14 k's in 8 innings.. that is one bad mutha
This is maaaaybe premature there, ESPN. Maryland #1 FWIW.
When does he look tired?
I don't know what the pitch count was. I was almost surprised to see Valverde come in. I thought he could have breezed through the 9th. But that's what Leyland's job is.
Pitch count was at 119. It was a good move to take him out.
you could tell that he was losing his control. That's how arm injuries happen.
The 1-2-3 hitters, right?
The pitch count, I suppose, is enough to justify the decision to pull him. I won't argue with any of it. It is just awesome. It doesn't get much better than this. This is Jack Morris-type stuff.
Verlander is far better than Jack Morris ever was (mostly because Jack Morris wasn't all that great).
Morris was a terrific pitcher, one of the best in Tiger's history.
A jerk, but a terrific pitcher.
Career ERA of almost 4 in a weaker offensive environment, career k/9 of less than 6. The only thing he did was win a lot of games, but pitcher wins are an awful stat and he played on a lot of great teams.
Winning is what it is all about.
The rest is style over substance.
with AAB on this one, wins is a stat that should be far down the list when judging starting pitchers, since a large part of it is also based on how your team plays offensively and defensively in your starts. There are far better measures to judge starting pitchers than simply wins and losses. Justin Verlander is clearly a better pitcher than Jack Morris, that is not really debatable. If wins and losses mattered the most than Feliz Hernandez would not have won the Cy Young last year.
Verlander may, in fact, be a better ;pitcher than Morris.
But, I stand by my claim. Winning is an art unto itself. Successfully using your team's offense and defense is a skill.
There are pitchers who knew how to translate everything into wins and those that struggled to do so.
at this point in his career Verlander has a higher career winning percentage than Jack Morris, even if you go by wins and losses to judge the two pitchers. Verlander has a .625 win percentage to Jack Morris. 577 win percentage.
I'm not really arguing Verlander vs. Morris.
I guess I just see "wins" as the ultimate statistic, not a poor, way down the list, one.
Well, you are pretty much dead wrong. Sorry.
Yeah, me and anyone that can thinking objectively about baseball.
Objectively? Someone who thinks statistics are all there is to baseball is "objective"?
Well, numbers are, as far as they go, objective. But ignoring the competitive nature of this great sport and reducing it to "who has the better statistics" is irrational.
performance, Verlander on the 2003 Tigers would not have 10 wins. Also, the defense would probably have caused his ERA to be higher than 2.38 as it currently stands. Wins and ERA are not pitcher controlled stats, no matter how much you want them to be.
I'll start with a small correction, with your indulgence.
Wins and ERA are not exclusively pitcher controlled stats.
I've never said otherwise. On the contrary, it seems to me that the arguments being made against my position, say that Felix Hernandez only needed a better team around him and he would have set the world on fire. That is: Felix's performance would have remained steady as the team's performance would have improved resulting in more wins for Felix.
Well, all things remaining equal, if Felix's team had performed better, Felix probably would have won more. So?
All things remaining equal is a pipe dream. It doesn't work that way. Also, every close loss was a chance for a close win, even as things played out. Felix didn't do that well at taking advantage of those opportunities did he?
Verlander is a great pitcher. Jack Morris was a winner. When Verlander gets his first ring, then we can compare him to Jack (who has 4).
happen when Verlander is on a team as good as the ones Morris played on. This isn't basketball, one pitcher can't will his team to a championship.
Unless it is game 7 of the World Series and said pitcher dominates the other team and throws a shutout.
same thing at all. Willing a team to win in a single game is not the same thing as willing a team to a championship throughout the entire regular season and playoffs. The latter is not possible in baseball.
how the fuck can a pitcher successfully use his teams offense?
By holding the opposing team to fewer runs than his own team scores, Nick.
You can pitch to not give up any runs or you can pitch to hold the other team down to some other number. For instance, pitchers will tell you that it gets easier to pitch with a lead.
You can have one of two pitchers on your team:
The first loses every game by the score of 1-0. Call him Bob.
The second wins every game by the score of 10-9. Call him Dave.
Each pitcher pitched every inning of those games.
Which pitcher would you rather have? Bob or Dave?
You would rather have the outcome of Dave's teams, but is Dave a better pitcher?
Alright, I'll play.
Assumming, equivalent opposition, Bob has probably held opponents to a lower batting average, fewer runners, more LOB, and of course fewer runs. Probably thrown more strikes fewer balls, etc.
But as much as you want to, Nick, you cannot divorce the results from the question of who is "better".
With Bob, we're probably in last place. With Dave, we'll go to the Series.
If your objective is to pile up nice stats and look good while losing, Bob is your guy. If your objective is to win and you couldn't care less how you look doing it, there is no question, you want Dave.
So what you are saying is this:
You are the GM of Dave's team, who scores ten runs per game. You wouldn't trade you undefeated 9.0 ERA pitcher for a winless 1.00 ERA pitcher?
How big does this descrepancy have to be for you to admit Bob is better?
What concession are you looking for?
You didn't say anything about a trade.
It was by your hypothetical that Dave won every game.
That is what I want. Wins.
How about a concession from you?
How about if you admit that if you had choice between two pitchers one guarenteed to win no matter how poorly he pitched (Dave) and another guarenteed to lose no matter how well he pitched (Bob), that you would choose Dave, too?
Umm, no. You're a manager on another team - do you tade for Bob or Dave? You're telling me you'd take a pitcher who gives up 9 runs a game over one who gives up one? That is simply insane. No pitcher can win consistently if his team can't bat in a few runs and his outfielders can't make a play. No goalie can win if his team scores no goals. No QB can win the superbowl if his receivers can't catch and his linebackers can't tackle.
By your logic, every single player on the Tigers is precisely equal in skill level, because they all have the same record.
Im trying not to offend him so as to keep the comedy flowing
You're becoming a smartass, Nick.
My point is this: You take our example earlier. If the two pitchers switched teams, Bob would likely have a very good record with a very low ERA and Dave would likely have a very bad record with a very high ERA.
Since you feel that the quality of a team's offense should be included in how good a pitcher is, I will take the liberty of switching our hypothetical here.
Dave is now on the team that didn't score any runs. You feel as if he will 'just win' now and start holding teams to 0 or 1 runs in order to get the win, when he previously was giving up 9 runs a game. I think he'd continue to give up runs by the bunches and lose most games.
Bottom line is Dave sucks and he sucked just as much when he was undefeated in my previoius example as he does in this one.
You didn't answer my question about the concession.
If you insist on creating strawman arguments, gbdub, you can prove anything (to yourself).
I have said nothing of the kind.
The choice is between a pitcher who always wins and one who always loses.
I'll take the winner, thank you very much.
No you've made the strawman. There is no such thing as a "pitcher who always wins". There are "teams that always win" and "pitchers who always pitch well". You can't trot out a pitcher and a catcher and no fielders or batters and win a game.
Going to the hypothetical 1-0 loser and 10-9 winner, are you at least willing to concede that the WINNNER of the 1-0 game is a superior pitcher to the winner of the 10-9 game?
Given that, try this: Say that in the 1-0 game, Bob's team is the home team. Bob has managed to hold the opponents to a single run through 9 innings. It's the bottom of the 9th with runners on second and third. Two outs. Case A: next batter strikes out, game over. Bob takes a loss. Case B: next batter hits a long single, both runners score. Bob gets a win.
Please explain why Case B is a superior pitching performance to Case A.
Also, please concede that your "wins are all that matters" approach would make Brandon Jackson a "superior" running back to Barry Sanders. After all, Jackson has a Super Bowl ring...
I have created no strawman arguments. The hypothetical was Nicks.
You have created a strawman by suggesting that I would choose a pitcher who gave up 9 runs a game without the guarentee found in Nick's hypothetical and criticizing my choice because no pitcher can win giving up 9 runs a game.
I choose "Dave" because Dave won.
for a team. Pitcher wins, as a stat, don't have much to do with how good a pitcher was, because there are so many variables that go into winning a baseball game, and a pitcher has control over very few of them (he doesn't have control over run support, his defense, his manager, or his bullpen, for example). A crappy pitcher who gets 8 runs of support per game will win more games than Felix Hernandez getting 2 runs of support per game, but that has absolutely nothing to do with whether the crappy pitcher is better than Felix Hernandez.
It just means he plays for a better team.
On my team, I would prefer a pitcher that gets good run support and wins, to one who loses a lot of close low-scoring games.
McLain got terrific run support and won 31. Result?: World Championship for the Tiges!
that winning close games is a skill, but every study that's looked into the issue has failed to find any evidence that winning close games, or "clutch" stuff more broadly, is an actual ability.
I don't agree. I know that Bill James says that, but I am not an admirer of these kind of cutesy statistics or claims. Defining what constitutes "clutch" is always going to be a problem for any statistical analysis.
If you want to tell me that Koufax wasn't a clutch pitcher and that Kaline wasn't a clutch hitter, you've got your work cut out for you.
If I tell you your favorite player wasn't as good as you think he is...yeah, I would expect you not to believe me. It doesn't what anyone is going to tell you about advanced baseball stats, you don't seem to want to listen.
I'll tell you what I think: You have somehow become convinced that "advanced baseball stats" are the be all and the end all of understanding baseball.
I think that they can be a useful tool, but can easily be overvalued.
In baseball, everything happens in context. The analyst who only uses statistics, no matter how "advanced", is assuming everything is an independent trial. They assume hitter "X" hits for y average. Pitcher "Z" has w "FIP". All you need to do is throw it all into the computer and presto!
It doesn't work that way.
I believe the point of the "no such thing as clutch" studies is that it, in fact, DOES work that way. That is, over the long run, many statistical measures are context independent. Clutch would imply the opposite - certain players would have strongly context-dependent performance.
Can statistics unfailingly predict the result of a single trial/game/at bat? No, but that's the point of statistics: they are mostly meaningful over long periods of many trials. If there was a such thing as "clutch", you would expect certain trends to appear and remain meaningful over the many, many trials we have at our disposal. They don't.
You say "I just don't believe those statistics". The problem is that your eyes and memory lie to you - we have a strong selection bias wherin we remember the great and terrible clutch performances, but forget all of the okay but not exceptional ones. Any player who strings together a small run of one or the other extreme gets a label, and that just results in an even stronger selection bias.
Perhaps you should enlighten me about all these "studies" you talk about.
I only know of one. In that one, Bill James pulled a convoluted definition of clutch out of his ass, that anybody could have predicted would serve as nothing more than an essentially random subset of the whole, producing, guess what, no statistically significant difference.
Wow, that proves it.
assuming that pitchers with low run support have any sort of control over run support (they don't)
no sense, the pitcher has absolutely no control over the run support they get. You're making it sound like it is an attribute of the pitcher, when it is completely seperate. Let me put it this way Feliz Hernandez only won 15 games last season with Seatle due to horrible run support that he had no control over, if he was pitching for the Yankees last year he would have won 20 games + with the exact same stats. That is completely independent of anything under Felix's control, it doesn't make the season he had any less great.
The pitcher does have control over what he does with the run support he gets.
Some pitchers can bear down and not give up that one run that they know can cost them the game.
Some pitchers cannot handle such pressure.
Hernandez may well have won 20 with the Yankees, but probably could have won more than 15 with Seattle, if Hernandez is really that good.
After all, Steve Carlton won 27 with a last place team.
Can you please apply for GM jobs for the white sox, twins or indians please?
Why don't you, or better yet, Bill James apply to be a baseball GM?
After all, all you need to know is a pitcher's FIP and you can put together the best team ever.
Every major league teams uses advanced stats. Why? Because they tell us more.
These stats being mentioned were created to sort out the noise that is prevalent in a stat like wins.
They tell us how a player performed after adjusting for the things that are or aren't in their control.
Your only counter argument is that somehow advanced stats don't measure things situationally. Well, yes some don't. But there are also stats such as Leverage Index and Win Probability Added that do measure those things in a much more concise manner than a simplistic stat such as wins. Whether you perscribe to their usefulness is up to you, but just know that the entire educated baseball community uses advanced stats in some combination with their own subjective opinions.
You should root for wins as a fan.
They just don't necessarily tell you the truth about a players performance on an individual level.
For proof, the correlation between wins in one season and wins in the next is lower than the correlations between expected wins based on FIP in the 1st season and wins in the next season
It is not a computer game, Nick.
I have a feeling that I am arguing with a bunch of math nerds who never played real baseball, but do play a lot of computer simulations.
Real baseball is played by real people in the real world.
These real people are inconsistent in how much of their potential they realize from game to game and season to season. You can't just say that Felix Hernandez is at a particular skill level in real life the way computer games allow you to. Every pitch Felix makes is another challenge for Felix to rise up to or falter in the face of.
That means that there is no "truth" about a player's performance.
And that only leaves whether the performance was good enough to win or not.
For the better competitors it is good enough more often. For the lesser competitors it more often isn't.
Finally, whether this "dude" is going to "win" this argument is beside the point. No major league team uses statistics, no matter how advanced, to the exclusion of everything else.I hate to break it to you,but statistical measurements are incapable or measuring all relavant considerations. They can never be more than a tool that provides extra insight.
BTW: major league teams root for wins also, not just fans.
I actually played baseball in high school, and am a huge baseball fan. You can call me a nerd if you'd like, there are a lot of us on this blog, since many of us actually went to Michigan. It seems like you're scared of stats, that they may make baseball less "real," and more like a computer simulation. Really, statistics (especiallly sabermetric statistics) help us make sense of what is real. This is true in every area where statistics are used, but especially in baseball. Without statistics, we have to rely soley on human perception, and human perception is the worst thing to go off of to evaluate a player, as we often distort things to fit what we want to have seen rather than what actually happened.
Stats do actually cover more relevant considerations than we can even think of. A statistic called leverage actually measures how important each at bat is in a game. Other statistics can give probabilities as to how many runs a team is likely to score based on their scenario. No, this number will never be exactly correct, but it gives an average, and a fair approximation for a manger to make decisions off of. Even though the game is really all about players performing, statistics lie behind every rational decision in baseball.
If you really did play baseball then you must know yhat there is more to baseball than just statistics.
You also have to know that many statistics are attempts to find some more definitive measure. You have to buy in fo believe that that they actually measure what you think they do.
Why buy in? Well, actually many statistics including "advanced"
statistics do offer insight.
Why not buy in? Well, the statistics exist for the purpose of helping you make insightful decisions in your pursuit of winning. Winning is what is important, not some esoteric statistic. Winning is the goal of playing.
There is no "perfect" statistic. All give at least some insight. None are definitive. They do not explain or predict or measure everything. They are best used as tools. Tools to gain insight from.
An example would be that statistics suggest that Felix Hernandez pitched better than his W-L record would suggest.
Fine. But to say that Hernandez was a more successful pitcher than someone with a better W-L record is to define "success" by how well someone performs by these statistical measures.
This loses sight of the fact that winning is the goal of playing. It substitutes having good statistics for winning.
I used the example of Steve Carlton. Carlton actually "won" 27 games out the Phillies' 59 games won . Hernandez won 15 of Seattle's 61. Are you afraid of that statistic?
New York is not Seattle. No guarantee that Felix Hernandez could handle the pressure of pitching for the Yankees. Also, as a number 1 starter, Hernandez would often be matched up against the other team's best starter and that starter might shut down the Yankee offense and he will again lose the close low scoring game.
would not have been shut down as frequently as Seatle's offense last year.
Yeah, usually a "better" offense will do... well..ur ...better.
smartass comment. I guess that is what somebody has to resort to when their argument is nonsense. I was simply pointing that the instances of a Felix's offense being shutdown and him having to pitch in low scoring games would have been signficantly lessened by playing on a better offensive team.
My argument isn't nonsense. I may not have articulated it very well, but I wasn't planning on getting into a debate.
I would concede that Felix probably would have won more games with better run support.
For the sake of this argument, I don't see how that matters.
Yes, winning requires help from your teammates. Yes, pitchers on otherwise good teams win more. So?
The SABR argument requires that there is nothing a pitcher can do to help himself (and his team) win. The pitcher is going to give up "x" number of runs based on how good a pitcher he is and then it is all up to his teammates.
I call BS. A pitcher's competitiveness and skill (often bred of experience) in dealing with tough situations can make all the difference in the world.
The guy who held Morris' Hall of Fame vote to just around 53% last year? Are you going to keep him out next winter?
Look at the Verlander and Jack Morris numbers. Or the Lolich numbers. Verlander is great. And he would have to be thrilled with Morris/Lolich numbers. We're talking about three of the best pitchers in modern franchise history. But you'd probably like to fight about that.
Let's look at the numbers. Here are the stats of Morris and Verlander side-by-side:
Jack Morris had a career k/9 of 5.83 and a career bb/9 of 3.27. He had a career ERA of 3.9 and a career FIP (Fielding Independent Pitching, controls for luck/defense/ballpack, and is a better measure than ERA) of 3.94. Career Wins Above Replacement of about 57 in 16 full seasons (about 3.5 per season, which is good but not great).
Justin Verlander has a career k/9 of 8.16 and a career bb/9 of 2.88. He has a career ERA of 3.68 and a career FIP of 3.55. He has been worth 28 wins in 5 and a half full seasons, good for about 5 wins per season, which is Hall of Fame worthy. I know Verlander hasn't hit his decline phase yet, but his 5.5 seasons up to this point are so far above any 5 year period Jack Morris ever had that it's not even funny.
The only stat Morris does well in is pitcher wins, which is one of the worst stats in baseball (gives the pitcher credit for how good his lineup and defense are).
Oh snap! If you are gonna call for a judgement based on numbers, you better know the numbers!
I'm so sorry now, that I said that this is historically great stuff by Verlander, and that I compared him to Jack Morris.
I meant to compare him to Walter Johnson. Sorry. My bad.
Come on, you're smart enough to know that according to most dictionarys, either spelling of judgment is acceptable.
First, I think it is a mistake to use advanced stats to compare a pitcher in an era of advanced stats and a pitcher that may not have even been aware of them.
Second, Verlander hasn't hit his decline phase. For all we know Verlander will pull a Favre and absolutely kill his career stats when he is way past his prime
Third, Morris is known as a "personality". I think its naive to think he didn't have any effect on the performance of the rest of the team.
I agree that he never looks tired but you don't want him overdoing it out there because it's a looonnggg season. I think this is the year he finally gets to 20 wins and gets that Cy Young! He's more than a fireballer now, he's a legitimate ace and top 5 pitcher in baseball.
top 5 pitcher in MLB. He finally learned how to pitch instead of being a thrower. He has been dominant this season.
I don't believe that he was a top 5 pitcher before this season. He was definitely top 10 though. The only thing holding him from the top 5 was his ERA which is directly related to him finally realizing that he can't always blow the heat by every batter.
the majors, only 3 pitchers have produced more WAR than Justin Verlander. Halladay, Sabathia, and Haren.
amazing is the way that he can throw 99-100 mph fastballs with regularity 110+ pitches into a start. I think it is safe to say that he has taken it to another level this season. He is the best starter in the AL at the moment and should be the Cy Young frontrunner at this point.
has a pretty good argument.
As does King Felix.
Feliz Hernandez no. Verlander has better numbers across the board than Felix at the moment. I forgot about James Shields as somebody else pointed out. Verlander, Weaver, and Shields would be the top 3 at the moment. Now that I look at the numbers it is very close between those three guys.
for the AL pitchers.
King Felix has a better Fielding Independent Pitching (which controls for things like luck and defense) and k/9 numbers than Verlander does, but is walking almost a batter more per 9. Wins Above Replacement are almost exactly equal. They're pretty damn close at the moment.
guy, not that big on some of those stats to be honest. Not to mention the fact that Felix plays in a more pitcher friendly park and still has a higher ERA than Verlander. Safeco field is arguably the best pitchers park in the league, along with the A's stadium in Oakland.
And as far as defense behind the two pitchers goes, Seatle as a team has a higher team fielding percentage and has commited less errors, so Felix arguably has better defense behind him than Verlander does.
and WAR control for defense and ballpark. They take Safeco and the Mariners' defense into account.
5 starts is around 0.86. To top it off he's on cruise control right now. His first pitch strikes come in around 80mph high and inside, they swing at 97 for an 0-2, and he finishes guys off with a curveball. Batters just go to the plate and watch him half the time. They have no idea how to hit off of him anymore. We'll set aside him leading all of baseball in strikeouts. Apparrently War and Fip matter more to you even though strikeouts happen at Safeco the same as the ones in Comerica.
I was thinking about starting a thread and then hopped on and saw this.
He's won 6 straight starts going 49.2 innings and striking out 51 while allowing 4 earned runs and 26 hits, walking six. That's completely nuts!
Easily the best stretch of his on-the-way-to-the-Hall-someday career.
had better ERA, FIP, and WAR numbers than either one of those guys and was only striking out a third of a better fewer per 9 innings than Verlander was.
Well I assume you are an Angel's fan? Verlander deserves the Cy Young at this point over Weaver. I hope he can keep up close to this pace until the season is over because it will be tough to overcome the California/West coast bias.
Weaver's numbers are just better right now.
edit - formatting from ESPN stats were f'd so see below.
Verlander: 10 wins, 2.38 ERA, 124 K and 0.84 WHIP
Weaver: 9 wins, 2.01 ERA, 102 K and 0.92 WHIP
I just don't think those are the right stats (outside of the strikeouts).
Pitcher wins gives a pitcher credit for a lot of things the pitcher has no control over (how many runs his team scores, how good his defense is, how good his buillpen is, sheer random chance). ERA has some of the same problems (guys with great defenses and huge ballparks will have better ERAs even if they're not pitching better). WHIP treats a single the same as a home run.
I prefer stats like FIP, xFIP, and WAR, because I think they do a better job of giving the pitcher credit only for the things he has control over (strikeouts, walks, home runs, and groundball/fly ball rate). At the moment, Weaver's numbers are slightly better than Verlander's, although I'm guessing tonight's start is going to move the needle quite a bit. It's just really close.
I don't even know where to find those stats, but I'll trust you if Weaver's are exponentially better. However, I can't imagine they are.
You know most Cy Young voters (who are writers) don't dig that deeply into sabermetrics as the traditional stats typically guide how they vote.
Weaver started the season 6-0 and now is 9-4. Verlander is by far one of the hottest pitchers in baseball right now. Also JV has a no hitter to go with all his stats. JV is leading for the Cy Young and it's not close
Verlander has also progressively gotten better all season. The freak has given up 4 earned runs since 5/29, FOUR! Over that span he has struck out 51 batters while walking just 6. If anyone were to watch the 2 of them pitch, it would be obvious who the better pitcher is. Give me Verlander every day and twice on Sunday.
It was absolutely the right move to limit him to 8 tonight. I don't want my ace throwing close to 130 pitches in June in a 6-0 game. That's silly. If it's September, it's a completely different conversation.
3rd straight game we've scored 6+ runs. 1st one that the starter could make it hold up past the 5th inning. Now watch, now that I'm going tomorrow, we'll get beat 7-2.
Verlander is not right right now in a good way, but if the Tigers don't get some help for him they are gonna waste it. He has been holding down the fort right now. Max has been good, but with an ERA that high its a little deceptive. I mean Coke at 1-7? Seriously we are a decent pitcher away from winning the division and a stud pitcher away from challenging in the playoffs. I just hate to see Justin work that hard and not even make the playoffs.
The Tigers have almost a guaranteed win right now when Verlander toes the mound. I am seriously contemplating ponying up the money to buy the MLB extra innings package so I can catch a game now and then here in Wisconsin. He has the power to keep us in contention through September.
He's gonna need some help cause going 1-4 or 2-3 every 5 games isn't gonna get it done. Hopefully though thats not the case though. Hey if you wanna watch games online for free
I'm in South Korea and its the only way I can watch anything.
Better than paying out the ying yang for it.
What is Verlander's ERA in the month of June? Like 1.00?
Just over 1.00, per ESPN:
STATS IP H R ER BB SO WHIP ERA This Game 8.0 4 0 0 1 14 0.63 0.00 Last seven days 9.0 4 1 1 0 5 0.44 1.00 June 34.0 18 4 4 3 34 0.62 1.06
EDIT: The above was incorrect. I thought the June line included Verlander's start on Saturday, but it didn't. Here are his updated stats for June (per ESPN), which show his June ERA below 1.00:
STATS IP H R ER BB SO WHIP ERA Last seven days 8.0 4 0 0 1 14 0.63 0.00 June 42.0 22 4 4 4 48 0.62 0.86
From same page, speaking of Denny McLain:
MLB - Verlander 10 K games
Justin Verlander has his 19th career 10-strikeout game, passing Denny McLain for the 4th-most by a Tigers pitcher in the Live Ball Era (since 1920).
this season Jack Morris was the best Tiger pitcher I have ever seen. Jack even at his best was never this dominate.
Dominant =/= dominate.
He's got an All Star Game start coming up in Mid July, no doubt about it!
He should be the starter, without a doubt, but he may not be able to pitch in the All-Star Game at all:
But if the Tigers' pitching rotation sticks to its every-fifth-day routine, Justin Verlander's chances at starting, or even pitching, in this year's All-Star classic, are all but gone.
Verlander will take his normal turn Saturday against the Diamondbacks turn. If the rotation follows script, he also would pitch July 5 and July 10. That would eliminate any chance at him pitching in the All-Star Game — not only because of the Tigers' concerns, but because Major League Baseball has a rule against pitching on two days' rest.
If you want to fish through all that and eat your own boogers in the process, fine, but Morris was a top of the rotation stud, the ace on 3 World Series teams (1984, 1991, and 1992), and a key pitcher on another (1993). If you actually watched baseball in the 1980's, other than Roger Clemens, there isn't another pitcher in the American League that you would have wanted than Jack Morris.
was a tremendous pitcher. However, maybe you should eat some of your own boogers.... 2 stats that go against your greatness...
- He is 3rd in the 1980's in losses
- He had a postseason ERA of of 3.80... not exactly dominate when it counts.
And I've got 4 items to put against your 2 stats. They're called championship rings. 2 complete games in the 1984 Series, the only pitcher ever to throw a complete game in a Series for Sparky, and Sparky was in a lot of those. Not as relevant, but he also started 3 All Star Games. Not too bad. When it comes to athletic competition, give me the winners over the stats guys every day of the week.
A starting pitcher now starts about 30 regular season games and 2 maybe 3 games a series. Even back in the 80's, starters would see only about 36 starts a year. Even though they have a huge impact on the game they do pitch in, pitching in only about 20-25% of games, you cannot measure a pitcher's success solely on championships.
If you're an NBA GM, would you take Robert Horry on your team over LeBron? Just wondering.
He's my tiger... The dude is on fire.
Going into tonight Weaver had better numbers, but now it's JV. The craziest stat is his WHIP, ich is a tiny 0.84. That's unheard of! Weaver is next best among all starters (not just AL) at 0.92. JV has one more start than Weaver, but now leads by 12 innings pitched and 22 strikeouts. Weaver, Beckett, and Shields have lower ERAs but Verlander is better than all of them in just about every other category. He's tied for the major league lead in wins with Sabathia, but is destroying CC in every other category.
Sorry everyone, but statistically he's the best pitcher in baseball right now whether you're a Tigers fan or not.
Statistically, King Felix isn't even the best pitcher on his own team right now. Pineda has that. I don't think that will last all season, though.
just got home from the game...the guy is ridiculous. I may start going to all his home outings
And Morris won, leading most of the way. 4 rings worth.
get it. Your a Jack Morris fan.
Okay, question for you. Why is it that most of the pitchers at the top of the all-time wins list are generally regarded as the best pitchers of all-time?
also have the other stats that measure a great starting pitcher, in their favor as well besides wins and losses. And the second reason is because most people overvalue wins and losses as a measure to judge starting pitchers
have the most wins I would guess. However, Don Sutton has 324 wins, but with an ERA of 3.26 and 256 losses... I wouldn't consider him one of the greatest of all time. You want to talk about great pitcher, use Jim Palmer as your example.
When's his contact up?
...just kidding! (but not really)
... no I'm kidding (not really)
...kidding I swear....
but not really.
No, you can't have him. Well, maybe you might. Ilitch will be in his late 80's by the time JV's contract is up, so who knows. He's ours for a few years yet.
I'd guess that another member of the Ilitch family will take control of the Tigers. They won't let JV go easily.
Was a warrior. Won World Series with 3 different teams. The winningest pitcher of the 80s. His game 7 - 10 inning - 1-0 win for the Twins is one of the greatest games ever pitched. Verlander is great. He could be better than Jack.
Balling out of control right now.
People can continue to argue about Morris all they want, but within 5 years, Morris is likely to be in the Hall of Fame, whether it's from the BBWAA, or the Veterans Committee, for one simple reason: he won, and he won in big games. And if he goes before the Vets, people that he played against are going to be looking at him. That's what an ace is paid to do. When Justin Verlander has a ring or two, then we can compare him to Morris (and Mickey Lolich, for that matter). Until then, this conversation is comparing apples and oranges.
The ace of your rotation has one job: to go out there and win. Period. Whether it's 7-6 or 2-1 is irrelevant. If you've got a guy who, gee, he went 7 and gave up 2, and took a tough luck loss, and gee, that seems to happen a lot, you're going to have a shitload of 90 loss teams. If you've got a guy who you're saying, "the guy didn't have his best, but he pitched his ass off, kept us in the lead, and got us the win", and that happens a lot, you're going to be much happier with what you see in the standings. A true ace does a helluva lot more of the 2nd example than the first. And that's what Morris was. An ace.
Game 7 of the World Series. You've got your choice of pitchers who pitched a good portion of the prime of their careers in the 1980's. Who you got? Outside of Steve Carlton and maybe Jim Palmer (who was close to done by the early 80's), I want Morris. Yes, over Maddux and Clemens, too. That's pretty rarified air we're talking about here, isn't it?
Thank you, you said it better than I did.
I would gladly take Maddux or Clemens or Verlander and have a better pitching staff. Yes, Morris was a warrior, and an ace, and awesome, and yadda yadda yadda...
But he wasn't a better pitcher than those three and would be beaten by them most times with all else equal.
I guess the point is this: Verlander is having an excellent season. No question. But the comparisons to Morris cannot begin until he does it when the chips are down, when the commissioner is about to hand out that goofy trophy with all the flags on it. And if he does, then we can have this conversation from here until Christmas.
Well, we'll see if Porcello can continue to develop, and if this Jacob Turner is as advertised. We're overdue to have a young starter blow an arm out, and I'm hoping it's not Porcello or Turner.
Whoever is responsible for turning this into a SABR v. Traditional thread deserves to have their children killed.
Well, don't blame me, then. I just made an innocent comment.
Another member of the Ilitch family taking over the Tigers is exactly what concerns me. Remember how this team was managed 10 years ago? That was when Chris and Denise were involved. Remember the pissing match between Denise Ilitch and Todd Jones?
I figure we've got about a 3 year window to cash one in here. 4 years tops. Ilitch is going to be 82 next month.