BP Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Translation-Madmike can't have a normal discussion with people without resorting to name calling and lashing out. The putting on ignore is a knee jerk reaction to having to lsiten to someone elses opionions, who just not might jive with Mike's. That is a foreign concept to him. I just thought I'd quote this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 so Nolan Ryan was a career #3 starter? Ryan was a tad overrated. He had some great years and some mediocre ones. The fact that he was able to pitch till he was 46 is the reason his has the numbers he does. he was never as dominant as some of the other pitchers you've mentioned previously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 I just thought I'd quote this Funny that i'm perfectly fine listening to anyone's opinion except that stalker's. I don't have anyone else on ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Ryan was a tad overrated. He had some great years and some mediocre ones. The fact that he was able to pitch till he was 46 is the reason his has the numbers he does. he was never as dominant as some of the other pitchers you've mentioned previously. he was hella over-rated, yes. never won a cy young.q but he's still a top 30 pitcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 I've seen his numbers. I wouldn't talk about a player if i didn't take a look at their numbers. His numbers before last season were just ok. Not great not awful. Roger Clemens has a 143 ERA+ in his career. I guess he's #3 as well. Stop cherry picking your stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Roger Clemens has a 143 ERA+ in his career. I guess he's #3 as well. Stop cherry picking your stats. What? Do you know what ERA+ is and how is works? Clemens' ERA+ is insanely good. It's top 10 all time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 What? Do you know what ERA+ is and how is works? Clemens' ERA+ is insanely good. It's top 10 all time. So the stats aren't relevant now? http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/clemero02.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 So the stats aren't relevant now? http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/clemero02.shtml What the hell are you talking about? A 143 ERA+ is MUCH better than a 116. You really are clueless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 What the hell are you talking about? A 143 ERA+ is MUCH better than a 116. You really are clueless. Clemens has been pitching for 20+ years and posted some crappy numbers over his career. Take a look at 1995, 2002 and 2003. Beckett is 27 years old and is becoming one of the most dominant pitchers in the game. What part of that don't you understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Clemens has been pitching for 20+ years and posted some crappy numbers over his career. Take a look at 1995. Beckett is 27 years old and is becoming one of the most dominant pitchers in the game. What part of that don't you understand? The only reason you compared Clemens' and Beckett's ERA+'s is cause you don't understand the stat. BTW everyone said that beckett would be one of the best pitchers in baseball after he beat the yankees in the world series and that didn't happen. OK so beckett's career ERA+ is the same as clemens in one of his worst years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 The only reason you compared Clemens' and Beckett's ERA+'s is cause you don't understand the stat. BTW everyone said that beckett would be one of the best pitchers in baseball after he beat the yankees in the world series and that didn't happen. OK so beckett's career ERA+ is the same as clemens in one of his worst years. Beckett is one of the most dominant pitchers in baseball. Deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Beckett is one of the most dominant pitchers in baseball. Deal with it. LOL i proved that you had no idea what you're talking about and this BS is all you have? I said he's been great THIS SEASON so you're really doing nothing to hurt my argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 LOL i proved that you had no idea what you're talking about and this BS is all you have? I said he's been great THIS SEASON so you're really doing nothing to hurt my argument. I know what I'm talking about. If you want to crunch numbers from years ago and make outlandish statements about the future then have at it. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you call Mike Lowell's performance this year "luck?" You use stats to try and make a point. When those same stats come back to kick you in the arse (Wes Welker anyone?) you either disappear or talk about next season. You are a fraud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 I know what I'm talking about. If you want to crunch numbers from years ago and make outlandish statements about the future then have at it. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you call Mike Lowell's performance this year "luck?" You use stats to try and make a point. When those same stats come back to kick you in the arse (Wes Welker anyone?) you either disappear or talk about next season. You are a fraud. You used Clemens' ERA in some ****amamie attempt to prove something about beckett and I'M a fraud? LMAO Lowell's batting avg on balls in play is 342 which is pure luck. Thats the reason for his 120+ RBI's and all the other things he's done this year. Welker is a 3rd WR nothing more nothing less. Thats what his numbers say he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 You used Clemens' ERA in some ****amamie attempt to prove something about beckett and I'M a fraud? LMAO Lowell's batting avg on balls in play is 342 which is pure luck. Thats the reason for his 120+ RBI's and all the other things he's done this year. Welker is a 3rd WR nothing more nothing less. Thats what his numbers say he is. Chad Pennington has the 2nd highest completion percentage in NFL history. Does that make him a good QB? Watch the games not the stat sheet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Chad Pennington has the 2nd highest completion percentage in NFL history. Does that make him a good QB? Watch the games not the stat sheet. Thats why you have to know what stats are important and which ones aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Thats why you have to know what stats are important and which ones aren't. The stats that back up your argument are important but the ones that make you look like a fool don't count? You just made my point. Stats are what they are. I base my opinions on what I see on the field, not what I read in the box score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 The stats that back up your argument are important but the ones that make you look like a fool don't count? You just made my point. Stats are what they are. I base my opinions on what I see on the field, not what I read in the box score. Not true because i use the same stats over and over again. The important ones. And only a stupid person thinks they can get a better image of whats going on by watching on TV. Any game you watch the DEFINITION of a small sample size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Not true because i use the same stats over and over again. The important ones. And only a stupid person thinks they can get a better image of whats going on by watching on TV. Any game you watch the DEFINITION of a small sample size. The "important" stats. Can you pleases enlighten me on what stats are important and which ones are not important? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 The "important" stats. Can you pleases enlighten me on what stats are important and which ones are not important? There are too many stats for me to list every one. Go back and read my posts or better yet read The Hardball times or Baseball Prospectus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 There are too many stats for me to list every one. Go back and read my posts or better yet read The Hardball times or Baseball Prospectus. You should read this: http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hugheph01.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 You should read this: http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hugheph01.shtml What about it? You are even more clueless than i thought you were. You have NOTHING so you keep changing the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 What about it? You have repeatedly stated that Hughes is going to be a stud. Those "stats" tell me he is mediocre at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 You have repeatedly stated that Hughes is going to be a stud. Those "stats" tell me he is mediocre at best. LOL yeah because I said that he should be judged on his 21 year old rookie season. In fact he had a 2.73 ERA in his last 5 starts and dominated in the playoffs, at 21. I said Hughes WOULD BE a dominant pitcher and he will. I never said it would be at 21. YOU'RE saying that because you have no knowledge to fall back on in arguments. So you make stupid statements with no factual backing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 LOL yeah because I said that he should be judged on his 21 year old rookie season. In fact he had a 2.73 ERA in his last 5 starts and dominated in the playoffs, at 21. I said Hughes WOULD BE a dominant pitcher and he will. I never said it would be at 21. YOU'RE saying that because you have no knowledge to fall back on in arguments. So you make stupid statements with no factual backing. The facts tell me that Hughes had a 4.46 ERA. You try and make your point about things that will happen in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 The facts tell me that Hughes had a 4.46 ERA. You try and make your point about things that will happen in the future. I never said he would dominate from the second he came into the bigs. He's 21 years friggin old LOL. Anyone who knows anything in baseball knows that Hughes is a stud. His peripherals SCREAM stud even with his inflated ERA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 I never said he would dominate from the second he came into the bigs. He's 21 years friggin old LOL. Anyone who knows anything in baseball knows that Hughes is a stud. His peripherals SCREAM stud even with his inflated ERA. "Anyone who knows anything in baseball knows that Hughes is a stud." But Josh Beckett is a #3 starter based on his stats? This is why you have no credibility on the board. You slaughter guys like Beckett who have performed on the biggest stage and then anoint Hughes as the best thing since sliced bread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 "Anyone who knows anything in baseball knows that Hughes is a stud." But Josh Beckett is a #3 starter based on his stats? This is why you have no credibility on the board. You slaughter guys like Beckett who have performed on the biggest stage and then anoint Hughes as the best thing since sliced bread. And you're clueless because you have NO IDEA how to read. When Hughes has mediocre stats after 900 big league innings get back to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 And you're clueless because you have NO IDEA how to read. When Hughes has mediocre stats after 900 big league innings get back to me. I thought you said Hughes was going to be a stud. Didn't you base that opinion on his 300 minor league innings? Now he needs 900 innings to prove that he isn't close to being as dominant as Beckett? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 I thought you said Hughes was going to be a stud. Didn't you base that opinion on his 300 minor league innings? Now he needs 900 innings to prove that he isn't close to being as dominant as Beckett? His 300 minor league innings are meaningful and dominant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 His 300 minor league innings are meaningful and dominant. Minor League. I already posted his crappy Major League stats. Can you answer this question: Why do you ignore the current performance of a player and then bring up past and "future" stats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Minor League. I already posted his crappy Major League stats. Can you answer this question: Why do you ignore the current performance of a player and then bring up past and "future" stats? If you think thats what i'm doing your reading skills are worse than i thought. And MINOR LEAGUE stats are very good predictors of major league stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 The facts tell me that Hughes had a 4.46 ERA. You try and make your point about things that will happen in the future. Bro this is a weird one to fight. Anyone who watched Hughes for any time at all will tell you they really like this kids chances. The kid can flat out pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 If you think thats what i'm doing your reading skills are worse than i thought. And MINOR LEAGUE stats are very good predictors of major league stats. My reading skills are fine thanks. It would be good if you actually admitted when your drivel turned out to be correct. Beckett: Wrong Lowell: Wrong Welker: Wrong Stallworth: Wrong Rutgers: Wrong Big East: Wrong Have you ever admitted that you were wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 My reading skills are fine thanks. It would be good if you actually admitted when your drivel turned out to be correct. Beckett: Wrong Lowell: Wrong Welker: Wrong Stallworth: Wrong Rutgers: Wrong Big East: Wrong Have you ever admitted that you were wrong? Just because a clueless borderline illiterate like you says i'm wrong, that doesn't make that the reality of the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.