Than it was an utterly meaningless statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
To me, he was clearly whining about Carp (and Wainwright) losing and implied that being left off those two ballots was the reason in Carp's case.
Printable View
Than it was an utterly meaningless statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
To me, he was clearly whining about Carp (and Wainwright) losing and implied that being left off those two ballots was the reason in Carp's case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Back in the 70's, if you pitched less than 200 innings, you were a part-time pitcher.
Of course, the game has changed--we haven't had anyone pitch 300 or more since what, Carlton in 79?--but still, as HGM pointed out, when 2 pitchers are otherwise close in value, but 1 of them has 30 innings or so more, that's a big difference.
and carp had the better rate performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I said why is wainwright on his ballot if carp isn't when he said that his second reasoning is that the defense behind him. wainwright had the same defense carpenter had.Quote:
Because he pitched 40 more innings.
then he could say that. he did not. The Giants have better defense then the Cardinals in 09, so why does Carpenter get left off the ballot if his second reasoning is defense?Quote:
I'd bet Law's using his own assessments of the defenses more than anything. The Giants grade out slightly higher in most metrics. Furthermore, he's very likely accounting for the fact that Lincecum RELIED less on his defense and did more of the work himself.
I had not gotten to see his yet.Quote:
But Carpenter has the better rate stats is my argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by dps
ERA, ERA plus, Dice.
the only thing he didn't do better then lincecum is the strike outs, and that is because Carp is more of a sinker baller ground out pitcher...he gets strike outs, but that isn't how he pitches.
there is obviously a huge value for being a big strike out guy. That is a big value obviously, but in terms of rate stats, carpenter edges out everyone.
It was very close.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
That was only PART of the equation, not the entire reason. He didn't disqualify them because of the defense. It knocked them down a few steps. He said that 2-4 in his eyes could basically be in any order - Vazquez, Wainwright, Carpenter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Since it was his vote, in HIS estimation, the Cardinals had the better defense. And, again, the largest reason was the innings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Carpenter very slightly edges out Lincecum in ERA/ERA+. It's close enough for 30 innings to slide Lincecum ahead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
My 2009 NL CY Youngs
1. Adam W
2. Chris C
3. Tim L
That is right.. third. I feel that this is the worst voting I've ever seen for an award. Tim did not deserve this at all. It is all of fashion show now
This has to be sarcasm... Disagree with it, fine, but the worst voting ever? That can't be serious. Lincecum had an outstanding year...hell, he was better than he was last year when he also deservedly won the Cy Young.Quote:
Originally Posted by jpz17
I declare you the dumbest poster in the entire history of the internet. Nay, the dumbest person to ever put forth an opinion in the history of civilization.Quote:
Originally Posted by jpz17
Taking every opinion to the super-extreme is fun!!!!!!
Chalk another one up on the "Metsguy can't voice any of his opinions without being accused of trolling" boardQuote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
Also, as Jeffy, RSF, eggson, or RSR can attest, I posted a status saying that it was a poor choice by the writers earlier today. When I'm actually trolling, I don't post the same thing on Facebook.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by jpz17
Please explain how it was a "poor choice." And furthermore, since:Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Please explain how it was the worst award voting ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Remember - disagreeing with it doesn't make it poor and it doesn't make it the worst ever.
I've seen a picture of you. You are without a doubt the ugliest person in the history of mankind. I mean...I don't find you attractive, therefore I must take my opinion all the way to the opposite extreme.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
It's more along the lines of "Metsguy is incapable of providing anything useful in the NL Cy Young Award debate so he just calls it a Cy Young pick fail".Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
If you were able to defend your pick with some actual statistics or valid reasoning behind why you felt it to be a fail, that might be different.
But you can't. :p
I simply wish one of my guys had won....but lince earned the victory just like carp or waino could have won it and it would still have been earned.
they basically split the first place votes, and look how close it was. Any one of them could have won, as a cards fan, i wish it was one of my guys, but oh well.
Next time tell one of them to suck so they don't end up splitting their votes (even though I'm sure some would have went to Lincecum). :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Exactly. There were three absolutely legitimate picks, all of whom were deserving. I would've disagreed with it if Carp or Wainwright won, but they're valid picks, and it certainly wouldn't have been the worst award decision ever. People need to chill with the hyperbole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Glad to see Vazquez get some love for his great season. I also was glad that Wainwright didn't win, because it would have hurt too much! ;)
haha.
what's interesting about wainwright, is when you look at his breakdown per inning.
the leadoff guy gets on a lot on him. he is great from the stretch.
opposing leadoff hitters batted over 300 off waino. but then he will lock it down. The more guys on base, the better he did. with the bases loaded....opposing hitters batted .067.
He makes adjustments inning by inning. He is great on the fly. It's just interesting to see. Now if only we hadn't traded haren for mulder, our rotation would be boss.
metsguy is completely free to voice his opinions. I am free to accuse him of trolling when he doesn't back them up with facts. Quit puking up the word "fail" like a cat hacks up furballs and gather evidence to support your opinion, or be subject to ridicule and disrespect by those that bother to check their facts. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Hindsight is always 20/20, but it's interesting to look back at the 2006 draft at the players that other teams drafted ahead of Tim Lincecum.
1) Luke Hochevar (Royals)
2) Greg Reynolds (Rockies)
3) Evan Longoria (Rays)
4) Brad Lincoln (Pirates)
5) Brandon Morrow (Mariners)
6) Andrew Miller (Tigers)
7) Clayton Kershaw (Dodgers)
8) Drew Stubbs (Reds)
9) Bill Rowell (Orioles)
10) Tim Lincecum (Giants)
Uh oh... rockiesfan4ever might get the razors back out after realizing the Rockies could have drafted Lincecum!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BINGLEBOP
DuDeZ ThEy GoT GrEg ReYnOlDs!!!!!!111 hE dA mAn!!1
well the rays did get that third basemen guy...he isn't too bad
The Giants must be hitting themselves now that they see they could've gotten a player with some value, like Bill Rowell.
The Giants couldn't have gotten Bill Rowell.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
At least make a funny joke.
Sh!t.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
*throws vase at HGM*
Throw that candle that you fell "into" and hurt yourself that one time.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Not funny. I had to get stitches after that.Quote:
Originally Posted by BINGLEBOP
HGM said you were not funny, and you said that was not funny. Therefore, if you threw it at him, two "not funnies" would cancel each other out and it would be funny. Just like a double negative.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Spelling and Grammar King win. metsguy's brain is smoking trying to figure that out. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by BINGLEBOP
where is that head explosion pic that was posted awhile back? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
This stuff is always interesting to look back on, but with baseball it is obviously tough to blame a whole lot on some of the teams especially with what we know now. Looking at NBA or NFL drafts, since there is less players to draft total, it is so much easier to say, "What the hell were they thinking!"Quote:
Originally Posted by BINGLEBOP
Does anybody think any of these guys will end up anything in the majors besides Lincecum, Kershaw, Longoria, and I suppose Morrow. Some of the other guys I have totally forgotten about.
stubbs ;)
There are cases where you can definitely blame the team. For example, the Rockies taking Greg Reynolds. Nobody rated him that highly. It was a pure signability pick. I'm sure they'd much rather have spent the extra couple million to get Lincecum at this point.
Haha true. I forgot who the hell Drew Stubbs was Jeffy and found out he was born the day before me the very same year but in Texas. Go Stubbs!Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Lots of teams passed on Lincecum b/c they feared he was a career-ending arm injury waiting to happen.
ya, his mechanics don't add up to stardom.
I guess I am more glad to not see Red Sox listed in that top 10, unless they were number 10.
And Mike Piazza was taken in the 62nd round (or something like that) by his brother's godfather's (Tommy Lasorda) team as a favour to his father. Who knew?
EDIT: I guess that's the ultimate role model/revenge for anyone who was ever picked last in neighbourhood or schoolyard pick-up games.
This isn't really true. His mechanics are just unique so teams are afraid. They've never seen anything like it before. There's nothing in his mechanics inherently that scared teams off and made them think he was an injury risk. It was just that it looked weird and nobody knew.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Personally, I think his mechanics are a large part of his success and a significant factor in his health.