The Critic Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 I choose None Of The Above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 look at brandon webb as a good case of wins not showing his true value i know last year he was around .500 but with a sub 3 ERA IIRC, this year he finished like 7-16 or so with 3.4 ERA but aside from a few bad starts he would give up 2-3 runs and lose but maybe im being biased with webb He either got really lucky this year or pitched really well when people were on base. Because this year he walked a major league high this year 119 which resulted in his disgusting whip of 1.50 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babybearhater Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 I Would go with Ben Sheets-my fantasy workhorse 34 34 5 237.0 201 85 25 32 264 10.03 12 14 0 105.4 0.98 .226 2.70 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AssHatSoxFan Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 He either got really lucky this year or pitched really well when people were on base. Because this year he walked a major league high this year 119 which resulted in his disgusting whip of 1.50 yeah he did have major control issues i shouldve checked to see how high his WHIP was Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchetman Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 of those i'd take d or i. win/loss record does count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babybearhater Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 of those i'd take d or i. win/loss record does count. if that was the case.... Sheets 2.70 ERA .98 WHIP 264 K's 237 IP 5 CG Clemens 2.98 ERA 1.16 WHIP 218 k's 214 IP 0 CG Schmidt 3.2 ERA 1.08 WHIP 251 k's 225 IP 4 CG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AssHatSoxFan Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 if that was the case.... Sheets 2.70 ERA .98 WHIP 264 K's 237 IP 5 CG Clemens 2.98 ERA 1.16 WHIP 218 k's 214 IP 0 CG Schmidt 3.2 ERA 1.08 WHIP 251 k's 225 IP 4 CG if you bothered to read REX's original post we arent trying to put names to these guys its more of an evaluation without name or star potential attached to any stats you are doing a disservice to rex's thread and his intentions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danman31 Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 I went with D, but I do think W/L are a factor and a pitcher with 14 losses is not a Cy Young winner. Sadly my 2nd choice (I) also had 14 losses. My 3rd choice was H. So, when including W/L record I went with H. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted October 4, 2004 Author Share Posted October 4, 2004 f***, I give up........ either you people don't have a f***ing clue or just don't read. What a waste of time this was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 When I look at Cy Young, I look at 2 things...#1, who is the best pitcher in the league, and #2, who is most valuable to his team's success. #1 can be a pitcher on any team...RJ is a good example. His team lost well over 100 games, but he is probably the best pitcher in the league, all things considered. #2 should be taken only from a contender's team is basically how much does he help is team win...this is purely opinion, but when I look at it, I think which guy has helped his team get to where they are...so I'm not going to consider RJ, because he's done nothing to make them a 100+ loss team. I'm going to look at a guy like Johan Santana, who has been a huge part of why the Twins are going to New York to play on Tuesday. That being said...it's gotta be D, I, or C, based solely on those numbers. If you gave me W-L, it would change my answer dramatically...but it would also give away who those players are, and that would ruin the fun of the "experiment." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 f***, I give up........ either you people don't have a f***ing clue or just don't read. What a waste of time this was. I thought it was really cool to not have the names. Because most people just pick a winner because of their name and not their actual stats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 f***, I give up........ either you people don't have a f***ing clue or just don't read. What a waste of time this was. I think it was fun, personally. But then again, I think this kind of thing is fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 OK since we killed this thread, and I was talking about this very subject during the Bears game yesterday.... I said that if Clemens won yesterday, I would vote for him, if not it should be RJ. I know that doesn't make complete sense, but to me my reasoning seams solid. Clemens was the obvious choice @ the ASB. RJ has put together the best performance as a whole on the season. Clemens second half wasn't as good as his first, but he was instrumental in Houston's run to the playoffs. The last game would have been enough for me to overlook the #'s and vote Clemens. We all know RC didn't pitch, so I wuold vote for RJ. RJ RC Zambrano Pavano Sheets That's my top 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted October 5, 2004 Author Share Posted October 5, 2004 For those still interested here is an updated table, complete with names, W-L records and my rankings based solely on the original table without wins factored in. Yes, my rankings would be slightly different if I factored in wins and other intangibles, but only marginally different. Untitled Document Player Name W-L ERA IP H BB K CG SV WHIP My Rank A Armando Benitez 2-2 1.29 69.2 36 21 62 0 47 0.82 5 B Roger Clemens 18-4 2.98 214.1 169 79 218 0 0 1.16 3 C Eric Gagne 7-3 2.19 82.1 53 22 114 0 45 0.91 8 D Randy Johnson 16-14 2.60 245.2 177 44 290 4 0 0.90 1 E Roy Oswalt 20-10 3.49 237 233 62 206 2 0 1.24 10 F Carl Pavano 18-8 3.00 222.1 212 49 139 2 0 1.17 9 G Oliver Perez 12-10 2.98 196 145 81 239 2 0 1.15 7 H Jason Schmidt 18-7 3.20 225 165 77 251 4 0 1.08 4 I Ben Sheets 12-14 2.70 237 201 32 264 5 0 0.98 2 J Carlos Zambrano 16-8 2.75 209.2 174 81 188 1 0 1.22 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammerhead johnson Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 1. D 2. I 3. A 4. C 5. H 6. B 7. G 8. J 9. F 10. E Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammerhead johnson Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 For those still interested here is an updated table, complete with names, W-L records and my rankings based solely on the original table without wins factored in. Yes, my rankings would be slightly different if I factored in wins and other intangibles, but only marginally different. Untitled Document Player Name W-L ERA IP H BB K CG SV WHIP My Rank A Armando Benitez 2-2 1.29 69.2 36 21 62 0 47 0.82 5 B Roger Clemens 18-4 2.98 214.1 169 79 218 0 0 1.16 3 C Eric Gagne 7-3 2.19 82.1 53 22 114 0 45 0.91 8 D Randy Johnson 16-14 2.60 245.2 177 44 290 4 0 0.90 1 E Roy Oswalt 20-10 3.49 237 233 62 206 2 0 1.24 10 F Carl Pavano 18-8 3.00 222.1 212 49 139 2 0 1.17 9 G Oliver Perez 12-10 2.98 196 145 81 239 2 0 1.15 7 H Jason Schmidt 18-7 3.20 225 165 77 251 4 0 1.08 4 I Ben Sheets 12-14 2.70 237 201 32 264 5 0 0.98 2 J Carlos Zambrano 16-8 2.75 209.2 174 81 188 1 0 1.22 6 Armando Benitez...holy f***ing s***. And I kinda zoned out on baseball for a little while there after the Sox started to suck. This Oliver Perez kid is nice. I'd heard some things, but I had no idea he was looking that good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 And I kinda zoned out on baseball for a little while there after the Sox started to suck. This Oliver Perez kid is nice. I'd heard some things, but I had no idea he was looking that good. It is an amazing difference from last year. Last year he gave up more hits than innings pitched, walked 77 in only 126 and 2/3 innings while posting a 5.47 era. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted October 5, 2004 Author Share Posted October 5, 2004 Actually a Ben Sheets fan is the one who gave me this idea about 2 months ago. He only gave me like 6 names and I couldn't decide who in the hell I would pick, and he gave me won-loss records. It made me think a little differently, rather than taking things at strictly face value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammerhead johnson Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 Actually a Ben Sheets fan is the one who gave me this idea about 2 months ago. He only gave me like 6 names and I couldn't decide who in the hell I would pick, and he gave me won-loss records. It made me think a little differently, rather than taking things at strictly face value. Ben Sheets is amazing...only 32 walks in 237 IP That has to be the best control in the majors...it has to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFanForever Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 I have to go with D. A starter with a WHIP below 1 is just flat out great plus the rest of his numbers are amazing. Hell of a season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 Ben Sheets is amazing...only 32 walks in 237 IP That has to be the best control in the majors...it has to be. David wells have 20 in 195 and 2/3 innings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.