Dickerson not happy
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
From: HTP on 5 Mar 2010 13:15 On Mar 4, 5:07 pm, eddyg...(a)msn.com (john smith) wrote: > Henry, when I say dominant pitching I mean guys like Seaver, Koufax, and > Gibson. I mean guys whose stuff you fear as a hitter. You mentioned the > Braves and I don't consider guys like Maddux or Glavine that dominant > basically because no hitter fears them guys. They were pitchers who knew > how to pitch and when they left balls over the plate, they got hit very > hard. I respect Glavine and Maddux but would hardly call them dominant. > Smotlz on the other hand was a guy who could shatter some bats and I > always thought he would be better in the post season than he was. Are you serious? You think that hitters looked forward to facing Maddux? Youre simply confining your definition of "dominant" to power pitchers. Greg Maddux is as dominant a pitcher as there ever was, certainly in our lifetimes. Seavers dominance netted him exactly 1 world series ring in 4 postseason in a 20 year career. Catfish Hunter was certainly less of a power pitcher, had a shorter career, yet made postseason appearances in 8 years (over a 9 year stretch) and won 5 world series rings. At that point, your argument collapses. > > Hello John K and Shilling, he was pretty dominant but name someone > else?.......... Another guy who you had to fear back in the day was > Steve Carlton a devastating lefty. When was the last time we saw a > dominant lefty starting pitcher who figured in many post season wins... > Guys like Koufax, Seaver,Gibson and Carlton willed their team to victory > by winning the game before they got on the mound... Carlton won 2 world series ring in a very long career. Why didnt he simply just "will" his team to more victories? Where are guys like Pedro or Randy Johnson in your analysis? Theyre every bit as dominant as Koufax or Gibson ever were, and they pitched in an era of lowered mounds and smaller parks, > > The mental aspect of the game can not be found in stats. We all know > hitting is way more difficult during the post season. The intensity and > the pitch by pitch scrutiny just leads to lower scoring games. If you > played the game, there is just a certain comfort zone as a hitter you Actually theres a more obvious reason as to why hitting would become more difficult in the postseason. Its because the hitters are now facing mainly the frontline pitchers of playoff caliber teams. Occams razor. > have. You know the pitchers you can hit with no problem. Then their are > the dominant types you know are going to be almost impossible to hit > when they are on their game. All this stuff gets magnified 10 times in a > playoff atmosphere and the pitcher always has the advantage... Sounds like just alot of spin to me. There are a slew of factors that go into winning postseason games, or any single game for that matter. Luck is a much bigger factor in a handful of games than over a longer stretch. I definitely dont believe that telekinesis has anything to do with postseason wins.
From: john smith on 5 Mar 2010 14:13 Tom , how would you describe Greg Maddux and his post season career? I would say mediocre and I could never proclaim a pitcher as dominant who can never get it done on a consistent basis in the post season... If you had a game 7 to win, who would you take on the mound? Seaver, Carlton, Gibson, Koufax,Schilling or Maddux? Would you take Frank Viola or Jack Morris in their prime over Maddux in a game 7? How confident were you rooting for the Braves when Maddux was pitching in the post season? Would you take Mike Norris, Jose Rijo or Ron Guidry or Maddux in a post season game 7? Heck I would even take a Mike Scott over Greg Maddux in any post season game? Maddux might have dominated the regular season for the 90s . He even had a great start with the Cubs and I give him credit for pitching in basically two launching pads and winning consistently...Baseball will always be about post season performance with me. Just my opinion... Yes I do believe you have to be a special power pitcher to be considered a dominant pitcher. You must also succeed in the post season. That is what the game is all about, excelling when the pressure is on. I would assume Glavine would give back some Cy Young awards for a couple more WS rings? I don't get worked up over exercising my opinions on baseball as others might do. They are just a bunch of millionaires playing a kids game. I will not defend a player like he is someone in my family or an American soldier. It is fun talking baseball but it is the toy store and really not that important.......
From: tom dunne on 5 Mar 2010 14:57 On Mar 5, 2:13 pm, eddyg...(a)msn.com (john smith) wrote: > Tom , how would you describe Greg Maddux and his post season career? I > would say mediocre and I could never proclaim a pitcher as dominant who > can never get it done on a consistent basis in the post season... > > If you had a game 7 to win, who would you take on the mound? Seaver, > Carlton, Gibson, Koufax,Schilling or Maddux? Would you take Frank Viola > or Jack Morris in their prime over Maddux in a game 7? How confident > were you rooting for the Braves when Maddux was pitching in the post > season? Would you take Mike Norris, Jose Rijo or Ron Guidry or Maddux in > a post season game 7? Heck I would even take a Mike Scott over Greg > Maddux in any post season game? > > Maddux might have dominated the regular season for the 90s . He even had > a great start with the Cubs and I give him credit for pitching in > basically two launching pads and winning consistently...Baseball will > always be about post season performance with me. Just my opinion... > > Yes I do believe you have to be a special power pitcher to be considered > a dominant pitcher. You must also succeed in the post season. That is > what the game is all about, excelling when the pressure is on. I would > assume Glavine would give back some Cy Young awards for a couple more WS > rings? > > I don't get worked up over exercising my opinions on baseball as others > might do. They are just a bunch of millionaires playing a kids game. I > will not defend a player like he is someone in my family or an American > soldier. It is fun talking baseball but it is the toy store and really > not that important....... Let me answer this with a question: Andy Pettitte's best pitch is a cut fastball, maybe 88mph. In his best season, he struck out 180 guys. His postseason ERA is 3.90, with a 4.06 ERA in the World Series. Those look like pretty average numbers, but Pettitte is the winningest postseason pitcher of all time. More than Smoltz, more than Johnson, more than Schilling, more than anyone who has ever taken the mound in the history of the game. In 2009, Pettitte had a 5.40 ERA in the World Series, but still winning both of his starts. He actually won the deciding game of the World Series, Game 6. He did it by walking 5 guys, giving up a homer and getting yanked in the 6th inning. Pettitte's career ERA in the World Series is literally almost twice that of Greg Maddux, 4.06 to 2.09, and Pettitte got to play most of his career with superstar Yankees teams piling up the runs, allowing him to win World Series games even when he pitched poorly. So let me ask you... Do you want Andy Pettitte on the mound for Game 7, or do you want Greg Maddux? Remember, Pettitte is the winningest postseason pitcher OF ALL TIME.
From: john smith on 5 Mar 2010 17:04 Is it fair to try and make a valid comparison on a pitcher who is second all time in WS starts to a guy who has but 5? To make a call on this would be very tough. I would probably take Andy but it has more to do with his overall post season success, 40 starts and an 18-9 record and a 3.90 era. We both have different opinions on evaluating dominant starting pitching. I just value the power guys more because even on off nights they can just get by with pure stuff. Post season baseball is usually played in cold weather and facing power type guys when it is freezing is no fun for any hitter. Andy P. and Maddux are both Hall Of Famers and were fantastic pitchers. Their longevity alone speaks for themselves. They can dominate games at times. They are just more likely to get hit when they don't have great stuff.. I don't believe a hitter ever went up to the plate against Andy or Maddux and thought to themselves on that particular night, I have no chance. With the power type guys especially in post season, many hitters have felt they have had no chance against the likes of Carlton, Koufax,Seaver,Gibson.Schilling etc..........
From: tom dunne on 5 Mar 2010 17:17
On Mar 5, 5:04 pm, eddyg...(a)msn.com (john smith) wrote: > Is it fair to try and make a valid comparison on a pitcher who is second > all time in WS starts to a guy who has but 5? To make a call on this > would be very tough. I would probably take Andy but it has more to do > with his overall post season success, 40 starts and an 18-9 record and a > 3.90 era. > > We both have different opinions on evaluating dominant starting > pitching. I just value the power guys more because even on off nights > they can just get by with pure stuff. Post season baseball is usually > played in cold weather and facing power type guys when it is freezing is > no fun for any hitter. > > Andy P. and Maddux are both Hall Of Famers and were fantastic pitchers. > Their longevity alone speaks for themselves. They can dominate games at > times. They are just more likely to get hit when they don't have great > stuff.. > > I don't believe a hitter ever went up to the plate against Andy or > Maddux and thought to themselves on that particular night, I have no > chance. With the power type guys especially in post season, many hitters > have felt they have had no chance against the likes of Carlton, > Koufax,Seaver,Gibson.Schilling etc.......... Just to be clear, you're picking Andy Pettitte and his 3.90 postseason ERA over Greg Maddux and his 3.27 postseason ERA. I don't have anything I can say to that. I will say that from 1992-1998, it didn't matter if batters went to the plate thinking they had a chance against Maddux. They were wrong. He owned them, top to bottom, inside and out. |