Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 46
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    19,628
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by JaysFan87 View Post
    I agree that Alomar was outstanding. White was great on the D but his bat was below average.
    Context is a beautiful thing. White had a wRC+ of 92, and while that's below average it's not exactly awful either.

    The best positional players (in terms of their stick) were Winfield, Alomar, Olerud, Maldonado. Then carter, then way down there White.[/quote]

    Actually, it's Winfield (140 wRC+), Alomar (135 wRC+), Maldonado (128 wRC+), Olerud (127 wRC+), Carter (119 wRC+) and then White. Kent was pretty damn good too, but he wasn't in the playoffs for obvious reasons.

    What doesnt come close to that WAR without that 33 FLD. Nonetheless I think in the overall Bautista, EE, Lawrie, Reyes, Cabrera are as a whole better than Alomar, Winfield, Maldonado, Olerud and Carter.
    Are you talking strictly with the bat, or as overall players? Strictly with the bat, yeah, EE/Bautista > Alomar/Winfield. But that's about it. Reyes/Melky wouldn't be as good as Maldonado/Olerud, and after that it's Lawrie who wouldn't be as good as Carter. And so on, with the 92 squad being better the rest of the way except for Gruber.

    The Jays have a better 3/4 combo with Bautista/EE, but that's about it. 92 team has the advantage for having a deeper lineup.

    Close but the edge to the current group.
    I'd prefer the 92 lineup, both focusing only on hitting and as overall players (ie defence included).

    .255/.314/.414 (LIND) 98 wRC+

    .229/.275/.352 (Gruber) 71 wRC+

    .263/.343/.316 Lee 89 wRC+

    .248/.303/.390 (White) 92 wRC+

    .248/.303/.390 Rasmus 85 wRC+

    .256/.320/.315 Izturis 82 wRC+

    The players are in the white beside there stat lines in 92 and 13. I think you can see by just quickly going through the numbers how similar they were. ANd its curious to see just how riduclous White was in the field to get his war that high.
    I added in the wRC+ to your quote. Changes things a bit when we put it in perspective relative to the league. Again, after the top 2 hitters the 92 team has a lot more depth in the lineup, and unless the Jays get a breakout from someone unexpected (Lawrie, Rasmus, Arencibia) then the 92 team will be, at least on paper, the stronger lineup.


    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.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    T-dot
    Posts
    10,839
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Twitchy View Post
    Context is a beautiful thing. White had a wRC+ of 92, and while that's below average it's not exactly awful either.

    The best positional players (in terms of their stick) were Winfield, Alomar, Olerud, Maldonado. Then carter, then way down there White.
    Actually, it's Winfield (140 wRC+), Alomar (135 wRC+), Maldonado (128 wRC+), Olerud (127 wRC+), Carter (119 wRC+) and then White. Kent was pretty damn good too, but he wasn't in the playoffs for obvious reasons.



    Are you talking strictly with the bat, or as overall players? Strictly with the bat, yeah, EE/Bautista > Alomar/Winfield. But that's about it. Reyes/Melky wouldn't be as good as Maldonado/Olerud, and after that it's Lawrie who wouldn't be as good as Carter. And so on, with the 92 squad being better the rest of the way except for Gruber.

    The Jays have a better 3/4 combo with Bautista/EE, but that's about it. 92 team has the advantage for having a deeper lineup.



    I'd prefer the 92 lineup, both focusing only on hitting and as overall players (ie defence included).



    I added in the wRC+ to your quote. Changes things a bit when we put it in perspective relative to the league. Again, after the top 2 hitters the 92 team has a lot more depth in the lineup, and unless the Jays get a breakout from someone unexpected (Lawrie, Rasmus, Arencibia) then the 92 team will be, at least on paper, the stronger lineup.

    I think its close with the edge on to this years team. Especially on the offensive side. You had two huge black holes in the everyday lineup in Gruber and Borders with Lee nearly as bad. The three black holes on this team Lind/JPA/Rasmus are not nearly as bad. Then add that the top players on this team that the 92 team and I dont see how the argument can be made that the 92 team is better (even witht eh improved defence from Alomar and White).

    But to each there own.
    Last edited by JaysFan87; 12-29-2012 at 03:43 PM.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    12,066
    vCash
    1500
    On paper both teams are very good -- its hard to pinpoint and say x, y, and z and thats why they are better.

    I can't even use stats to be honest, on paper its just reading and just going with your gut who's the better team -- 2013 hasn't happened yet so its kinda unfair to be using stats when we don't know what could happen --

    What if EE declines? Jose's waist makes him lose his power? Romero never recovers? 4/5th of the rotation falls out to injury again? Rasmus is still Rasmus? Lind is still Lind? Guys get injured?

    So really I think everyone using wRC and WAR right now is not fair. Let's talk strictly paper and looking just at names and wait until 2013 is done and then we can compare stats....

    On paper 1992 is still better to me. We'll see statistically after...

    PS- 1993 actually on paper going into the season was the best Jays team to me...minus Henke it was pretty darn good!

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Key Biscayne, Florida
    Posts
    9,976
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanyo View Post
    On paper both teams are very good -- its hard to pinpoint and say x, y, and z and thats why they are better.

    I can't even use stats to be honest, on paper its just reading and just going with your gut who's the better team -- 2013 hasn't happened yet so its kinda unfair to be using stats when we don't know what could happen --

    What if EE declines? Jose's waist makes him lose his power? Romero never recovers? 4/5th of the rotation falls out to injury again? Rasmus is still Rasmus? Lind is still Lind? Guys get injured?

    So really I think everyone using wRC and WAR right now is not fair. Let's talk strictly paper and looking just at names and wait until 2013 is done and then we can compare stats....

    On paper 1992 is still better to me. We'll see statistically after...

    PS- 1993 actually on paper going into the season was the best Jays team to me...minus Henke it was pretty darn good!

    To me 1992 was a more set lineup. Tough to compare to 2013 when we still have lots of questions to answer. Lets wait till the all star break, then start making comparisons.

    Did Bautista get fat?....

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    8,312
    vCash
    1500
    game 5 of the 92 world series is about to start on sportsnet right now
    Sens Raps Jays

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    19,628
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by JaysFan87 View Post
    I think its close with the edge on to this years team. Especially on the offensive side. You had two huge black holes in the everyday lineup in Gruber and Borders with Lee nearly as bad.
    I'm not sure how you can continue to make that argument for anybody but Gruber.

    Borders had an 85 wRC+ - Arencibia was 89. They were just as bad.

    Lee had an 89 wRC+ - slightly better than Izturis was last year, and slightly worse than he's been over his career.

    So by that logic if the 92 team had two huge black holes, than so does the 2013 team.

    The three black holes on this team Lind/JPA/Rasmus are not nearly as bad.
    Actually they're just as bad, and in some cases they're worse.

    Then add that the top players on this team that the 92 team and I dont see how the argument can be made that the 92 team is better (even witht eh improved defence from Alomar and White).

    But to each there own.
    You're basically going on opinion. Despite being told countless times that several of the "black holes" were better or similar to the 2013 counterparts, you continue to make it sound like the 92 team was worse than they really were.

    It's one thing to say they're better, it's another thing entirely to dismiss or ignore the fact that other than Gruber, the 92 team didn't have any weaknesses, especially when compared to the 2013 counterparts.


    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. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    324
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by wagnall View Post
    To me 1992 was a more set lineup. Tough to compare to 2013 when we still have lots of questions to answer. Lets wait till the all star break, then start making comparisons.
    This sums it up best.
    Vancouver Canucks
    Toronto Blue Jays
    San Francisco 49's

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    T-dot
    Posts
    10,839
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Twitchy View Post
    I'm not sure how you can continue to make that argument for anybody but Gruber.

    Borders had an 85 wRC+ - Arencibia was 89. They were just as bad.

    Lee had an 89 wRC+ - slightly better than Izturis was last year, and slightly worse than he's been over his career.

    So by that logic if the 92 team had two huge black holes, than so does the 2013 team.



    Actually they're just as bad, and in some cases they're worse.



    You're basically going on opinion. Despite being told countless times that several of the "black holes" were better or similar to the 2013 counterparts, you continue to make it sound like the 92 team was worse than they really were.

    It's one thing to say they're better, it's another thing entirely to dismiss or ignore the fact that other than Gruber, the 92 team didn't have any weaknesses, especially when compared to the 2013 counterparts.

    Your argument is that the 92 team is deeper which makes it better when really its not.

    White, Borders, Lee, Gruber were all below average to bad players in 92 where as Alomar, Carter, Maldonado, Winfield Orlerud were abover avereage to very very good.

    Bautista, Reyes, EE, Cabrera combined at least equal to Alomar, Winfield, Maldonado, Orlerud. Bautista (140)/Cabrera (146)/EE(152) all had had better wRC+ than Winfield (140) in 92.

    Orlerud and Carter had 127 and 119 wRC+ which beats out Lawre (98), Reyes (109). But the considering three current jays were better than the best jay in 92 should also count for something. Which is why i said the top 5 could be a wash but I give the nod to the current ones considering 3 of them are better then the best jay in 92.

    As for the bottom half of the lineup

    Lind wRC+ 98
    JPA wRC+ 89
    Ramus wRC+ 85
    Iztruis wRC+ 82


    White wRC+ 92
    Lee wRC+89
    Borders wRC+ 85
    Gruber wRC+71

    If you ask me the nod would have to go (overall) to this current group as the dont have someone nearly as bad as Gruber and Lind was a better overall hitter than any of those 4(as ****ed as that is).

    So how you say its easily a better offensive group (overall) is beyond me.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    243
    vCash
    1500
    I was actually looking over Manuel Lee's 1992 season on baseball-reference and while obviously Reyes has a huge edge on him I found that Lee actually had a bit of a better season than I thought. Not terrific, but much better than his 1991 season. He was in great danger of losing his job after the 1991 season to Eddie Zosky of all people.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    TO
    Posts
    9,648
    vCash
    1500
    I was 3 in 92 so i dont remember that team. But looking at recent champs, are just as good or better than the 05 White Sox, 06 Cardinals, 07 Red Sox, 08 Phillies, 10 Giants, 11 Cards and the 12 Giants. That being said the best team rarely wins the title let alone the best team on paper.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Where ever the battle is
    Posts
    1,269
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by nithanyo View Post
    I was 3 in 92 so i dont remember that team. But looking at recent champs, are just as good or better than the 05 White Sox, 06 Cardinals, 07 Red Sox, 08 Phillies, 10 Giants, 11 Cards and the 12 Giants. That being said the best team rarely wins the title let alone the best team on paper.
    Its fascinating how you use the facts to add substance to your arguement yet you leave out the most obvious comparison, the '09 Yankees. They were one of, if not the best team on paper. So that being said, and adding the other 7 teams listed, your "rarely" analogy has the Jays at about a 1/8 chance of winning "it". Well guess what?..Vegas agrees.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    TO
    Posts
    9,648
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by TRIUMPHATOR View Post
    Its fascinating how you use the facts to add substance to your arguement yet you leave out the most obvious comparison, the '09 Yankees. They were one of, if not the best team on paper. So that being said, and adding the other 7 teams listed, your "rarely" analogy has the Jays at about a 1/8 chance of winning "it". Well guess what?..Vegas agrees.
    They were the only real favorites at the start of the season that won in recent years. I guess rarely is a the wrong choice of words on my part. The favorites often make the playoffs but come October the playoffs go to the hottest and not necessarily the best team.

    The 09 yanks were stacked. I would say they were better than us. There offense was stacked and the rotation was pretty dirty too.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,394
    vCash
    1500
    on "paper" i'd say the current team but look at the talent 92 had on the bench and in the bullpen. i doubt very much we have any Jeff Kent's or Derek Bell's on our bench this season. that 40 man roster was foolish and probably blows the current one away.
    Quote Originally Posted by nycericanguy View Post
    well unfortunately it looks like you were right about Bargs...

    but hopefully we can use his expiring, if not at least we unloaded Novak's deal...

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    5,670
    vCash
    2633
    I'll take 1992, mostly because those guys are legends now in Toronto. We're talking about a team with at least 2 HOFers (possibly more one day).

    But I can't believe the lack of love Gruber gets. His '92 season was abysmal in hindsight, but we expected (on paper) a lot more from him. I would say that the expectations of the two 3B are eerily similar.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    243
    vCash
    1500
    I remember reading in the special magazine the Star released for the 1992 team after that season that Larry Hisle expected 100 RBI's from both Carter and Gruber.

    Kelly was actually hitting above .300 into May I believe before he got injured. That injury was (at the time) labeled mysterious and Gruber didn't help himself much by being spotted at a Muskoka resort water skiing when he was supposed to be recuperating. Thus, he got all the grief from the fans that year. This was for a guy who was voted the most popular athlete in Toronto just a few years earlier.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •