Jump to content

scary, very scary


MarkBuehrle_TheAce

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 299
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Now you are talking about something that has alot to do with the team that they play for.  ERA's are about the best statistic that shows how good a pitcher is individually.  Cant you just admit that you didnt know what you were talking about and leave it at that?

True...but WINS are THE most important stat.

 

I'd rather have a 20 game winner with a 4.00 era than a 13 game winner with a 3.00 era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 10:28 AM)
I asked, if you had a WS on the line and had to pick one of these guys to win your game 7, who do you pick?

 

I'd go with MB (or Pedro) (proven CLUTCH pitchers).

Pedro huh?

 

I would pick Andy Pettitte over Pedro in any playoff series.

Plus he outpitched Mark in the WS

 

Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Johan Santana, Curt Schilling all before Mark.

Edited by RockRaines
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 11:30 AM)
True...but WINS are THE most important stat.

 

I'd rather have a 20 game winner with a 4.00 era than a 13 game winner with a 3.00 era.

The guy with 20 wins has those 20 wins because his team has an offense. The guy with 13 wins only has that few because his teams offense sucks. Its not his fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 11:28 AM)
I asked, if you had a WS on the line and had to pick one of these guys to win your game 7, who do you pick?

 

I'd go with MB (or Pedro) (proven CLUTCH pitchers).

 

No, you started this fun thing off by stating that Buehrle is better than all of the above mentioned pitchers. Then you changed it to "I would take Buehrle over (insert pitchers name) or Clemens because Clemens is old"

 

Same story, different thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 10:30 AM)
True...but WINS are THE most important stat.

 

I'd rather have a 20 game winner with a 4.00 era than a 13 game winner with a 3.00 era.

Mulder >>> Buehrle

 

Mulder = 88 wins over the past 5 years

Buehrle = 81

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 11:32 AM)
Based on what? Santana's vast World Series experience?

Based on every stat possible, and watching them both pitch. Its not Santana's fault he wasn't in the world series or playoffs, its his teams fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 10:32 AM)
Based on what? Santana's vast World Series experience?

WTF does World Series experience have to do with being a good pitcher? What the other 24 guys on your team do should not affect your image like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 10:31 AM)
I was referring to Halliday, Peavy, Zambrano, Prior and Santana!

At least spell his name right. Halladay.

 

Halladay, Peavy, and Santana are all better pitchers than Mark. In fact, Mark had the worst playoff ERA out of any of the guys on our staff I believe.

 

Oh and to answer your wins question, Santana has more wins over the last 3 years than Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on every stat possible, and watching them both pitch.  Its not Santana's fault he wasn't in the world series or playoffs, its his teams fault.

You can't say how he'd perform in the playoffs.

 

Look at Barry Bonds...arguably the best player in the last 20 years. Check out his playoff numbers...they suck.

 

One could argue that he's not clutch; that he doesn't perform well under pressure.

 

We cannot make an assumption on Santana either way, because we have yet to see him pitch in a playoff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 10:33 AM)
And they guy with the lower era could have that cuz his team is better defensively and/or cuz he pitches in the NL.

Well then how about Santana, who had a lower ERA and more wins than Mark over the past three years? Then would you consider him better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 11:36 AM)
You can't say how he'd perform in the playoffs.

 

Look at Barry Bonds...arguably the best player in the last 20 years. Check out his playoff numbers...they suck.

 

One could argue that he's not clutch; that he doesn't perform well under pressure.

 

We cannot make an assumption on Santana either way, because we have yet to see him pitch in a playoff.

So would you rather Timo Perez than Barry Bonds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 11:33 AM)
And they guy with the lower era could have that cuz his team is better defensively and/or cuz he pitches in the NL.

 

come on, stay on your topic. We are talking about Wins, the most important stat, not ERA. Your argument is falling apart at the seams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 11:36 AM)
You can't say how he'd perform in the playoffs.

 

Look at Barry Bonds...arguably the best player in the last 20 years. Check out his playoff numbers...they suck.

 

One could argue that he's not clutch; that he doesn't perform well under pressure.

 

We cannot make an assumption on Santana either way, because we have yet to see him pitch in a playoff.

 

What about Barry Bonds performance in the 2002 playoffs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 10:36 AM)
We cannot make an assumption on Santana either way, because we have yet to see him pitch in a playoff.

And now you've proven yourself to not know a damn thing about baseball.

 

He pitched in the playoffs the year before this

 

1 start 1 Win 1.29 ERA 7 IP 3 hits 1 ER on a solo hr oh and 9 k's

 

Be gone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Mark Mulder better than Mark Buehrle?

 

Please answer this question.

Mark Mulder is a great pitcher, I'd love to have him on my team.

 

Statistically he's better, so I guess in your book, Mulder's better.

 

There are intangibles that need to be considered that don't necessarily show up on stat sheets. MB is a great defensive pitcher. He's a leader, a great clubhouse guy, and a "stopper".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 11:41 AM)
There are intangibles that need to be considered that don't necessarily show up on stat sheets. MB is a great defensive pitcher. He's a leader, a great clubhouse guy, and a "stopper".

 

Hmm, So how does that make him better than Smoltz, Clemens, Santana, Peavy, etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...