Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Who would you start in a big game: Glavine or Maddux?" From Stark...

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

  • "Who would you start in a big game: Glavine or Maddux?" From Stark...

    Any argument that Glavine is a worthwhile starter in a game of importance went out the window on the last day of the 2007 season, as much as one game can mean anything. There is no longer any reasonable argument that Glavine's experience or veteran status can supercede his diminished ability, but I don't think I'm saying anything contrary to MOFO opinion here.

    Anyway, I thought you all might find this article amusing given how Glavine's Mets career ended.

    ESPN: Chat with Jayson Stark - SportsNation

    Talk about your rough choices: a 303-game winner or a 347-game winner. That's like asking which you would rather drive: a classic Rolls or a classic Bentley.

    Then again, separating Greg Maddux from Tom Glavine has never been easy. Born 20 days apart in 1966. Teammates and rotation-mates for 10 years. Combined to win all but two of the eight National League Cy Youngs handed out between 1991 and '98. Known as much for their IQ as their MPH.

    But making the rough choices is what we do here in Hot Stove Heater-ville. So let's examine the arguments for two of the greatest pitchers of our lifetimes:

    The case for Glavine
    This will come as a shock to all Mets fans who can't forget the last game Glavine ever pitched in New York, but he's still one of the most dependable left-handed starters alive. Yeah, still.

    He made more quality starts last year (23) than any left-hander in the league and was second in the majors to C.C. Sabathia (25). He also led all NL left-handers in quality-start percentage (68 percent). And he has been no worse than second in the league in that department for three straight years. (He was at 69 percent and 70 percent the previous two seasons.)

    Glavine may not be what he used to be. But if you view him over the six-month long-haul, as opposed to the messy-start-you-can't-forget short haul, he remains a terrific keep-you-in-the-game option. And that's what all those quality starts reflect.

    He had more quality starts last year than Johan Santana, Brandon Webb or Matt Cain. And over the last three years, the Glavine-versus-Maddux quality-start standings are no contest:

    2007: Glavine 23, Maddux 18
    2006: Glavine 22, Maddux 17
    2005: Glavine 23, Maddux 18

    The case for Maddux
    Just because Maddux now averages under 80 pitches a start, some people have the mistaken impression that he has become a guy who taxes his bullpen. Uh, look again. He pitched 198 innings last year. And he now has worked at least 198 in 20 straight seasons. So who else has done that, you ask? Nobody. (Cy Young was the old record-holder, with 19.)

    Obviously, Maddux is no longer the chisel-that-Cy-Young, 1.56-ERA machine he used to be. But while Glavine has morphed into a nibble-maniac, Maddux attacks hitters more than ever.

    Only seven pitchers in the live-ball era have walked as few hitters as Maddux did last year (25) in a season of 198 innings or more. (It's the third time he's done that, of course.) And at one point last season, the Mad Dog went 244 consecutive hitters between walks -- a sign of just how aggressive he is in the strike zone.

    Finally, don't underestimate how effective this guy is, even in his twilight years. Over the last three seasons, Maddux has more wins (42) than Mark Buehrle, Barry Zito or Brad Penny. He has thrown more innings (633) than Roy Halladay, Jake Peavy or Sabathia. He has allowed fewer base runners (11.23 per 9 IP) than Roy Oswalt, Carlos Zambrano or Tim Hudson. And he has a better strikeout-walk ratio (4.19) than Josh Beckett, Brandon Webb or John Smoltz.

    The choice
    What is it about Greg Maddux, anyway? Even though his numbers don't look much better than Glavine's -- and, in many cases, actually look worse -- nearly everyone I surveyed said they'd rather have Maddux than Glavine. And much as I respect Glavine the pitcher and human being, I'm with them all the way.

    Maddux had to make a mid-career readjustment a few years back. But since he made it, he has been the same guy, year-in and year-out, for three straight seasons. (ERAs those last three years: 4.24, 4.20 and 4.14). Glavine, on the other hand, is trending in the wrong direction; his ERAs over the last three years look like this: 3.53, 3.82 and 4.45.

    Glavine gives you more quality starts over the course of a season. But he also gives you more starts that turn into utter disasters. Maddux, on the other hand, is one of those rare commodities in this sport: a guy who almost always gives his team exactly what it expects.

    Oh, and there's one more thing we shouldn't overlook here. Everyone who has ever played with Greg Maddux looks at him as, essentially, a genius. The ripple effect of that genius on everyone around him is incalculable. As an executive from one of Maddux's old teams put it, "Glavine might win more games, but in the big picture, Maddux will win more games for your team."
    Originally posted by Busyman, September 28, 2008
    1. Fire Omar
    2. Re-hire Omar so you can fire him again
    3. Literally set Omar on fire.

  • #2
    This is the biggest hodge-podge of nonsensical statistics I can ever remember reading. Maddux has thrown 198 innings for 20 straight years and Cy Young has only done that for 19. Funny, I thought the benchmark was 200 innings. I guess we'll just make up a new benchmark to try to prove a point.

    And the selective comparisons are also wonderful. But would anyone in their right mind trade Oswalt, Halladay or any of the other comparative pitchers for Greg Maddux or Tom Glavine straight-up today?

    Must have been a slow day at Stark's typewriter...

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Seaver41 View Post
      This is the biggest hodge-podge of nonsensical statistics I can ever remember reading. Maddux has thrown 198 innings for 20 straight years and Cy Young has only done that for 19. Funny, I thought the benchmark was 200 innings. I guess we'll just make up a new benchmark to try to prove a point.

      And the selective comparisons are also wonderful. But would anyone in their right mind trade Oswalt, Halladay or any of the other comparative pitchers for Greg Maddux or Tom Glavine straight-up today?

      Must have been a slow day at Stark's typewriter...
      Aside from a bunch of statistical nonsense, I also like how, in the chat, Stark has to turn the clock back a dozen years to cite examples of Glavine manning up in a big game, though to be fair, Glavine had some excellent starts down the stretch and in the playoffs in 2006. Nonetheless, when you're 57 years old and declining, your hallmark performances in your prime don't suggest that there's more on the way.
      Originally posted by Busyman, September 28, 2008
      1. Fire Omar
      2. Re-hire Omar so you can fire him again
      3. Literally set Omar on fire.

      Comment


      • #4
        These writers must be suffering from cabin fever...is it February 15th yet?
        http://themetsgivemeagita.com/index.html

        http://www.facebook.com/groups/TheMetsGiveMeAgita/

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Gregory Gewirtz View Post
          Talk about your rough choices: a 303-game winner or a 347-game winner. That's like asking which you would rather drive: a pink Mary Kay Cadillac or a yellow Dodge Charger with a hemi.
          fixed
          The 2018 Mets - making the Titanic look buoyant.

          Comment


          • #6
            that's like saying what you'd pick - a little pink pussy or a huge, throbbing co...

            wait a second... that's not REALLY the analogy that we wanted there.
            Your Daily Rayne Summers Moment...
            http://www.leasticoulddo.com/




            Mitt Romney SUCKS.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by FrankStylV7 View Post
              that's like saying what you'd pick - a little pink pussy or a huge, throbbing co...

              wait a second... that's not REALLY the analogy that we wanted there.
              It's what DDP wanted.

              Aside from that, it has to be Maddux all the way. Either now or in their respective primes.

              Also - F*CK quality starts.
              "There have been artists who have failed to capture dichotomy as beautifully as the Mets have in playing Wilmer Flores at shortstop and Juan Lagares in center field."

              Comment


              • #8
                I dont think the case was ever intended to imply starting either of these guys in their current form.

                If either pitcher ever worked with a closer of any significance during their peak years 1993 through 2000 they would be wearing more than one ring.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by 15 Day DL Alou View Post
                  I dont think the case was ever intended to imply starting either of these guys in their current form.

                  If either pitcher ever worked with a closer of any significance during their peak years 1993 through 2000 they would be wearing more than one ring.
                  If so he shouldn't have spent so much time waffling about their "achievements" over the last few years and comparing them to their current contemparies.
                  "There have been artists who have failed to capture dichotomy as beautifully as the Mets have in playing Wilmer Flores at shortstop and Juan Lagares in center field."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Led, the Revenge View Post
                    If so he shouldn't have spent so much time waffling about their "achievements" over the last few years and comparing them to their current contemparies.
                    you are talking about Jayson Stark, I did not ever insinuate that he was not an idiot of epic proportions.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 15 Day DL Alou View Post
                      I dont think the case was ever intended to imply starting either of these guys in their current form.

                      If either pitcher ever worked with a closer of any significance during their peak years 1993 through 2000 they would be wearing more than one ring.
                      Wasn't the whole debate framed as "Who's better now?" Anything with the words "Who's now?," in it from ESPN still kinda makes my skin crawl...
                      "Jeff is the problem with the organization, and he is never going to realize that. He cannot help himself. He has to be involved. He will never hire anyone who will not let him have major input. He will not hire anyone who does not run every personnel decision through him."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I vote for none of the above. I'd rather go with Santana.

                        After watching Glavine pitch with the season on the line.... I never wish to think of him as a Met again. Ever. He can go rot somewhere.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X