Blackout Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 guy is 0-3 in the world series with 5 innings per start and an ERA over 7 other than that he's 6-1 in the playoffs with a great ERA in the other series.... i do say it takes away from his "aura" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StraightCash Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 His first two starts were his rookie season, right? Not going to judge him based off that... but last night he was rocked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyCarl40 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 No. That's ridiculous to judge a player off of three games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWWombat Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Not at all. I think he's a smug prick but one of the best pitchers in baseball. Basically the Aaron Rodgers of MLB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 How is he a smug prick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 How is he a smug prick? If I was hitting this, I would be smug. Just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HessStation Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 I think it ABSOLUTELY diminishes is overall aura. How could anyone say differently? Did you guys forget what makes America...America? Fair or not it's the truth. Verlander may go down as a great but he will never be immortalized as an ALL TIME great with that WS record. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 I think it ABSOLUTELY diminishes is overall aura. How could anyone say differently? Did you guys forget what makes America...America? Fair or not it's the truth. Verlander may go down as a great but he will never be immortalized as an ALL TIME great with that WS record. Sorry. True but he has plenty of years ahead of him to turn it around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HessStation Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 True but he has plenty of years ahead of him to turn it around. Absolutely, and if he did then things change...but as it sits now.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Absolutely, and if he did then things change...but as it sits now.... Yep. He'd better hope the Tigers come back strong at home so he gets another shot on the hill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted October 27, 2012 Author Share Posted October 27, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Look at her FCKIN TIIIIIIIIIIITS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyCarl40 Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Tigers don't sniff the World Series or even the playoffs without him. It's asinine to think a handful of games make a difference in the bigger picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted October 27, 2012 Author Share Posted October 27, 2012 True but he has plenty of years ahead of him to turn it around. Dan Marino thought the same after his first superbowl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWWombat Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 How is he a smug prick? It's just my impression of him from what I've seen. He seems very satisfied with himself. I would be too I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GimmeShelter Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Tigers don't sniff the World Series or even the playoffs without him. It's asinine to think a handful of games make a difference in the bigger picture. Agree but I think what Blackout means is if Verlander retired with these numbers you would always have a portion of fans who would point to his WS numbers when debating him against say a Jack Morris or John Smoltz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWWombat Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Agree but I think what Blackout means is if Verlander retired with these numbers you would always have a portion of fans who would point to his WS numbers when debating him against say a Jack Morris or John Smoltz. Well that portion of fans would be making a bad argument. Morris was very clutch, but Verlander will probably have a better career. I don't think Verlander will top Smoltz's resume though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyCarl40 Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Agree but I think what Blackout means is if Verlander retired with these numbers you would always have a portion of fans who would point to his WS numbers when debating him against say a Jack Morris or John Smoltz. Well then he can't crap on Schilling then. Haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 It's just my impression of him from what I've seen. He seems very satisfied with himself. I would be too I guess. I always hate seeing people who are satisfied with themselves as well. Life is suffering! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HessStation Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Tigers don't sniff the World Series or even the playoffs without him. It's asinine to think a handful of games make a difference in the bigger picture. As it stands now I think it absolutely does. Does he have to be Koufax (0.95 ERA in 4 world series)? No, you can look at Randy Johnson, who went through a 0-6 postseason stretch, however Johnson also has a World Series MVP to his name. There will definitely be a blemish next to Verlander's name until he can redeem himself on the big stage. Does it hurt HOF chances, no, he's obviously a great pitcher, but I think it hurts his "aura" as an all time immortal. Seaver's only like 1-2 but has a, I think, 2.70 ERA. I'm not saying you need to be perfect but he's got to at least have 1 shining moment imo. Not always fair but I think it's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWWombat Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 As it stands now I think it absolutely does. Does he have to be Koufax (0.95 ERA in 4 world series)? No, you can look at Randy Johnson, who went through a 0-6 postseason stretch, however Johnson also has a World Series MVP to his name. There will definitely be a blemish next to Verlander's name until he can redeem himself on the big stage. Does it hurt HOF chances, no, he's obviously a great pitcher, but I think it hurts his "aura" as an all time immortal. Seaver's only like 1-2 but has a, I think, 2.70 ERA. I'm not saying you need to be perfect but he's got to at least have 1 shining moment imo. Not always fair but I think it's true. I disagree. Rings don't really mean much in baseball. If we were talking about a basketball player, you might have a point. Ted Williams never won a ring and was pretty bad in the one World Series he played in. He's still one of the best hitters of all time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 Rings don't really mean much in baseball. Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 Lol. I agree with wombat, it does not matter as much. Ted Wlliams never won and he can make an argument for being the greatest ever. Ernie Banks. Griffey. Gwynn. I think the dynamic might have shifted a tad, but unlike basketball where it is uber important, it is less so in baseball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted November 4, 2012 Author Share Posted November 4, 2012 I agree with wombat, it does not matter as much. Ted Wlliams never won and he can make an argument for being the greatest ever. Ernie Banks. Griffey. Gwynn. I think the dynamic might have shifted a tad, but unlike basketball where it is uber important, it is less so in baseball. Ruth, Mays, Aaron, Mantle, and Gehrig > Williams, Cobb, Banks, Griffey Jr and Gwynn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Barry Bonds also has 0 rings. Balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Ruth, Mays, Aaron, Mantle, and Gehrig > Williams, Cobb, Banks, Griffey Jr and Gwynn Just when I think you cannot possibly be any dumber, you raise the bar. Congrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.05f3dc52804d5fd84cf09ccfcd7bd10b.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.