Originally Posted by Pker4Dummies

Pitcher who can potentially pitch 18 (really 27 ) innings vs a pitcher who could realistically potentially pitch what 10 innings max in a series

Realistically throw 27 or even 18 innings in a series?

 

Originally Posted by JRoth15

Yah you're just wrong here...

Chris Carpenter started 3 games in last year's World Series, and won game 7.

In 2001, Randy Johnson WON 3 games in one series...although his game 7 win was in relief--after he won game 6 as a starter.

Most series don't go to 7 games, so you don't get to see it, but it's not that crazy to have a guy start 3 games in a 7-game series.

Lol so you name three horses in the past 11 years and that makes your most #1s throw ATLEAST twice statement accurate?

Never said it never happened, said I couldnt think of any. You named three congrats.

Edit--You named two. Ill give you another John Smoltz.

Yep "Most" start atleast 2

Key word there is "Most"

 

Originally Posted by JRoth15

Yes...so you're wrong. Carpenter threw 20 innings in last year's World Series btw...so I can name 1 in the past 1 year.

so 3 in 11 years = most.

Got it

 

Originally Posted by Pker4Dummies

Yes a #1 starting pitcher can potentially throw 18-27 innings in a series. Realistically probably not more than 22-23 but possibly

Mo Rivera can potentially throw how many innings in a series. ______________

Whats the point of saying potentially? Typically a starter is going to be below the 18-27 range. A few that have reached that range but its extremely rare.

 

Originally Posted by Jaybone2315

Youre an idiot. Keep trying tho.

Ok you guys are right. Most pitchers start three games in a series.

Being the greatest reliever is only slightly better than being the greatest designated hitter.

cant decide if thread deserves 1 star or 5...

OT's entire argument against Mariano vs starting pitchers seems to be innings pitched. So I guess Sandy Koufax doesn't get to appear in your GOAT conversations either, which just seems like I should pound my head against a wall.

Mariano's ERA+ is over 40% better than any other reliever in history. That is completely fucking insane. He's at 206, meaning less than half of the average league ERA through his entire career. Blah blah closer blah blah, the second highest closer is Hoffman at 141. The second highest pitcher is Pedro at 154. He's not only better than any reliever in history, he's better by such a degree relative to everyone who has ever played the game that it's completely insane. Even if you discount his ERA+ as relievers typically have lower ERAs, the distance by which he is ahead is completely absurd. 30% higher than anyone else who has ever stepped on the mound in the history of baseball, including the rest of these supposedly statistically advantaged relievers. That's nuts.

Is Jerry Rice not allowed to be in the NFL goat conversation because such a small percentage of plays go through an individual receiver?

You guys just keep saying "quantity=greatness" over and over like it's some accepted fact without any sort of justification. I'd love to hear how you guys define greatness. In a nutshell, his playoff performances, absolutely insane regular season stats, and the fact that he's on the short list of guys I'd want pitching for me with my life on the line put him in that convo.

It's also pretty hard to argue against him being the greatest postseason player of all time and almost certainly impossible to argue against him being the greatest postseason pitcher of all time. He's also 7th all time in postseason innings pitched, so it's pretty hard to use the volume argument there. On the biggest stage, he's certainly in the GOAT conversation, no matter how many gifs of Luis Gonzalez and Dave Roberts you guys want to post to make your "argument."

Maybe my bias points a little towards peak performance levels and away from longevity... I mean, I also think Terrell Davis was one of the greatest running backs I've ever seen and think he should be in the NFL Hall of Fame because his peak was absurd. Saying Curtis Martin was better because he did it not nearly as well for a hell of a lot longer is a huge head-scratcher for me.

If Moyer pitches til he is 55 he has a shot. Has 268 now.

Only player I see with any chance at all if he pithces for a loot longer is Halladay. Is 35 years old and has 191 Wins (4th among active players). Don't see anybody winning 300. Verlander is 29, 109 wins.

Don't know how I missed that, was scolling down looking at ages and didn't see him. He is in better shape than Halladay

31 years old with 179 wins

Sabathia might be fat but it's not like he's slowing down or showing any signs of age. Plus he's on the yankees and signed for i think like 6 more years at least. If he averages, say, 17 wins a year there is no way he won't play a few more years to get the 300.

halladay being in the nl and on a light hitting squad hurts his chances as well

I think Michael Pineda has a pretty good shot at 300

 

Originally Posted by kellykip

I think Michael Pineda has a pretty good shot at 300

If they convert Trout early enough, he would easily be on pace.

 

Originally Posted by SCTrojans

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.asp...&age=&players=

WAR leaders from 1995-2012, Riveras entire career. He ranks 25th.

Go back to 1984-2012, Roger Clemens rookie year, and hes bumped to 41st

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.asp...&age=&players=

pretty fuckin strong for a closer tho

 

Originally Posted by TMLMS13

I'll take a top 25 starter over Rivera in his prime. Use the he has all those saves argument you want all day long you will never convince me. They are 100% based on the rest of the team producing that opportunity.

No question about it-I'd take that top-flight starter too. As to being '100% based on the rest of the team', more horseshit, though certainly his mates have contributed.

When all time greats like Mike Stanton are on the list, you can't help but just agree that Rivera is the best of all time.

Win probability added is a laughable statistic to compare pitchers and hitters.