All you said is that you never said The Redsox had good chemistry you also said The Yanks did have good chemistry and I proved both those to be lies, and when I called you out you called me a liar.

 

BTW why have you not responded to the two bets, What don't you have enough faith in Gordon and your Yanks?

Your exact quote:You yourself said their chemistry doesn't mix which is why they haven't matched their success so what know that it comes to the east and The Red Sox, you suddenly don't want to mention this, Sheff is only going to hurt a team that has the chemistry of water and oil.

I said the 2003 red sox had good chemistry, but I said the 2004 yankees will have better chemistry than the 2004 red sox because of the offseason the red sox had. I said this in the other topic, you are obviously illiterate.

 

I responded to the bets. I'll bet you the Yanks will win the decision, how much do you want to make it?

Note: I responded to this last night and the post was lost via net going down. Oh well, so here's my half assed response:

 

Here's your link Soriano, so I'd appreciate if you take back all you childish name calling...

I called you a liar (which is not a name.) Its not like I called you a douche bag. Follow your own link, see my response.

 

Now onto your issue of THe Closer's importance, just like The Yankees THe Phils did have two great set up men, Pleasac and Cormier all who had great 03 seasons but the closers failures led to their ultimate downfall. Set up men are important but they do not finish the game which is the most important part, The Red sox biggest falter was not their set up but towards the end of the games is where they blew it...

Yeah, but the Red Sox bridge to Foulke is far more inadequate than the best bullpen in baseball (according to some other than me), the yankees. You need a bridge and a closer. We have a better bridge and closer than the red sox, so your point is irrelevant. In relative worth, a very good pitcher (quantrill) and a good pitcher (gordon) or more important than one very good pitcher (foulke.) Of course, you never respond to statistical analysis of Quantrill (because he's damn good and had a better season than foulke other than saves), because you don't want to admit the yankees have better quality pitching, which in essence makes your whole argument totally useless. The Phillies lacked a closer and they failed to move a good reliver to that spot. Blame bowa.

 

I also proposed that bet to prove a point, you yourself do not have enough faith in Gordons' arm but I'll accept your Red Sox bet, The Foulke/Gordon bet stands and I'll take your bet the loser has his avatar controlled for four months after the break...

And you don't get the point. I was merely suggesting that Gordon isn't as injury riddled and Foulke isn't as injury free as you believe. I guarentee you Quantrill will avoid injury more likely than Foulke, do you want to take that bet?

By the way, what are we wagering on the Yanks finishing first and the sox second?

 

Now onto Vasquez, your posting exceptions why did you fail to mention all the players who have yet or never did recap their great early year? Vasquez produced his best year on one of his worst years in terms of teams, the next two years when Montreal was semi competitive his numbers were not as good mainly in win totals? So what Vasquez best performs under no pressure? If that's the case what is New York going to do?

Thank god you are not some sort of assistant general manager or something. You arbitrarily decide that because Vazquez had one good season when he was 26 yet to be topped (though he had more Ks and a better era in 2003, so its debatable whether which season is his career year, I go with 2003.) So I respond with a crap load of players that fitted your definition as past their prime at a young age and you REMAIN speechless. That's because you are wrong. We really don't know what can happen to Vazquez next year. He's young and full and talent, he might pitch the best season of his career, he might have a 130 era+, we just don't know, but the SAD PART IS THAT YOU PRETEND YOU DO KNOW, and judging from your argument being proven wrong by the careers of the following, you still don't get it:

1989 Barry Bonds (age 24) .777 ops. Do I even have to mention all the MVPs he won since then?

1997 Sammy Sosa (age 28) .780 ops. The next year he hit 66 homers.

2002 Javy Lopez (age 31) .670 ops. The next year he broke Hundley's catcher's single season homer record.

1993 Roger Clemens (age 30) 4.46 era (won 3 cy young awards afterwards)

1993 Curt Schilling (age 26) 4.02 era (had only 1 year with an above 3.81 era since)

1990 Tom Glavine (age 24) 4.28 era (would win 2 cy youngs afterwards)

1994 John Smoltz (age 27) 4.14 era (won 1996 cy young award, now one of the top 3 closers in the game)

1994 Kevin Brown (age 29) 4.82 era (has been in the top 6 of cy young votes 4 times since then, and has had superb 96, 97, 98, 99, 2000, and 2003 seasons.)

Furthermore, you say that Vazquez's inability to have better than a 13-12 record on a better Expos team proves he can't handle pressure. That is preposterous. CURT SCHILLING (NOW A RED SOX) ON A BETTER THAN .500 TEAM WENT 8-9, so according to YOUR argument, neither can he handle pressure. Kevin Brown went 14-9 on the second worst offensive team in baseball, so by your logic, he is SEVERAL times better than schilling. Your argument has totally failed BECAUSE ITS PREMISES ARE WRONG, IT LACKS LOGIC, IT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

 

If you at least don't feel stupid, you have a head like a rock. :lol , Cry all you want... You said I NEVER called The Red Sox a team with good chemistry, I belives that qualifies for a lie, therefore your word means nothing....

 

What are you talking about when you say A Very good Set up man and an above average one are more important that A Great Closer? Tell me something if this is the case why have Owner not picked up on this and paid these Set up men which their worth? For one very good reason, You say I ignore facts what about you ignoring the fact that last year your Division Rival all had at that time a pen full of Good Setup men and their job was to carry the whole bullpen without a closer, what happned they all exploded, everyone of them except Mike Timlin so what are you going to tell me that was just a fluke and that all those pitchers who never had problems before(mainly Mendoza and Williamson) all of a sudden went bad or could it have been I don't know.... The Closers role is more important and Set up men. The Red Sox now have a good set up man in Timlin and if Mendoza and Williamson show that a different point in the game means something, what then?

 

Now back to my Phillies argument, what does it matter if they were not closers, Cormier and Pleasac were still doing extreamly well so what? If set up are that important as you say why didn't they prevent all those losses. Oh I know why, The Set up man's whole job is to protect a lead not insure it! Therefore A Closer has a lot more importance than A Set up man... Case in point, WOuld you really take Quantrill over Mariano if you had to choose, both have extreamly low era's as you pointed out. So what's the difference? Oh yeah Rivera performs at a much bigger part of the game.

 

Also onto our bet stop chaning the subject, YOU said Gordon was just as healthy as Foulke therefore he should have no problem back it up, If I'm taking your bet your taking mine I already said that. Stop keeping yourself on the fence and actually defend your word instead of just changing it. I'm taking your Red Sox/Yankees bet on who wins THe Division but let's see if you really agree with your word and take mine.

 

Answer me this... How many players never came back from their peak seasons despite being young? THe comparison points in my favor but yet you just start naming names who some were not that young, Hell 2 were even in their 30's. Get back to me on this because I would really like to know how many players do have their best season when their super young and are never able to match it.

 

Vasquez - Best win total and for the most part best statistical season came on a season where his team were still The Old Expo's. His win total goes down along with a few other statistical regions when his team competes! What does that tell you? I don't need to say it but how is he going to do with a team which puts more pressure on their players than anyone, oh you also forgot to mention that he failed his physical...

 

Then you say that The Diamondbacks were not a pressure team? Um The Diamondbacks made the playoffs two of the past three seasons, while The Red Sox did it once. The Diamondbacks won a WS against the team Curt's new team could not beat. What about that does that fail logic or are you just trying to make me laugh by saying I lack logic then you go and say that?

 

Curt also by the way had a little health problem while Javier had plenty of time to a lot more but came up flat. The Expo's and The DBacks were not that far off in Records either so it's not like one had more support than the other and seeing that you like to point out someone missing facts...

 

You forgot to mention Brown's health record... We all know, he'll hold up :rollseyes

>

 

 

Today's Mariano did better than 98 Mariano...

 

Hitters:

Martinez < Giambi

Knoblauch < Soriano

Brosius > no one (Houston)

Curtis < Matsui (though he isn't that good)

Williams 98 > Lofton

O'Neill < Sheffield

Davis < Bernie "Can't run to save his life" Williams

Girardi < Posada

Jeter 98 > Jeter

 

2004 > 1998

 

Rotations:

2004

Mussina

Brown

Vazquez

Contreras

Lieber

 

1998

Cone

Wells

Irabu

Hernandez/Mendoza

Pettitte

 

2004 > 1998

 

bullpen

2004

Qunatrill

Heredia

White

Gordon

Karsay

Rivera

 

1998

Lloyd

Nelson

Stanton

Mendoza

Rivera

Holmes

Banks

 

2004 > 1998

 

bench: Don't know much, but our bench is nothing to behold, I'll give the edge to 1998

 

This team is more talented and will put up much better statistics. But hey, they don't have the chemistry and of course, they did not win the world series yet. But this team is more talented. Does that matter? No, because October is what matters the most and at times the most talented team does not win, like 2003.

Nice post on his behalf in terms of comparison but mentioning the biggest problem...

Chemistry

:lol

Oh, what a big man you are. Hey, let me buy you a pack of gum, I'll show you how to chew it.

 

The sad part is that you TRULY think by putting a "lol" smiley, you somehow appear smarter. It doesn't work.

 

Cry all you want... You said I NEVER called The Red Sox a team with good chemistry, I belives that qualifies for a lie, therefore your word means nothing....

 

"I Never"? I thought you were talking about me. I can be quoted several times talking about how the way the red sox offseason is going to hurt their chemistry for next year. I love your argument, "You're dead wrong, even though you prove me wrong with every point, just because I misunderstood the context of something you said."

 

Real genius.

 

What are you talking about when you say? A Very good Set up man and an above average one are more important that A Great Closer?

Who would you rather have, Guillermo Mota or Keith Foulke? 96 Mariano Rivera or 97 Mariano Rivera? Being a closer doesn't magically make you better, Billy Beane has proved it time and again. Put a GOOD reliver in the closer role and he can rack up saves upon saves with all of their imaginary importance. Think about it, Foulke has 11 saves in 2002 and then 43 in 2003. You still don't get it do you?

 

And yet you can't disprove the point. The Red Sox bullpen is void of a good lefty and is overall inferior to the yankees, making the closer thing a non issue.

 

For one very good reason, You say I ignore facts what about you ignoring the fact that last year your Division Rival all had at that time a pen full of Good Setup men and their job was to carry the whole bullpen without a closer, what happned they all exploded, everyone of them except Mike Timlin so what are you going to tell me that was just a fluke and that all those pitchers who never had problems before(mainly Mendoza and Williamson) all of a sudden went bad or could it have been I don't know....

Red Sox "Great Bullpen of 2003"...that's laughable

Reliever Era with Red Sox

Chad Fox 4.50

Brandon Lyon 4.12

Ramiro Mendoza 6.75

Bronson Arroyo 2.18

Scott Williamson 6.20

Alan Embree 4.25

Byung Kim 3.18

Mike Timlin 3.55

Scott Saurbeck 6.48

 

The Red Sox didn't have good middle relief OR closer last year, and they won't have good middle relief in 2004.

 

Oh my god, I'm shaking in my space boots. Keith Foulke does not fix the Red Sox bullpen's lefty problem. The Red Sox have only ONE lefty in their ENTIRE pitching staff...a man who had a 4.25 era in the regular season. Keith Foulke does not fix the fact that there is no good bridge between him and the starter (assuming Mike Timlin will be the ONLY serviceable reliever on the Sox during the regular season.)

 

So dude, YOU'RE whole point is WRONG.

The Closers role is more important and Set up men. The Red Sox now have a good set up man in Timlin and if Mendoza and Williamson show that a different point in the game means something, what then?

Mendoza was never that good, and Williamson should be good, but that's not guarenteed. In my honest opinion the red sox have only 3 good to great bullpen arms. The Yankees have Heredia, Quantrill, Gordon, Rivera, White, and Karsay. White WILL come back like Williamson. That's 3 to 6. No comparison.

 

Now back to my Phillies argument, what does it matter if they were not closers, Cormier and Pleasac were still doing extreamly well so what? If set up are that important as you say why didn't they prevent all those losses.

Don't blame me for Bowa not using one of his good relievers as a closer. Put any good reliever in the closer role and he will be fine.

 

Case in point, WOuld you really take Quantrill over Mariano if you had to choose, both have extreamly low era's as you pointed out. So what's the difference? Oh yeah Rivera performs at a much bigger part of the game.

Yeah, and Rivera has a LOWER ERA than Quantrill, and a better K/BB too. Also, when you go to the postseason as much as the Yanks, its nice to have the best postseason pitcher in history on your side.

 

Your point is therefore a non-point.

 

___

Concerning your gordon-foulke bet, I already told you that I was merely making a point. Let's see if you aren't too chicken shi* to bet redsox yanks.

 

Answer me this... How many players never came back from their peak seasons despite being young? THe comparison points in my favor but yet you just start naming names who some were not that young, Hell 2 were even in their 30's. Get back to me on this because I would really like to know how many players do have their best season when their super young and are never able to match it.

Almost EVERY great player has had a down year early in their career. I'm not going to sift through every player in history.

A short list of players with "down years" early in their careers, and better yet, in their 20s.

Sandy Koufax

Nolan Ryan

Phil Nierko

Steve Carlton

 

So no, your comparison DOES not point in your favor. In fact, Vazquez 2003 wasn't a down year. His 2002 was better than league average. His 2001 is debatably WORSE than his 2003.

 

What does that mean? You don't know your butt from your elbow when it comes to baseball.

 

Vasquez - Best win total and for the most part best statistical season came on a season where his team were still The Old Expo's. His win total goes down along with a few other statistical regions when his team competes! What does that tell you? I don't need to say it but how is he going to do with a team which puts more pressure on their players than anyone, oh you also forgot to mention that he failed his physical...

What does that tell you that Josh Beckett and Curt Schilling didn't do so great when their teams won well. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THEY ARE NOT RELATED. A PITCHER HAS NO CONTROL OVER RANDOM WIN FACTORS. How about Barry Zito, who went 13 and 12 a year after winning the Cy young? He was on a play off team and had a 3.30 era. Face it, you are so wrong it is not funny.

 

Curt also by the way had a little health problem while Javier had plenty of time to a lot more but came up flat. The Expo's and The DBacks were not that far off in Records either so it's not like one had more support than the other and seeing that you like to point out someone missing facts...

Yet Schilling's sub 3 era couldn't have a positive winning percentage. Damn it, win loss does not reveal skill. Mike Mussina has never won 20 in his career, are you dumb enough to say he lacks skill? Give me a break.

 

You forgot to mention Brown's health record... We all know, he'll hold up :rollseyes

Oh, the roll eyes, you must be smart if you post with the roll eyes smiley wow!

 

You forgot to mention that Curt Schilling has had 4 injury years in his career and that HE MISSED MORE TIME than kevin brown LAST YEAR.

 

 

So put up or shut up.

Nice post on his behalf in terms of comparison but mentioning the biggest problem...

Chemistry

Look's like the functional illiterate of the board forgot to read this concerning chemsitry:

How about our superior rivals.

- Poor defense as well

- No left handed starter

- Explosive situation in the clubhouse with lovable personalities like Ramirez and Martinez, and now Millar and Nomar up to eachothers throats. They won't have any ceremonial gang bangs and head shavings now.

- The only farm system worst than the Yankees. Their best prospect (Youkilis) is almost 26.

Nice Job analyzing my smilies, I fail to see how that has to do with anything about The Yankees and Red Sox.

 

First all you call me illiterate.

 

Boy Wonder, If you read my Red Sox pen, you have known it dealt with going into last season, they put in a set of proven(at that time) set up men to fill The Closers role and what happened? Tell me what happened instead of changing the subject... Set up men can not match A Closers importance, it was proven in Boston last year but instead you go on and on with new facts, you are simply scrambling for new issues because you can not stick with the main point...

 

Set up men in no way by any means have as much affect as closers and by the way to your Billy Beane reference, Billy used Koch for some time, he was a closer for Toronto and btw he gave up Hinske for him so THAT is flawed.

 

Also when did I say that The Entire Red Sox Bullpen was better than The Yankee's, can you read? I know Maddox(BTW I don't need to hear about you emailing some people) is posting a new article today but pay attention, I never said their pen was better I said The Addition of a dominant closer in Foulke is way more important than a Great Set up man and a guy who's arm is falling off.

 

Also when you call me Chicken s***, you better back it up because I already took your bet but now your squirming away from mine because unless your a man of your word you said Foulke's arm was not any better, so why not stick by that?

 

You just said it yourself, You won't say THe Players who never came back from early seasons but instead tried putting up more great names but failed to mention, The Simple fact that very few players come back from early success and now you change the subject yet again saying that 2003 was his best year when you never brought that up before. If it's true why wasn't it brought up earlier, BS all you want but you know that Vasquez had his best year in 01.

 

Now back to my Vasquez and under pressure factor that you seemed to ignore, You said that Curt would be under more pressure in Boston, I responded and you shut up about it. How is there more pressure in Boston, when Curt's been to one more playoffs with ARI than Boston and also was THe WS MVP, Are you saying A WS MVP is not good on pressure.

 

And then I said Curt was injured for 2003 but you obviously don't agree so you brought up Josh Beckett, I hate to inform you but Josh Beckett was injured in 03 as well which means he didn't have the time to add on to his W/L record and the fact that he came on late and in the postseason has a lot to do with his record, so don't sit there and tell me that Josh Beckett W/L total is comparable to Vasquez who had a lot more time to improve instead squandered in W/L.

 

Suprise Suprise, you post another oblique exception(Mulder)? Tell me something Soriano, I'll ask you again for more facts... How many players with close to 500 record or below are actually Front Line pitchers? To say that a 13 - 12 record is above average just because Mulders' were around there for a year means nothing, look at some of the all stars from last year or look past Cy Young winners, what's the percentage of those with 500 records to those with at least 5 games above 500. I'm sure their very close *Warning Soriano, Here's a failed attempt at a smily so I can make myself look smarter, look away* :rollseyes

 

What's this about Mussina and never posting 20 wins? We were not talking about Vasquez's failure to post 20 wins were talking about his trouble to just barely go above 500.

 

Wins loss are a factor of skill and a players ability to perform, not all of it but one of the biggest but tell me something Soriano,

 

Is Javier Vasquez coming to new york to post a low era and have a 500 record or to win and win often?

 

Answer me that and then tell me his W/L record means nothing.

 

Also instead of posting all your little insults why not just start talking Baseball so I don't have to worry about reading...

 

Dumb

Dumb as an Elbow

Dumb as a Right Elbow

Dumb as a Right elbow with a little knub on it...

 

The list goes on and on but it's all the same just you trying to bring yourself up because you know Wins mean more than anything in Baseball but you don't want to give in.

Nice Job analyzing my smilies, I fail to see how that has to do with anything about The Yankees and Red Sox.

First all you call me illiterate.

Functional illiterate. Educated people know there's a difference. I was mere'ly saying you lack fundamental reading skills necessary for understanding of text.

 

Boy Wonder, If you read my Red Sox pen, you have known it dealt with going into last season, they put in a set of proven(at that time) set up men to fill The Closers role and what happened? Tell me what happened instead of changing the subject... Set up men can not match A Closers importance, it was proven in Boston last year but instead you go on and on with new facts, you are simply scrambling for new issues because you can not stick with the main point...

Yeah, I'll tell you what happened. The hired a bunch of releivers with about a 4 or up career era and expected them to pitch well all of the sudden. That was pretty funny.

 

Meanwhile, the oakland As trade their "proven" closer Koch for a middle reliever, by the name of KEITH FOULKE. Foulke went on to have 43 saves. Now middle reliever Arthur Rhodes is the closer. Let us see what happens.

 

Set up men in no way by any means have as much affect as closers and by the way to your Billy Beane reference, Billy used Koch for some time, he was a closer for Toronto and btw he gave up Hinske for him so THAT is flawed.

And he got Foulke for Koch, what's your point? Foulke wasn't a closer in 2002. Isringhausen wasn't a closer until the As got him. Get the point, a good middle reliever can pile up loads of saves AND LOOK GOOD, but his ACTUAL ability is just the same.

 

Also when did I say that The Entire Red Sox Bullpen was better than The Yankee's, can you read? I know Maddox(BTW I don't need to hear about you emailing some people) is posting a new article today but pay attention, I never said their pen was better I said The Addition of a dominant closer in Foulke is way more important than a Great Set up man and a guy who's arm is falling off.

You said: "You say I ignore facts what about you ignoring the fact that last year your Division Rival all had at that time a pen full of Good Setup men..."

The fact is that THEY were not good.

 

And no, Foulke is not better than Quantrill and Gordon.

 

And what does maddox have to do with anything? Am I like him? That must mean I am a talented writer, so thank you. LEt me call you someone famous who you are much like...uh...anna nicole smith. Your IQ is right around there. So how do you like it?

 

Also when you call me Chicken s***, you better back it up because I already took your bet but now your squirming away from mine because unless your a man of your word you said Foulke's arm was not any better, so why not stick by that?

The functional illiterate strikes again. I said "are you too chicken s*it" in the context of "are you too scared." A critically literate person would understand that.

 

And I'm not squirming away from anything. I already explained to you whaty I meant, don't take it out on me that you have comprehension problems.

 

You just said it yourself, You won't say THe Players who never came back from early seasons but instead tried putting up more great names but failed to mention, The Simple fact that very few players come back from early success and now you change the subject yet again saying that 2003 was his best year when you never brought that up before. If it's true why wasn't it brought up earlier, BS all you want but you know that Vasquez had his best year in 01.

Dude, shut up, you just don't get it. There is no GUARENTEED MATHEMATICAL correlation between having a down year and whether one recovers or not. It cannot be discerned. Some people "peak" like Mark Wohlers or John Rocker because they get hit with injury, others like Jose Lima get found out. Others, like Javy Vazquez are full of talent, have no injury, and then become much better later. Are you going to tell me that you can statistically prove it one way or another? That's impossible and what you are asserting is simply not true because it is TRULY impossible to discern unless you are God.

 

Now back to my Vasquez and under pressure factor that you seemed to ignore, You said that Curt would be under more pressure in Boston, I responded and you shut up about it. How is there more pressure in Boston, when Curt's been to one more playoffs with ARI than Boston and also was THe WS MVP, Are you saying A WS MVP is not good on pressure.

I never said Curt would have more pressure. Please bring that quote up, because I don't remember saying it.

 

Schilling pitched for a team that was equivalently good as the Expos. He had a worse winning %. There, your argument either dooms Curt Schilling or it is totally wrong. I choose the ladder, don't you?

 

By the way, down the stretch run Javier Vazquez had a 2.39 era. So is that not handling pressure? Please.

 

And then I said Curt was injured for 2003 but you obviously don't agree so you brought up Josh Beckett, I hate to inform you but Josh Beckett was injured in 03 as well which means he didn't have the time to add on to his W/L record and the fact that he came on late and in the postseason has a lot to do with his record, so don't sit there and tell me that Josh Beckett W/L total is comparable to Vasquez who had a lot more time to improve instead squandered in W/L.

W/L has nothing to do with it for christ sake. Beckett and Schilling had good ERAs. I don't care if they were pitching with their feet, they didn't give up too many runs a game. Nevertheless, their TEAM'S OFFENSES didn't score the necessary runs to win. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PITCHER (RUN SUPPORT), IT IS OUT OF HIS HANDS.

 

Suprise Suprise, you post another oblique exception(Mulder)? Tell me something Soriano, I'll ask you again for more facts... How many players with close to 500 record or below are actually Front Line pitchers? To say that a 13 - 12 record is above average just because Mulders' were around there for a year means nothing, look at some of the all stars from last year or look past Cy Young winners, what's the percentage of those with 500 records to those with at least 5 games above 500. I'm sure their very close *Warning Soriano, Here's a failed attempt at a smily so I can make myself look smarter, look away* :rollseyes

The functional illiterate just doesn't stop. ZITO had a 13-12 record after pitching well (good era) and the year after winning 23 games! So, he lost the MAGICAL ability to win? No, Oakland's offense didn't score runs, this is out of the pitcher's hands.

Cy young award winners aren't the guys who should always win them. Hudson desrved it over Halliday. Mussina over Clemens in 2001. The list goes on, the VOTERS like 20 games winners, this has nothing to do with WHO's the better pitcher.

 

Cy Young once went 26-21 (a winning percentage of 55%, Vazquez and Zito had winning %s of 52% in 2003), despite pitching 39% better than league average. By your logic, that proves Cy young didn't have "the ability" to win 500 games. Cy young would continue to win 405 games afterwards.

 

What's this about Mussina and never posting 20 wins? We were not talking about Vasquez's failure to post 20 wins were talking about his trouble to just barely go above 500.

The point you don't get is that wins are a result of a TEAM EFFORT and that the pitcher can only do so much. The pitcher cannot control his ability to go "barely over .500" any more than Cy Young was. That's up to the offense and defense of the team.

 

 

Wins loss are a factor of skill and a players ability to perform, not all of it but one of the biggest but tell me something Soriano, Is Javier Vasquez coming to new york to post a low era and have a 500 record or to win and win often?

You still don't get it. Low era is all that counts. Winning is mostly variable. Theo Epstein said "damn curt schilling had less than a 3 era last year, with our offense he's going to be a 20 game winner", not "he went 8-9, forget him."

 

Vazquez will win games in NY if he pitches well. His W-L with montreal is irrelevant.

 

 

The list goes on and on but it's all the same just you trying to bring yourself up because you know Wins mean more than anything in Baseball but you don't want to give in.

WINS ARE WHAT'S MOST IMPORTANT.

 

How does one win a game? By giving up as few runs while scoring as many as possible. So when one looks at pitching, W-L is irrelevant, as long as he gives up little runs, that's what a team needs-THE CHANCE TO WIN.

 

Dude, you can have Andy Pettitte, I would take Curt Schilling, Javy Vazquez, Barry Zito, Josh Beckett, and Kevin Brown over him any day. Who cares if Andy won over 20 games, his ERA is not as good.

 

End of story.

I don't understand reading skills, what because I don't agree with what's coming out of your mouth? My test scores say something different but that's fine with me. I'll let you continue with the name calling...

 

So what Mike Timlin and his 3.56 Career ERA is a bad number? Williamson who had an era hovering around 2 and 3 before entering Boston when put into a closers role he couldn't come up... Was Williamson a bad pitcher?

Was BK Kim a bad pitcher? No, he was the only true closer they had but they tried using him as a starter originally so I'll leave that out.

Mendoza went from a season with a 3.44 ERA to Last Year in Boston(nothing even needs to be said about it), his ERA shot up from just one season and yet you say he's not that good?

 

Also put down Moneyball for a second and build your own arguement for a second, but if you want to use a moneyball example fine... Isringhausen had a +4 ERA before the season he became a full fleged closer, what makes this any different when you openly slam The Red SOx for attempting the same thing? When you look for a good relief pitcher it's a game of chance because few always have those padded down 2 or lower ERA's therefore you have to bring in a few relief pitchers to find one that works out because it is hard finding that diamond in the rough.

 

The inability of The Red Sox's staff last year to find a lights out closer is just further fact that Set up man are not as important as closers unless you do find that rare one that can do both because as in the case of Isringhausen it was just luck of the draw that he produced after a below average season.

 

THen as you continue to say that Gordon and Quantrill are better, considering that after their ERA's are averaged it comes out to 2.46, now when both of them were called upon to help out at the end of games(Which they probably will at some point) they had 12 saves with 9 BS.

 

Add that to a full season of Arroyo and that ousts Gordon and Quantrill, The Yankees still have an overall bullpen but from The RedSox improved at a better rate to The Yanks.

 

Again with the childish name calling?

 

Is that what you do whenever you have nothing to say in responce "It's not my fault, My writing skills are better and you can't comprehend what I'm saying"

 

I know what you said, you tried telling me Foulke's arm is not as good as I think and that Gordon is not that bad but when I offered a bet, you ducked because you know Foulke is healthier and I still accept your bet

 

Ok what is this about you trying to prove Vasquez can win when it matters because he had a great ERA down the stretch? Correct me if I'm wrong but at the end The Expo's were not in The WC Chase and obviously not The Division, so where's the pressure in that? Shill on the other hand has handled pressure before and will again and this time he has a full season to improve his W/L total something he did not have the luxury to do when injured while Vasquez did and oh btw...

 

Did The Expo's offense decide to not play when Vasquez was pitching because Livan had no problem posting a 66% winning percentage with the same team and a higher ERA?

 

Who cares if someone won 20 games, tell me this again... What decides who wins the division? The reason teams go after players is to win, their are teams where some pitchers have lower ERA's and and still can not match the win totals of their team mates?

 

What is it then? Their are players that are winners and losers, some are able to ignite something when their on the mound and it shows up in THE W/L count when ERA says something different.

 

I await your next batch of insults

I don't understand reading skills, what because I don't agree with what's coming out of your mouth? My test scores say something different but that's fine with me. I'll let you continue with the name calling...

I don't care what a test says. If you lack necessary reading comprehension I'm going to call you out on it. Its not name calling, just pay attention to what's written and try not to misunderstand it instead of getting all pissed off and pointing fingers.

 

So what Mike Timlin and his 3.56 Career ERA is a bad number? Williamson who had an era hovering around 2 and 3 before entering Boston when put into a closers role he couldn't come up... Was Williamson a bad pitcher?

Was BK Kim a bad pitcher? No, he was the only true closer they had but they tried using him as a starter originally so I'll leave that out.

Mendoza went from a season with a 3.44 ERA to Last Year in Boston(nothing even needs to be said about it), his ERA shot up from just one season and yet you say he's not that good?

I said Timlin was a good pitcher. Niether Williamson or Kim started the season on the team. However Mendoza was never really what one could call a "good pitcher". He does well in the post season, but so does sterling hitchcock. Brandon Lyon has a career 4.99 era. Fox didn't look extremely promising after 2002. Alan Embree had a career 4.41 era, and though his 2002 was good, his career has been inconsistent. Timlin was the truly only stable bullpen arm of the "closer by committee" idea, and that's why it failed.

 

Also put down Moneyball for a second and build your own arguement for a second, but if you want to use a moneyball example fine... Isringhausen had a +4 ERA before the season he became a full fleged closer, what makes this any different when you openly slam The Red SOx for attempting the same thing? When you look for a good relief pitcher it's a game of chance because few always have those padded down 2 or lower ERA's therefore you have to bring in a few relief pitchers to find one that works out because it is hard finding that diamond in the rough.

Nice attempt at trying to make ti look like I don't devise my own arguments. My copy of moneyball is 300 miles away right now, all I have is baseballreference.com and my own noggin. Most relief pitchers aren't that great because if they were, they would be starters. Most closers aren't special because they compile saves, they are special because they a fairly consistent relievers. Chad bradford could be a good closer. Isringhausen was a starter with good stuff, but he was too two dimensional and his stamina went down. With his stuff and ability to be a good reliever (check out his 99 stats with oakland) he fit the closer role.

So do I slam the Sox for doing the same thing? Oakland was poor and they had a poor bullpen (besides Doug Jones really.) Why you are poor and you see a guy who is underrated because he's not good enough to be a starter but can make a perfect reliever, you have to do it. Look at Octovio Dotel and Eric Gagne. However, the Red Sox bought guys on the market that were really all not that good, and by not signing a closer had a lot to lose. Boston is a rich team. Unless the bought GOOD bullpen arms, they cannot afford to gamble like a poor team without looking stupid.

 

The inability of The Red Sox's staff last year to find a lights out closer is just further fact that Set up man are not as important as closers unless you do find that rare one that can do both because as in the case of Isringhausen it was just luck of the draw that he produced after a below average season.

Again, none of their bullpen was the caliber of a closer. If Timilin had a less than 2 era, he probably would of became the closer. In fact, the anti-clutch Kim himself did pretty good in relief and was an adequate closer in a sense (you just didn't want him pitching important games...) But again, this proves it was not Kim's innate "closing" ability that made him closer caliber, but rather his pitching ability. A closer is just a name for a good middle releiver used in the 9th innings. Very few (VERY) are much more than that and a lot of very good middle relievers can be good closers.

 

THen as you continue to say that Gordon and Quantrill are better, considering that after their ERA's are averaged it comes out to 2.46, now when both of them were called upon to help out at the end of games(Which they probably will at some point) they had 12 saves with 9 BS.

I heard that Gordon had the second best average for not letting inherited runners score. Saves and blown saves really don't measure a thing. You are talking about two middle relivers. Quantrill could of been put on with a runner on third, because MRs (unlike closers) are put in those situations all the time. So he would acquire BS. However, you make Quantrill the closer of some other team, his great pitching ability would make him look like a REAL solid closer. Your 12 saves 9 bS argument is ridiculous, because it is not measuring factors that are truly related.

 

 

I already told you. The Yankees had rivera, they just need a really good bridge. That makes Quantrill and Gordon very worth while. The Red Sox lack an adequate bridge (when compared to the Yankees. And of course all of this is on paper.) So Foulke alone is not as sueful when middle relief blows the game before it gets to you. A truly great bullpen needs both.

 

Add that to a full season of Arroyo and that ousts Gordon and Quantrill, The Yankees still have an overall bullpen but from The RedSox improved at a better rate to The Yanks.

Arroyo did good in about 17 innings, but the rest of his career sucks. Will he do good? Maybe, but it is definitely not some sort of guarentee. Gabe White can return to low 2 era form. That's a huge upgrade as well.

 

Ok what is this about you trying to prove Vasquez can win when it matters because he had a great ERA down the stretch? Correct me if I'm wrong but at the end The Expo's were not in The WC Chase and obviously not The Division, so where's the pressure in that? Shill on the other hand has handled pressure before and will again and this time he has a full season to improve his W/L total something he did not have the luxury to do when injured while Vasquez did and oh btw...

1. The Expos were only a couple games back for wildcard.

2. It really doesn't matter to begin with, because the truth is overall Vazquez is a good pitcher. "pitching when it counts" is just icing on the cake, because exactly when does it truly count.

3. Schilling pitched 170 innings. HE had the ability to win 14 games or certainly not lose 9 games. His era reveals that his injuries did not plague is actual pitching. This only proves MY POINT, pitching ability cannot be assessed by W-L%. Would you take Andy PEttitte over Curt Schilling? Andy pitched WITH A HURT ANKLE yet he won 21 games. His era was way worse, so hell no. Schilling's era is all that matters.

 

You assertion, that W-L% is the best way to evaluate ability is totally absurd. In a single season, it is a aberration. If a pitcher has a good era his whole career, he'll rack up a butt load of wins. Its pretty simple, but YOU DON'T GET IT. I reiterate, is josh beckett bad? No, his era is good.

 

Did The Expo's offense decide to not play when Vasquez was pitching because Livan had no problem posting a 66% winning percentage with the same team and a higher ERA?

Run support is VARIABLE. Did oakland decide not to score runs for Zito, but to score more for Ted Lilly? This is absurd. Its random, variable, run support is not EXACTLY the same EVERY game. Jeez.

 

Who cares if someone won 20 games, tell me this again... What decides who wins the division? The reason teams go after players is to win, their are teams where some pitchers have lower ERA's and and still can not match the win totals of their team mates?

What? I will lay it out simply. The team that scores the most runs and gives up the least will most likely win, or at the very least have the best record in the long haul. That's why TEAMS go after pitchers who don't give up a lot of runs and hitters that produce a lot. To get a pitcher with a bad era just because he won 20 games for an absurd price is stupid.

 

What is it then? Their are players that are winners and losers, some are able to ignite something when their on the mound and it shows up in THE W/L count when ERA says something different.

No, baseball is not INDIVIDUAL. BASEBALL IS NOT A HOMERUN DERBY. A team participates towards a win or loss. If a team scores run for their pitcher and he doesn't give up a lot, the TEAM wins. You are being really ignorant if you think individual win totals (which reveal a team's ability more than a pitcher) reveal individual ability IN A TEAM SPORT.

 

 

I await your next batch of insults

I said you were a functional illiterate because you refuse to read things properly in order to devise poor arguments.

 

I think Homer Simpson said it best, "If you're going to get mad every time I do something stupid, then I guess I will have to stop doing stupid things."

 

I would think the majority of people here would believe era is more important that W-L total. And popularity is not the reason ERA is more important, it is because its a baseball fact. I'm not going to teach you the god damn game for you. Realize not giving up runs is the measure of a pitchers ability. Wins and Losses are of a TEAM's effort.

On the basis of turning starters into The Closers, In theory The Red Sox did try that and prevailed somewhat in BK Kim who is a true starter but was used as a closer in Arizona which got him that reputation.

 

But again I point at the fact that you mentioned Starters... Timlin and Mendoza(Mendoza even came through as a closer in 02 when Rivera was done) both were coming off good years but couldn't get it done over a period of extended time as a closer. Mendoza is a good relief pitcher when he's on the only problem is he's streaky, if he comes back this year as a durable relief pitcher which he can be, along with Williamson posting numbers like he did in Cincy, plus continued success not only as a set up man and LR from Arroyo, they won't be AS good as The Yankees in The Set up men department but they will be competive, so right now The Red Sox are relying on a lot of great seasons from their current staff but then it goes back to The Yanks.

 

Paul Quantrill did amazing last year, I'm not going to try to debate and had above average stuff in the 3 years following that but Quantrill improving or even keeping an ERA under 2 is IMO not going to happen, he'll be good but it's going to be extreamly tough to match, I may be wrong but if he goes post somethere around in The Mid 2.50's, The Yankees pen are still better but The Gap between the two is not as big in terms of set up men, sure The Sox are still lacking but if Williamson comes through like he should and Timlin remains the same, The Red Sox have a bride that although not close can still be spoke about in the same breath.

 

To your question about Pettite and Shill, I would take Schill more so for Sentimental Reasons(The guys such a nice guy if you ever meet him and he was my Phils hero) but Pettite is not big drop off from Schill IMO because his ERA is not super high plus he does have that winners appeal but it's not a fair arguement considering Schill is only a full season removed from a 23 game season so Curt has won big in the past with a low era,

 

Tell me something, You could either have 02 Schilling or 03 Vasquez on The Yankees, do not take into effect age, it's just for that season.

Do you take the guy with 23 wins and 3.23 ERA or 13 wins with 3.22 ERA

 

The ERA are identical but so what's the biggest factor now wins,

 

I'll give you another situation if Curt's era is .20 points higher but The Wins are the same who do you take?

 

Also I didn't think you'd take my Expo offense comment seriously, I'm sure you have heard of Hyperbole before...

 

Back to the whole win situation, no matter what people say sure if an ERA is vastly off(say 3 to 5 or 6 in comparisons but wins are different you'll take the one with the lower ERA but when were talking about Stud pitchers which we were (Schill and Vasquez)

 

Wins is the biggest variable in choosing who you want because at the top level, ERA's are so close it's almost menial but when you get to The Record, it makes things a lot more clear. Unless your omparing A Yankee pitcher with a low era to A Detroit Pitcher with a low ERA, The Win total is the biggest factor.

Well, the vote in the other thread is in, ERA wins.

 

If you judge talent entirely by W-L I can;t debate with you, because that is simply absurd.

 

Furthermore, W-L is too variable for two guys from different teams. You cannot make such an assessment.

 

So do you want to bet on the Red Sox and Yankees are not?

So your walking away and taking your toys home with you? Such a shame

 

And btw The Illiterate accepted your bet a few posts ago, I guess you misread that and of if were going by who everyone picks The Red Sox win.

Well, the vote in the other thread is in, ERA wins.

 

If you judge talent entirely by W-L I can;t debate with you, because that is simply absurd.

 

Furthermore, W-L is too variable for two guys from different teams. You cannot make such an assessment.

 

So do you want to bet on the Red Sox and Yankees are not?

WHat are you talking about, Yet you call me illterate?

 

Did you read the last post, we were talking about Curt Schilling and Javier Vasquez, when did I say it's the lone factor?

 

Curt Schilling in his last full season: 23 wins with an era just .01 higher

 

While Vasquez in 03 had a win total way below.

 

So who had the better season than, raise Schill's era .20 points, who had the better season than? It's still Schill because one extra run every 5 games means little compared to win total.

 

If you don't want to debate that don't complain, because your the one walking away.

So your walking away and taking your toys home with you? Such a shame

 

And btw The Illiterate accepted your bet a few posts ago, I guess you misread that and of if were going by who everyone picks The Red Sox win.

Dude, you ar enot illiterate, you just need to improve your comprehension skills so you don't misread things and get angry.

 

Nevertheless a few posts ago I asked what are we betting.

 

So I ask again, what are we betting? Money? Avatar? Something else? Baseball game tickets?

WHat are you talking about, Yet you call me illterate?

 

Did you read the last post, we were talking about Curt Schilling and Javier Vasquez, when did I say it's the lone factor?

 

Dude, if you choose to ignore my numerous examples on how a bad win loss % doesn't necessarily mean the end of one's career, then no, I'm not going to read more irrelevant points.

 

You see, you cannot say you know how Vazquez with a 3.22 era would of done with the D Backs or Schilling with the Expos. You just don't know, because winning is such a variable factor and you STILL don't understand.

 

 

I'm not walking away from anything. I can only reiterate the same point and prove you wrong so many times. Your are clinging onto the beleif that somehow you can make brash assumptions concerning how Curt Schilling did with one team with an nearly idential era compared to vazquez (and this does not concern ballpark effects, team offenses, and individual game factors like just plain luck.)

 

The career of many a pitcher has fit YOUR PROFILE of a win loss peak, only to then hit a win loss slump, and then magically recover, like Cy young, Phil Nierko, Tom Glavine, John Smoltz, Kevin Brown, and most IMPORTANTLY your favorite example CURT SCHILLING. Furthermore, you assume that Curt's injuries affected his W-L. So I ask YOU this, how did it affect his W-L substantially, but not his ERA? Does this mean ERA has nothing to do with injury?

I'll answer your question because you won't get the point. When not injured, Curt was pitching fine, thus the low era. However, his team and other GAME conditions prevented him from winning as many games as he should. So his 8-9 record does not reflect his true ability, but his era does.

 

So stop beating the Curt Schilling dead horse, because he alone proves your entire W-L peak of career theory and W-L evaluating skill theory out the window. It is quite hypocritical that you keep bringing him up. Now excuse me, I have to get back to work.

And as someone stated in the poll, and ERA isn't a team stat? A teams Defensive Capabilities, Age, Speed of the team behind you all play into what an ERA does, Is that wrong? Yet you tell me my whole point is flawed because it's team variable when ERA just like W/L has a portion of it's results based on the team.

 

Then again, When an ERA is so close in star pitchers(1 run every 5 games does not make a pitcher vastly better than one with an era .20 points lower.) but Wins, Walks, WHIP all play into effect of a pitchers importance(Strikeouts vary on A Pitchers game plan) all of which Vasquez has dropped since his 2001 season but I guess because he gave one less run every 5 games, that makes his season better.

 

BTW, I said before, Avatar Control is up for three months based on The Standings of The AL East this year...

 

Red Sox win The Division... I control your avatar

If The Yanks, take the division... You Control my avatar

If by miracle anyone else wins the division, The Bet is offset as The Poll Question is who would win The AL East.

And as someone stated in the poll, and ERA isn't a team stat? A teams Defensive Capabilities, Age, Speed of the team behind you all play into what an ERA does, Is that wrong? Yet you tell me my whole point is flawed because it's team variable when ERA just like W/L has a portion of it's results based on the team.

It was correctly pointed out that ERA is mroe reliant on the pitcher, far more so than W-L.

 

BTW, I said before, Avatar Control is up for three months based on The Standings of The AL East this year...

 

Red Sox win The Division... I control your avatar

If The Yanks, take the division... You Control my avatar

If by miracle anyone else wins the division, The Bet is offset as The Poll Question is who would win The AL East.

You're on. Giddy up.

The Blue Jays and O's combined having less votes than the Devil Rays is sad. Don't get me wrong, I like the D-Rays. But that's just a little too much optimism there.

It can happen...