2009 MLB Regular Season Thread

[Bad-example]

Just a heads up.

Anyone who missed Jonathan Sanchez's no-hitter can see it again at 7 PDT. Thursday on Comcast SportsNet Bay Area.

[EagleFan]

Sweet way to start out the second half.

Not sure why but one thing bugged me. Ibanez in his post game interview was asked about Ryan Howard's homerun and he says something along the line of "when he is hitting the Phillies do well". Something bugged me about that. Does that mean that he doesn't feel like part of the team? I would think that a player would refer to his team as "we". If you didn't know who was being interviewed and just heard that question and response you would have thought that a member of the Marlins was being interviewed.

Probably just his personality but it makes it seem like he is an outsider.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Braves will retire Greg Maddux's number tonight in pre-game ceremonies.

He's the best I ever saw and the best I expect I'll ever see. There's no player in any sport I ever enjoyed watching more than Maddux and no player in any sport that I miss watching work more.

[Big Fo]

Maddux is my favorite player as well in addition to being the best pitcher I've ever seen.

I wonder if there will be a big crowd tonight with the ceremony and the Mets in town.

[hoopsguy]

I'm a huge Maddux fan as well, even if he did put in a lot of his good years after leaving Chicago.

[sterlingice]

Maddux is definitely my favorite pitcher ever

SI

[Big Fo]

Justice got a good reception from the fans.

Maddux is too cool for ties

A casual nod after his 18 Gold Gloves are mentioned <3

[Big Fo]

First pitcher to post back to back sub 1.8 ERAs since Walter Johnson in 1918. So awesome.

[stevew]

Garrett Jones just went deep off Timmy for his 6th homer in two weeks. Might be worth a fantasy look.

[Big Fo]

Atlanta looks like they will win on Greg Maddux night, they are crushing the Mets 10-0 in the fifth.

[Bad-example]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Braves will retire Greg Maddux's number tonight in pre-game ceremonies.

Did they hold the ceremonies 6 inches off both sides of the plate?

[Crapshoot]

I think Pedro at peak value is the best pitcher in history, but Maddux is easily top 5 all time; hell of a player, hell of a guy.

[stevew]

Geez. The Pirates and Giants are trying to underscore each other. Pitchers duels are only fun til the starters come out

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I think Pedro at peak value is the best pitcher in history, but Maddux is easily top 5 all time; hell of a player, hell of a guy.

Maddux is amazing but I'm not sure top 5


Koufax
Big Train Johnson
Ryan
Page
Pedro
Seaver
Lefty Grove
etc..


Again, I loved watching Maddux, but I think top 5 is a stretch

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I'm not sure Nolan belongs on that list.

[DaddyTorgo]

no way he's top 5. top 5 of the last generation...sure okay (even then you can argue). but all time. no way

Career Leaders

Rank	Player	Adjusted ERA+
1	Mariano Rivera	199
2	Pedro Martínez	154
3	Lefty Grove	148
4	Walter Johnson	146
	Dan Quisenberry
	Hoyt Wilhelm
	Smoky Joe Wood

even if you want to remove mariano for not being a starter, maddux still doesn't sneak onto that list

[Big Fo]

Nolan Ryan lol

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Maddux is amazing but I'm not sure top 5


Koufax
Big Train Johnson
Ryan
Page
Pedro
Seaver
Lefty Grove
etc..


Again, I loved watching Maddux, but I think top 5 is a stretch

Nolan Ryan isn't top 50. Most overrated pitcher, by far. Maddux is so much better than him it isn't funny.

[stevew]

Jones!

[Crapshoot]

Fucking Giants offense. Rich Aurillia sucks.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

Did they hold the ceremonies 6 inches off both sides of the plate?

No, that was the Eric Gregg memorial.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

no way he's top 5. top 5 of the last generation...sure okay (even then you can argue). but all time. no way


even if you want to remove mariano for not being a starter, maddux still doesn't sneak onto that list

Maddux's ERA+ was hurt by his longevity. I don't think evaluating pitchers is quite so simple. But if you would rather have had Quisenberry, Wilhelm, and Smokey Joe Wood than Maddux that's up to you.

No, that was the Eric Wedge memorial.

It was Eric Gregg who fucked the Braves in 1997. I didn't shed any tears when he died.

Wedge manages the Indians.

[kingfc22]

Why can't the Giants ever beat the Pirates...They are who we thought they were!!!

[MizzouRah]

Pujols knocks two more out!

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Maddux's ERA+ was hurt by his longevity. I don't think evaluating pitchers is quite so simple. But if you would rather have had Quisenberry, Wilhelm, and Smokey Joe Wood than Maddux that's up to you.



It was Eric Gregg who fucked the Braves in 1997. I didn't shed any tears when he died.

Wedge manages the Indians.

i'll give you that he did have multiple top ERA+ seasons in the top 15 or so...which is impressive.

If you want to argue that his ERA+ was hurt by his longevity though then you can't argue that his win total was a positive then.

you either have to embrace the longevity or reject it.

[hoopsguy]

DT - just so I make sure I understand your argument - Dan Quisenberry > Greg Maddux?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

DT - just so I make sure I understand your argument - Dan Quisenberry > Greg Maddux?

maybe not quisenberry...but smokey joe wood...sure. like i said with taking mariano out, i think you have to remove relievers from the equation

[hoopsguy]

Joe Wood Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

Are you sure you believe your own argument? No chance that his pitching for Boston is somehow clouding your objectivity on this one? I know wins are not a popular stat with the baseball math club, but only two seasons with more than 15 wins (OK, 3 with 15 if you toss in 1915 where he hits it on the nose) in an era of 4 man rotations, no relievers, etc, etc?

There are plenty of names that I would at least entertain as equal/better than Maddux, but I'm struggling with some of the ones that you are providing so far.

[stevew]

Rivera is obviously a first ballot 90% plus guy, right?

Maddux was so consistently awesome.

The pitchers of our generation are Randy Johnson, Maddux, Pedro, Clemens

I'd obviously want Mariano closing for me as well.

[DaddyTorgo]

FUCK...i just had a great long post typed up and my browser ate it

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Joe Wood Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

Are you sure you believe your own argument? No chance that his pitching for Boston is somehow clouding your objectivity on this one? I know wins are not a popular stat with the baseball math club, but only two seasons with more than 15 wins (OK, 3 with 15 if you toss in 1915 where he hits it on the nose) in an era of 4 man rotations, no relievers, etc, etc?

There are plenty of names that I would at least entertain as equal/better than Maddux, but I'm struggling with some of the ones that you are providing so far.

let me redo my post since you're asking

[larrymcg421]

If Maddux retires in 2002, he has a 146 ERA+ with 273 wins. Nobody in their right mind would argue that Quisenberry or Wood were better than Maddux in that scenario. So you're basically punishing him for not retiring that point, which is kinda silly.

[DaddyTorgo]

Career Leaders - ERA+ (starters, 15+ years, post-1900)

Pedro Martinez - 17yrs
Lefty Grove - 17yrs
Walter Johnson - 21yrs
Roger Clemens *steroids* - 24yrs
John Franco - 21yrs
Randy Johnson - 22yrs
Grover Cleveland - 20yrs
Christy Mathewson - 17yrs
Whitey Ford - 16yrs
Maddux - 23yrs


Career Leaders - WHIP (starters, 15+ years, post-1900)

Pedro Martinez - 17yrs
Christy Mathewson - 17yrs
Walter Johnson - 21yrs
Babe Adams - 19yrs
Juan Marichal - 16yrs
Chief Bender - 16yrs
Eddie Plank - 17yrs
Tom Seaver - 20yrs
Grover Cleveland - 20yrs
Catfish Hunter - 15yrs
Curt Schilling - 20yrs
Bret Saberhagen - 16yrs
Fergie Jenkins - 19yrs
Don Sutton - 23yrs
Greg Maddux - 23yrs

I'll give you k/bb ratio - he's in the top 20 in that for his career (including relievers, who make up a lot of it), at #19 (behind Schilling, Pedro, Sabrehagen, Mussina as starters with significant durations of career).

So he's #5 in terms of 20+ year starters since 1900 in ERA+ (excluding steroid-boy Clemens), and #6 in WHIP.

Maybe he's top-5 if you qualify it as "started for 15+ seasons."

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

If Maddux retires in 2002, he has a 146 ERA+ with 273 wins. Nobody in their right mind would argue that Quisenberry or Wood were better than Maddux in that scenario. So you're basically punishing him for not retiring that point, which is kinda silly.

see my list above. quisenberry is NA as a reliever. Wood you could say was better over a shorter career, but see my list above for guys of similar career durations (20+ years) who were better.

not saying maddux is crap, but he's not the greatest either

[BishopMVP]

Maddux was fantastic, but this argument just reminds me of my(/crapshoot's/etc) Ahab. Regardless if he comes back this year or in the future, can we just agree that any voter who does not induct Pedro 1st ballot loses all future voting privileges? It's absurd enough he lost that MVP for 1 NY voter not including him top 10 and even more absurd he wasn't really considered the other 3 years in that stretch.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Maddux was fantastic, but this argument just reminds me of my(/crapshoot's/etc) Ahab. Regardless if he comes back this year or in the future, can we just agree that any voter who does not induct Pedro 1st ballot loses all future voting privileges? It's absurd enough he lost that MVP for 1 NY voter not including him top 10 and even more absurd he wasn't really considered the other 3 years in that stretch.

yes

[ThunderingHERD]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

If you want to argue that his ERA+ was hurt by his longevity though then you can't argue that his win total was a positive then.

you either have to embrace the longevity or reject it.

Huh? What an arbitrary rule. Why can't you be impressed by the very high level he played at in his prime as well as his longevity?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ThunderingHERD

Huh? What an arbitrary rule. Why can't you be impressed by the very high level he played at in his prime as well as his longevity?

my point is "well you can't say he won a lot of games and pitched for a ton of years at a high level" and then ignore his ERA+ because you say it's penalizing him for not retiring when it started to slip.

i think you're misunderstanding my point. i have no problem with either of the things you said.

[ThunderingHERD]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

my point is "well you can't say he won a lot of games and pitched for a ton of years at a high level" and then ignore his ERA+ because you say it's penalizing him for not retiring when it started to slip.

i think you're misunderstanding my point. i have no problem with either of the things you said.

No, I understand your point, I just don't think it's very logical. His career ERA+ is obviously hurt by his longevity. If you're comparing him to, say, a guy that pitched 10 years from 24-34, then that's an apples to oranges comparison. Why isn't it a valid point to say that he had great apples and oranges?

[molson]

Originally Posted by ThunderingHERD

No, I understand your point, I just don't think it's very logical. His career ERA+ is obviously hurt by his longevity. If you're comparing him to, say, a guy that pitched 10 years from 24-34, then that's an apples to oranges comparison. Why isn't it a valid point to say that he had great apples and oranges?

If you want to take what Maddux was from 24-34 to make your point that's fair, but it's not fair to take what he was from 24-34, and then only the stuff after 34 that supports your argument.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

If you want to take what Maddux was from 24-34 to make your point that's fair, but it's not fair to take what he was from 24-34, and then only the stuff after 34 that supports your argument.

exactly. if you want to judge him on only part of his career then you can't cherry-pick and say "i only want to include his dominance over this 10 years but i want to include all of his wins from his whole career."

that's why on my list i was comparing him to other pitchers who pitched either 15+ years or 20+ years (when I made the "top 5" sublists of the larger list). Those are his peers, in every sense of the word.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ThunderingHERD

No, I understand your point, I just don't think it's very logical. His career ERA+ is obviously hurt by his longevity. If you're comparing him to, say, a guy that pitched 10 years from 24-34, then that's an apples to oranges comparison. Why isn't it a valid point to say that he had great apples and oranges?

i'm not. i'm comparing him to other guys who pitched either 15+ years, or if you want to be more extreme, 20+ years.

[ThunderingHERD]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i'm not. i'm comparing him to other guys who pitched either 15+ years, or if you want to be more extreme, 20+ years.

It was just an example, I haven't even looked at the specifics. I'm just saying how is it not valid to say: "Well this guys 15 year prime stacks up to this guys 15 year career like this, but this guy also played 5 more years and did this." How is the the "also" not relevant at all to a discussion of the player's career?

[DeToxRox]

I just see this as Boston fans using Maddux durability against him. It's not his fault Pedro was hurt the last few years. It's like people who think Gail Sayers is one of the best RB ever. Well, he played what, 6 seasons? Yet guys like Sanders, Smith, etc played for 10 + years at an insanely high level because they could stay healthy. Don't hold it against a player because he can be durable and still pitch well, as compared to a guy who can't.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

I just see this as Boston fans using Maddux durability against him. It's not his fault Pedro was hurt the last few years. It's like people who think Gail Sayers is one of the best RB ever. Well, he played what, 6 seasons? Yet guys like Sanders, Smith, etc played for 10 + years at an insanely high level because they could stay healthy. Don't hold it against a player because he can be durable and still pitch well, as compared to a guy who can't.

huh?

[DaddyTorgo]

i have no issues with Maddux. I'm just saying - you have to define better what criteria you are using when you use superlatives. do you want to compare his prime-period (if so define a # of years). Do you want to compare his whole career? Do you want to combine the two? What do you want?

[ThunderingHERD]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i have no issues with Maddux. I'm just saying - you have to define better what criteria you are using when you use superlatives. do you want to compare his prime-period (if so define a # of years). Do you want to compare his whole career? Do you want to combine the two? What do you want?

More like you were attempting to define the criteria as either prime or career and denying the validity of combining the two in any way. As for what is the best measure: who knows? I guess that's where the subjectivity comes in.

[DaddyTorgo]

no, i think you can combine the two.

i'm just saying you can't cherry pick and say "i want the ERA+ of his prime but the win total of his entire career"

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

I just see this as Boston fans using Maddux durability against him. It's not his fault Pedro was hurt the last few years. It's like people who think Gail Sayers is one of the best RB ever. Well, he played what, 6 seasons? Yet guys like Sanders, Smith, etc played for 10 + years at an insanely high level because they could stay healthy. Don't hold it against a player because he can be durable and still pitch well, as compared to a guy who can't.

Number of seasons with 33+ starts:

Maddux - 19 (might have been 21 without the strike)
Martinez - 3 (might have been 5 without the strike)

Martinez was great, he'll be a first-ballot HOFer, but his fragility does hurt him in my eyes. I'd still put him in my all-time top ten but behind Maddux for sure.

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i have no issues with Maddux. I'm just saying - you have to define better what criteria you are using when you use superlatives. do you want to compare his prime-period (if so define a # of years). Do you want to compare his whole career? Do you want to combine the two? What do you want?

Both a player's peak and their overall career are factors for me.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

I just see this as Boston fans using Maddux durability against him. It's not his fault Pedro was hurt the last few years. It's like people who think Gail Sayers is one of the best RB ever. Well, he played what, 6 seasons? Yet guys like Sanders, Smith, etc played for 10 + years at an insanely high level because they could stay healthy. Don't hold it against a player because he can be durable and still pitch well, as compared to a guy who can't.

Actually no, I totally think it's Smotlz' fault that Pedro was injured.