Yankees and Starting Pitching

[Mattingly]

you know your avatar is a has-been? hmmm....Coco Crisp or Johnny Damon? Tough choice there. hahaha, good luck with your "idiot"

When considering that Damon only required giving up money, while Crisp cost you a blue chip prospect and decent relief pitcher, it really isn't much of a tough choice at all. Damon in a heartbeat. You probably won't agree until Marte is a superstar in Cleveland.

If you two wish to open a serious thread about Coco Crisp vs Johnny Damon, please start a new thread here under NYY, as this one is about Yankee pitching. Please also be civil and discuss the baseball aspects of it, rather than just the "my team is better than your team" thing which seems too evident when looser standards are encouraged.

Thanks.

[Mattingly]

At his peak, for a few years and certainly for ONE game that must be won, Koufax destroys Clemens.

I've never followed Koufax's big-game demeanor, so I can't say he'd "destroy" Clemens or not. By "destroying", I'm thinking that Koufax goes 9, allows only 1 run, and Clemens gets taken out after having given up 5 runs in 4-5 innings.

Clemens has many super pent-up moments before big games and his level of hyperactivity have been noted by the NY sports press. In one game against the Red Sox in the 2003 ALCS, he was taken out early while Pedro did quite well, and Mike Mussina made his first playof appearance.

[pacewon]

you know your avatar is a has-been? hmmm....Coco Crisp or Johnny Damon? Tough choice there. hahaha, good luck with your "idiot"

When considering that Damon only required giving up money, while Crisp cost you a blue chip prospect and decent relief pitcher, it really isn't much of a tough choice at all. Damon in a heartbeat. You probably won't agree until Marte is a superstar in Cleveland.

[yankeekiller34BigPapi]

I agree and disagree with you.

Yes I do agree that johnson is getting older but he does look like a pitcher to me than can excel in his early 40's. look if he preformes the way he did last august and september he'll be fine. mussina's main problem is consistency. in some days he pitched, he got 6 or 7 solid innings. in others he got killed in the first 2. i think this a problem with all the yankees starters...consistency. i disagree, they do have talent. but they need to preform consistently evey time its their turn in the rotation. this is the major promblem the rotation had in 2005. pavano i dont trust. i think we should trade him for a better pitcher. wang is a good young pitcher who, with a little experience, can be a reliable starter. chacon is very good. he is a pitcher who can excel in the AL. he is the only starter here thats preformed consistently every game he pitched. i dont think wright is bad, just that he shouldn't be a starter. he has a hard-throwing arm that will fit in well in our bullpen. he looks like the guy we can use for the 6th/7th inning. i mean he certainly is better than tanyon sturtze. But again, yakees starters do have the talent. They just need to use this talent every time they start.

Also, shouldn't this be in the yankees forum????

you know your avatar is a has-been? hmmm....Coco Crisp or Johnny Damon? Tough choice there. hahaha, good luck with your "idiot"

[Tinyballer]

well heres the link http://story.scout.com/a.z?s=318&p=2&c=350213 but thats mostly about after his shoulder problems so his stuff would've been even better when it was in taiwan. And when you guyz signed him you guyz thought he could be ur ace and at minimum a middle of rotation starter thats why you guyz gave him that huge signing bonus so i think he can still pan out and look he use to strike out almost a batter per inning in the third paragraph it clearly documents that he could throw 95mph on every pitch and on the bottom it sayz he hangs around 95-98mphs every time on his fastball and no lower

[moebarguy]

Do you have a link or any proof that he was ever throwing that hard?

[Tinyballer]

but pre tommy john surgery he was constantly throwing a 98mph fastball do you not think he will gain it back?

[moebarguy]

Not like Roger Clemens interms of strike out but if his arm heals he could have similar power arm and stuff he jus seems to be satisfied with a ground ball and thats what it sayz in a few scouting reports that he looks to be a pitcher like roger clemens with similar stuff

Doesn't have nearly as powerful of a fastball. He'll be lucky to repeat his rookie season.

[DoubleX]

How about another Johnson, who last pitched in 2005? Rumor has it that he's 6'10" and is a southpaw. Can he be compared to Clemens?

Nope...

[Mattingly]

I actually laughed out loud when I read this...Wang had 65 K's in 150 IP between Triple-A and the Yanks. He'll be lucky to be a quarter of the pitcher Clemens was and is.

I remember the Mets advertised about 2 winters ago some "Japanese Nolan Ryan". I'd have remembered his name if he were as advertised, but that's about the same thing.

Wang is very good, but unless he heavily improves upon his 2005 rookie season, I'd say he'll be a good #4-5 pitcher for awhile. He won't overpower opponents, won't throw any unhittable "Lord Charles" curves, but he won't exactly hurt the team either.

If he can improve to being a #3 pitcher, and given that there's a strong enough staff to warrant such a number, I'd be very impressed. However, I'm of the "show me something" variety, in that I'll voice my support of this only after he's demonstrated that he's worthy.

[Mattingly]

Agreed. Comparing Wang to Clemens is a bit of a stretch. I think there might be only one pitcher ever that could be reasonably compared to Clemens, and he last pitched in 1927 (Walter Johnson).

How about another Johnson, who last pitched in 2005? Rumor has it that he's 6'10" and is a southpaw. Can he be compared to Clemens?

[Tinyballer]

Not like Roger Clemens interms of strike out but if his arm heals he could have similar power arm and stuff he jus seems to be satisfied with a ground ball and thats what it sayz in a few scouting reports that he looks to be a pitcher like roger clemens with similar stuff

[moebarguy]

If Wang Chien Ming regains the stuff he has had in the past he not only will be a reliable pitcher but one who could end up like Roger Clemens. Similar fastball heater when he was young if wang regains his forum Wang Sinker Clemens Splitter hey who knowes maybe Wang can become an ace if he does regain the nasty stuff he once possessed.

I actually laughed out loud when I read this...Wang had 65 K's in 150 IP between Triple-A and the Yanks. He'll be lucky to be a quarter of the pitcher Clemens was and is.

[DoubleX]

As Mark Twain said, There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

How can a valid comparison be make if one defines peak years as ten seasons?

Koufax was at his peak starting in 1963. After four peak seasons, he retired.

For those four seasons, Koufax was better than anyone who ever pitched, including Clemens.

In real life, he was virtually unhittable when he had to be. If the hitter doesn't hit the ball, the hitter can't do much damage.

Koufax had ERA's of 1.88, 1.74, 2.04, and 1.73 in CONSECUTIVE years.

This is why we use ERA+. Koufax's ERA's were so low because the league as an average posted much lower ERAs in the 60's due to the raised mound. Clemens may never have strung together 4 seasons as strong as Koufax's, but at his peak, Clemens has better seasons according to ERA+. Koufax's high ERA+ was 190; Clemens has eclipsed that three times, going as high as 226, 221, and 211. That's incredible. Koufax never had one year like that, much less three. The fact that Clemens did it for 3x longer than Koufax also says a lot.

Like I said, I'm a big Koufax fan, and would like to have seen him pitch longer, especially considering his last year, 1966 was his greatest. But Clemens, is quite possibly the best pitcher that ever lives, and at his best, has performed better than Koufax (though Koufax did string together 4 consecutive years of greatness, whereas Clemens best years are scattered a bit throughout his career).

[LouGehrig]

As Mark Twain said, There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

How can a valid comparison be make if one defines peak years as ten seasons?

Koufax was at his peak starting in 1963. After four peak seasons, he retired.

For those four seasons, Koufax was better than anyone who ever pitched, including Clemens.

In real life, he was virtually unhittable when he had to be. If the hitter doesn't hit the ball, the hitter can't do much damage.

Koufax had ERA's of 1.88, 1.74, 2.04, and 1.73 in CONSECUTIVE years.

Koufax's WHIPS in those years were 0.875, 0.928, 0.855, and 0.985.

He struck out 382 hitters when hitters didn't strike out as they have for much of Clemens' career.

When facing the best of the other league, Koufax allowed 0.95 earned runs a game. It took Willie Davis and a total of two runs in four games in the 1966 WS to beat Koufax.

Clemens has not exactly been Mr. Clutch in the WS. (See the 1986 Mets and the 2001 Diamondbacks).

You can take Clemens. Those who select Koufax will have made a superior selection.

Now, I am NOT saying that Koufax had a better career. I AM saying that at his peak, Koufax was better than Clemens. Why, Don Sutton had a better career than Koufax in many ways.

Comparing Seaver, Ryan, and Clemens would produce a closer contest. None of them was a good as Koufax, but that is redundant because I already have claimed that at his peak, no one had more talent nor applied it as did Koufax.

Finally, I find it fascinating that some scouts and teams are stating that evaluating talent the old way---by observing---is once again being employed to a great degree because it is difficult to evaluate statistics since one cannot know how such statistics were produced.

Did Mr. McGwire or Mr. Bonds or Mr. Clemens have special help?

The point is not whether a player should be given special help. The point is that statistics, especially in the last few years, have had variables introduced that cannot be controlled.