Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra
Kinda Sorta Old School
Theo's hit it right on the head.
The Sports Bar
- Thread starter Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra
- Start date
Stormtrooper
Championship Contender
I lulzed at using "Parody." Parody=humorous mocking. ParITY= what sports leagues want. ironically, there's a bit of both in sports right now.
Yeah, umm, Cutler is DEFINITELY a starting QB, and is a borderline Franchise QB.
Yeah, they are similar. They are both "gunslingers", in that they throw the ball up a lot, and throw interceptions. Favre has been more successful, but that doesn't mean they aren't similar.
as I've said 500 times in this discussion already, put his NUMBERS on an average team and it's great. Maybe on an average team he just has an average year, who knows. Just because he had a great year statistically with a shit team doesn't mean he wouldn't wilt under the pressure of pitching for a good team.
Those 3 stats do matter, but Wins/saves are important as well. Last time I checked teams don't make the playoffs based on WHIP, ERA, or BAA. They make it based on WINS. And Saves are still important. If they weren't, then you wouldn't see closers being the highest paid bullpen guys, you'd see middle relievers getting the most for the bullpen guys. Sorry, but MLB GMs speak with their wallets, and say that Closers (and as such saves) are important.
Stormtrooper
Championship Contender
Blue's right when he says Theo hit it on the head. However, I would disagree when he says anythign about Wilson being the only guy in the running for top closer. I love Wilson, but he's done it, what, 2 years now? Lets wait until he has done it for a long time.
Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra
Kinda Sorta Old School
But this isn't a team award, it's a personal award. Therefore Felix deserved it more than Price and C.C.
Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra
Kinda Sorta Old School
Being the best and being the greatest are two different things. Wilson can be the best closer for two years, but he won't be the greatest. People that are the greatest don't get figured out or they are consistantly good. People who are the best at one season can be that because their stuff is new and no one can figure it out.
Cy Young goes to the best pitcher. Clearly, even on a shit offense that didn't get the wins that you crave of (none of which was his fault) Hernandez was the best. Whoever he went up against he was dominant. He had the top ERA (completely destroying both Price & Sabathia) higher WHIP and BAA then them both, yet his team only scored 86 runs. It's not his fault that they averaged less then 3 runs per start, compared to the 4+ for Price and almost 5 for Sabathia. If Felix didn't win it would've been a travesty.
A great closer is important. But, saves is overrated. You could be up by 3 runs, let two by, and still record a save. The saves are overrated because you could play C-ball and still get a save if your offense gave you a big enough lead.
A great closer is important. But, saves is overrated. You could be up by 3 runs, let two by, and still record a save. The saves are overrated because you could play C-ball and still get a save if your offense gave you a big enough lead.
I'm only throwing Wilson into the discussion, no way would I rank him as the top closer. I'd still give that to Mo without a doubt. Only guy I'd really give any contention to is Joe Nathan.
And the Bears are definitely not a run first team with Mike Martz running the show.
And the Bears are definitely not a run first team with Mike Martz running the show.
The People's Peep
Mr. Manager
I think saves are a little overrated. I think the more a closer has, the more indicative it is of the closers caliber. But the amount of saves is mainly because of the rest of the team and their tendency to play 1 or 2 run games.
I think this box score says it all: http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=270822201
I think this box score says it all: http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=270822201
Stormtrooper
Championship Contender
Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra
Kinda Sorta Old School
Better pitcher this season. C.C., Price, or Felix?
Good lord you're an idiot. Felix got just over HALF the amount of run support that CC got, which is why his win totals are low. He was clearly a better pitcher then CC. Sorry he didn't have a lineup that featured 4-5 all-stars almost daily, with quality hitters coming off the bench like the Yankees had that could rack up the wins.
Stop now. You're heavily overrating wins.
And to answer your question, Blue, I'd say Felix was miles better. Even if he didn't have the oh so precious wins.
Stormtrooper
Championship Contender
Why am I the idiot? I never ONCE since the season ended said that Felix wasn't the best pitcher. He was. He deserved the award, and he got it. Good for him. All I've said is that Wins aren't as overrated as you make them out to be.
And fuck you Megatron, with the sarcastic shit and pulling this CC deserved the award over Felix shit out of your ass. The sad thing is you're acting like wins (and as such winning ballgames) isn't important in baseball, when it's THE ONLY THING THAT'S FUCKING IMPORTANT.
And he put up those amazing numbers in a NO pressure situation, since everyone and their mother knew Seattle was shit. Coming through in high pressure situations like CC and David Price (who were in pressure situations all year, since 1 game separated the #1 and #4 seed in the playoffs) did still means something, and if you think it doesn't, then you're clearly mistaken.
Bold- Take him and you didn't get one this year...
This paragraph right here is what is wrong with the end of season awards to me now.
Now it's all about what has your team done to go along with your great season. If that were the case in the past then Ernie Banks wouldn't have won his two MVP titles. Cy Young and MVP, these should go to the best players of the year, not the player who had a great year with a better team. You said it yourself Trooper, Felix had the best year. Just because CC made it to the postseason doesn't mean he deserves the award.
If you're a GM and you're building a baseball team, you would be ******ed to look at wins as a reason why you should sign someone. Here's a great example, and I'll leave out the names for non biasness.
Pitcher 1: 15-7, 4.22 ERA, 1.33 WHIP, .317 OBA
Pitcher 2: 10-12, 3.62 ERA, 1.08 WHIP, .278 OBA
If you were a GM, Stormtrooper, who would you take, Pitcher 1 (who's winning % is 68) or Pitcher 2 (who's winning % is 45)? Wins is the farthest thing from showing what a great pitcher is.
Stormtrooper
Championship Contender
Take Felix's year and you're on the worst team in the league. I'd take CC's over Felix's any day of the week. And I'd take CC's career over Felix's. CC's not only won a championship, but was one of the primary causes of a World Series Win, something Felix is yet to do.
1. All I'm saying is that wins aren't overrated. CC and Price had great years, even if wins are "overrated". They deserved consideration for the best pitcher award, and they got it.
2. The MVP award is the Most VALUABLE Player award. VALUABLE =/= BEST, so it should NOT go to the "Best" player.
3. Again, SHOW ME WHERE THE FUCK I SAID CC DESERVED THE AWARD OVER FELIX AFTER THE SEASON WAS OVER! Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ, why are people putting words in my mouth? You're better then that David. MUCH better then that.
Stormtrooper
Championship Contender
1. I'd admit #2 had the better numbers, just like I've admitted Felix has had better numbers THE WHOLE FUCKING TIME, YOU STUPID FUCK.
2. I'd like to know more info, since basic numbers (hell, any numbers) don't tell the entire story. Was either team in contention? What division did they play in (and as such what teams did they play)? What stadium did he play his home games in (pitchers park/hitters park)?
3. Unrelated to who had a better season, but what is the Mental composition of the players? Is one of them a "bad clubhouse guy?" Is one of them a guy who is known to not be able to handle high pressure situations? How old are the players? Will they fit in with my clubhouse? What type of pitcher are they (power pitcher, sinkerballer, etc)?
In your bubble of Stats exclusivity, you'd take #2. In my further expanded window (where I accept stats as PART of the equation, but not ALL of it), I'd still consider #1, if he's a better fit for my team/ballpark, and I'll be definitely making the best decision for my ballclub. You'll be taking a risk that the numbers achieved elsewhere will carry over into the new club, since you're not looking at the whole picture.
1 is Brent Cecil. 2 is Ted Lily.
And thanks for proving to me that wins aren't all that important. That's all I ask.
EDIT: I'd be taking the better option. Cecil's elevated ERA, WHIP, and BAA are much, much more important then Lily's average W-L record. You'd be taking the risk, because you'd expect him to still rack up 15 wins with those numbers. Unless you have a good to great offense, he's not matching those numbers, which is what you'd be expecting. Lily could match or surpass the production, due to not only not letting as many runs scored, but not letting guys get on base as often.
And thanks for proving to me that wins aren't all that important. That's all I ask.
EDIT: I'd be taking the better option. Cecil's elevated ERA, WHIP, and BAA are much, much more important then Lily's average W-L record. You'd be taking the risk, because you'd expect him to still rack up 15 wins with those numbers. Unless you have a good to great offense, he's not matching those numbers, which is what you'd be expecting. Lily could match or surpass the production, due to not only not letting as many runs scored, but not letting guys get on base as often.
Stormtrooper
Championship Contender
I never proved your case, I just proved that your game was stupid and incomplete.
actually, now that I know the names, if I were a GM (the question you asked), I'm taking BRETT (it's BRETT, not BRENT) Cecil 10 times out of 10 over Ted LILLY (it's Lilly, not Lily). He's 10 years younger with a MUCH higher ceiling (and much cheaper). Lilly, is a career middle/bottom-of-the-rotation decent pitcher, but never really been anything special in his long career. You'll be banking solely on an old players decent year last year, which is MUCH harder to duplicate. I'll be taking it all into consideration and take the younger guy who has MUCH more potential, and can easily equal or surpass his previous year (and give me 10 more years after that).
And if you're gonna play stupid games like that, at least know the guys you're talking about, man. BRETT CECIL and TED LILLY, not Brent Cecil and Ted Lily.
If you hadn't known who was who, and those two were the same age and would be worth the same price, there's no right reason why you would take Cecil over Lilly. You can sign them both for the same years and same money. You'd be dumb to take Cecil over Lilly just because he had more wins.
And I like how you're trying to take shots at me because of two typos. That's quite weak, really.
And I like how you're trying to take shots at me because of two typos. That's quite weak, really.
Stormtrooper
Championship Contender
1. If I didn't know who was who, I wouldn't sign either one, because I'd be the shittiest GM ever and be fired.
2. No, I wouldn't look at 1 year in deciding who I'd take, since 1 year doesn't mean anything when it comes to who I'd want for a different year, which was the question posed to me.
3. I never said I'd take Cecil over Lilly EXCLUSIVELY because he had more wins. Wins are part of it, but Age, potential, money, and other factors came into the equation.
No, I'm taking shots because your "typos" were you getting the names of BOTH people wrong. Sorry, that deserves a shot. You were batting .000 in getting important names right (there's a stat for you, you stat loving lets forget about everything else even though they are important idiot).
You're missing my point.
Wins = overrated. Which has been what I've proved. If you got a good offense, you can pitch poor but still get a win. And vice versa.
Two typos doesn't change the fact that Lilly was a better pitcher and you know it.
I'll even be kind enough to give you another example. Phil Hughes went 18-8, which makes him seem like a great pitcher. However, his 4.19 ERA, 1.25 WHIP, and .302 BAA is merely average at best. He only looked good because he had one of the best RPS averages in MLB. Wins are overrated and shouldn't judge who's good and who's not.
Wins = overrated. Which has been what I've proved. If you got a good offense, you can pitch poor but still get a win. And vice versa.
Two typos doesn't change the fact that Lilly was a better pitcher and you know it.
I'll even be kind enough to give you another example. Phil Hughes went 18-8, which makes him seem like a great pitcher. However, his 4.19 ERA, 1.25 WHIP, and .302 BAA is merely average at best. He only looked good because he had one of the best RPS averages in MLB. Wins are overrated and shouldn't judge who's good and who's not.
Of course you would. Give Felix a stacked team such as the Yankees and we'll see where they go.
Never said they were overrated. I think they can be misleading, just like other stats. Fuck it, I'll post in Blue's thread about stats. You'll get the point.
So a valued piece of the team like Paul Konerko was to the White Sox should be in contention then?
I didn't look through the responses of the argument. I just posted after this one. Sorry bud.
Little Jerry Lawler
Sigmund Freud On Ritalin And Roids
I love you CH but I don't think the Cubs are the most cursed franchise in professional sports. It's the Clippers. 1-12 they are. Just can't catch a break.
Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra
Kinda Sorta Old School
Problem is wins are still overrated and anyone that would take C.C.'s year or Price's year over King Felix's year would get the shit end of that stick, since they picked the lesser season. This is why everyone is on your case Storm. I'd like to see what 48.7 had to think about this with his teams being Seattle and New York.
Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra
Kinda Sorta Old School
I'd say the Cubbies are more "cursed"
