and and kendrick better than matsuzaka? not a chance
and and kendrick better than matsuzaka? not a chance
Jackie Bradley Junior.... that is all
As for the original question ... Atlanta's stats have been marginally better than the Phillies' stats so far this year. I know the Phillies just acquired Oswalt, but he isn't the pitcher he once was.
Last edited by atl_braves_fan; 08-11-2010 at 06:22 PM.
Phillies rotation is better.
Yeah I'd take the Phillies rotation as well.
With Hamels you've got a guy whose good, above average but will never be great, and has pitched fairly poorly the last two years with a losing record, and got absolutely bombed in the playoffs. Kendrick is just a bum and will never have the type of seasons that Lackey and Beckett have put together over the course of their career, not even close.
And my mention of the number of wins Lackey has was just to point to his track record and longevity, but I guess you can only see back the last couple months, or is that too far back for you? You just look at the current stats so it makes me wonder.
And ya maybe right now this day Lackey would be a number 3 on most teams due to a season below the standard he has set for himself, but looking back to the start of the season every team in the league would have loved to pencil Lackey into the front end of their rotation.
Wins by league in interleague play:
2005: American 136, National 116
Don't just take my word for it, the AL does have better, higher scoring teams (and a DH) to inflate a pitchers stats. So even though Kendrick has "better stats" than Lackey this year, he really doesn't.
lackey was widely considered the best free agent starter available, a workhorse, proven pitcher whose era ranged in between 3.02 and 3.83 since 2005. Were also talking about a guy who has pitched well in the postseason and is a fierce competitor. And before this year most of those teams would of loved to have him as theyre number 1 or 2.. im bored so i guess i can humor you with a list of the teams you named... this is as of the start of the season
yankees-lets see here youve got sabathia ok cool. then you got burnett who blows and pettitte coming off a 4.5 era in 2009. plus you dont know what you're getting from hughes as a starter. verdict- number 2
red sox- really? we offered him number one money, so we obviously wanted him
rays- the lowest era of a rays starter last year was 3.94.. higher than lackeys highest since 2004.. even if you assume price to step up, at worst he starts the year as number two
rangers- this is prior to cliiff lee and the emergence of cj wilson and tommy hunter.. they lost theyre best pitcher from 2009 in kevin millwood and lackey would have been the opening day starter in 2010
man youre really striking out so far, but no time for delay lets keep tearing your list apart
cardinals- ok he would have been number 3, you got one
angels- really? he was there number one last year and would have been again
phillies-you had halladay coming but hamels was coming off a bad year and lackey would of been number two
giants-bravo, you got a second one
braves-had just lost vazquez and didnt know what to expect from hudson, probably their number one but it might have actually been jurrjens after the year he had in 09.. so number one/two
dodgers- just by the fact that randy wolf was their second best starter last year, it would of been pretty easy to pencil in lackey right after kershaw
mets- am i missing someone besides johan.. oh **** pelfrey or no wait maine.. number two here
padres- even though the pitching has been a strength for them this year, last year it was a weakness and he would of been the opening day starter
reds- cueto has emerged and so has most of the staff, but thats this season.. you really think arroyo or harang would of started opening day over him.. i dont, number one here
white sox- this is one where the hindsight might actually hurt me, he would of been behind peavy and danks, congrats
twins- liarano and pavano have been good this year, but not last.. he would of been on the mound opening day if he was a twin
rockies- would of been number two behind ubaldo
a's- this is before the emergence of cahill.. i mean they were so desperate they thought ben sheets would be an upgrade.. number one on opening day
blue jays- they are fresh off trading halladay and theyre second best in 09 was romero and his 4.30 era.. he would have started opening day
so three of those actually hold up when you dig deeper.. he would of been the number three on three teams cardinals, giants, and white sox and actually boston so four out of 32.. he also would have been the opening day starter for a significant amount of them, not to mention most of the 14 teams not mentioned here... so as much as it pains me to say this, you are just plain wrong
Just because he would have pitched Opening Day doesn't make him the better pitcher. Teams will typically give the nod to the guy making the big money or with the big name.
yankees - sabathia, pettitte
red sox - lester, buchholz, beckett
rays - price, garza, sheilds
jays - i personally would take marcum, but i'll give you this one
o's - no one
twins - liriano, pavano
tigers - verlander
white sox - burhele, danks,
Indians - carmona
royals - grienke
rangers - lee, wilson, harden (again assuming healthy)
angels - haren, weaver
a's - i personally would take anderson and cahill, but this one sup for debate
mariners - king felix
braves - hudson, hanson, lowe
phillies - halladay, oswalt, hamels
mets - santana, jon neise (pitching better than lackey now), dickey......... just kidding about dickey
marlins - josh johnson
nationals - maybe strassburg, but i'll give you this one
reds - cueto, volquez
cardinals - carpenter, wainwright
cubs - no one
astros - no one
pirates - no one
brewers - Gallardo
giants - lincecum, zito, cain,
padres - latos, garland
dodgers - kershaw, billingsly
diamondbacks - no one
rockies - Jimenez
so he would be the one for no more than 7 teams, 3 of which reside in the weak NL central that you use to make oswalt inferior. Like i say, lackey is a solid starter, but he is a 2 to 3 starter. he a good pitcher, but he's not an ace and he's not really a number 1
Seriously, if there are 30 pitchers better than you in baseball then you're not an ace.
I was using the opening day starter reference to say that he would of been considered that teams number one at the beginning of the season. And he is better than Kyle Kendrick, which was the original debate. I think I have made that pretty clear. Giving Boston the better rotation top to bottom.
The Giants win this thread.