And the yankee lovers continue to insist, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that Rivera is somehow night and day better than every other closer.
<< <i>And the yankee lovers continue to insist, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that Rivera is somehow night and day better than every other closer. >>
Every other closer would NEVER pitch like Rivera has for 11 seasons in a row. The Gagne's come and go in a flash. Hoffman is the ONLY closer to pitch this length of time and be so effective. That is why we have this thread Axtell ya big dummy. Come on, you are no challenge anymore ....
Actually, you DOPE, Hoffman's been in the league 13 years (more than Rivera!), and has been shutting down opposing batters since his second year.
Why don't you grow up you clown? Rivera's a great closer, but to smoke so much crack as to say he's night and day better just shows what an idiot you are.
listen Ax, Rivera has pitched 11 years. Hoffman 13. Now, becuase you are the board idiot I will be S L O W this time so you can catch up.
Trevor Hoffman is the ONLY other closer besides Rivera to have this kind effectivness and longevity. How in the world you twisted that one into something other than me putting Hoffman up with Rivera is beyond me. Also, Hoffman began pitching 5 years BEFORE you even started watching baseball. He might as well be Walter Johnson to you.
<< <i>And the yankee lovers continue to insist, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that Rivera is somehow night and day better than every other closer. >>
It is not just "yankee lovers" who recognize that Rivera is the best closer in the game, actually the best "closer" ever. At least since Reggie left (that was before you were born, but you can look it up), I haven't rooted for any Yankees.
Now, since nobody said he was "night and day better than every other closer", and there can be no such thing as "overwhelming evidence to the contrary" against a purely subjective statement anyway, there is no response to the rest of your post. You have the passion, that's for sure, but you should speak to a counselor or teacher at your school about learning how to frame an argument correctly; maybe a debate class would help. You don't want to still sound like you're in junior high even when you've grown up, do you?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>It is not just "yankee lovers" who recognize that Rivera is the best closer in the game, actually the best "closer" ever. At least since Reggie left (that was before you were born, but you can look it up), I haven't rooted for any Yankees. >>
So because you root for him, everyone best closer ever? Come on now, talk about biased. Not everyone agrees he's the best ever, and most people point to his postseason record as the reason and justification for such a claim. But the point remains: if he isn't fortunate enough to find himself in so many postseason appearances, would your view of his accomplishments change? I maintain that it would be an overwhelming 'yes'.
<< <i>Now, since nobody said he was "night and day better than every other closer", and there can be no such thing as "overwhelming evidence to the contrary" against a purely subjective statement anyway, there is no response to the rest of your post. You have the passion, that's for sure, but you should speak to a counselor or teacher at your school about learning how to frame an argument correctly; maybe a debate class would help. You don't want to still sound like you're in junior high even when you've grown up, do you? >>
Gammons indeed said he was the 'poster boy' of this era. And just becuase YOU don't agree with my approach, in no way means I should 'speak to a counselor'. Nice attempt at a slight there, skippy.
I would suggest YOU seek therapy - you continue to engage me in debates, while at the time insulting me, my style, and disagreeing with every minute point I make. Why would you continue to do that, unless you were in need of counseling?
Funny Ax, it sounds you are talking about yourself and not Softparade there.
And if Rivera is not the best closer ever, then who? Rivera's career isnt even close to being over. Barring a career ending injury, there is little doubt he will have the most career saves and the best career ERA for a closer. If Hoffman breaks Lee's record, Mariano will certainly surpass him.
Even if he didnt continue to the all-time leader on the saves list, he WILL be remembered of the greatest closer of all time.
So, if Rivera isnt the greatest closer of all time, then who? Guardardo?
And no matter who Rivera played with...lets say a WEST coast team...Oakland...and Rivera was in the same amount of Playoff games, World Series Games, World Series rings, and everything else he has accomplished in his career, we would be saying the same thing about him now without the arguement of him being a Yankee.
<< <i>It is not just "yankee lovers" who recognize that Rivera is the best closer in the game, actually the best "closer" ever. At least since Reggie left (that was before you were born, but you can look it up), I haven't rooted for any Yankees. >>
So because you root for him, everyone best closer ever? Come on now, talk about biased. Not everyone agrees he's the best ever, and most people point to his postseason record as the reason and justification for such a claim. But the point remains: if he isn't fortunate enough to find himself in so many postseason appearances, would your view of his accomplishments change? I maintain that it would be an overwhelming 'yes'.
<< <i>Now, since nobody said he was "night and day better than every other closer", and there can be no such thing as "overwhelming evidence to the contrary" against a purely subjective statement anyway, there is no response to the rest of your post. You have the passion, that's for sure, but you should speak to a counselor or teacher at your school about learning how to frame an argument correctly; maybe a debate class would help. You don't want to still sound like you're in junior high even when you've grown up, do you? >>
Gammons indeed said he was the 'poster boy' of this era. And just becuase YOU don't agree with my approach, in no way means I should 'speak to a counselor'. Nice attempt at a slight there, skippy.
I would suggest YOU seek therapy - you continue to engage me in debates, while at the time insulting me, my style, and disagreeing with every minute point I make. Why would you continue to do that, unless you were in need of counseling? >>
The purpose of my post was just to point out that I am not a "Yankee lover" - and that I don't root for Rivera. Your response begins "So because you root for him.."; since even my limited faith in humanity does not permit me to believe that any person could possibly BE that stupid, you will have to tell me sometime why you would post something that makes you LOOK so stupid. Then you go on about his postseason record, which I have never mentioned except in regard to the degree that I think it should be ignored when comparing him to a pitcher who has no postseason record. Again, you can not actually be that stupid, but I'll figure out your angle eventually.
And I stand by my recommendation that you speak to a counselor or teacher (I meant guidance-type counselor, not the psychiatric kind - I thought that was obvious). Not because you need "help", but because you seem to really enjoy arguing your points, you just don't have the slightest notion how to go about doing it. And this post points that out in spades. First lesson - you need to start quoting what other people say if you are going to refute them. Refuting an argument that nobody ever made is beyond pointless, it's a complete waste of time, but it seems to be all you ever do.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>And the yankee lovers continue to insist, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that Rivera is somehow night and day better than every other closer. >>
It is not just "yankee lovers" who recognize that Rivera is the best closer in the game, actually the best "closer" ever. At least since Reggie left (that was before you were born, but you can look it up), I haven't rooted for any Yankees.
Now, since nobody said he was "night and day better than every other closer", and there can be no such thing as "overwhelming evidence to the contrary" against a purely subjective statement anyway, there is no response to the rest of your post. You have the passion, that's for sure, but you should speak to a counselor or teacher at your school about learning how to frame an argument correctly; maybe a debate class would help. You don't want to still sound like you're in junior high even when you've grown up, do you? >>
Rivera is probably the best closer of all time. I can't think of anyone else who I would put up against him. However, as an aside, I think Dennis Eckersely may have had the best stretch of a career that any reliever ever had when he was pitching for the A's from 1989-1992. This is really data mining, so I'm not saying that Eck's career was as good as Rivera's, but my God-- he was absolutely dominating in that stretch, and I think I would take Eck in his prime over Rivera in his.
dallas, lets make a couple things clear. In Axtell's warped mind NO Yankee is EVER allowed to be talked about in a positive light. To him every Yankee that ever walked the face of the Earth is over hyped and is on the receiving end of the "East Coast bias" in the media.. No difference between Matt Nokes and Joe Dimaggio. Axtell shows ZERO passion for teams he professes to "follow" and degrades real fans of teams for showing such passion.
Hey Boo, you are absolutley correct on Eck. He was a freak being a very good starter the first part of his career and then obviously his second career as a closer.
I may get caught up in the high school garbage that Axtell wallows in but I show real PASSION for the team I follow all the while staying away from the "Yankee koolaide" that these clowns seem to think Yankee fans drink because they actually follow their team instead of just having a hollow avatar next to the name and claiming to be a fan.
<< <i>dallas, lets make a couple things clear. In Axtell's warped mind NO Yankee is EVER allowed to be talked about in a positive light. To him every Yankee that ever walked the face of the Earth is over hyped and is on the receiving end of the "East Coast bias" in the media.. No difference between Matt Nokes and Joe Dimaggio. Axtell shows ZERO passion for teams he professes to "follow" amd degrades real fans of teams for showing such passion.
Hey Boo, you are absolutley correct on Eck. He was a freak being a very good starter the first part of his career and then obviously his second career as a closer.
I may get caught up in the high school garbage that Axtell wallows in but I show real PASSION for the team I follow all the while staying away from the "Yankee koolaide" that these clowns seem to think Yankee fans drink becuase they actually follow their team instead of just having a hollow avatar next to the name and claiming to be a fan. >>
I don't root for the Yankees. In fact, I think it's fun to watch them lose. I don't like George Steinbrenner, and besides that it reaffirms my faith in the unexpected every time a team with a payroll of 200 million goes South before late October. That being said, I don't see why people get so bunged up about the Yankees. If you want to call a team overrated and overhyped then DON'T call out the team with 26 or whatever World Titles. They are, from a historical perspective, the most dominating franchise in MLB and they play in one of our planet's media capitals. Most of the ink that's spilled over the Yankees is spilled for a reason.
If you want to hate NY teams then hate the Rangers (who've done nothing since the 1940's, with the exception of 1994) and the Knicks (see Rangers, although they had a fine stretch in the 1970's). I'm sick of seeing Mark Messier humping the Stanley Cup, and I'm very, very tired of hearing ESPN's talking heads agonizing over Stephon Marbury and Larry Brown. NY's mediocre teams get more national press then, say, the Bay Area's mediocre teams, and in a sense I guess this isn't fair. But it's important, I think, to recognize and accept the fact that the New York Yankees are not one of the Big Apples mediocre teams.
<< <i>dallas, lets make a couple things clear. In Axtell's warped mind NO Yankee is EVER allowed to be talked about in a positive light. To him every Yankee that ever walked the face of the Earth is over hyped and is on the receiving end of the "East Coast bias" in the media.. No difference between Matt Nokes and Joe Dimaggio. Axtell shows ZERO passion for teams he professes to "follow" and degrades real fans of teams for showing such passion. >>
When have I every said that no yankee is every allowed to be talked about in a positive light? I simply crush the impression that just because someone wore pinstripes, they are the best ever. You NYites are so flooded with media hysteria about the tiniest of things, that you can't see outside your own shadows. I've said it repeatedly. Rivera is a great pitcher. But the best of his era? Best of all time? Hmm...that's a stretch. Throw out his postseason appearances, and he'd be seen as a good pitcher, without all the NY hype.
<< <i>I may get caught up in the high school garbage that Axtell wallows in but I show real PASSION for the team I follow all the while staying away from the "Yankee koolaide" that these clowns seem to think Yankee fans drink because they actually follow their team instead of just having a hollow avatar next to the name and claiming to be a fan. >>
Hmm the real passion you show for the Nets, who you never mentioned until they won 10 straight? SURE.
Here is the Best Pitchers Thread that I mentioned earlier. And Axtell stayed away, so it never degenerated at all - a great thread.
Eckersley's 1990 season was just ridiculous. Before the closer role existed as it does now, John Hiller in 1973, Dick Radatz in 1963 and Hoyt Wilhelm in 1954 were pretty dominating, too. I've always been very impressed with Mike Marshall's 1973-1974 seasons, as well - almost 400 innings in almost 200 games.
Skinpinch mentioned Hoyt Wilhelm as the best reliever ever. I think the most compelling reason to agree with that is 1959 - Wilhelm had been a great relief pitcher 7 years, Baltimore needed him in the starting rotation, he started 27 games and led the league in ERA and then went back to the bullpen for 13 more years. Today's relievers would probably break if they tried to start for an entire season.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
From a pure control and dominance perspective Eckersley's 89-90 seasons would be virtually impossible to match.
He walked 7 men, struck out 128 and gave up 7 homeruns. Utter dominance.
Voros McCraken did a study and what it showed was that other than getting strikeouts and allowing homeruns, there is little that a pitcher can do to cause his hits allowed to be higher or lower. It proved that if a pitcher's hits allowed are higher or lower than expected , taking into account his strikeouts, this reflects not skill, but pitching in good or bad luck. Again, it is very very rare for a pitcher to have two unlucky seasons in a row. The fact that Hoffman has allowed 39 more homeruns than Rivera is a significant number and acounts for the difference in their era's. I doubt this number will even up over time as it is not random.
Comments
<< <i>And the yankee lovers continue to insist, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that Rivera is somehow night and day better than every other closer. >>
Every other closer would NEVER pitch like Rivera has for 11 seasons in a row. The Gagne's come and go in a flash. Hoffman is the ONLY closer to pitch this length of time and be so effective. That is why we have this thread Axtell ya big dummy. Come on, you are no challenge anymore ....
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Actually, you DOPE, Hoffman's been in the league 13 years (more than Rivera!), and has been shutting down opposing batters since his second year.
Why don't you grow up you clown? Rivera's a great closer, but to smoke so much crack as to say he's night and day better just shows what an idiot you are.
Trevor Hoffman is the ONLY other closer besides Rivera to have this kind effectivness and longevity. How in the world you twisted that one into something other than me putting Hoffman up with Rivera is beyond me. Also, Hoffman began pitching 5 years BEFORE you even started watching baseball. He might as well be Walter Johnson to you.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>What would you say about Billy Wagner? >>
Good point there, he is another great closer. I hate it when you snag me
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>And the yankee lovers continue to insist, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that Rivera is somehow night and day better than every other closer. >>
It is not just "yankee lovers" who recognize that Rivera is the best closer in the game, actually the best "closer" ever. At least since Reggie left (that was before you were born, but you can look it up), I haven't rooted for any Yankees.
Now, since nobody said he was "night and day better than every other closer", and there can be no such thing as "overwhelming evidence to the contrary" against a purely subjective statement anyway, there is no response to the rest of your post. You have the passion, that's for sure, but you should speak to a counselor or teacher at your school about learning how to frame an argument correctly; maybe a debate class would help. You don't want to still sound like you're in junior high even when you've grown up, do you?
<< <i>It is not just "yankee lovers" who recognize that Rivera is the best closer in the game, actually the best "closer" ever. At least since Reggie left (that was before you were born, but you can look it up), I haven't rooted for any Yankees.
>>
So because you root for him, everyone best closer ever? Come on now, talk about biased. Not everyone agrees he's the best ever, and most people point to his postseason record as the reason and justification for such a claim. But the point remains: if he isn't fortunate enough to find himself in so many postseason appearances, would your view of his accomplishments change? I maintain that it would be an overwhelming 'yes'.
<< <i>Now, since nobody said he was "night and day better than every other closer", and there can be no such thing as "overwhelming evidence to the contrary" against a purely subjective statement anyway, there is no response to the rest of your post. You have the passion, that's for sure, but you should speak to a counselor or teacher at your school about learning how to frame an argument correctly; maybe a debate class would help. You don't want to still sound like you're in junior high even when you've grown up, do you? >>
Gammons indeed said he was the 'poster boy' of this era. And just becuase YOU don't agree with my approach, in no way means I should 'speak to a counselor'. Nice attempt at a slight there, skippy.
I would suggest YOU seek therapy - you continue to engage me in debates, while at the time insulting me, my style, and disagreeing with every minute point I make. Why would you continue to do that, unless you were in need of counseling?
And if Rivera is not the best closer ever, then who? Rivera's career isnt even close to being over. Barring a career ending injury, there is little doubt he will have the most career saves and the best career ERA for a closer. If Hoffman breaks Lee's record, Mariano will certainly surpass him.
Even if he didnt continue to the all-time leader on the saves list, he WILL be remembered of the greatest closer of all time.
So, if Rivera isnt the greatest closer of all time, then who? Guardardo?
And no matter who Rivera played with...lets say a WEST coast team...Oakland...and Rivera was in the same amount of Playoff games, World Series Games, World Series rings, and everything else he has accomplished in his career, we would be saying the same thing about him now without the arguement of him being a Yankee.
<< <i>
<< <i>It is not just "yankee lovers" who recognize that Rivera is the best closer in the game, actually the best "closer" ever. At least since Reggie left (that was before you were born, but you can look it up), I haven't rooted for any Yankees.
>>
So because you root for him, everyone best closer ever? Come on now, talk about biased. Not everyone agrees he's the best ever, and most people point to his postseason record as the reason and justification for such a claim. But the point remains: if he isn't fortunate enough to find himself in so many postseason appearances, would your view of his accomplishments change? I maintain that it would be an overwhelming 'yes'.
<< <i>Now, since nobody said he was "night and day better than every other closer", and there can be no such thing as "overwhelming evidence to the contrary" against a purely subjective statement anyway, there is no response to the rest of your post. You have the passion, that's for sure, but you should speak to a counselor or teacher at your school about learning how to frame an argument correctly; maybe a debate class would help. You don't want to still sound like you're in junior high even when you've grown up, do you? >>
Gammons indeed said he was the 'poster boy' of this era. And just becuase YOU don't agree with my approach, in no way means I should 'speak to a counselor'. Nice attempt at a slight there, skippy.
I would suggest YOU seek therapy - you continue to engage me in debates, while at the time insulting me, my style, and disagreeing with every minute point I make. Why would you continue to do that, unless you were in need of counseling? >>
The purpose of my post was just to point out that I am not a "Yankee lover" - and that I don't root for Rivera. Your response begins "So because you root for him.."; since even my limited faith in humanity does not permit me to believe that any person could possibly BE that stupid, you will have to tell me sometime why you would post something that makes you LOOK so stupid. Then you go on about his postseason record, which I have never mentioned except in regard to the degree that I think it should be ignored when comparing him to a pitcher who has no postseason record. Again, you can not actually be that stupid, but I'll figure out your angle eventually.
And I stand by my recommendation that you speak to a counselor or teacher (I meant guidance-type counselor, not the psychiatric kind - I thought that was obvious). Not because you need "help", but because you seem to really enjoy arguing your points, you just don't have the slightest notion how to go about doing it. And this post points that out in spades. First lesson - you need to start quoting what other people say if you are going to refute them. Refuting an argument that nobody ever made is beyond pointless, it's a complete waste of time, but it seems to be all you ever do.
<< <i>
<< <i>And the yankee lovers continue to insist, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that Rivera is somehow night and day better than every other closer. >>
It is not just "yankee lovers" who recognize that Rivera is the best closer in the game, actually the best "closer" ever. At least since Reggie left (that was before you were born, but you can look it up), I haven't rooted for any Yankees.
Now, since nobody said he was "night and day better than every other closer", and there can be no such thing as "overwhelming evidence to the contrary" against a purely subjective statement anyway, there is no response to the rest of your post. You have the passion, that's for sure, but you should speak to a counselor or teacher at your school about learning how to frame an argument correctly; maybe a debate class would help. You don't want to still sound like you're in junior high even when you've grown up, do you? >>
Rivera is probably the best closer of all time. I can't think of anyone else who I would put up against him. However, as an aside, I think Dennis Eckersely may have had the best stretch of a career that any reliever ever had when he was pitching for the A's from 1989-1992. This is really data mining, so I'm not saying that Eck's career was as good as Rivera's, but my God-- he was absolutely dominating in that stretch, and I think I would take Eck in his prime over Rivera in his.
Hey Boo, you are absolutley correct on Eck. He was a freak being a very good starter the first part of his career and then obviously his second career as a closer.
I may get caught up in the high school garbage that Axtell wallows in but I show real PASSION for the team I follow all the while staying away from the "Yankee koolaide" that these clowns seem to think Yankee fans drink because they actually follow their team instead of just having a hollow avatar next to the name and claiming to be a fan.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>dallas, lets make a couple things clear. In Axtell's warped mind NO Yankee is EVER allowed to be talked about in a positive light. To him every Yankee that ever walked the face of the Earth is over hyped and is on the receiving end of the "East Coast bias" in the media.. No difference between Matt Nokes and Joe Dimaggio. Axtell shows ZERO passion for teams he professes to "follow" amd degrades real fans of teams for showing such passion.
Hey Boo, you are absolutley correct on Eck. He was a freak being a very good starter the first part of his career and then obviously his second career as a closer.
I may get caught up in the high school garbage that Axtell wallows in but I show real PASSION for the team I follow all the while staying away from the "Yankee koolaide" that these clowns seem to think Yankee fans drink becuase they actually follow their team instead of just having a hollow avatar next to the name and claiming to be a fan. >>
I don't root for the Yankees. In fact, I think it's fun to watch them lose. I don't like George Steinbrenner, and besides that it reaffirms my faith in the unexpected every time a team with a payroll of 200 million goes South before late October. That being said, I don't see why people get so bunged up about the Yankees. If you want to call a team overrated and overhyped then DON'T call out the team with 26 or whatever World Titles. They are, from a historical perspective, the most dominating franchise in MLB and they play in one of our planet's media capitals. Most of the ink that's spilled over the Yankees is spilled for a reason.
If you want to hate NY teams then hate the Rangers (who've done nothing since the 1940's, with the exception of 1994) and the Knicks (see Rangers, although they had a fine stretch in the 1970's). I'm sick of seeing Mark Messier humping the Stanley Cup, and I'm very, very tired of hearing ESPN's talking heads agonizing over Stephon Marbury and Larry Brown. NY's mediocre teams get more national press then, say, the Bay Area's mediocre teams, and in a sense I guess this isn't fair. But it's important, I think, to recognize and accept the fact that the New York Yankees are not one of the Big Apples mediocre teams.
<< <i>dallas, lets make a couple things clear. In Axtell's warped mind NO Yankee is EVER allowed to be talked about in a positive light. To him every Yankee that ever walked the face of the Earth is over hyped and is on the receiving end of the "East Coast bias" in the media.. No difference between Matt Nokes and Joe Dimaggio. Axtell shows ZERO passion for teams he professes to "follow" and degrades real fans of teams for showing such passion. >>
When have I every said that no yankee is every allowed to be talked about in a positive light? I simply crush the impression that just because someone wore pinstripes, they are the best ever. You NYites are so flooded with media hysteria about the tiniest of things, that you can't see outside your own shadows. I've said it repeatedly. Rivera is a great pitcher. But the best of his era? Best of all time? Hmm...that's a stretch. Throw out his postseason appearances, and he'd be seen as a good pitcher, without all the NY hype.
<< <i>I may get caught up in the high school garbage that Axtell wallows in but I show real PASSION for the team I follow all the while staying away from the "Yankee koolaide" that these clowns seem to think Yankee fans drink because they actually follow their team instead of just having a hollow avatar next to the name and claiming to be a fan. >>
Hmm the real passion you show for the Nets, who you never mentioned until they won 10 straight? SURE.
<< <i>
Hmm the real passion you show for the Nets, who you never mentioned until they won 10 straight? SURE. >>
Noooo, I have talked about them in the past .... you just don't remember because I did not start slapping you around like a ragdoll until last year
Ax, I can scan you my Nets ticket stubs from the early 80's if you want to see them
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Eckersley's 1990 season was just ridiculous. Before the closer role existed as it does now, John Hiller in 1973, Dick Radatz in 1963 and Hoyt Wilhelm in 1954 were pretty dominating, too. I've always been very impressed with Mike Marshall's 1973-1974 seasons, as well - almost 400 innings in almost 200 games.
Skinpinch mentioned Hoyt Wilhelm as the best reliever ever. I think the most compelling reason to agree with that is 1959 - Wilhelm had been a great relief pitcher 7 years, Baltimore needed him in the starting rotation, he started 27 games and led the league in ERA and then went back to the bullpen for 13 more years. Today's relievers would probably break if they tried to start for an entire season.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
He walked 7 men, struck out 128 and gave up 7 homeruns. Utter dominance.
Voros McCraken did a study and what it showed was that other than getting strikeouts and allowing homeruns, there is little that a pitcher can do to cause his hits allowed to be higher or lower. It proved that if a pitcher's hits allowed are higher or lower than expected , taking into account his strikeouts, this reflects not skill, but pitching in good or bad luck. Again, it is very very rare for a pitcher to have two unlucky seasons in a row.
The fact that Hoffman has allowed 39 more homeruns than Rivera is a significant number and acounts for the difference in their era's. I doubt this number will even up over time as it is not random.