Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
edjr

If anyone gave a chit about MLB, we'd be discussing Gerrit Cole

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

 No one is filling up the stadium in August and September to check out the prospects. They didn’t in the early 90’s either when the young guys were coming up. 

Will they fill it when they are 10 games out? Lucky for the red sox there was covid last year, NO ONE would have been there from July on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, edjr said:

Will they fill it when they are 10 games out? Lucky for the red sox there was covid last year, NO ONE would have been there from July on

Not a chance.Nobody GAF about G Stanton and a few others. People like Judge and Torres. Meh about the rest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

I had not heard they valued it like that, but I think the reality is closer to $4M.  Trout has a ridiculous average of 9 and he is sitting at 35 per, which I think is right. Obviously it will rise a bit, but not that much.  

It's all about the length of the contract and age.  The older someone is and the longer the contract, the lower the number.  Tatis is only 22.  The normal expectation for a player in his prime is 26 to 29, so his number will be much higher than other guys because there's 8 years of expected high return.

The Padres are going to expect WAR's in the 6 to 8 range from now til the end of his prime.  They fully expect him to be an average of 3 or less from age 30-35, but they won't care because he already paid dividends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tried and true method to building a perennial winner is to suffer through a few down years. The Yankees have not and will not be following that method.  They will always be good to very good.  Maybe even sneak a title in there once in a while. But there is no dynasty coming again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

The tried and true method to building a perennial winner is to suffer through a few down years. The Yankees have not and will not be following that method.  They will always be good to very good.  Maybe even sneak a title in there once in a while. But there is no dynasty coming again. 

It helps to not hire a nitwit GM that sells the farm too.  You must have some good, low cost, controllable homegrown talent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, edjr said:

It helps to not hire a nitwit GM that sells the farm too.  You must have some good, low cost, controllable homegrown talent

Yup. Especially starting pitching.  Yankees haven’t produced one since Pettite.  Guidry before that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yup. Especially starting pitching.  Yankees haven’t produced one since Pettite.  Guidry before that.  

Red Sox won't give a contract to a 30+ home grown stud (lester). but the next year give 217 million to David Price 30+ :wall:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Stanton was gone after 2002. They Yankees went to the next WS and the next two ALCS. 

Yah, they went to ONE world series after he left.  In 2003.  Then one more in 2009.  They lost dynasty status when they stopped having that lefty in the bullpen to put out fires.  So you are proving my point.  And its also not just going to the title round.  No-one calls the 90s Bills a dynasty.  Win it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

You said something changed  in the early 2000’s. Not really. They lost a game 7 and a game 6 in the WS.  Gene Michaels fingerprints were still all over those teams.  Still won a lot of games. 

Yes something changed.  Their dedication to lefties in the pen was gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is also why I hate how the Dodgers are built.  I've said this for years.  The Dodgers don't have an elite shutout bullpen.  In fact the bullpen is kinda sad. Fans are afraid to see Kenley Jansen go out there.  The point is, the Dodgers don't limit the other team to needing to win in the first 5 innings.  The bullpen gets shelled a lot in their playoff losses.  They've only got 1 title all these years because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean my god, all the Yankees needed to do was make Chapman the setup guy to kill rallies and then get another closer.  That probably gets them 2-3 titles in the 2010s.  That's it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, JustinCharge said:

Yes something changed.  Their dedication to lefties in the pen was gone.

Might want to check the 2009 Yankees bullpen. They managed to win a WS. Lefty righty makes no matter. Getting guys out does.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of people who care about MLB and are actively discussing Cole.  

2 of my asst. coaches were talking about this very thing last night before practice.  

Of course, they don't participate here because they're normal, well- adjusted, socially competent, productive members of society.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello? Anyone home? I thought we were discussing Cole? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Hello? Anyone home? I thought we were discussing Cole? 

4 earned runs in 3/1 innings on July 4th.  

That makes 20 earned runs in his last 33 innings :o 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, edjr said:

4 earned runs in 3/1 innings on July 4th.  

That makes 20 earned runs in his last 33 innings :o 

Complete game shoutout on the road vs the best offense in the AL.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

Complete game shoutout on the road vs the best offense in the AL.  

Are you ever not here? Reply within 1 minute. 

So we should discount the 6 games before that where he couldn't cheat because of one game?  20 earned runs in 24 innings. ouch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, edjr said:

Are you ever not here? Reply within 1 minute. 

So we should discount the 6 games before that where he couldn't cheat because of one game?  20 earned runs in 24 innings. ouch

He managed to go 3-3 in those 6 because 3 were strong outings and 3 weren't. Now he is 4-3 in his last 7 decisions. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

He managed to go 3-3 in those 6 because 3 were strong outings and 3 weren't. Now he is 4-3 in his last 7 decisions. :dunno:

20 earned runs in 24 innings.  ouch

Since when are starters judged on their record? :wacko: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, edjr said:

20 earned runs in 24 innings.  ouch

Since when are starters judged on their record? :wacko: 

Record?  No.  I judge pitchers on FIP, K/9, & BB/9.  ERA and W/L rely too much on other players and luck.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

ERA and W/L rely too much on other players and luck.  

As evidenced by all those sub par 300 game winners. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TimmySmith said:

As evidenced by all those sub par 300 game winners. 

Don't be like my cousin.  He'll say something like "Magic Johnson is the greatest NBA player of all time."  To which, I'll respond with "I don't know, I think Jordan and Wilt were better."  His reaction: "Oh, so Magic Johnson sucks?"

Yeah, don't do that.  That wasn't even implied.  I'm willing to bet that if you take those 300 game winners and look at their FIP, K/9, & BB/9, even BABIP... you'll find that some were even better than you thought.  Probably find where there should be a bigger gap between them and the guys who had 260 or 280 wins.  You may also find that guys with 260 were a lot better than you thought, and maybe better than some of the guys who had 300 wins.

You're also more likely to find how dominant some really were instead of just saying, "Wow, he had 300 wins!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Don't be like my cousin.  He'll say something like "Magic Johnson is the greatest NBA player of all time."  To which, I'll respond with "I don't know, I think Jordan and Wilt were better."  His reaction: "Oh, so Magic Johnson sucks?"

Yeah, don't do that.  That wasn't even implied.  I'm willing to bet that if you take those 300 game winners and look at their FIP, K/9, & BB/9, even BABIP... you'll find that some were even better than you thought.  Probably find where there should be a bigger gap between them and the guys who had 260 or 280 wins.  You may also find that guys with 260 were a lot better than you thought, and maybe better than some of the guys who had 300 wins.

You're also more likely to find how dominant some really were instead of just saying, "Wow, he had 300 wins!"

Dude, don't say idiotic things then double back.  Which you did.  Wins are important and over the long haul they are defining of great pitchers.  Cole scratched 4 wins because he's a great pitchers, he got losses due to bad outings.   No luck involved in any of it.  Over the haul he wins way more than he loses. It's a sign of something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

Dude, don't say idiotic things then double back.  Which you did.  Wins are important and over the long haul they are defining of great pitchers.  Cole scratched 4 wins because he's a great pitchers, he got losses due to bad outings.   No luck involved in any of it.  Over the haul he wins way more than he loses. It's a sign of something.

Yup, you're being that guy.  :dunno:

I didn't double back.  FIP, K/9, BB/9, & BABIP are better gauges of how good a pitcher is than just wins.  Yes, wins matter, but the pitcher doesn't always get a win when he should.  He sometimes gets a win when he shouldn't.  He sometimes gets a loss when he shouldn't.  If a pitcher pitches 7 shutout innings but his team wins 1-0 in 10 innings... don't you think that outing was a win worthy performance?  Those numbers that he produced that game won't show up in his W/L column, but it'll show up in the others.  Conversely, what if a pitcher goes 9 innings and loses 1-0.  That's showing up in the "L" column isn't it?  But it doesn't reflect how good that pitcher pitched that day. Same goes the other way... a pitcher can give up 7 runs in a game, but pitches 5 innings and left with an 8-7 lead.  A team will keep a guy who's 2-5 over a guy who's 5-2 if the metrics bear it out.  Meaning, the guy who's 2-5 will likely yield better results long term than the guy who's 5-2.

Scenario, feel free to answer (if you want)...

  • Pitcher A: 5-0 (7 starts), 34 IP with a 4.42 FIP, 8 K/9, 4 BB/9, and a BABIP of .231
  • Pitcher B: 1-4 (7 starts), 46 IP with a 2.65 FIP, 9 K/9, 2 BB/9, and a BABIP of .347

You have to send 1 down to the minors... who's going?

Also, this has nothing to do specifically to Cole.  I just made a simple statement about what the best ways are, to gauge a pitchers' performance... W's & L's are not it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2021 at 2:44 PM, TBayXXXVII said:

Scenario, feel free to answer (if you want)...

  • Pitcher A: 5-0 (7 starts), 34 IP with a 4.42 FIP, 8 K/9, 4 BB/9, and a BABIP of .231
  • Pitcher B: 1-4 (7 starts), 46 IP with a 2.65 FIP, 9 K/9, 2 BB/9, and a BABIP of .347

You have to send 1 down to the minors... who's going?

Pitcher B by a mile.  He gives up a ton of hard hit balls.  Maybe you need a better example to prove your genius. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TimmySmith said:

Pitcher B by a mile.  He gives up a ton of hard hit balls.  Maybe you need a better example to prove your genius. :dunno:

Your answer did prove my point.  W/L don't mean as much as the peripherals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

:cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, edjr said:

 

:cry:

RMFF. Lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×