Greatest Living Pitcher

Discussion in 'Baseball Forum' started by nyjunc, May 1, 2006.

  1. winstonbiggs

    winstonbiggs 2008/2009 TGG Bill Parcells "Most Respected" Award

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    12,786
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'm a much bigger Met fan although I do like the Yankees. Guidry was a great pitcher. I would take him over almost any NY pitcher I saw except Seaver and that includes Clemens and Pedro. Guidry was a lights out pitcher for a few years.
     
  2. nyjunc

    nyjunc 2008 TGG Bryan Cox "Most Argumentative" Award Winn

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Messages:
    53,044
    Likes Received:
    1,434
    I wasn't just talking WS, I was talking postseason.

    ALDS: Game 2(the pivotal game where we were down 1-0 in the series and down 4-2 when Mo came in). 2 2/3 innings w/ no hits and no runs allowed.

    Gane 4: came in Yanks up 1 in the 7th, pitched 2 innings, 1 walk, no runs,

    ALDS totals: 4 2/3 innings, no hits, no runs

    ALCS: Game 1: pitched 10th, came in during a tie ballgame, gave up 3 hits and 0 runs in 2 innings.

    Game 4: came in w/ Yanks up 5-4, pitched 2 inning s, 3 hits, 0 runs(I think this was the game he allowed the first 3 batters on so he had loaded bases w/ 0 out and got out of it w/ no runs allowed)

    ALCS Totals: 4 IP, 0 runs
    Postseason totals so far: 4 appearances, 8 2/3 IP, 0 Runs

    WS: Game 2: came in w/ Yanks down 4-0 and the game was basically over but did pitch 1 hitless, scoreless inning.

    Game 3: Came in w/ Yanks up 2-1 in 7th. Pitched 1 1/3, gave up 1 run(this was after yanks had made it 5-2 in the 8th) and 2 hits.

    Game 4: Pitched 1 1/3 after yanks had just tied it up at 6. Gave up 2 hits and 0 runs.

    Game 6: Pitched 7th and 8th, 0 runs, 0 hits.

    WS totals: 5 2/3, 1 run allowed

    Postseason totals: 8 appearances, 14 1/3 innings pitched(almost an average of 2 per appearance), 1 run

    Please tell me how the possteason legend started in game 6 of the '96 WS? Did you see him in the '95 ALDS? That's where the postseason legend began and it continued in '96 when he was amazing.
     
  3. nyjunc

    nyjunc 2008 TGG Bryan Cox "Most Argumentative" Award Winn

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Messages:
    53,044
    Likes Received:
    1,434
    Guidry's career was too quick though, if he could have sustained success a little longer he'd be a HOFer.
     
  4. winstonbiggs

    winstonbiggs 2008/2009 TGG Bill Parcells "Most Respected" Award

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    12,786
    Likes Received:
    1
    There are more than a couple of pitchers in the HOF that don't belong in front of Guidry. The guy had a great winning %.
     
  5. nyjunc

    nyjunc 2008 TGG Bryan Cox "Most Argumentative" Award Winn

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Messages:
    53,044
    Likes Received:
    1,434
    yeah but I don;'t think he'll make it. Guidry was one of my favorites as a kid even though I only caught the tail end of his career.
     
  6. statjeff22

    statjeff22 2008 Green Guy "Most Knowledgeable" Award Winner

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    26,717
    Likes Received:
    6,819
    Well, I hope 3rd found this entertaining, since it's a lovely example of prevarication. Let's remember what the point was, shall we? ButtleMan pointed out the Wetteland was the MVP of the 1996 WS. You jumped in and dismissed that, saying "we lived on the edge w/Wetteland." This was demonstrably false in the 1996 WS, which I showed in my earlier post. This response is supposed to somehow show that it was true earlier in the 1996 postseason. That is also demonstrably false.

    In the 9 postseason games before the World Series, Rivera pitched three times; Wetteland pitched seven. In those three games, Rivera's WHIP was 1.33; Wetteland's was 1.00. Through game 5 of the World Series, the Yankees had played 14 games in the 1996 postseason. Rivera had appeared in only 6 of those games, and his WHIP for the entire 1996 postseason was an awful 1.45. Wetteland had appeared in 11 of those games, and his WHIP was an excellent 0.88. There is no rational argument that Rivera was the best reliever on the Yankees at that time, let alone a legend in the making.

    And yes, Rivera pitched well in the 1995 ALDS (far better than Wetteland did, as a matter of fact), but no one becomes a postseason legend by their performance in a losing division series! And apparently Torre agreed, since even though Rivera had a much better 1995 ALDS than Wetteland did, it was Wetteland who was clearly the #1 reliever in the 1996 postseason - until the 6th game of the World Series, just like I said.
     
  7. nyjunc

    nyjunc 2008 TGG Bryan Cox "Most Argumentative" Award Winn

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Messages:
    53,044
    Likes Received:
    1,434
    He had baserunners on just about every game w/ a chance for the opponent to tie or win but he got out of it. I felt comfortable w/ Wetteland(I din't sya he sucked just that he lived on the edge) but more comfortable w/ Rivera.

    How many runs did they give up? Wettleand gave up 3 runs, Mariano gave up 1 and mariano pitched more innings.

    My argument was never that Mo should have been the closer over Wettleland just that Rivera was great that postseason and was our best pitcher in postseason. He probably would have been able to handle it but I don't think Wetteland could have handled the setup rols so i think the situation was perfect.

    Mariano had a half a year(not even), wettelnad was a proven closer. It was
    a no brainer to bring back wetteland as the closer. There is a reason that after he was WS MVP the Yanks decided not to re-sign him.
     
  8. statjeff22

    statjeff22 2008 Green Guy "Most Knowledgeable" Award Winner

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    26,717
    Likes Received:
    6,819
    ^ And we all know that ERA is the way to evaluate relievers. :rolleyes: Anyway, through the 5th game of the World Series, Wetteland had made 11 appearances, and given up no runs in 10 of them - it was only in game 5 of the ALCS, when he came into the game in the bottom of the 9th with a 6-2 lead, that he gave up any runs (2 of them).

    Wetteland DID NOT have baserunners on in every inning - what is it about a 0.60 WHIP in the World Series that you don't understand? Even with his poor performance in game 5 of the ALCS he gave up a total of 10 baserunners in 11 1/3 postseason innings through game 5 of the WS. It was Rivera who had baserunners against him all the time - that's what a 1.65 WS WHIP means. Up through game 5 of the World Series, Rivera had had 14 baserunners against him in 9 2/3 innings - about 3 every two innings. Yes, they didn't score, but you claimed that the Yankees were on the edge with Wetteland, when in fact it was Rivera who had them on the edge. Oh, and note also, Wetteland pitched more innings than Rivera, not vice versa. That's 14% more innings for Wetteland, and 29% fewer baserunners.

    Enough already. I will stand by everything I have said. Please do us all a favor and just let it drop.
     
  9. nyjunc

    nyjunc 2008 TGG Bryan Cox "Most Argumentative" Award Winn

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Messages:
    53,044
    Likes Received:
    1,434
    The man allowed ONE run! I'll take a guy who gives up a hit or walk now and then as long as he can get them out. In Game 4(the Leyritz HR game) w/ the yanks up 8-6 he came in and allowed the tying run to get on base, In Game 5 he inherited a runner and we had a 1 run lead then intentionally walked a batter so we had 2 on w/ 2 out w/ the tying run 90 feet away and light hitting Luis polonia up and he fouled off about 12 pitches before sending a shot to the gap which luckily a hobbled Paul O'Neill was playing in the right position and barely made the play. In Game 6 up 3-1 he came in and gave up a run then had the tying and go ahead runners on base to make us sweat even more.

    ONCE AGAIN I am not saying wettlead sucked, I am not saying wetteland didn't do a good job all I am aying is he lived on the edge and nothing was easy w/ him. I had full confidence in Rivera but I was very nervous w/ Wetteland. I don't understand why this is such a big deal for you.
     
  10. statjeff22

    statjeff22 2008 Green Guy "Most Knowledgeable" Award Winner

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    26,717
    Likes Received:
    6,819
    Funny, I'm not the one who refuses to look at the numbers, but rather keeps coming up with stories about why Rivera was actually lights out, even though he gave up many more baserunners in fewer innings. I don't know or care what you were nervous about; the facts are that Wetteland pitched better than Rivera did in that postseason through the 5th game of the WS. When you're giving up fewer than one baserunner per inning, you're not living on the edge; when you're giving up 3 every 2 innings, you are. It's really very simple.

    I truly couldn't care less about Wetteland versus Rivera, but it gets annoying when people make pronouncements that are demonstrably false, and then refuse to acknowledge that they could possibly have been mistaken. I think I've made my point as clearly as I need to - I'll leave it to others to decide (assuming anybody cares, which is doubtful). Prevaricate away - you'll get nothing more from me about it.
     
  11. nyjunc

    nyjunc 2008 TGG Bryan Cox "Most Argumentative" Award Winn

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Messages:
    53,044
    Likes Received:
    1,434
    Which would you rather have a pitcher do:

    a) give up 1 run in 14 1/3 innings

    or

    b) give up 3 runs in 12 1/3 innings.

    I'm not mistaken- 1 earned run in 12 1/3 innings in crucial relief spots is pretty damn impressive.
     
  12. Cakes

    Cakes Mr. Knowledge 2010

    Joined:
    May 20, 2003
    Messages:
    20,810
    Likes Received:
    232

    You are entitled to your opinion, because it was certainly a great season.
    When I thought of best seasons by pitchers who are still alive these were what I came up with: Martinez in '99 and '00, Gibson '68, Gooden '85, Clemens '97, and Carlton '72.

    Then I broke out two of my reference books- The Baseball Encyclopedia (2004 edition; you can buy the 2006 edition for $25 at Barnes & Noble) and STATS All-Time Major League Handbook (published in 2000, it contains complete batting, pitching, and fielding stats for every major league player from 1876-1999; it also contains exclusive stats such as component ERA and park factors and complete hitting stats for all major league pitchers; it had a $79.95 pricetag and I bought the only copy I ever saw in a bookstore).
    Anyway, towards the back of the former there are all sorts of career and single season leaders. One of the categories is pitching wins and adjusted pitching wins. Fancy math is involved. Square roots and shit. It basically calculates how many wins the pitcher added to or subtracted from his team compared to what the average pitcher would have done and it allows you to compare pitchers of different eras. The end number (after all the fancy math) essentially tells you how good or bad the pitcher was in the given season.

    The book doesn't really explain what is more important- pitching wins or adjusted pitching wins, so I will list both numbers.

    These are all the living pitchers who had a better season than Guidry's 1978 effort, according to adjusted pitching wins (pitcher wins in parentheses):

    Pedro Martinez, 2000- 8.3 (8.4)
    Pedro Martinez, 1999- 7.9 (8.0)
    Roger Clemens, 1997- 7.7 (7.9)
    Bob Gibson, 1968- 7.3 (7.6)
    Sandy Koufax, 1966- 7.0 (6.1)
    Steve Carlton, 1972- 6.9 (7.3)
    Bob Feller, 1940- 6.8 (6.8)
    Dwight Gooden, 1985- 6.7 (7.5)
    Kevin Brown, 1996- 6.6 (6.9)
    Gaylord Perry, 1972- 6.5 (6.7)
    Dean Chance, 1964- 6.4 (5.6)
    Greg Maddux, 1994- 6.3 (6.8)
    Robin Roberts, 1953- 6.3 (6.4)
    Wilbur Wood, 1971- 6.3 (5.8)
    Ron Guidry, 1978- 6.2 (6.4)

    I used the other book to look at park factor.

    100 was the baseline. Anything above that indicates the pitcher pitched his home games in a hitter's park. Anything below 100 indicates the pitcher pitched his home games in a pitcher's park.

    I don't have the 2000 Martinez number because my book only goes up to the 1999 season.

    Martinez, 1999- 103
    Clemens, 1997- 99
    Gibson, 1968- 96
    Koufax, 1966- 92
    Carlton, 1972- 101
    Feller, 1940- 91
    Gooden, 1985- 96
    Brown, 1996- 96
    Perry, 1972- 106
    Chance, 1964- 90
    Maddux, 1994- 100
    Roberts, 1953- 97
    Wood, 1971- 99
    Guidry, 1978- 97

    Take a look at these seasons at www.baseballreference.com.
    Any way you cut it the top eight on this list are clearly better seasons than Guidry's 1978 campaign. Brown on down you can argue. I would take Guidry '78 over the Chance, Roberts, and Wood seasons, but only those three.

    Before anybody possibly throws W-L records at me-
    Perry was 24-16 in 1972. That looks bad compared to Guidry's 25-3, but there is a severe run support issue here (along with a park factor issue). Guidry had a run support number of 117. Perry's mark was 80. 100 is average. In other words, Guidry had great support from his teammates. Perry had putrid support from his Indians teammates.
    Martinez had an 83 number in 2000. Bad run support. His teammates helped him more in 1999 when his number was 103.
     
    #92 Cakes, May 5, 2006
    Last edited: May 5, 2006
  13. devilonthetownhallroof

    devilonthetownhallroof 2007 TGG Fantasy Baseball League Champion

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Messages:
    5,198
    Likes Received:
    3
    Welcome to the world that is arguing with nyjunc.
     
  14. ganooch

    ganooch Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Messages:
    221
    Likes Received:
    1
    I do not want to waste an entire thread on this so I will ask here.

    Does anyone know of any sites like this one for Mets fans?

    I would appreciate a little info if possible.
     
  15. nyjunc

    nyjunc 2008 TGG Bryan Cox "Most Argumentative" Award Winn

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Messages:
    53,044
    Likes Received:
    1,434
    Stop w/ the nonsense. Have we ever argued? You don't even have opinions to argue as you shy away from arguing. I back up everything but some folks will twist the #s to suite thei argument. I don't care about anything other than the man let up ONE(2 less than Wetteland in MORE innings). Oh my God he walked 2 more batters and had 2 mroe batters on base even though he faced more hitters- certainly wette was more dominat b/c of that:rolleyes:
     
  16. 3rdAnd15Draw

    3rdAnd15Draw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Messages:
    15,468
    Likes Received:
    87
    Except the burden of proof is on you, junc. You're the one that made the statement that Wetteland was "walking through raindrops" while Rivera dominant. If anything, the numbers show that Rivera was the one that was in trouble most often, and that at worst Wetteland was as effective as Rivera. Why not just admit that and be done with it?
     
  17. statjeff22

    statjeff22 2008 Green Guy "Most Knowledgeable" Award Winner

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    26,717
    Likes Received:
    6,819
    I said that I made my case, and I'll stick to it, but it would be nice if you didn't misstate my position. Everything I said referred to games through the 5th game of the World Series. At that point Wetteland had given up 2 runs, not 3, and it was in one outing. And of course Rivera faced more batters - he gave up more baserunners. Through the 5th game of WS Wetteland's WHIP was much lower than Rivera's, and (as 3rd pointed out) that is certainly the most reasonable way to define if a pitcher is "pitching on the edge".

    You accusing me of twisting the numbers is a pathetic joke, as that is what you continue to do. To recap: someone points out the Wetteland won the WS MVP. You state that he was pitching on the edge. I point out that through game 5 Wetteland had had a better WS, based on the measure that quantifies "pitching on the edge." You then claim that you were referring to the entire postseason. I point out that Wetteland was still better for the entire postseason up through game 5. You then claim that it is only ERA that matters. This constant redefinition of the question was entirely predictable, of course, and 3rd did predict it beforehand, as a matter of fact.

    Oh, and nice use of your "who are you again" defense (against devil), by the way.
     
  18. nyjunc

    nyjunc 2008 TGG Bryan Cox "Most Argumentative" Award Winn

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Messages:
    53,044
    Likes Received:
    1,434
    I never ahd any doubts when mariano was on the mound but i was always afraid when Wette was on the mound. I already showed you the 3 games in the WS where he was clsoe to blowing it but escaped. mariano even w/ runners on you knew he'd get out of it. In baltimore he had loaded bases and 0 out and didn't allow a run.

    You can use all the stats you want, I used my eyes. mariao was picthing mroe and therefore had more opprtunites to give up runs yet gave up 1 run compared to 3 for Wette in less innings.

    you keep saying through Game 5 but games 4-6 he was shaky allowing the tying runners to get close to scoring. Go watch the games then get back to me.

    you can't read now? Where did I say that? I said do we ever argue? he tends to stay out of arguments.

    You never answered my question of:

    Which would you rather have a pitcher do:

    a) give up 1 run in 14 1/3 innings

    or

    b) give up 3 runs in 12 1/3 innings.


    You guys are so attached to these new stats but you don't step back and take a look at what is truly most important.
     
  19. statjeff22

    statjeff22 2008 Green Guy "Most Knowledgeable" Award Winner

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    26,717
    Likes Received:
    6,819
    THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION. You keep saying that Wetteland was the one pitching on the edge, and the statistics show that wasn't true. It has nothing to do with "these new stats" - earned run average CANNOT measure how "on the edge" a pitcher is, since it only measures runs that actually score; WHIP directly measures "on the edge," since it counts up baserunners. It was Rivera who gave up a baserunner or two per inning in his outings, repeatedly, especially in the World Series. The fact that you were more nervous with Wetteland is the point - your perception was just that, a perception, and not the actual situation. This reply to 3rd by you proves the point:

    Are you seriously claiming that loading the bases with no one out and getting out of it is being dominant? Why is it that if Wetteland gets out of a situation he's "close to blowing it," but if Rivera does he was somehow just toying with the opposition? What you're doing here is making my point for me - Rivera was NOT dominant, and was the one "living on the edge."

    You also simply can't help yourself from misstating my position. In EVERY post I've made I said through game 5 of the World Series; that was, in fact, my original point - that Rivera as a postseason dominant pitcher did not start until game 6 of the World Series. As the 1996 postseason went on, Wetteland was getting better, and Rivera was getting worse. In the ALCS, Rivera pitched 4 innings, and gave up 6 hits and 1 walk. No one in their right mind would call that dominant. Wetteland pitched 4 innings and gave up 2 hits and 1 walk. In the first 5 games of the WS, Rivera pitched 3 2/3 innings, gave up up 4 hits and 2 walks (and a run). Again, no one in their right mind would call that dominanant. Wetteland pitched 3 1/3 innings, and gave up 1 hit and 1 walk. That's pretty damn good. The ONLY outing Wetteland had in the ALCS and WS that was remotely difficult was in game 5 of the ALCS, when he gave up the only 2 runs he gave up before game 6 of the WS, and it really was only one bad pitch - a two out HR by Bobby Bonilla with a man on first and a 6-2 lead. Meanwhile, Rivera was giving up multiple baserunners per inning repeatedly.

    How about this summary: in the ALCS and WS through game 5, Rivera made 5 appearances, and gave up at least 3 baserunners in 4 of them, giving up an average of 1.7 baserunners per inning. Wetteland made 8 appearances, and gave up no baserunners in 4 of them, giving up an average of 0.7 baserunners per inning. It is blindingly obvious who was pitching "on the edge," and who was pitching more dominantly. Your nervousness is irrelevant - the FACTS are that Wetteland was the one pitching easily, and Rivera was the one giving up baserunners all the time.

    This thread has, of course, deteriorated into all of the standard ways that you react whenever anyone dares to challenge your supposed omniscience. You dismiss one person's comment as being unworthy of thought, since they supposedly never have opinions (a ludicrous point, since just because someone doesn't share them with you doesn't mean someone doesn't have opinions). You repeatedly redefine the question when faced with facts that refute your position, throw out statistics that don't actually refer to the question at hand (and are often wrong), and then ultimately just say "I know I'm right, and whatever statistics you have to refute it just don't matter, because I say so." And you try to wear people down by always trying to have the last word, in the misguided notion that that somehow means that you've "won." You have failed miserably at disputing a single thing that I have actually said in this thread, but here is your last chance to actually prove me wrong about something - don't reply to this post. For once, let the thread die without you being the last one to say something.
     
  20. MSUJet85

    MSUJet85 ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    12,771
    Likes Received:
    196
    www.metszone.net
     

Share This Page