Wait... So Matsuzaka and Beckett are proven?
Also, Wang is an ace. He was outstanding in his 1st 2 playoffs... just struggled badly in his 3rd.
Yes, they are invincible
Yes, but they won't win it all
No, thank God
No, they are too old, and over priced
Registered User
Wait... So Matsuzaka and Beckett are proven?
Also, Wang is an ace. He was outstanding in his 1st 2 playoffs... just struggled badly in his 3rd.
Registered User
In two playoff starts last year Wang had an ERA of 19.06!! He couldn't get the big out and got hammered both times. In 2006 he had just an OK start with a 4.05 ERA scattering 8 hits over 6 innings. The lack of an ace really cost the yanks last year against Cleveland.Originally Posted by koolzach1
You bringing up Beckett is comical. A near Cy Young winner last year and the leagues most dominant pitcher in the postseason. His postseason career is on par with ALL the greats of all time. In 9 postseason career starts the guy is 6-2 with 3 complete games and an ERA of 1.73!!!!
As for Matsuzaka, I made it clear he's not a stud but yes he's a proven middle of the rotation starter. He's started at the professional level for many years now. Of concern is he did fade hard at the end of last year, but the transition to the MLB and a new culture are real factors. There are no doubters that he's got the makeup to last an entire season, he's proven in the WBC he can pitch in big games, but yes there's no denying that he's not a stud. But...the point is he's a proven arm after Beckett. The Yanks have none after Wang who's arguably not an ace in the first place. Mussina, borrowing an analogy, is past the twilight of his career and even the Yanks aren't counting on him for much longer. Pettitte is more than likely in his last year. Who else is a proven arm?
Stop answering questions with questions. Explain how you can honestly call these kids 'studs'.
o
Potential studs.
E=I*R
I'm not trying to be funny here, but seriously could someone actually define "stud" and/or "ace" please? Those terms have been thrown around baseball for years and years, but really do they actually mean anything?
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Registered User
Yes, they both mean exactly the same thing: "guy I really like at the moment."
E=I*R
exactly...
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Registered User
Yanks WON again and are only 1 game behind. Jeter is batting over .300, Pettite is 2-1
E=I*R
On the other hand, we're only 15 games into the season. Jeter only has 29 at bats (as of yesterday), and Pettitle only has 3 starts.
Besides, the Yankees (and Sox, and Jays) are chasing Baltimore...
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Registered User
True but since the scanty evidence offered why they would be home this season after 1 or 2 games I thought I would show why they won't be after 15!
E=I*R
Oh, I don't disagree with panning the original article. There is at least a grain of believability behind it, however.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Registered User
BelievabilityNo way.....the Yanks WILL be 2008 WS champs baby!!!!!
Now that is believable!
E=I*R
Spoken like a true fan
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
o
Well, I'd define "stud" as simple...a great player.
Registered User
Bringing up Beckett isn't "comical." Beckett basically has ZERO accomplishments if it weren't for last year. He done well in 2003 in the post season, and had a solid regular season, but other than 2003 and 2007, in his 8 year career; he has accomplished absolutely nothing. He has been an injury prone, inconsistent SP. Had a TERRIBLE year in 2006 with BOS, which everyone forgets. He has already struggled (6.35 ERA in multiple starts) so far this season, so who's to say that he won't have another 2006, or any other year other than 2003/2007. I would take Wang over Beckett, at least in the regular season. Wang, overall, has been more reliable winning near 20 every full season he has played.
What makes the trio of Joba Chamberlain, Phil Hughes, and Ian Kennedy studly? Well, considering Joba has showed to be electric, and is considered the next big thing by many scouts. Also considering that Phil Hughes has been ranked as the #1 prospect by BA, plus almost threw a no hitter last year against a very good hitting team in Texas. Ian Kennedy has showed dominance at EVERY level thus far in his career. Ian was dominant in HS, college, in the minors, and had a 1.89 ERA least year. So, yeah... basically, those are considered some stud accomplishments/prospects.
o
Beckett in 2007 is what an "ace" pitcher is, is my point. Beckett's been a very good pitcher when healthy, except for 2006 where he was about league-average. His health problems were nearly exclusively blister-related, and all indications are that those are gone. His "terrible" 2006, which was actually average, was completely due to his home run rate which was wildly out of proportion with the rest of his career, and was most likely a fluke. Do I think he has another 2007 in him? Probably not, but he's a very good pitcher, and his 2007 was what an ace pitcher is.
Reply With Quote
