Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

better rotation? who you got?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • better rotation? who you got?

    so now that the phillies have signed cliff lee, which starting four would you rather have leading your team. Smoltz, glavine, maddux, and avery (I can say around the 95 season when they won it all) or the likes of halladay, oswalt, lee and hamels (while a little bit older, these guys can still bring it)
    4
    lee, hamels, oswalt, halladay
    0.00%
    0
    smoltz, glavine, maddux, avery
    100.00%
    4

  • #2
    Well, the Atlanta foursome is all retired so I'll go with the Phillies.
    Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball

    Comment


    • #3
      I would have chosen the 1997 Braves rotation.

      Greg Maddux :: 2.20 ERA :: 232.2 IP
      Tom Glavine :: 2.96 ERA :: 240 IP
      John Smoltz :: 3.02 ERA :: 256 IP
      Denny Neagle :: 2.97 ERA :: 233.1 IP

      Maddux and Halladay are likely a wash.

      Lee and Glavine you should give the slight edge to Lee though a sound arguement could be made that Glavine's 6 quality years before 1997 make up for a better resume something that might come up again.

      John Smoltz and Hamels is likely a wash.

      Neagle and Oswalt is interesting because it is very unlikely that Oswalt will have as good a year as Neagle (I realize his numbers this past year are similar but his .227 BABIP says that his time in Philly really doesn't represent his true talent) but Oswalt's prior years similar to Glavine's could easily give the edge to Oswalt.

      What I am saying is comparing the two is likely a wash.
      Extend Prado!!!

      Comment


      • #4
        here are some more stats I snagged from an espn article. adding to what you liked about the 1997 team PBF:

        alladay, Oswalt, Hamels and Lee each had a WAR of 4.3 or better this past season, according to Baseball-Reference.com. Only three teams in history have had four starters do that in the same year: 1991 Braves (Tom Glavine, John Smoltz, Steve Avery, Charlie Leibrandt).

        • Or if you want to cite another of our favorite sabermetric stats, adjusted ERA-plus, all four Phillies starters hit 130 or better this past season (meaning they were at least 30 percentage points above league average). In the live-ball era, only two teams have had at least four qualifying starters with ERA-plus numbers that good in the same year: 1997 Braves (Glavine, Smoltz, Greg Maddux, Denny Neagle).

        Comment


        • #5
          [QUOTE=espn.com (Jayson Stark);1826222] more of the same article (good stuff):

          2011 Phillies vs. 1993 Braves

          Now we arrive at the closest parallel -- these Phillies versus a '93 Braves team that went out and signed another free agent who turned down more money from the Yankees. You might remember him -- Mr. Greg Maddux.

          Maddux joined a team that had been to two straight World Series, and was coming off a season in which it had ripped off 26 complete games, 14 shutouts and the best ERA in baseball. And it was that world-class rotation that propelled the Braves to a 104-win season in which Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz and Avery combined to go 75-33.

          "The signing of Cliff Lee really reminds me of when we signed Maddux in '93," Mazzone said. "We had a great staff in '92. The Phillies had a great staff last year. Now you're adding another tremendous piece to an already great staff. And as Bobby Cox used to say, you can never have enough pitching. That was the year we had a chance to add Maddux or Barry Bonds. We took the pitcher."

          Now, Mazzone looks back at his rotation, then looks at this Phillies rotation and almost feels as if he's staring into a mirror. That's how similar they look -- from a standpoint of stuff and talent -- to a man who ought to know.

          "On an individual basis," Mazzone said, "Halladay is as good as Maddux. He's even got that signature Maddux pitch -- that ball he can start out of the zone on a left-handed hitter and bring it back into the zone for a called strike three.

          "Then you've got Cliff Lee, with his beautiful, smooth delivery and being able to change speeds. And that was Glavine. Glavine lived off the plate a little more because he never gave in, but they're comparable.


          "Now, when you're talking Smoltzie, you're talking pure hell stuff. Best breaking ball from a right-handed pitcher that I've ever seen. And a nasty split and power fastball. But Oswalt's nasty. He can pitch north and south, east and west. And he's in attack mode all the time.

          "And then you've got Cole Hamels. I've loved Cole Hamels for a long time because I love the way he changes speeds. He compares to Avery, I think.

          "So these guys all have signature pitches and stuff and makeup as good as anybody in the game in my opinion. And Lee, I think, is the best signing since Maddux in '93. But the one thing that Braves staff will always have is the longevity of greatness."

          That longevity, obviously, creates a giant divide between these two staffs that the Phillies can't possibly overcome. Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz were teammates from 1993 through 2003. That's 11 seasons. It's possible, given the mutual option in Oswalt's contract after 2011, that this Phillies foursome will pitch together for only one season.

          "So what separates all of this," Mazzone said, "is the time we all spent together in Atlanta. They did it for a long period of time, and they did it an era of offensive baseball. So what I'm saying is, it's going to be very difficult for them to say they're as good as some of the great Braves rotations because, No. 1, we had three guys who were going to the Hall of Fame. And No. 2, all of us stayed together for such a long period of time."

          Between 1993 and 2003, Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz combined for 20 seasons with an ERA-plus of 130 or better and five Cy Young Awards. And that's the gold standard for starting-rotation brilliance in the wild-card era, if not any era.

          But beyond that, it's a reminder of something more important:

          Great as this Phillies rotation might look, it hasn't done anything yet. It's just four names printed out on a roster. Period.

          They might be four awfully famous names, with already-spectacular track records. But until they actually pitch together, dominate together and win together, anyone who tries to compare them with the great rotations in history is just speculating -- or dreaming.
          Last edited by chip&smoltz95; 12-15-2010, 12:02 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by PureBaseballFan View Post
            John Smoltz and Hamels is likely a wash.
            Don't make me come and find you.
            3 6 10 21 29 31 35 41 42 44 47

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Los Bravos View Post
              Don't make me come and find you.
              I love Smoltz but I was looking at both the one year production and the previous 3 to 4 seasons, once you compare a 5 year period they are actually pretty similar (looking at Hamels entire career compared to 93 to 97 for Smoltz). This doesn't mean I would take Hamels over Smoltz but comparing the two for both best season and over a solid timeline (realizing that the innings difference have a lot more to do with the micromanagement of the late game then a distinct gap of talent) both are very comparable and thus a wash.

              On a pure talent level (and mentality) I would take Smoltz but again trying to look at it without bias both are very equal in terms of production which is what I was looking at, if I was looking at pure talent without numbers then I would say the first two are washes still with Smoltz v Hamels going Atlanta's way and Oswalt v Neagle easily going Phillies' way thus still ending up a tie.
              Extend Prado!!!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by PureBaseballFan View Post
                On a pure talent level (and mentality) I would take Smoltz
                Those are the things that make the difference in an otherwise apparently even matchup.

                This whole idea of which year's Braves staff was the best is interesting to me. The Prime 9 episode that placed them second to the Brown era Cubs chose 1997, mainly relying on ERA+. I love that year but I've always looked more to the '93 team, which has also been getting a lot of comparisons the last few days.
                3 6 10 21 29 31 35 41 42 44 47

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Los Bravos View Post
                  Those are the things that make the difference in an otherwise apparently even matchup.

                  This whole idea of which year's Braves staff was the best is interesting to me. The Prime 9 episode that placed them second to the Brown era Cubs chose 1997, mainly relying on ERA+. I love that year but I've always looked more to the '93 team, which has also been getting a lot of comparisons the last few days.
                  I would say '97 is the Braves best overall year but '93 is a seen as a better comparison as Avery a young talented player in a similar fashion to Hamels.

                  I have a problem because of the age difference, the Braves pitchers were all in their 20s (the big three hitting their prime years) compared to the Phillies big three being in their early 30s and Avery was 23 years old which is 4 year younger then what Hamels will start the year as.

                  This is why I think '97 is the better year as all of the big three were in their 30s (30 - 31) and while Neagle doesn't have the track record of either Oswalt or Hamels he was in his prime at 28 which makes a close comparison between all but one matchup. It is a very interesting debate but as mentioned in Jayson Stark's article no matter what year you compare them to they still haven't gone out and done anything yet.
                  Extend Prado!!!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Los Bravos View Post
                    Those are the things that make the difference in an otherwise apparently even matchup.

                    This whole idea of which year's Braves staff was the best is interesting to me. The Prime 9 episode that placed them second to the Brown era Cubs chose 1997, mainly relying on ERA+. I love that year but I've always looked more to the '93 team, which has also been getting a lot of comparisons the last few days.
                    the thing that really sticks with me when I am looking back (and smoltz talked about this on mlb network wednesday), is how LONG they were dominate. A ten year span is crazy long. I mean the most the phillies will get is probably 3 or 4 (i think halladay has 3 or 4 years left) and oswalt might be out after this one if they don't pick up his option (its a mutual one).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by chip&smoltz95 View Post
                      the thing that really sticks with me when I am looking back (and smoltz talked about this on mlb network wednesday), is how LONG they were dominate. A ten year span is crazy long. I mean the most the phillies will get is probably 3 or 4 (i think halladay has 3 or 4 years left) and oswalt might be out after this one if they don't pick up his option (its a mutual one).
                      Smoltz and Glavine were both better in 1997 than 1993. Maddux is about a wash either way and I'd take Avery in 1993 over Neagle in 1997.

                      Here is the difference. The 1997 defense was good, but the 1993 defense was really, really, really good. More of the pitcher's success can be attributed to themselves in 1997 than in 1993.

                      Factoring in quality of defensive range behind the pitchers, 1996 may have been their best season - their team defense was very mediocre that year.
                      1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

                      1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

                      1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


                      The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
                      The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The '93 team, as a whole, just holds a very special place in my heart. It was Avery's last great year, Maddux's first with the team, Gant's last and McGriff's first. They only had those guys together for half a season, when (in no coincidence), they played phenominal baseball to run down the superb Giants team for the last Western Division title under the old format.

                        That's neither here nor there in this debate, I just felt like typing it all out.
                        3 6 10 21 29 31 35 41 42 44 47

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Los Bravos View Post
                          The '93 team, as a whole, just holds a very special place in my heart. It was Avery's last great year, Maddux's first with the team, Gant's last and McGriff's first. They only had those guys together for half a season, when (in no coincidence), they played phenominal baseball to run down the superb Giants team for the last Western Division title under the old format.

                          That's neither here nor there in this debate, I just felt like typing it all out.
                          I have always said that talent wise, it was their best team. A Toronto - Atlanta WS would have been saturated with incredible amounts of talent.
                          1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

                          1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

                          1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


                          The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
                          The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

                          Comment

                          Ad Widget

                          Collapse
                          Working...
                          X