Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 95
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Howell, NJ
    Posts
    7,542
    vCash
    1500
    Why don't we compare offenses now

    08' Phillies PSD Hall of Fame Member
    Quote Originally Posted by nymetsrule View Post
    I'm done.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,631
    vCash
    1500
    Hudson 148-78 3.49 era
    halladay 148-76 3.43 era.

    That is pretty closed to me. NOBODY SAY NOTHING ABOUT THOSE NUMBERS.

    CANT I SAY HUDSON AND HALLADAY FOR # 1 STARING PICH ?

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    19,202
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by brave/cuban View Post
    Join Date: Sep 2006
    Posts: 9,646

    Vazquez is a pretty big loss for the Braves. Before they could have thrown out Vazquez, Hudson, Lowe, Hanson & Jurrjens (sp). Now they've taken away Vazquez and effectively given his starts to Kawakami. That's a pretty significant downgrade. You're also putting a ton of faith in Hudson who threw all of 42 innings last year after coming off a significant injury.

    The Phils rotation is better than the Braves. The Phils top 2 (Doc/Hamels) is significantly better than Hudson and a declining Lowe. The Braves back end is stronger with Hanson/Jurrjens over Blanton & Happ. But at this point the Braves rotation is weaker than the Phils.

    YOU GOT ONLY 4 MEN ROTATIONS ? WHAT ABOUT # 5 MOYER-KAWAKAMY
    AND LOWE IS NOT # 2 FOR BRAVES. # 2 IS JURRJENS.
    I didn't bother comparing "Kawakamy" to Moyer because the fifth spot is pretty weak for both sides. Hamels is still better than Jurrjens so the point still stands that the Phils > Braves rotation.

    Quote Originally Posted by hootdog View Post
    Hanson may start the year at the back of the rotation,but i wouldn't be surprised if he's not their ace by end of thge year. Maybe 17to 18 wins
    Regardless of whether or not Hanson turns out to be their best pitcher the Phils still have a better rotation. And I say that as someone who thinks that Hanson is going to end up being their best pitcher performance wise, even if he isn't the true "number one" to start the season.

    Quote Originally Posted by brave/cuban View Post
    Hudson 148-78 3.49 era
    halladay 148-76 3.43 era.

    That is pretty closed to me.
    That probably works if you ignore the fact that Hudson's essentially become a pitch to contact guy whereas Halladay strikes out a batter per inning with better control. Or, you know, the fact that Hudson pitched in the NL West or the NL East, where he faced significantly weaker competition than Halladay. Or that Halladay has 19.8 WAR more than Hudson since 2002.
    Last edited by Twitchy; 12-27-2009 at 12:01 AM. Reason: spelling


    Vic Mackey: You better figure out how much you hate me. And how you're going to deal with that. 'Cause I'm not going anywhere.

    This sums up every sports interview, ever.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Howell, NJ
    Posts
    7,542
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by brave/cuban View Post
    Hudson 148-78 3.49 era
    halladay 148-76 3.43 era.

    That is pretty closed to me. NOBODY SAY NOTHING ABOUT THOSE NUMBERS.

    CANT I SAY HUDSON AND HALLADAY FOR # 1 STARING PICH ?
    Career FIP

    Halladay 3.47
    Hudson 3.79

    Career tRA

    Halladay 3.94
    Hudson 4.44

    Halladay is hands down better and there really is no debating that.

    08' Phillies PSD Hall of Fame Member
    Quote Originally Posted by nymetsrule View Post
    I'm done.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    7,221
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Twitchy View Post
    I didn't bother comparing "Kawakamy" to Moyer because the fifth spot is pretty weak for both sides.
    What? Kawakami is not weak. Man up and say you didn't compare the 5th spots because the Braves' is much better and you didn't feel like it.

    As for Hudson/Halladay debate, it's hard to argue that Hudson is better right now because of how the last few years have gone. As a career though they are quite close. Hudson dominated the AL for 6 years but has simply been very good since coming to the senior circuit. They're relatively close in age (Hudson is 2 years older) and they've both pitched nearly the same amount of innings with Hudson becoming a regular about 2 years earlier in age than Halladay. Their ERAs are pretty close as well, but playing the last 5 years in the AL East is certainly more difficult than the last 5 in the NL East (though not by as much as some people want to believe).

    Using FIP and tRA to judge a career is stupid. Those statistics are made for gauging future results, and the argument against ERA is that its too dependent upon other factors that cause inaccurate fluctuations. We're talking about over 2000 innings of work here though - the sample size means the fluctuations are primarily borne out.

    The worst thing coming out of sabremetrics has been novice fans' idea that it means ERA is useless. ERA gauges exactly what it claims to: the average number of earned runs a pitcher gives up in 9 innings. Since the game is about runs and outs at its most basic level, ERA is very effective for comparing what pitchers have done (but not what they will do, which is why FIP and tRA are helpful).

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    19,202
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flea View Post
    What? Kawakami is not weak. Man up and say you didn't compare the 5th spots because the Braves' is much better and you didn't feel like it.
    His K:BB is an awful 1.84. He's not a particularly strong GB pitcher who pitches to contact and walks too many hitters and doesn't have great velocity. That's not a recipe for success. He didn't even throw 200 innings last year. He averaged 5 2/3 innings pitched per start (I excluded games where he was a RP). That's not good by any stretch of the imagination. Hell, that's not even good enough to get you quality starts. He's a glorified (and overpaid) long reliever at this point.

    So no, I didn't mention him because I felt he was much better. I didn't mention him because I think he's a below average 'starting pitcher' who can't even go the distance in games, either because his manager doesn't have faith in him or he's not talented enough to go the distance. And by distance, I mean 6 innings.

    As for Hudson/Halladay debate, it's hard to argue that Hudson is better right now because of how the last few years have gone.
    It's hard to argue that Hudson is better because of how the last 7 years have gone.

    As a career though they are quite close.
    Wrong.

    Hudson dominated the AL for 6 years but has simply been very good since coming to the senior circuit.
    Hudson was awful in 05/06 due to below average K:BB (1.77 & 1.78 respectively) and solid in 07 before throwing a combined 184 innings between 08-09. His only good year in the NL was 2007.

    They're relatively close in age (Hudson is 2 years older) and they've both pitched nearly the same amount of innings with Hudson becoming a regular about 2 years earlier in age than Halladay. Their ERAs are pretty close as well, but playing the last 5 years in the AL East is certainly more difficult than the last 5 in the NL East (though not by as much as some people want to believe).
    There's generally a 30-40 point difference in the quality of opponents faced between an AL East pitcher and an NL East pitcher. For comparison this year Halladay's typical opponent had a 770 OPS while the next closest NL East pitcher was Jurrjens @ 739 OPS. This is for pitchrs with 200 innings - and I'm sure that you'll find similar differences if you look year by year.

    Using FIP and tRA to judge a career is stupid.
    Because it disproves your point.

    Those statistics are made for gauging future results
    Those stats are used to show how a pitcher pitched based on the things they can control - in the case of FIP, K, BB & HR. While they can't directly control HR's, they have a direct control of K:BB. tra takes other stuff into account as well.

    The point is, if Halladay is striking out more guys, walking less, and keeping the ball on the ground more, than he's giving his team a better shot to win. It's as simple as that.

    and the argument against ERA is that its too dependent upon other factors that cause inaccurate fluctuations. We're talking about over 2000 innings of work here though - the sample size means the fluctuations are primarily borne out.
    Not really. For example, if one player has a particularly poor defense and another has a particularly good one, than even over 2000 innings one pitcher will overachieve and another will under achieve.

    Likewise if one consistently faces the toughest lineups in the game while another pitches in a pitchers park against poor lineups and then jumps into the National League...well, there's going to be a discrepancy.

    The worst thing coming out of sabremetrics has been novice fans' idea that it means ERA is useless.
    You don't need sabremetrics to tell you that ERA is stupid.

    ERA gauges exactly what it claims to: the average number of earned runs a pitcher gives up in 9 innings. Since the game is about runs and outs at its most basic level, ERA is very effective for comparing what pitchers have done (but not what they will do, which is why FIP and tRA are helpful).
    Yes, ERA is a "pretty stat" that tells us how many runs were given up. However, when we're comparing two pitchers we're less concerned with how many runs they've given up and more concerned with who gave their team a better chance to win. Three most important things a pitcher can do is keep the ball on the ground, strike guys out, and not walk batters. Halladay does all 3 significantly better than Hudson.

    But I mean, if you want to go ahead and argue that Kamikami is a good pitcher and that Hudson and Halladay are similar than go right ahead.
    Last edited by Twitchy; 12-27-2009 at 12:59 AM.


    Vic Mackey: You better figure out how much you hate me. And how you're going to deal with that. 'Cause I'm not going anywhere.

    This sums up every sports interview, ever.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Howell, NJ
    Posts
    7,542
    vCash
    1500

    08' Phillies PSD Hall of Fame Member
    Quote Originally Posted by nymetsrule View Post
    I'm done.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pennsylvania, near philly
    Posts
    1,416
    vCash
    1500
    Why is everyone leaving out that, although hudson and halladay's win-loss percentage and ERA are the same, Halladay pitched the AL East his entire career and hudson pitched in the west the majority of his career? Hudson is a damn good pitcher when he's healthy, but there is no debate who is better right now, it's halladay. That being said, unless hamels turns it around next year, the braves 2-5 pitchers are most likely better than the phillies 2-5 pitchers. Hitting wise, that's a different story.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,870
    vCash
    1500
    Itsm funny wehen a teams dfans have to make stupuic catetogirs to rate their teams in


    "weere rthe best tweam in the leafue wth three black guys on our rtrte"

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    69,002
    vCash
    1500
    Wow first people compare Werth and francoer and now its Hamels and Lowe as equals... And now its actually Halladay and Hudson as equals... This thread just failed in so many ways. The only one in the NL East that is on Docs level is Santana... Hudson is not even close.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Jersey Shore
    Posts
    3,089
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by brave/cuban View Post
    Hudson 148-78 3.49 era
    halladay 148-76 3.43 era.

    That is pretty closed to me.
    Halladay is battle proven in the AL East. He is all around a better pitcher by far. Hudson has had a great career and has been fairly consistent on a year to year basis but Halladay has been amazing for the past 8 seasons. If you take away Doc's first 3 years his line looks like:

    135-62 W/L, 3.13 era, 1815 ip, 1356/332 K/BB ratio, 144 era+.

    Hudson doesn't have that now, maybe earlier in his career, but not now. Halladay should have a monster year pitching in the NL. Facing the pitchers and all around weaker lineups.
    Last edited by NJBASEBALL22; 12-27-2009 at 02:00 AM.
    Suck it

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    69,002
    vCash
    1500
    Before giving up their best pitcher the braves had 1 of the best rotations in the league... Now not so much... The Phillies now have the better Pitching and the better offense... and I could even go as far as saying the better bullpen because you guys actually went out and signed wagner. Yes wagner. So far the off season has made the braves worse. They signed wagner and let go of their 2 guys that did great for them last year because they wanted to go cheaper... Then they let go of their number 1 pitcher also to shed payroll. Braves are no longer any type of threat.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Jersey Shore
    Posts
    3,089
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by More-Then-Most View Post
    Wow first people compare Werth and francoer and now its Hamels and Lowe as equals... And now its actually Halladay and Hudson as equals... This thread just failed in so many ways. The only one in the NL East that is on Docs level is Santana... Hudson is not even close.
    Vazquez wasn't even close. I still give the edge to Atl. because Jurrjans and Hanson are legit. Even without Vazquez they have a solid all around rotation.

    But Doc, Santana, and Lincecum are the best 3 in the NL (and probably baseball) and Lowe and Hudson shouldn't be mentioned in the same breathe as those 3. The Phillies clearly have the advantage in the Ace department over Atl.
    Suck it

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana.
    Posts
    13,468
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by brave/cuban View Post
    Mets is so piss rigth now. They even talk.
    Ahhh! NIPPLES!

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Where the Fillies play
    Posts
    887
    vCash
    1500
    LMAO at this thread...

    I am a Braves fan(clearly) and in no way is Huddy better than Halladay(not by a long shot) but sorry phillies fans 1-5 the Braves rotation is the better rotation. J.J is going to have a great season and as far as Happ preforming better than Hanson...right and how many games did Happ play: 35
    Hanson: 21

    so before outlandish statements are made maybe we should see a full year of both then compare.

    1. Halladay is better than Hudson
    2. Jair is better than Hammels
    3. Lowe is better than Blanton
    4. Hanson would have been far better than Happ if you project 35 games so Hanson gets the nodd here.
    5. Kawakami is better than Moyer by a long shot.

    Final Score: Braves 4 Phils 1.

    Now the offense well that a whole nother story......

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •