 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » The Orioles subject
thatrogue
May 11, 2009 at 07:34PM View BBCode
Tom's comments here have been innocuous. I'm just having a little fun at his (and the Orioles) expense.Originally posted by barterer2002My hope is that every game won in May helps insulate the team agains wins choked away in September...
But you've got to love the Mets, the champions of May
barterer2002
Just like the past two years of course.
May 11, 2009 at 07:38PM View BBCode
Originally posted by thatrogue
Tom's comments here have been innocuous. I'm just having a little fun at his (and the Orioles) expense.Originally posted by barterer2002My hope is that every game won in May helps insulate the team agains wins choked away in September...
But you've got to love the Mets, the champions of May
Just like the past two years of course.
thatrogue
May 11, 2009 at 07:41PM View BBCode
Clearly they need a bigger lead this season. Perhaps they can clinch in August, and not worry about how many they lose in September...
Jughead
The Oakland A's drafted four pitchers in the first round and referred to them at the time as "the four aces." It didn't really work out: Todd Van Poppel, Joe Slusarski, Kirk Dressendorfer and David (?) Zancanaro. This is my favorite trivia question that nobody gets, BTW.
May 12, 2009 at 06:39PM View BBCode
To bring the #1 starter/ace thing full circle, were the four 20-game winners in one season the Orioles had that one year in the '70s an indication that they had four aces?The Oakland A's drafted four pitchers in the first round and referred to them at the time as "the four aces." It didn't really work out: Todd Van Poppel, Joe Slusarski, Kirk Dressendorfer and David (?) Zancanaro. This is my favorite trivia question that nobody gets, BTW.
happy
and when is wieters going to be promoted? I wanna go to his first game.
May 12, 2009 at 07:09PM View BBCode
I wish the orioles had gotten sabathia...and texiera... still.and when is wieters going to be promoted? I wanna go to his first game.
barterer2002
Clearly not. Historically speaking there are many teams with multiple 20 game winners and while the 71 A's were filled with good pitchers it is also clear that Palmer was the ace. They may be an abberration historically speaking to have 4 20 game winners however, even in 1971 they weren't the only team to have multiple 20 game winners (Detroit had 2)
I also have to question if its any more impressive than the 1998 Braves who had 5 pitchers post at least 16 wins each (and nobody is confusing Denny Neagle with an ace)
20 is a relatively arbitrary number that we use because its easy but 20 wins doesn't mean the same thing now that it did in 1971 nor did it mean the same thing in 1971 that it did in 1921 or 1880.
I know, I know, too many lecture points here-I need more time.
May 12, 2009 at 07:15PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Jughead
To bring the #1 starter/ace thing full circle, were the four 20-game winners in one season the Orioles had that one year in the '70s an indication that they had four aces?
Clearly not. Historically speaking there are many teams with multiple 20 game winners and while the 71 A's were filled with good pitchers it is also clear that Palmer was the ace. They may be an abberration historically speaking to have 4 20 game winners however, even in 1971 they weren't the only team to have multiple 20 game winners (Detroit had 2)
I also have to question if its any more impressive than the 1998 Braves who had 5 pitchers post at least 16 wins each (and nobody is confusing Denny Neagle with an ace)
20 is a relatively arbitrary number that we use because its easy but 20 wins doesn't mean the same thing now that it did in 1971 nor did it mean the same thing in 1971 that it did in 1921 or 1880.
I know, I know, too many lecture points here-I need more time.
FuriousGiorge
May 12, 2009 at 07:17PM View BBCode
(But a team can have more than one ace. At the height of the Braves recent dynasty, they had 3, which is just insane.)
barterer2002
May 12, 2009 at 07:22PM View BBCode
I wasn't implying that they couldn't have multiple aces (although I would question the characterization of Smoltz as an ace during most of the 90s-1996 excluded), I was rather trying to say that wins are not the indication of an ace.
FuriousGiorge
May 12, 2009 at 07:25PM View BBCode
Like you just said in one sentence instead of however many you used up there.
barterer2002
May 12, 2009 at 07:34PM View BBCode
Yeah, I had too many points I was trying to address at once. I knew that too
Jughead
May 12, 2009 at 07:34PM View BBCode
Instead of trying to find an example, I suppose I would have been better off saying a team can have more than one ace, but it can't have more than one starter, because one term is objective and the other isn't.
shep1582
The A's had Catfish, Vida Blue, Ken Holtzman, and Blue Moon Odem. Hunter being the only one who was a true ace for more than 1 season.
Wilbur Wood and Stan Bahnsen each won 20 the next season for the White Sox. Neither was an ace, although Wood was for several years there...
Can you be an "ace" for 1-2 years? I guess so. We think of aces as guys who do it for a number of years, however.
20 game winners tend to play for good teams, 20 game losers, for bad ones.
The greatest staff of all time is the 90's Braves.
How did the 60's-70's Cubs not win more games? Jenkins, Holtzman, Pappas, Bill Hands... then they came up with Hooton and Reuschel... no wonder Cubs fans wring their hands...
May 12, 2009 at 07:45PM View BBCode
the O's had one ace, 2 #2's (they were terrific #2's, borderline ones) and a journeyman having his best season ever.The A's had Catfish, Vida Blue, Ken Holtzman, and Blue Moon Odem. Hunter being the only one who was a true ace for more than 1 season.
Wilbur Wood and Stan Bahnsen each won 20 the next season for the White Sox. Neither was an ace, although Wood was for several years there...
Can you be an "ace" for 1-2 years? I guess so. We think of aces as guys who do it for a number of years, however.
20 game winners tend to play for good teams, 20 game losers, for bad ones.
The greatest staff of all time is the 90's Braves.
How did the 60's-70's Cubs not win more games? Jenkins, Holtzman, Pappas, Bill Hands... then they came up with Hooton and Reuschel... no wonder Cubs fans wring their hands...
tm4559
May 12, 2009 at 08:04PM View BBCode
those guys (quellar, mcnally, dobson and palmer) all sucked. too many walks. look it up.
tm4559
that was, of course, before the dh. and american league pitchers knew how to get to the bottom of the lineup. those guys were good at it (and the team was very good at the double play. they could not double up clemente in the series though, because he was always on second). flanagan really was quite awesome.
[Edited on 5-12-2009 by tm4559]
May 12, 2009 at 08:28PM View BBCode
the question isn't how many walks, its who gets walked.that was, of course, before the dh. and american league pitchers knew how to get to the bottom of the lineup. those guys were good at it (and the team was very good at the double play. they could not double up clemente in the series though, because he was always on second). flanagan really was quite awesome.
[Edited on 5-12-2009 by tm4559]
FuriousGiorge
May 12, 2009 at 08:33PM View BBCode
You're pulling censored out of your ass like you're doing a Thomas Friedman impersonation.
tm4559
(the orioles were good at the double play. i never really heard anyone say they weren't. and that is a requirement of most double plays. a runner on first. those guys weren't strikeout pitchers. they had a great year, for sure.)
May 12, 2009 at 08:36PM View BBCode
relax. i watched the games.(the orioles were good at the double play. i never really heard anyone say they weren't. and that is a requirement of most double plays. a runner on first. those guys weren't strikeout pitchers. they had a great year, for sure.)
FuriousGiorge
May 12, 2009 at 08:45PM View BBCode
Yes, they were good at the double play. That doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the pitchers. This whole thing is very strange. If you have two pitchers, one who sets down the side one-two-three, and the other who gets the first guy out, walks the second and then gets the third to hit into a double play, who would you pick? Because the results are the same, but I'm pretty sure most people would pick the first. You're saying, those are the same because the results are the same, but that's not how it works.
tm4559
man, don baylor. wow.
May 12, 2009 at 08:51PM View BBCode
of course the strikeout pitchers are better, we had this discussion. maybe they (the pitchers) were lucky. dobson was kind of crazy good that season though. palmer, by the way nolan ryan has been evaluated, was kind of disaster, with 106 walks and 184 strikeouts.man, don baylor. wow.
shep1582
even boog
belanger/brooks may well be the best left side defense ever
Cuellar was a good pitcher when he was disappointing tm (curt blefary??? curse you, oriole fan!)
McNally is still the last pitcher to hit a grand slam in the series
Palmer is the best pitcher in the history of the Oriholes.
Dobson actually pitched better the next season, but tm's constant booing after every walk unnerved him and he went 16-18...
May 12, 2009 at 08:56PM View BBCode
that was one excellent defensive teameven boog
belanger/brooks may well be the best left side defense ever
Cuellar was a good pitcher when he was disappointing tm (curt blefary??? curse you, oriole fan!)
McNally is still the last pitcher to hit a grand slam in the series
Palmer is the best pitcher in the history of the Oriholes.
Dobson actually pitched better the next season, but tm's constant booing after every walk unnerved him and he went 16-18...
FuriousGiorge
May 12, 2009 at 08:58PM View BBCode
You're deconstructing the anti-Ryan argument down to absurdities. It's not just that he walked a lot of guys. It's that his win-loss record kind of sucked. That he never won a Cy Young Award. That his career ERA was good but not great. Palmer doesn't have any of those problems. He also doesn't have those eye-popping strikeout totals that more or less singlehandedly created Ryan's reputation. Any objective observer with an ounce of common sense would conclude that Palmer was better, but a casual sports fan, or a non-fan, probably thinks Ryan was not only better, but a lot better.
tm4559
(i guess the no hitters helped with ryan's rep too, and the rather awesome feats when he was older. i don't think he was the greatest pitcher that ever lived or anything.)
May 12, 2009 at 09:06PM View BBCode
i like palmer. he got folks out, he played for a good team. what is not to like? a better pitcher than ryan.(i guess the no hitters helped with ryan's rep too, and the rather awesome feats when he was older. i don't think he was the greatest pitcher that ever lived or anything.)
FuriousGiorge
May 12, 2009 at 09:08PM View BBCode
(Also, punching the censored out of Robin Ventura, so that Tyler doesn't have to come in here and remind us about it.)
whiskybear
May 12, 2009 at 09:19PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
Did I ever tell you guys about how Nolan Ryan was my favorite pitcher when I was growing up, and all because of that time he punched the censored out of Robin Ventura?