't had a meaningful save opportunity in 2 months.

ShadeTree#55

07-19-2006, 10:04 AM

Tom Seaver in 1969

He won his last 8 starts of the season, all complete games with 3 shutouts giving up a grand total of 8 earned runs in 8 games.

That is just as valuable as a closer, sure.

nyjunc

07-19-2006, 11:24 AM

You've said some crazy things junc but this might just take the cake. Was Mo more important then Schilling or Randy in 01? Was he more important then Beckett in 03? A top notch starting pitcher is ALWAYS more valuable then a top notch closer. And we're talking about the postseason here. In the regular season it isn't even a question. Billy Wagner hasn't had a meaningful save opportunity in 2 months.

I'll take 4 Championships over 2, he was the biggest key in our 4 titles while in '01 Ari had 2 HOF caliber SPs lead them and in '03 Beckett had a great series.

Tom Seaver in 1969

He won his last 8 starts of the season, all complete games with 3 shutouts giving up a grand total of 8 earned runs in 8 games.

That is just as valuable as a closer, sure.

Mariano has saved 34 postseason games and has been on the mound closing out THREE WS. That trumps a great stretch run in ONE season for Seaver.

ShadeTree#55

07-19-2006, 11:30 AM

Seaver is metioned with Walter Johnson and Warren Spahn. Mo is mentioned with Lee Smith and Franco.

nyjunc

07-19-2006, 11:38 AM

Seaver is metioned with Walter Johnson and Warren Spahn. Mo is mentioned with Lee Smith and Franco.

:rofl: :rofl:

ShadeTree#55

07-19-2006, 11:38 AM

Seaver 3 Cy Young's
Mo none.

Mo was never even in the top ten for MVP voting. Seaver was 2nd in 69 losing by a slim margin.

Mo is a nice little pitcher, great for a reliever

3rdAnd15Draw

07-19-2006, 12:04 PM

I'll take 4 Championships over 2, he was the biggest key in our 4 titles while in '01 Ari had 2 HOF caliber SPs lead them and in '03 Beckett had a great series.

More nonsense. We're not talking about the Yankees as a team, there's obviously more to a team then a SP or a closer. And in 01 yes Arizona did have 2 HOF SP's having great postseasons and they were BOTH much more valuable then Rivera. With these 2 Arizona was able to win the series even with a steaming pile of shit as a closer.

It's simple, in a 7 game series a top starter is going to pitch 3 to 3.5 times as much as a closer. There can be no debate about which is more valuable.

Mariano has saved 34 postseason games and has been on the mound closing out THREE WS. That trumps a great stretch run in ONE season for Seaver.

The "save" is a joke of a stat and while Rivera has certainly been great in the postseason, you can't seriously quote save numbers and think that you're making a point.

AlioTheFool

07-19-2006, 02:04 PM

The "save" is a joke of a stat and while Rivera has certainly been great in the postseason, you can't seriously quote save numbers and think that you're making a point.

Now you guys are grasping at straws again. I stopped posting because I figured it would just die. But I'm not letting nyjunc go down without backup.

You talk about a save being a joke of a stat? Is that why the Mets brought in Wagner? I can see how a Mets fan would think it was a joke, what with a name like Armando Benitez still in recent memory.

Franco should not be used in the same breath with Mo. Franco pitched way too long, and while still effective, was too old, and had he not been a late inning guy, in the weaker league, would have been forced to quit much earlier.

3rdAnd15Draw

07-19-2006, 02:10 PM

Now you guys are grasping at straws again. I stopped posting because I figured it would just die. But I'm not letting nyjunc go down without backup.

You talk about a save being a joke of a stat? Is that why the Mets brought in Wagner? I can see how a Mets fan would think it was a joke, what with a name like Armando Benitez still in recent memory.

Franco should not be used in the same breath with Mo. Franco pitched way too long, and while still effective, was too old, and had he not been a late inning guy, in the weaker league, would have been forced to quit much earlier.

Wagner was/is a horrific waste of money, as I stated many times before the Mets signed him. There's no way to justify spending that much salary on a closer, at least when you're supposedly working with a budget.

If MLB had a salary cap you'd see closers being paid like kickers in the NFL, and justifiably so.

AlioTheFool

07-19-2006, 02:13 PM

Wagner was/is a horrific waste of money, as I stated many times before the Mets signed him. There's no way to justify spending that much salary on a closer, at least when you're supposedly working with a budget.

If MLB had a salary cap you'd see closers being paid like kickers in the NFL, and justifiably so.

Oh goodie! Now is my chance to take a little tidbit of what someone wrote and shred it.

There IS a cap in baseball. It's not a hard cap, so teams can break it, but pay back 50% of the amount over the cap to the league.

And if closers were paid like kickers, Mo would get Vinitieri's money.

nyjunc

07-19-2006, 03:40 PM

Seaver 3 Cy Young's
Mo none.

Mo was never even in the top ten for MVP voting. Seaver was 2nd in 69 losing by a slim margin.

Mo is a nice little pitcher, great for a reliever

They don't give the Cy to relievers often, last year Mo deserved it but did not get it. It's hard to win as a reliver but i'd rather take an ALS and WS MVP over CY's, how many LCS and WS MVP's does Tom have? (hint- as many as you and I do)

More nonsense. We're not talking about the Yankees as a team, there's obviously more to a team then a SP or a closer. And in 01 yes Arizona did have 2 HOF SP's having great postseasons and they were BOTH much more valuable then Rivera. With these 2 Arizona was able to win the series even with a steaming pile of shit as a closer.

It's simple, in a 7 game series a top starter is going to pitch 3 to 3.5 times as much as a closer. There can be no debate about which is more valuable.

The "save" is a joke of a stat and while Rivera has certainly been great in the postseason, you can't seriously quote save numbers and think that you're making a point.

mariano has an effect on just about every Yankee win in postseason, a starter does not.

I agree the save stats can be a joke BUT most of Mo'ss aves were legit and alot of times he pitched mroe than an inning and some of his best work was to keep the opponent scorelesss while we came back or into extras.

Wagner was/is a horrific waste of money, as I stated many times before the Mets signed him. There's no way to justify spending that much salary on a closer, at least when you're supposedly working with a budget.

If MLB had a salary cap you'd see closers being paid like kickers in the NFL, and justifiably so.

there are "closers" and then there is Mariano.

AMJets

07-19-2006, 04:10 PM

Come on now. I love Mo as much as the next Yankee fan, but a SP like Seaver is far more valuable than a RP like Rivera.

nyjunc

07-19-2006, 04:13 PM

Come on now. I love Mo as much as the next Yankee fan, but a SP like Seaver is far more valuable than a RP like Rivera.

Who was more valuable as a Yankee- Clemens or Rivera? Clemens is every bit as good as Seaver and yet mo was more valubale than Clemens. We had grat teams but no one player was more valuable to the Yanks than Mariano Rivera during our latest dynasty.

AMJets

07-19-2006, 04:17 PM

Who was more valuable as a Yankee- Clemens or Rivera? Clemens is every bit as good as Seaver and yet mo was more valubale than Clemens. We had grat teams but no one player was more valuable to the Yanks than Mariano Rivera during our latest dynasty.

Clemens with the Yankees was nowhere near the pitcher he was with Boston early on, in Toronto, in Houston the past couple of years, and nowhere near the pitcher Seaver was. If you'd argue Clemens in his peak years or Rivera, then you definitely take Clemens.

3rdAnd15Draw

07-19-2006, 04:18 PM

Who was more valuable as a Yankee- Clemens or Rivera? Clemens is every bit as good as Seaver and yet mo was more valubale than Clemens. We had grat teams but no one player was more valuable to the Yanks than Mariano Rivera during our latest dynasty.

Now you're just embarassing yourself. Clemens with the Yanks wasn't half the pitcher that Seaver was for the Mets. A more apt comparison for Clemens time with the Yanks would be a guy like Al Leiter.

nyjunc

07-19-2006, 04:20 PM

Clemens with the Yankees was nowhere near the pitcher he was with Boston early on, in Toronto, in Houston the past couple of years, and nowhere near the pitcher Seaver was. If you'd argue Clemens in his peak years or Rivera, then you definitely take Clemens.

The guy was coming off 2 CY's, he won a CY w/ the Yanks and won another the year after he left us. Clemens was still at theop of his game as a Yank.

I am in no way taking anything away from an all-time great in Seaver but if I had a choice I take Mariano, I think he's been more valubale tot he Yanks than Seaver was to any of his teams. Mariano is w/o question the bst closer of all-time, Seaver is in the discussion for best starter of all-time.

AMJets

07-19-2006, 04:23 PM

The guy was coming off 2 CY's, he won a CY w/ the Yanks and won another the year after he left us. Clemens was still at theop of his game as a Yank.

Of the 4 CY's you mention, only 1 came as a Yankee (one that he really didn't deserve.) Your argument was Clemens AS A YANKEE. He never had a season here with an ERA under 3.50. Not a single year with the Yankees did he dominate like Seaver did for a 12-14 year stretch.

Mariano is w/o question the bst closer of all-time, Seaver is in the discussion for best starter of all-time.

That's true, but since SP is more valuable than RP, a top 5 all-time SP is better than the #1 closer.

nyjunc

07-19-2006, 04:24 PM

Now you're just embarassing yourself. Clemens with the Yanks wasn't half the pitcher that Seaver was for the Mets. A more apt comparison for Clemens time with the Yanks would be a guy like Al Leiter.

Really? Last I checked the 2 years before he came to the Yanks he won Cys, he wona Cy w/ the Yanks and won another one after he left the Yanks. the 3 in Tor and NY were in a much tougher league in a much tougher ballpark for pitchers than the old NL and Shea. Clemens has been as great as ever the last 10 years.

When did Al win a CY? let alone 4 since '97?

nyjunc

07-19-2006, 04:26 PM

Of the 4 CY's you mention, only 1 came as a Yankee (one that he really didn't deserve.) Your argument was Clemens AS A YANKEE. He never had a season here with an ERA under 3.50. Not a single year with the Yankees did he dominate like Seaver did for a 12-14 year stretch.

Seaver was great for closer to 10 years not 12-14 and Clemens was 20-3 in 2001 and had an epic duel in game 7 of one of the best WS of all time. I '99 and '00 his reg seasons weren't great but in the '00 postseason he was at his best in the LCS and WS and STILL MO was more valuable.

nyjunc

07-19-2006, 04:31 PM

That's true, but since SP is more valuable than RP, a top 5 all-time SP is better than the #1 closer.

We won 4 WS in 5 years and never had a lights out, great SP. We had good, solid starting pitching but we didn't have any Guidry '78s on those teams- the 1 constant was Mariano. In '96 our top 4 was Pettitte, Key, Cone and Rogers, in '98 it was Pettite, Cone, Wells and El Duque, in '99 it was Pettitte, Cone, Clemens and El Duque, in '00 it was Clemens, Pettitte, El Duque and Neagle. Again we had very good SP, good depth in the rotation but in those 4 Championship seasons we didn't have any lights out pitchers.

3rdAnd15Draw

07-19-2006, 04:32 PM

Really? Last I checked the 2 years before he came to the Yanks he won Cys, he wona Cy w/ the Yanks and won another one after he left the Yanks. the 3 in Tor and NY were in a much tougher league in a much tougher ballpark for pitchers than the old NL and Shea. Clemens has been as great as ever the last 10 years.

When did Al win a CY? let alone 4 since '97?

Who cares? You were asking if Clemens or Rivera was more valuable _as a Yankee_

Your last statement is just an outright fabrication. Clemens career ERA is 3.12 and he didn't come close to that any of his seasons with the Yankees. His WHIP was also well above his career avg in his time with the Yanks.

nyjunc

07-19-2006, 04:33 PM

Who cares? You were asking if Clemens or Rivera was more valuable _as a Yankee_

Your last statement is just an outright fabrication. Clemens career ERA is 3.12 and he didn't come close to that any of his seasons with the Yankees. His WHIP was also well above his career avg in his time with the Yanks.

He was still a top pitcher and won a CY for us. He didn't transition well to NY and struggled his first 2 reg seasons but the fact that he won 2 CYs the 2 years before he got here and 1 the year after he left shows he was still a great pitcher.

AMJets

07-19-2006, 04:35 PM

Seaver was great for closer to 10 years not 12-14 and Clemens was 20-3 in 2001 and had an epic duel in game 7 of one of the best WS of all time. I '99 and '00 his reg seasons weren't great but in the '00 postseason he was at his best in the LCS and WS and STILL MO was more valuable.

Seaver:

67 = 2.76 ERA
68 = 2.20 ERA
69 = 2.21 ERA
70 = 2.82 ERA
71 = 1.76 ERA
72 = 2.92 ERA
73 = 2.08 ERA
74 = 3.20 ERA
75 = 2.38 ERA
76 = 2.59 ERA
77 = 2.58 ERA
78 = 2.88 ERA
79 = 3.14 ERA

13 dominant seasons. For 13 straight years, he was dominate for 260-290 innings.

W-L record is a worthless statistic, If I'm starting a team, I take the guy who had consecutive 15-11, 2.50 ERA seasons over consecutive 20-3, 3.50 ERA. He did more good than bad in the post-season, but he still wasn't anywhere near Seaver during that 99-03 period.

AMJets

07-19-2006, 04:37 PM

He was still a top pitcher and won a CY for us. He didn't transition well to NY and struggled his first 2 reg seasons but the fact that he won 2 CYs the 2 years before he got here and 1 the year after he left shows he was still a great pitcher.

The CYs he won in Toronto are meaningless when talking about his value to the Yankees. You can say he was a great pitcher all you want, the results are he had an ERA with the Yankees of close to 4, nothing close to Seaver in his prime, which is the argument.

nyjunc

07-19-2006, 04:39 PM

Seaver:

67 = 2.76 ERA
68 = 2.20 ERA
69 = 2.21 ERA
70 = 2.82 ERA
71 = 1.76 ERA
72 = 2.92 ERA
73 = 2.08 ERA
74 = 3.20 ERA
75 = 2.38 ERA
76 = 2.59 ERA
77 = 2.58 ERA
78 = 2.88 ERA
79 = 3.14 ERA

13 dominant seasons. For 13 straight years, he was dominate for 260-290 innings.

W-L record is a worthless statistic, If I'm starting a team, I take the guy who had consecutive 15-11, 2.50 ERA seasons over consecutive 20-3, 3.50 ERA. He did more good than bad in the post-season, but he still wasn't anywhere near Seaver during that 99-03 period.

A 3.5 ERA in Yankee Stadium in 2001 is very comparable to anything Seaver had in the NL in the 60s and 70s. Remember what Clemens did when he left the AL? he had a 2.98 and 1.87 ERA in his next 2 years in the NL. It's ALOT harder pitching in the AL today compared w/ the NL at any time and the AL pre-DH.

3rdAnd15Draw

07-19-2006, 04:40 PM

Clemens won a Cy Young based on his rep and the idiot voters dazzled by his W/L record. Mussina, Buehrle and Garcia clearly had better seasons.

nyjunc

07-19-2006, 04:43 PM

The CYs he won in Toronto are meaningless when talking about his value to the Yankees. You can say he was a great pitcher all you want, the results are he had an ERA with the Yankees of close to 4, nothing close to Seaver in his prime, which is the argument.

He ws still a top pitcher 3 of his 5 years in NY, his ERA is a little high but again that has more to do w/ the league. He was still a great pitcher and still has HOF #s his last 10 years pitching.

regardless of that Mariano has by far been the most important Yankee pitcher, they never had a true Ace. It was always a depp, good rotation that kept the games close until we got to the pen and then Mo would close it out. He was more valuable than any SP could have been.

ShadeTree#55

07-19-2006, 04:44 PM

A 3.5 ERA in Yankee Stadium in 2001 is very comparable to anything Seaver had in the NL in the 60s and 70s. Remember what Clemens did when he left the AL? he had a 2.98 and 1.87 ERA in his next 2 years in the NL. It's ALOT harder pitching in the AL today compared w/ the NL at any time and the AL pre-DH.

Dude, Yankee stadium is a honest ballpark, its not Coors.

You AL fans have taking the offensive explosion of the last 10 years right to your head and completely forgot about history.

The NL in the 60's and 70's had some of the all time great offensive players and teams for that matter.

nyjunc

07-19-2006, 04:45 PM

Clemens won a Cy Young based on his rep and the idiot voters dazzled by his W/L record. Mussina, Buehrle and Garcia clearly had better seasons.

What about the '75 CY voting? Randy Jones won 20, pitched more innings, had a lower ERA and better WHIP and yet Seaver won- on reputation perhaps? There were a few others more worthy than Seaver as well.

3rdAnd15Draw

07-19-2006, 04:46 PM

A 3.5 ERA in Yankee Stadium in 2001 is very comparable to anything Seaver had in the NL in the 60s and 70s. Remember what Clemens did when he left the AL? he had a 2.98 and 1.87 ERA in his next 2 years in the NL. It's ALOT harder pitching in the AL today compared w/ the NL at any time and the AL pre-DH.

More fabrication. You might find the ERA+ statistic helpful in avoiding errors like this in the future. This stat is league and park adjusted and it provides a helpful thumbnail sketch of how "dominant" a pitcher was. Seavers best year was 71 where had a 1.76 ERA and the league average was 3.40 for an ERA+ of 193. Clemens 3.50 ERA was good for an ERA+ of 128.

nyjunc

07-19-2006, 04:46 PM

Dude, Yankee stadium is a honest ballpark, its not Coors.

You AL fans have taking the offensive explosion of the last 10 years right to your head and completely forgot about history.

The NL in the 60's and 70's had some of the all time great offensive players and teams for that matter.

I'm not saying the NL stunk but it's still easier facing a lineup w/ a pitcher in it and pitching at Shea than facing the lineups Clemens faced w/ a DH.

AMJets

07-19-2006, 04:47 PM

He ws still a top pitcher 3 of his 5 years in NY, his ERA is a little high but again that has more to do w/ the league. He was still a great pitcher and still has HOF #s his last 10 years pitching.

regardless of that Mariano has by far been the most important Yankee pitcher, they never had a true Ace. It was always a depp, good rotation that kept the games close until we got to the pen and then Mo would close it out. He was more valuable than any SP could have been.

Why do you keep bringing up things he did outside of his Yankee career? Do you not realize that has absolutely nothing to do with what he did as a Yankee?

And you do realize you're killing your entire argument when you say "they never had a true Ace". You're admitting what we all know, that Clemens was not an "Ace" type pitcher with the Yankees, like Seaver was the majority of his career.

ShadeTree#55

07-19-2006, 04:47 PM

I know he had to face the powerhouse O's and D Rays.

Dag.

devilonthetownhallroof

07-19-2006, 04:48 PM

He ws still a top pitcher 3 of his 5 years in NY, his ERA is a little high but again that has more to do w/ the league. He was still a great pitcher and still has HOF #s his last 10 years pitching.

regardless of that Mariano has by far been the most important Yankee pitcher, they never had a true Ace. It was always a depp, good rotation that kept the games close until we got to the pen and then Mo would close it out. He was more valuable than any SP could have been.

EXACTLY. Without those starters going 7 strong innings, Rivera would have been sitting in the bullpen with his thumb up his ass. Starters always are, always have been, and always will be more important than relievers.

AMJets

07-19-2006, 04:49 PM

nyjunc

07-19-2006, 04:52 PM

Why do you keep bringing up things he did outside of his Yankee career? Do you not realize that has absolutely nothing to do with what he did as a Yankee?

And you do realize you're killing your entire argument when you say "they never had a true Ace". You're admitting what we all know, that Clemens was not an "Ace" type pitcher with the Yankees, like Seaver was the majority of his career.

I said we never had an Ace in the Championship seasons, Clemens became an Ace after '00.

it's relevant showing that he was still great right before and after his yankee career. It shows he still ahd great stuff and could get the job done but he wasn't as effective a starter as Mo a reliever.

EXACTLY. Without those starters going 7 strong innings, Rivera would have been sitting in the bullpen with his thumb up his ass. Starters always are, always have been, and always will be more important than relievers.

The names of the starters kept changing but we kept winning. If a true dominant starter is more valuable then why did Seaver only win 1 title and only win 2 NL pennants while Mo has won 4 titles and 6 AL pennants? it's not like he had a bad staff around him either.

nyjunc

07-19-2006, 04:52 PM

Clemens 2001 ERA+ 126
Seaver 1971-1973 average ERA+ 184

Seaver was much better.

I didn't say Seaver wasn't better than Clemens, I said they are comparable and they are.

3rdAnd15Draw

07-19-2006, 04:56 PM

i've got to hand it to junc for being able to twist a debate so far from its intended purpose when he knows he's got no leg to stand on. the value of a reliever vs the value of a starter has somehow morphed into Roger Clemens career(either as a Yankee or before it, depending on the point junc wants to make) vs Tom Seaver's and the merits of their Cy Young seasons.

AMJets

07-19-2006, 04:57 PM

I didn't say Seaver wasn't better than Clemens, I said they are comparable and they are.

How are they comparable? A 126 ERA+ for a single season is not an "ace". 184 for a two year average (193 one year) is legendary. Your statement was Clemens' 2001 season was very comparable to any year that Seaver had in the 60's and 70's. That's obviously not true at all. Seaver had 10 seasons in his career better than Clemens in 2001, 7-8 of which aren't even close.

ShadeTree#55

07-19-2006, 04:57 PM

Keeps it interesting.

nyjunc

07-19-2006, 05:00 PM

devilonthetownhallroof

07-19-2006, 05:01 PM

I said we never had an Ace in the Championship seasons, Clemens became an Ace after '00.

it's relevant showing that he was still great right before and after his yankee career. It shows he still ahd great stuff and could get the job done but he wasn't as effective a starter as Mo a reliever.

Put Rivera in the rotation and see him get absolutely lit up every five days. Put Clemens in the bullpen and see similar or better numbers than Rivera.

The names of the starters kept changing but we kept winning. If a true dominant starter is more valuable then why did Seaver only win 1 title and only win 2 NL pennants while Mo has won 4 titles and 6 AL pennants? it's not like he had a bad staff around him either.

The names really didn't change as much as you would like to think. All 4 title winning teams had Pettite and Cone in the rotation, and three of them also had Hernandez.

devilonthetownhallroof

07-19-2006, 05:02 PM

I didn't morph it I just pointed out we had a HOF pitcher and Mo was much more valuable then it got into Clemens vs. Seaver.

Yes, you had a HOF pitcher, but HE WAS NOT PITCHING LIKE ONE. That's the point. If he was, he would have been more valuable.

ShadeTree#55

07-19-2006, 05:04 PM

Fact of the matter is that Mo was a failed starter. The Yanks had plans for him to start, he sucked they put him in the pen he flourished.

AMJets

07-19-2006, 05:05 PM

I didn't morph it I just pointed out we had a HOF pitcher and Mo was much more valuable then it got into Clemens vs. Seaver.

If Clemens' entire career were the numbers he put up as a Yankee, he would have NO SHOT at the HOF. That's the point. He was a HOF pitcher, but he wasn't pitching like one with the Yankees.

ButtleMan

07-19-2006, 05:07 PM

I know he had to face the powerhouse O's and D Rays.

Dag.

This I have to take exception to since I do believe that Expos were around and not even close to being a good team then. The Braves were also pretty sucky around this time too.
There have always been bottom feeders regardless of year.

AlioTheFool

07-19-2006, 07:58 PM

Wow, this thread has just spiraled.

Seaver was one of the greatest starters of all time. There is no denying it.

I think a lot of the animosity is coming from the the attacks on Mo. You Met fans have to realize, he is a hero to Yankee fans. He has done significant work for our team, and been a key component in all of our runs since 96.

In 96, he was the setup man for John Wettland. He did a fantastic job there. The next year, the Yankees did not bring back Wettland, and asked Mo to take over the closer role. Since then, he has saved over 400 games.

Now maybe it's got a lot to do with you guys not seeing him pitch day to day. The guy is practically unbeatable. How many pitchers in the majors, National or American League, can face David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez and never blink? Mo can do that, with the game on the line. He never shows fear. He just throws two pitches better than anyone else in the league over the past 10 years.

And it isn't just him shutting the door. One great example of his ability is the LCS a couple years ago. The famous "Aaron Boone" game. Mo pitched more than one simple inning to keep the score tied, until Boone could make "Yankee Magic." At least a dozen times a year Rivera is asked to pitch multiple innings, and he almost never blows the save. Against teams like Boston, and the Angels, that is a big feat.

This argument will never be won or lost on either side. Yankee fans will never relent, and we can always fall back on 26 titles to support ourselves. Met fans love their team, no matter the history. (Not that I am downplaying Met history.) The fact is, we love our own team. That's what being a fan is about. The best arguments can come about if we get a repeat of 2000. Let's see another subway series, and let our teams decide who is the best this year. At least that we can argue constructively.

kinghenry89

07-19-2006, 10:46 PM

Seriously, what is wrong with you guys? Can't the Yankees/Mets one-upmanship stop until October? Can't you see that Shade is just trying to ruffle your feathers and that every response you make to such an insane arguement just makes you look like a fool?

AMJets

07-20-2006, 12:29 AM

I think a lot of the animosity is coming from the the attacks on Mo. You Met fans have to realize, he is a hero to Yankee fans. He has done significant work for our team, and been a key component in all of our runs since 96.

I'm a Yankees fan, and even I can't help laugh at the thought that Rivera is more valuable than Seaver.

AlioTheFool

07-20-2006, 07:18 AM

I'm a Yankees fan, and even I can't help laugh at the thought that Rivera is more valuable than Seaver.

But I am not arguing that point. I am simply arguing that Mo is important. Not more important, just important to the team.

Like I have said over and over in this thread. Seaver is quite possibly the best starter of all time. By the same token, Mo is probably the best closer of all time. It's apples and oranges.

nyjunc

07-20-2006, 08:36 AM

Put Rivera in the rotation and see him get absolutely lit up every five days. Put Clemens in the bullpen and see similar or better numbers than Rivera.

:rofl: Come on get real. We don't know if Mo could have been a good Starter(he was upa nd down in '95 when he got a chance) and he was lights out after they moved him into the pen for the '95 stretch run so they kept him there. Are you basing Clemens off 1 relief stint last year in the postseason? Let's not forget that Clemens was not really a big game pitcher until recently while mo has been since day 1.

The names really didn't change as much as you would like to think. All 4 title winning teams had Pettite and Cone in the rotation, and three of them also had Hernandez.

Cone wasn't Cone in '96, he was just back from missing about half the season and Cone wasn't in the rotation in 2000. The only guy in it for all 4 was Pettitte. We had starts from Pettitte, cone, Rogers, Neagle, Key, Clemens, El Duque, Wells- that's alot of starters in 4 seasons. They had some great starts, some good starts and some poor starts but the constant was mariano out of the pen who was getting the job done every night.

Yes, you had a HOF pitcher, but HE WAS NOT PITCHING LIKE ONE. That's the point. If he was, he would have been more valuable.

HOF pitchers don't win Cy Young's?

Fact of the matter is that Mo was a failed starter. The Yanks had plans for him to start, he sucked they put him in the pen he flourished.

he wasn't a faild starter, he was up and down as a rookie starter but once he was put in the pen they relaized how valuable he was. If papelbon doesn't go back to the rotation and becoms an every year big time closer will you say he was a failed starter? Mo went to the pen for the '95 stretch drive and was outstanding so they left him there.

If Clemens' entire career were the numbers he put up as a Yankee, he would have NO SHOT at the HOF. That's the point. He was a HOF pitcher, but he wasn't pitching like one with the Yankees

You guys don't seem to understand he had his HOF stuff which was proven by 2 CY's right before, 1 CY while there and 1 right after. A picher w/ all-time great stuff was still less valuable than Mo.

I'm a Yankees fan, and even I can't help laugh at the thought that Rivera is more valuable than Seaver.

I don't know what you have been watching the last 10 years. All you have to do is look at the results to see who has been more valuable.

3rdAnd15Draw

07-20-2006, 09:17 AM

You guys don't seem to understand he had his HOF stuff which was proven by 2 CY's right before, 1 CY while there and 1 right after. A picher w/ all-time great stuff was still less valuable than Mo.

This is bullshit of the highest order. Beltran had an AS year in 04 and is having an even better year this season. But Mike Cameron was more valuable then Beltran in 05. An AS player was still still less valuable then Cameron!

devilonthetownhallroof

07-20-2006, 11:04 AM

:rofl: Come on get real. We don't know if Mo could have been a good Starter(he was upa nd down in '95 when he got a chance) and he was lights out after they moved him into the pen for the '95 stretch run so they kept him there. Are you basing Clemens off 1 relief stint last year in the postseason? Let's not forget that Clemens was not really a big game pitcher until recently while mo has been since day 1.

Yes we do know that he wouldn't have been a good starter. He has one pitch. Guys with one pitch are not good starters, no matter how good the pitch is. And no, I'm not basing the Clemens thing off anything but the simple fact that guys with his stuff, that is throwing mid to high 90's with the best splitter in the game, would make an excellent starter OR reliever. It's MUCH easier to be a reliever than a starter, which is why when players fail as a starter they are put in the bullpen.

Cone wasn't Cone in '96, he was just back from missing about half the season and Cone wasn't in the rotation in 2000. The only guy in it for all 4 was Pettitte. We had starts from Pettitte, cone, Rogers, Neagle, Key, Clemens, El Duque, Wells- that's alot of starters in 4 seasons. They had some great starts, some good starts and some poor starts but the constant was mariano out of the pen who was getting the job done every night.

Cone made 29 starts in 2000, so you are wrong. He did only make 11 starts in '96, but he posted a 2.88 ERA, so I think he was fine. He WAS there for all 4. Key and Rogers were there in '96, but they were gone 2 years later, and from there Pettite, Cone, and Hernandez were constants. Wells was there one year, and then Clemens for the next two. Claim it all you want, there simply was NOT a lot of turnover at the top of the Yankees rotation from '96-'98.

HOF pitchers don't win Cy Young's?

So every pitcher who wins a Cy Young in a season they don't deserve to is a HOFer?

he wasn't a faild starter, he was up and down as a rookie starter but once he was put in the pen they relaized how valuable he was. If papelbon doesn't go back to the rotation and becoms an every year big time closer will you say he was a failed starter? Mo went to the pen for the '95 stretch drive and was outstanding so they left him there.

There is a HUGE difference in the Papelbon situation, and his success proves my point about good starters being able to dominate in the bullpen. The difference is that Rivera was put in the bullpen because he wasn't good enough to make the top 5 starters on his team. They had an established closer in Wetteland, and he wasn't put there specifically to be the primary set up guy. He grew into that role, but at first he was just thrown in there because he couldn't make the starting rotation. Papelbon would have easily made the rotation, but the Red Sox (at the time) had a surplus of starters and no closer. Since he had pitched out of the bullpen last year in order to keep his innings down, they felt he was more prepared to do it this year than Arroyo, Wells, or Clement. Next year he should go back to the rotation with Beckett and Lester, and Hansen will be closing.

ButtleMan

07-20-2006, 11:09 AM

Cone made 29 starts in 2000, so you are wrong. He did only make 11 starts in '96, but he posted a 2.88 ERA, so I think he was fine. He WAS there for all 4. Key and Rogers were there in '96, but they were gone 2 years later, and from there Pettite, Cone, and Hernandez were constants. Wells was there one year, and then Clemens for the next two. Claim it all you want, there simply was NOT a lot of turnover at the top of the Yankees rotation from '96-'98.

96 was the year that Cone had the Anureysm in his arm, which is why he missed so many starts that year.

devilonthetownhallroof

07-20-2006, 11:22 AM

ButtleMan

07-20-2006, 11:29 AM

Yes, but that was early in the season. He came back and pitched just as well as he ever had. Junc's claim was that he was not himself, which isn't true. He also made his regular starts in the post season.

Yep. I believe he missed most of April and May. His come back game was against the A's where he was pitching a No-hitter and was taken out after his pitch limit. Joe did baby him for most of the summer and the playoffs but did turn to him for game 3 in Atlanta.

nyjunc

07-20-2006, 12:21 PM

This is bullshit of the highest order. Beltran had an AS year in 04 and is having an even better year this season. But Mike Cameron was more valuable then Beltran in 05. An AS player was still still less valuable then Cameron!

it's a little different talking about an established HOF player playing on great teams than a 1 October wonder playing meaningless baseball at Shea.

Yes we do know that he wouldn't have been a good starter. He has one pitch.

I'm sure he wouldn't have tried to develop another pitch. :rolleyes:

Cone made 29 starts in 2000, so you are wrong

he was taken out of the rotation late in the year and did not make a postseason start. He only pitched an inning and a 3rd the entire '00 postseason.

He WAS there for all 4.

he was in unifro, he was NOT a starter in the 2000 postseason.

So every pitcher who wins a Cy Young in a season they don't deserve to is a HOFer?

A CY season is a HOF season, all pitchers who win the CY have a HOF SEASON. Can they keep it up and have more big seasons? That is what will determine if they go but any award year is a HOF season.

There is a HUGE difference in the Papelbon situation, and his success proves my point about good starters being able to dominate in the bullpen. The difference is that Rivera was put in the bullpen because he wasn't good enough to make the top 5 starters on his team. They had an established closer in Wetteland, and he wasn't put there specifically to be the primary set up guy.

He was called up mid '95, he made a few starts and was sent down. later in the year he was back up and we had a set rotation so they moved him to the pen which wasn't strong. He became a key setup guy so they left him there in '96 rather than try him in the rotation again b/c he thrived as a reliever and in '96 he was dominant all year and they realized rather than re-sign Wette they could plug him in. His book was not written as a starter.

Yes, but that was early in the season. He came back and pitched just as well as he ever had. Junc's claim was that he was not himself, which isn't true. He also made his regular starts in the post season.

It happened in May, he didn't come back until September. he missed most of the year. He pitched great in game 3 of the WS but battered by tex in the ALDS and wasn't great against Bal in the LCS.

Yep. I believe he missed most of April and May. His come back game was against the A's where he was pitching a No-hitter and was taken out after his pitch limit. Joe did baby him for most of the summer and the playoffs but did turn to him for game 3 in Atlanta.

His last start was May 2nd and his return was September 2nd. He missed 4 months.

AMJets

07-20-2006, 05:34 PM

3rdAnd15Draw

07-20-2006, 05:37 PM

it's a little different talking about an established HOF player playing on great teams than a 1 October wonder playing meaningless baseball at Shea.

The fact that you seem to have taken this example seriously is pretty funny. I brought up an obviously absurd example to highlight how flawed the "logic" you were trying to use to prove the Rivera/Clemens stuff.

AMJets

07-20-2006, 05:39 PM

HOF pitchers don't win Cy Young's?

They do, and Clemens is a HOF pitcher. But, the fact that he won it in 2001 was just a joke. He was good, but not even a top 5 pitcher in the AL.

You guys don't seem to understand he had his HOF stuff which was proven by 2 CY's right before, 1 CY while there and 1 right after. A picher w/ all-time great stuff was still less valuable than Mo.

It doesn't matter what all-time great stuff he had. He pitched 5 years with the Yankees, and only had 1 very good year. Why the hell does it matter that he won 2 CY's before, and 1 CY after? He didn't do that with the Yankees. It doesn't matter what his "stuff" was, the fact is his results show he wasn't a HOF caliber pitcher with the Yankees.

I don't know what you have been watching the last 10 years. All you have to do is look at the results to see who has been more valuable.

He's the best relief pitcher of all-time, there is no question, but to say that a RELIEF PITCHER is more valuable than a STARTING PITCHER is hillarious.

devilonthetownhallroof

07-20-2006, 05:45 PM

I'm sure he wouldn't have tried to develop another pitch. :rolleyes:

If he could have done that he would have, and been a starter all along.

nyjunc

07-21-2006, 08:50 AM

This thread is just hillarious. It's amazing how junc will never admit he's wrong. Not even arguing Seaver-Rivera, the fact that he has said a bunch of things that people have proved to be incorrect, yet he still tries to argue.

If there was a most stubborn poster award, I think we know who would win that.

What exactly has been proven incorrect? Just b/c there are more people on your side doesn't make you right.

I'll take a guy who can have an impact on just about every game rather than 1 who has an impact every 5th game. I watched the Yanks win 4 titles, Seaver has ONE despite playing on some very good teams.

it doesn't matter what all-time great stuff he had. He pitched 5 years with the Yankees, and only had 1 very good year. Why the hell does it matter that he won 2 CY's before, and 1 CY after? He didn't do that with the Yankees. It doesn't matter what his "stuff" was, the fact is his results show he wasn't a HOF caliber pitcher with the Yankees.

It matters b/c it shows he was still at the top of his game. He wass still a top pitcher in the AL for the Yanks. He struggled the 1st year or 2 in the reg season but was as great as could be in the '00 LCS and WS yet Mariano was still more valuable.

Let's look at the '00 WS, Clemens pitched a gem against the Mets. he pitched 8 innings of shutout ball w/ 9 Ks yet who was the WS MVP? Mariano Rivera and he only had 2 saves in the series yet he was the MVP.

He's the best relief pitcher of all-time, there is no question, but to say that a RELIEF PITCHER is more valuable than a STARTING PITCHER is hillarious.

We are talking about the best reliever of all time and it's not close, we are not talking just some good relief pitcher. Over any other reliever I might agree but Mariano is different.

If he could have done that he would have, and been a starter all along.

When he's much mopre valuable out of the pen why would they start him? After what he did out of the pen in '95 it would have been silly to start him again. It's not that hard to find a quality starting pitvher but it's very difficult to find a big time closer and obviously he has been alot better than just a big time closer.

3rdAnd15Draw

07-21-2006, 09:13 AM

It's not that hard to find a quality starting pitvher but it's very difficult to find a big time closer and obviously he has been alot better than just a big time closer.

How can you possibly justify this statement? I suspect you'll weasel out of the argument by trying to debate the meaning of "quality starter" and "big time closer". A closer is NOT harder to find then a good starter, simply because every team around the league knows that starters are more valuable then relievers(except maybe the Reds). There's a reason that so many closers around the league are failed starters or were starters but are too old to pitch effectively in that manner anymore.

Dierking

07-21-2006, 09:30 AM

to call this thread retarded would be an insult to the mentally challenged.

nyjunc

07-21-2006, 09:43 AM

How can you possibly justify this statement? I suspect you'll weasel out of the argument by trying to debate the meaning of "quality starter" and "big time closer". A closer is NOT harder to find then a good starter, simply because every team around the league knows that starters are more valuable then relievers(except maybe the Reds). There's a reason that so many closers around the league are failed starters or were starters but are too old to pitch effectively in that manner anymore.

Would you agree it's easier to find an All-Star caliber pitcher than a closer as good as Mariano?

we are not talking about just any closer, we are talking by far the best of all time. There are SP's close to, if not better than, Seaver but no one comes close to Mariano.

Did you see the 2000 WS example? Clemens was dominant in his start and he won 1 game while mariano only had 2 saves yet Mo was the MVP- why was that?

ShadeTree#55

07-21-2006, 09:44 AM

Eck was comparable, so was Gossage.

nyjunc

07-21-2006, 10:06 AM

Eck was comparable, so was Gossage.

No they weren't. Great closers but not close to Mariano. Eck had a 3.0 ERA in postseason, Goose had a 2.87 while Mariano in many more opportunities meaning many more chancs to give up runs has a .81 postseason ERA. That sepertaes him from anyone else.

3rdAnd15Draw

07-21-2006, 10:08 AM

Would you agree it's easier to find an All-Star caliber pitcher than a closer as good as Mariano?

we are not talking about just any closer, we are talking by far the best of all time. There are SP's close to, if not better than, Seaver but no one comes close to Mariano.

Did you see the 2000 WS example? Clemens was dominant in his start and he won 1 game while mariano only had 2 saves yet Mo was the MVP- why was that?

Who cares? Rivera is the best closer of all time, so obviously its "harder" to find a closer as good as Rivera then an All-Star pitcher. Of course, this has nothing to do with their value, which is what we're discussing. It's easier to find a mediocre SP then it is to find one as bad as Jose Lima, too.

Didn't Jeter get the 2000 MVP? I know he had a monster series.

ButtleMan

07-21-2006, 10:10 AM

Who cares? Rivera is the best closer of all time, so obviously its "harder" to find a closer as good as Rivera then an All-Star pitcher. Of course, this has nothing to do with their value, which is what we're discussing. It's easier to find a mediocre SP then it is to find one as bad as Jose Lima, too.

Didn't Jeter get the 2000 MVP? I know he had a monster series.

Jeter had the double of the ASG and WS MVP. Something that is very rarely done.

nyjunc

07-21-2006, 10:21 AM

ShadeTree#55

07-21-2006, 10:25 AM

Dennis Eckersley won a Cy Young and MVP as a reliever, how come the "Greatest" ever hasn't?

3rdAnd15Draw

07-21-2006, 10:35 AM

Oops I got my years mixed up. Mo got the '99 WS MVP but the situations were similar. Clemens pitched 7 2/3 and gave up just 1 run in the series clinching game while Mo had just 2 saves and Mo got the MVP.

But we know that clinching game 4's when your team is up 3-0 is no big deal and a non-clutch situation right?

Anyway, I'm curious to know why you have such reverent respect for an MVP award based on 4 or 5 games, yet you take every opportunity to point out that A-Rod's MVP based on 162 games last year was fraudulent.

nyjunc

07-21-2006, 10:38 AM

But we know that clinching game 4's when your team is up 3-0 is no big deal and a non-clutch situation right?

Anyway, I'm curious to know why you have such reverent respect for an MVP award based on 4 or 5 games, yet you take every opportunity to point out that A-Rod's MVP based on 162 games last year was fraudulent.

It wasn't a pressure situation but he still pitched greatn and Mo only had 2 saves.

ARod's MVP was fraudulent b/c his #s were mostly made off non-pressure situations while Mo's WS MVP was all about pressure. The reg season is nice but I'll take a guy who has lesser reg season stats and turns it up in Oct then someone who has great reg season #s and then they don't show in October.

Anyone who pays attention knows Grape Ape deserved the MVP last year, the #s were similar except he came through when his team needed him most unlike ARod.

ShadeTree#55

07-21-2006, 10:41 AM

What about the fact Eck won the Cy and MVP as a closer? How come the "Greatest" hasn't matched that?

nyjunc

07-21-2006, 10:49 AM

What about the fact Eck won the Cy and MVP as a closer? How come the "Greatest" hasn't matched that?

He won those in '92 and proceeded to blow the save in Game 4 w/ oak down 2-1 and post an ERA of 6.00 for the series and gave up 8 hits in 3 innings. Once again give me the guy who elevates his game in postseason over a great reg season player.

ShadeTree#55

07-21-2006, 10:56 AM

Leave it to junc to diminish one of great season ever based on one bad inning.

Mo choked big time in 2001, but he is still the "Greatest"

devilonthetownhallroof

07-21-2006, 11:00 AM

When he's much mopre valuable out of the pen why would they start him? After what he did out of the pen in '95 it would have been silly to start him again. It's not that hard to find a quality starting pitvher but it's very difficult to find a big time closer and obviously he has been alot better than just a big time closer.

Since he was busy failing as a starter in '95, I'll assume you meant '96. In 1996 he had a 2.09 ERA in 103 innings. A very good season, but he wasn't the closer, and a season like that would have led to him going back to the rotation if he was capable of it. It's not like they were hurting in the closer department either, as Wetteland had 43 saves that year. Instead of that, they let Wetteland go and chose to use that money to sign David Wells, who they thought was a better pitcher, to fill the empty spot in the rotation. The majority of closers are failed starters: Gagne, Urbina, Gordon, Foulke, RIVERA. It's how the game works. If you have the ability to be an effective starter, you will be one unless the team has a dire need of a closer, which the Yankees did not. If Rivera was good enough to pitch effectively as a starter, do you honestly think they would keep him in the pen throwing 75 innings a year and letting guys like Chacon throw 150+?

And to prove my point further from ealier, look at John Smoltz and see what happens when you put a dominant starter as a closer. You get dominance. Put a dominant closer as a starter, and it won't go well.

nyjunc

07-21-2006, 11:16 AM

Leave it to junc to diminish one of great season ever based on one bad inning.

Mo choked big time in 2001, but he is still the "Greatest"

He still has a .81 postseason ERA.

Since he was busy failing as a starter in '95, I'll assume you meant '96.

Why do you keep telling me I am wrong when I am right? Cone missed 4 mos in '96 and came back in September and you told me he msised some games early in the year and now this? Mo was insreted into the pen in 1995 and in the '95 ALDS he pitched 5 1/3 shutout innings.

In 1996 he had a 2.09 ERA in 103 innings. A very good season, but he wasn't the closer, and a season like that would have led to him going back to the rotation if he was capable of it. It's not like they were hurting in the closer department either, as Wetteland had 43 saves that year.

In '96 he was the team MVP, at one point he retired about 30 straight hitters he faced. He was great and in october the yanks won b/c of their pen. Either they had a lead and handed it to Mo then Wette and it was over or they kept it close so we could come back. After that year they decided not to re-sign Wetteland and promoted Mo. They kept him in the pen w/ an eye on that.

If Rivera was good enough to pitch effectively as a starter, do you honestly think they would keep him in the pen throwing 75 innings a year and letting guys like Chacon throw 150+?

Rivera can have an effect on just about every game instead of 1 every 5. He never had a real chance to prove whether he could start or not. He was up and down in his only chance in 1995, based on a month of SP you think the Yanks gave up on him as a starter or they relaized what a weapon he could be in the pen? The bootm line is w/o Mo we have at leat 2 less titles and maybe more.

And to prove my point further from ealier, look at John Smoltz and see what happens when you put a dominant starter as a closer. You get dominance. Put a dominant closer as a starter, and it won't go well.

That doesn't prove anything, that's 1 example.

ShadeTree#55

07-21-2006, 11:25 AM

ButtleMan

07-21-2006, 11:34 AM

Brian Doyle should be in the HOF.

nyjunc

07-21-2006, 11:41 AM

Lets just end this.

Mo is the best pitcher in the history of baseball more valuable than anyone ever.

It doesn't matter what any other great pitcher did, it all seems insignificant when put next to Rivera.

Cy Youngs, MVP's what ever. Nothing Matters except Mo winning 4 rings.

So you are saying a great reg season pitcher who fails in postseason is as good as a great reg season pitcher who dominates in postseason?

Brian Doyle should be in the HOF.

That's relevant how? You are talking about a player who had 1 big postseason series compared to probably the best postseason pitcher of all time who has done it over and over and over again.

ButtleMan

07-21-2006, 11:46 AM

Once again give me the guy who elevates his game in postseason over a great reg season player.

To this:

Originally Posted by ButtleMan
Brian Doyle should be in the HOF.

filler.......

devilonthetownhallroof

07-21-2006, 11:46 AM

Mo was insreted into the pen in 1995 and in the '95 ALDS he pitched 5 1/3 shutout innings.

He Started 10 games, had an ERA close to 6. They realized he was not effective as a starter and he was DEMOTED to the bullpen.

In '96 he was the team MVP, at one point he retired about 30 straight hitters he faced. He was great and in october the yanks won b/c of their pen. Either they had a lead and handed it to Mo then Wette and it was over or they kept it close so we could come back. After that year they decided not to re-sign Wetteland and promoted Mo. They kept him in the pen w/ an eye on that.

If Rivera was able to cut it as a starter, he WOULD have been in the rotation. Bottom line, you want your best pitchers pitching more innings.

Rivera can have an effect on just about every game instead of 1 every 5. He never had a real chance to prove whether he could start or not. He was up and down in his only chance in 1995, based on a month of SP you think the Yanks gave up on him as a starter or they relaized what a weapon he could be in the pen? The bootm line is w/o Mo we have at leat 2 less titles and maybe more.

He can only have an effect on games that THE STARTERS keep close. If not for them, he wouldn't even get a chance. And spin it any way you want, but only a retard would rather have 75 innings of a 2.33 ERA than 200. Rivera simply isn't capable of preforming as a starter.

That doesn't prove anything, that's 1 example.

Eckersley was another great starter who was great in the bullpen. Granted it hasn't been long, but Papelbon showed a lot of promise as a starter and is having an MVP type year filling in as a closer. On the other side, Gossage was put into the rotation they year after having 26 saves and a 1.84 ERA in the pen, his first good year. He lost 17 games and was put back in the bullpen. Hoyt Wilhelm was a mediocre starter and a DOMINANT reliever. Keith Foulke had an ERA of 8 as a starter and was demoted to the bullpen. Gagne's was around 5. Gordon was a mediocre at best starter for years and has flourished in the bullpen. The common denominator is they had ONE PITCH, like Rivera. You can throw harder in the bullpen too, since you only have to worry about one inning instead of pacing yourself. Relieving is easier than starting, and that's a fact.

nyjunc

07-21-2006, 12:27 PM

He Started 10 games, had an ERA close to 6. They realized he was not effective as a starter and he was DEMOTED to the bullpen.

So 10 games is enough time to judge a player as a failure? Let's look at start by start, the links below go to 8 of his 10 starts(I couldn't find the other 2):

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

he was up and down, had a few rough outings(to be expected as a rookie, right?) and a fw excellent outings. nothing in his body of work from '95 could tell if he was going to be a good starter or not.

He can only have an effect on games that THE STARTERS keep close. If not for them, he wouldn't even get a chance. And spin it any way you want, but only a retard would rather have 75 innings of a 2.33 ERA than 200. Rivera simply isn't capable of preforming as a starter.

Again he can have an effect on just about every game, a starter gets 1 every 5th game.

Eckersley was another great starter who was great in the bullpen. Granted it hasn't been long, but Papelbon showed a lot of promise as a starter and is having an MVP type year filling in as a closer. On the other side, Gossage was put into the rotation they year after having 26 saves and a 1.84 ERA in the pen, his first good year. He lost 17 games and was put back in the bullpen. Hoyt Wilhelm was a mediocre starter and a DOMINANT reliever. Keith Foulke had an ERA of 8 as a starter and was demoted to the bullpen. Gagne's was around 5. Gordon was a mediocre at best starter for years and has flourished in the bullpen. The common denominator is they had ONE PITCH, like Rivera. You can throw harder in the bullpen too, since you only have to worry about one inning instead of pacing yourself. Relieving is easier than starting, and that's a fact.

So every time someone fails they should be moved to the pen? When schilling came up and was bombed as a rookie he should have been moved to the pen? These guys were not given a chance to prove they could start besdies Eck who was a good starter. Goose started one year but had a respectable ERA, his team lost almost 100 games but he kept them in games and wouldn't you think a guy who wasa closer needed time to readjust to being a starter? doing what he did that year was pretty impressive.