Skip to Next Poll »
6
Which MLB Team Is The Team Of The Decade?
You can vote for an "other" if you want, but the teams listed are the teams who have won a World Series Championship in the 2000's. Pick the one that you think is the "team of the decade", by whichever standards you see fit.
Featured by: Pat at 12/29/09 3:57PM
| Closed on 12/31/09 at 11:45PM
FanIQ Pts? No | MLB, Boston Red Sox, New York Yankees | Multiple Choice Opinion Poll
Teams:  Arizona Diamondbacks | Los Angeles Angels | St. Louis Cardinals
Players:  Brandon Phillips
Team Breakout:
78 Fans 
0%a. Arizona Diamondbacks
35%b. Boston Red Sox
8%c. Chicago White Sox
1%d. Florida Marlins
3%e. Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
41%f. New York Yankees
4%g. Philadelphia Phillies
4%h. St. Louis Cardinals
5%i. Other

 &nbp;
TOP COMMENT * * * * * * * * * * * *
#15 | 1755 days ago
jasonwrites (+)

Oh, I don't know... because they're an interesting team? Because they succeed "in spite of" spending half as much as the Red Sox-- and one-third as much as the Yankees? Because they play in the most competitive division in baseball? The quality of pitching top to bottom in the NL West far exceeds that in the AL East.
Boston Red Sox  
  
156 Comments | Sorted by Most Recent First | Red = You Disagreed
Vote for your favorite comments. Fans decide the Top Comment (3+ votes) and also hide poor quality comments (4+ votes).
#1 | 1756 days ago
jasonwrites (+)

Both the Yankees and Sox won two WS this decade, but Boston's came in a three-year/four-season span rather than NY's "bookends"; though, the Yankees appeared in four Series this decade, and the Sox only those two.

Boston's wins were both sweeps. New York's went 4-1 and 4-2 (and losses 3-4 and 2-4).

Boston's turnaround after being down 0-3 and winning four straight elimination games in the '04 ALCS has to be the story of the decade.

I am no fan of either team and dislike how ESPN seems to think they're the only two teams that matter in MLB, but I'll call it as I see it here.

Can't wait for Dragon to come along and spout his babble-- here you go, I'll save some time: Thaaaaaa Yankee$$$$ winnnn,
Thaaaaaa Yankee$$$$ winnnn!!!
Boston Red Sox  
#2 | 1756 days ago

I went with the Other/Null vote option, as Jason tries to argue with himself above, neither the Yankees or Red Sox can really separate themselves far enough for their to be a clear cut choice; heck, there can even be a case for the Angels to be made as well.

So I went the route by just saying none of the above.
Other  
#3 | 1756 days ago

 Easily the Yankees.  Red Sox had a great decade as well, but its a pretty easy comparison when they play in the same division.
New York Yankees  
#4 | 1756 days ago

(Edited by mnstar1959)
Toughest to pick of the four!
Boston Red Sox  
#5 | 1756 days ago

Winning two Series, and going to four, is better than winning two, and going to two. The Yankees won the division every year from 2000-2006, and then again in 2009. I am not a Yankees fan, but they are the team of the decade.
New York Yankees  
#6 | 1756 days ago

Plus they are in 2 of the largest TV markets on the east coast in 2 of the biggest cities in the east coast.  It all comes down to the all mighty $$$ for ESPN and the best place to get them is in New York and Boston when it comes to baseball.
#7 | 1756 days ago

I have to go with the Yankees, check that, the frigging Yankees.
New York Yankees  
#8 | 1756 days ago
vindog (+)

4 World Series Appearances???  Enough said!
New York Yankees  
#9 | 1755 days ago
wILLIERDAVIS (+)

New York , The real KING of  New York baseball team, The New York BRONX BOMBER  YANKEES won it all
the champs are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!
New York Yankees  
#10 | 1755 days ago

Lol, I kinda went for the home team here.

Philadelphia Phillies  
#11 | 1755 days ago

Hey Dragonz Blade- What market is ESPN(Bristol) located in?

Yes, money rules sports marketing
Boston Red Sox  
#12 | 1755 days ago

I hate saying this because we all know that money talks...  But the fact is it isn't even close.

Yankees:  8 Division Titles
Yankees:  4 Pennants
Yankees:  2 World Series

It has to be the New York Yankees for both their accomplishments on the field and that they are the poster boy for what is wrong with MLB today.

Anyone who thinks the Red Sox had a better decade is doing so only out of spite for the Yankees.  I'm not a fan either but facts are facts.
New York Yankees  
#13 | 1755 days ago

Parent company, headquarters is in Bristol I do believe.......eastern market, markets Eastern teams

Boston Red Sox  
#14 | 1755 days ago

Since when is ESPN headquartered in LA?
New York Yankees  
#15 | 1755 days ago
jasonwrites (+)

Oh, I don't know... because they're an interesting team? Because they succeed "in spite of" spending half as much as the Red Sox-- and one-third as much as the Yankees? Because they play in the most competitive division in baseball? The quality of pitching top to bottom in the NL West far exceeds that in the AL East.
Boston Red Sox  
#16 | 1755 days ago
(+)

jasonwrites wrote:
Oh, I don't know... because they're an interesting team? Because they succeed "in spite of" spending half as much as the Red Sox-- and one-third as much as the Yankees? Because they play in the most competitive division in baseball? The quality of pitching top to bottom in the NL West far exceeds that in the AL East.
As interesting as the Yankees. I don't think so. As interesting as the Red Sox I don't think so. Fact you play in the middle of know were I do think so. Most competitive division in baseball. Your league can't even hit they stink. AL East can pitch and hit. LOL. Quality what Quality 
#17 | 1755 days ago

Yes the yankees appeared in more, but losing a 3 game lead to the sox in the playoffs hurts more than helps. Red Sox changing history puts them on the top this decade, but I'm sure the Yankees will buy their way to several more WS appearances throughout the years to come
Boston Red Sox  
#18 | 1755 days ago
jasonwrites (+)

I stick by my assessment, though I can totally concede the logic of the argument for the Yankees.

I'm just chuckling that there were votes for the White Sox and Marlins.

And that Dragon... keeps on being Dragon. Apparently baseball doesn't exist outside the northeastern U.S.
Boston Red Sox  
#19 | 1755 days ago
jasonwrites (+)

Let's see.... in this decade, the Diamondbacks won the World Series, and the Giants and Rockies have both appeared in it. The Dodgers have been one step away from the World Series both of the last two years but lost to the Phillies both times.

So as far as teams appearing in the WS in the past decade, both divisions have three.

If Baltimore and Toronto are so good why do they have a combined zero postseason appearances this decade? Don't say it's because New York or Boston always win the division, because Tampa Bay proved that doesn't have to happen every year.

Anyways, I didn't say the NL West was "better"; I said it was "more competitive." Most years the AL East is competitive only between two teams. I don't consider three other teams playing between .400 and .500 baseball-- due to inferior talent, due to inferior PAYROLLS-- as "competitive." And I didn't say anything about hitting, either. I would be stupid to claim that any other division is superior offensively to the one that contains the Yankees and Red Sox. I said that the NL West has the best pitching top to bottom, meaning all five teams.
Boston Red Sox  
#20 | 1755 days ago
jasonwrites (+)

That's also false.

I grew up in Atlanta, I've toured CNN Headquarters, and the majority of their broadcasts originate from that building.
Boston Red Sox  
#21 | 1755 days ago

Where did he say the NL West (Wast?) is better than the AL East? I read depth of pitching far exceeds, which actually is a fact, and not something we misconstrue without that need of being capable to read.

You seem to have that arrogance about you to where you honestly think that baseball doesn't even exist west of the Bronx, and those fans that are in the rest of the country are absolutely clueless when it comes to the sport, because we haven't immersed ourselves in Yankee s**t our entire lives.

I'm sorry to let you know this, but there are knowledgeable baseball fans that are not fans of the Yankees, Red Sox, the AL East in general, and live outside of the Northeast. It must be shocking to you, but there are far better pitching staffs in the Majors that are better than both the Yankees and Red Sox - San Francisco Giants are one of them, but I suppose you also think that the only Giants that are in existence are those in NY/NJ too, right?

The rest of your paragraph is absolutely irrelevant, as Jason was speaking of pitching, and never made a claim that hitting was comparable, you made that mistake, not him.
Other  
#22 | 1755 days ago

Look I know it is not the right answer, but in my myopic opinion I am rolling with the White Sox.

This has been the greatest decade for the White Sox.  As a White Sox fan who had to cringe every time Eight Men Out came on along with remembering the wreckages of the playoff failures past, the 2005 Series win makes this decade fan-bleeping-tastic. Along with that wonderful year, the other reason this has been a great decade is that in the long history of the White Sox the team had never made the post-season more than twice in a decade (yes that is a stat most math majors would say sucks). This decade the Sox appeared three times. I know it is sad, but I will take it. Lastly, winning a title before the Cubs makes it even better.

Okay the crazy person has gone on long enough.
Chicago White Sox  
#23 | 1755 days ago

Actually, they are a LOT more interesting than the Yankees.  You know why?  Because they have managed to build a competitive team without Yankee kind of money.  That story is ALWAYS more interesting.  You disagree because you aren't a baseball fan.  You are a Yankee fan.  That clouds your judgment a tad.

For the record, the toughest divisions last year was the west division of both leagues.
New York Yankees  
#24 | 1755 days ago

The AL East is a good division.  But top to bottom? No.  The Yankees and Red Sox are good.  But after that the talent severely drops.  The Jays aren't good.  The Rays are mediocre at best and the O's are the worst team in the AL.  If it weren't for the Nationals, they would be the worst team in the Majors.  The NL west has three pretty darn good teams. It is tougher to rack up wins in the NL West because the 5 teams are all not only good, but very close in talent level.  The same cannot be said for all teams in the AL east.

But I understand why you think what you do.  You don't like baseball at all.  You only like the Yankees.  So it is natural for you to think what you do.
New York Yankees  
#25 | 1755 days ago

If they were in the NL West, they may still win but I think they would have a tougher time in doing so.  And they certainly wouldn't win 103 games as they wouldn't have Rays, Jays, and O's to pad their wins.
New York Yankees  
#26 | 1755 days ago

That's your counterpoint?  That they wouldn't have the Red Sox or Angels to deal with?   The Angels, a team they only play 6 times anyway?  Did you forget that the AL East has three other, not particuarlly good teams in it that they play  54 games against?   ALL the teams in the NL West are good.  With the possible exception of Padres.  Who are much much better than the O's anyway.

You are either playing the longest running gag in internet history or are completely dim to baseball west of New York.
New York Yankees  
#27 | 1754 days ago

Quote of the day: "The Baltimore Orioles may be better than the San Francisco Giants, Houston Astros, and Arizona Diamondbacks - they can hit".

You talking anymore about the sport of baseball is asinine. I know I don't have the willpower to argue anymore, good luck to Jason, ML, and anyone else that chooses to.
Other  
#28 | 1754 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

 How about teams that dont go to the series and still fill up their park every single ball game? The teams that the fans go to see play even thought they know thier team probably aren't going again this year either. It's easy to love a team during a decade of winning, true love of a team comes after decades of not winning and you are still proud to call them yours. Most interesting teams, the Cubs. Just wait til next year! 
Other  
#29 | 1754 days ago

The point isn't who is on the Yankees roster.  The point is who they currently play most of their games against.  The fact is, 54 of their games are against mediocre to bad teams.  The 2009 Giants were a better team than the 2009 Rays.  Plain and simple.  The 2009 Orioles are worse than the 2009 Padres.  The 2009 Dodgers were better than the 2009 Red Sox.  The 2009 Rox were better than the 2009 Jays.  The only AL east team better than all the NL West teams is the Yankees.
Look I already admitted to you that the Yankees could very well win the NL West.  My point was that they would have a much tougher time doing it in that division because the overall quality of the teams is better in the NL west than the AL East.
New York Yankees  
#30 | 1754 days ago

The Rays were a good team in '08.  But they were mediocre in '09.  The Giants, Rox, and Dodgers were all better teams.  They were better than the Padres and perhaps as good as the Snakes.
The Jays are in the same boat.

PS...  The O's are way worse than the Royals.
New York Yankees  
#31 | 1754 days ago

I'm not saying the NL a bad league

No, that's EXACTLY what you are saying.  As the following comment authored by you demonstrates...  "NL are Roaches. AL are the Bees"
New York Yankees  
#32 | 1754 days ago

Actually, you can very easily get in the World Series on a fluke.  It has been done many many times.  The larger post season makes the playoffs more random.  Look at how many years the Yankees were the best team and how often did they get to the series?   Not nearly as often as their skill level would indicate.
New York Yankees  
#33 | 1754 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

 Lets not forget that you have a league that the pitchers don't have to hit. That alone is one of the reasons that theA.L. appears to be a better league. Lets take their pitchers put them in the N.L. and see what happens. 
Other  
#34 | 1754 days ago
vindog (+)

cubsgirl2 wrote:
 Lets not forget that you have a league that the pitchers don't have to hit. That alone is one of the reasons that theA.L. appears to be a better league. Lets take their pitchers put them in the N.L. and see what happens. 
Ummm, that's happened on numerous occasions and for the majority of them- they actually do better in the N.L.   Examples: Andy Pettitte, C.C. Sabathia, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, etc......
New York Yankees  
#35 | 1754 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

 Ok but how about the 100's of others? (now you know i know better than to get into a debate with you?
Other  
#36 | 1754 days ago

The Yankees all the way cause they had A-Rod and Jeter along the way.
New York Yankees  
#37 | 1754 days ago
vindog (+)

cubsgirl2 wrote:
 Ok but how about the 100's of others? (now you know i know better than to get into a debate with you?
But there are also 100's of "others" who did succeed in the N.L. after coming from the A.L. as well.  Maybe it is just a "trend" lately- but it seems that A.L. Pitchers making the transition to the N.L., tend to do better than those N.L. pitchers going to the A.L.  But of course there are exceptions- but I am speaking in recent terms that's all.
New York Yankees  
#38 | 1754 days ago

Yup, finally, you made an excellent point. I dislike a team because my favorite team can't beat them - your logic is astounding.

(That was all sarcasm by the way, you do know what sarcasm is, right?)
Other  
#39 | 1754 days ago

The point is, that there are plenty of players who do better in one league than the other and because of that it makes it difficult at best to conclude that one league is superior to the other in any way
New York Yankees  
#40 | 1754 days ago

You many think the Giants weren't better, but you would be wrong.  Same with the Dodgers being better than the Red Sox.  (And it pains me to say that because I HATE the Dodgers but I have to call 'em like I see 'em.)  At least the 2009 versions of those teams. 

You want to compare the 2009 Giants to the 2008 Rays?  That is a very different thing.
New York Yankees  
#41 | 1754 days ago
Sherry63 (+)

qtowndogg wrote:

Lol, I kinda went for the home team here.

Me too. Almost took the Phillies too
Chicago White Sox  
#42 | 1754 days ago
Sherry63 (+)

Jim would give you a respect but I used my 2.
Chicago White Sox  
#43 | 1754 days ago
jasonwrites (+)

(Edited by jasonwrites)
Dragon, we can go 'round and 'round... as we have. It's a shame our teams can't go head-to-head more often to settle this once and for all. I'll have to be content with their last meeting at Coors Field which ocurred June 19-21, 2007, and resulted in this: 



But I'll also acknowledge that your Yankees may be the Team of the Decade, and most certainly are also this...

Boston Red Sox  
#44 | 1754 days ago

Its gotta be the Pirates.... Doesnt it?
#45 | 1754 days ago

I didn't read this whole thread but I heard someone was brilliantly claiming the Orioles are better than the Giants. 

If the Orioles pitched at Camden Yards then batted in a 200 foot little league park for a 9 inning ballgame they might not beat the Giants.
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim  
#46 | 1753 days ago
jasonwrites (+)

bayareabeast21 wrote:
I didn't read this whole thread but I heard someone was brilliantly claiming the Orioles are better than the Giants. 

If the Orioles pitched at Camden Yards then batted in a 200 foot little league park for a 9 inning ballgame they might not beat the Giants.
It's our friend Dragon's brilliant analysis of how apparently every team in the AL East can out-match every team in the NL West.

The only thing the Orioles and Giants have in common are jersey colors.
Boston Red Sox  
#47 | 1753 days ago
jasonwrites (+)

LOL I knew you would completely minimize that series. Actually, it was a big deal, because in all previous meetings the Yankees had indeed dominated the Rockies. But this team since 2007 has not been the "same old Rockies." Also in the summer of '07, the Rockies went into Fenway and took 2 of 3 from the Sox. And Colorado has a winning record in interleague play each of the last three seasons. So they are definitely not a good example of your "strong AL beat weak NL" theory.
Boston Red Sox  
#48 | 1752 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
Thats a bad comparison considering the Giants were the WORST team in MLB at hitting last season- so EVERY TEAM in the A.L. and EVERY team in the N.L. are better than them at hitting... LOL        OOPS sorry, I had better claify that statement BEFORE ML31 decides to critique it again. There were 5 other teams in MLB with a worse Team Batting Average than the Giants and they were the Cubs,  Diamondbacks, Pirates, Reds, and Padres......   Hey aren't two of those teams in the N.L. West WITH the Giants?   LMFAO!   And to just add fuel to the fire.... The Giants were DEAD LAST in MLB for OBP (on base percentage)- meaning that not only can they NOT hit- they can't even take walks- LOL!  How anyone can even say that they are better than ANY A.L. East team is a stretch to say the least.  Yes they do have pretty good pitching- but other than that- they pretty much suck as a TEAM!
New York Yankees  
#49 | 1752 days ago

vindog wrote:
Thats a bad comparison considering the Giants were the WORST team in MLB at hitting last season- so EVERY TEAM in the A.L. and EVERY team in the N.L. are better than them at hitting... LOL        OOPS sorry, I had better claify that statement BEFORE ML31 decides to critique it again. There were 5 other teams in MLB with a worse Team Batting Average than the Giants and they were the Cubs,  Diamondbacks, Pirates, Reds, and Padres......   Hey aren't two of those teams in the N.L. West WITH the Giants?   LMFAO!   And to just add fuel to the fire.... The Giants were DEAD LAST in MLB for OBP (on base percentage)- meaning that not only can they NOT hit- they can't even take walks- LOL!  How anyone can even say that they are better than ANY A.L. East team is a stretch to say the least.  Yes they do have pretty good pitching- but other than that- they pretty much suck as a TEAM!
It's very easy.  You look at the talent level on the teams.  And you also look at actual results.  Combine them to one's own subjective take on how important each feature is...  And you get a rank.

Here are the 10 AL East and NL West teams ranked together...

1.  Yankees
2.  Dodgers
3.  Red Sox
4.  Rox
5.  Giants

Then there is a huge gap between #5 and #6

6.  Rays
7.  Padres
8.  Blue Jays
9.  Snakes
10. Orioles

The Giants offense does indeed suck.  No denying that.  But their pitching is by far the best in the two divisions.  If you have GREAT pitching, you don't need line ups of 40 homer and 100 RBI guys.  Just enough to score a enough runs.  I happen to subscribe the notion that good pitching will beat good hitting far more often than not.  Hence, the Giants, anemic hitting and all, are #5 on this list.  IF they got a little better hitting they would be ranked higher still.

One more thing...  If you want to get into IL play from last season....  The Yankees were a mere 10-8 while the Giants were 9-6.  How could such a weak hitting team do better against superior AL teams than the all powerful Yankees did against tht Pathetic NL?   The Giants great pitching couldn't possibly have anything to do with that could it?  After all, the Giants pitching only looks great because they pitch against all those weak NL teams.
New York Yankees  
#50 | 1752 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
ML31 wrote:
It's very easy.  You look at the talent level on the teams.  And you also look at actual results.  Combine them to one's own subjective take on how important each feature is...  And you get a rank.

Here are the 10 AL East and NL West teams ranked together...

1.  Yankees
2.  Dodgers
3.  Red Sox
4.  Rox
5.  Giants

Then there is a huge gap between #5 and #6

6.  Rays
7.  Padres
8.  Blue Jays
9.  Snakes
10. Orioles

The Giants offense does indeed suck.  No denying that.  But their pitching is by far the best in the two divisions.  If you have GREAT pitching, you don't need line ups of 40 homer and 100 RBI guys.  Just enough to score a enough runs.  I happen to subscribe the notion that good pitching will beat good hitting far more often than not.  Hence, the Giants, anemic hitting and all, are #5 on this list.  IF they got a little better hitting they would be ranked higher still.

One more thing...  If you want to get into IL play from last season....  The Yankees were a mere 10-8 while the Giants were 9-6.  How could such a weak hitting team do better against superior AL teams than the all powerful Yankees did against tht Pathetic NL?   The Giants great pitching couldn't possibly have anything to do with that could it?  After all, the Giants pitching only looks great because they pitch against all those weak NL teams.
What are your "rankings" going by?  Your "own" standings? Or Overall records?  Because if so- then it could be said that the N.L. West teams have better records because they play EACH OTHER more and A.L. East teams do the same and the result is THEIR overall record..... But, it is a FACT the N.L. West has 3 of the BOTTOM 6 WORST batting teams in MLB>>>>> That was the point I was trying to make!  You put Linecum (the Giants- and possibly MLB's best pitcher)- up against the A.L. East teams 19 games a year and SEE if his record is even remotely close to being what it has been these past few years! I doubt that his numbers would be half as good- but that is my opinion!  NO TEAM in the N.L. West (except for maybe the Dodgers) have the kind of Line-ups (batting wise) that the A.L. East has... Better hitters= higher ERA's for pitchers... That IS a fact!   It is also a FACT that 8 of the bottom 10 WORST batting teams in MLB are in the N.L. as well... Now this fact could either mean that the pitching is just better- or it could mean that the batting is so much worse in the N.L.- that it MAKES the pitching appear that much better..... 
New York Yankees  
#51 | 1752 days ago

vindog wrote:
What are your "rankings" going by?  Your "own" standings? Or Overall records?  Because if so- then it could be said that the N.L. West teams have better records because they play EACH OTHER more and A.L. East teams do the same and the result is THEIR overall record..... But, it is a FACT the N.L. West has 3 of the BOTTOM 6 WORST batting teams in MLB>>>>> That was the point I was trying to make!  You put Linecum (the Giants- and possibly MLB's best pitcher)- up against the A.L. East teams 19 games a year and SEE if his record is even remotely close to being what it has been these past few years! I doubt that his numbers would be half as good- but that is my opinion!  NO TEAM in the N.L. West (except for maybe the Dodgers) have the kind of Line-ups (batting wise) that the A.L. East has... Better hitters= higher ERA's for pitchers... That IS a fact!   It is also a FACT that 8 of the bottom 10 WORST batting teams in MLB are in the N.L. as well... Now this fact could either mean that the pitching is just better- or it could mean that the batting is so much worse in the N.L.- that it MAKES the pitching appear that much better..... 
But, it is a FACT the N.L. West has 3 of the BOTTOM 6 WORST batting teams in MLB

That alone does not make them bad teams overall.  For example, the Giants have fantastic pitching which overcomes a great deal of offensive impotence. 

Lincecum's record is not as good as it could be if he had just a little better hitting to support him.  But he would pitch just as well and possibly better as the Jays, Rays and O's are pretty piss poor teams.  And would be piss poor teams no matter what League they were in.
New York Yankees  
#52 | 1752 days ago

One more thing...  Tim Lincecum's career in IL games is 3-2 in 8 starts.  Not bad for a guy whose team can't hit water if they fell out of a boat.
New York Yankees  
#53 | 1752 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
ML31 wrote:
But, it is a FACT the N.L. West has 3 of the BOTTOM 6 WORST batting teams in MLB

That alone does not make them bad teams overall.  For example, the Giants have fantastic pitching which overcomes a great deal of offensive impotence. 

Lincecum's record is not as good as it could be if he had just a little better hitting to support him.  But he would pitch just as well and possibly better as the Jays, Rays and O's are pretty piss poor teams.  And would be piss poor teams no matter what League they were in.
I'm not saying that they are "bad" teams persay. I am however saying that they are not as good as the A.L. East teams... Once again, this is just one persons opinion as opposed to your opinion. I don't think Linecum WOULD do as well in the A.L. East as he has feasted on the poor hitting teams in the N.L. West.... Once again- it's just my opinion....  7 of the top 10 BEST batting teams in MLB are in the A.L. and 4 of those teams are in the A.L. East- which includes the Yankees at #2, Red Sox at #6, Orioles at #7, and Blue Jays at #9 ( with the Rays falling just short of the Top 10 at #11).... Hence, with those FACTS in mind- I don't feel that Linecum (and the Giants pitching staff)  would be as sucessful in the A.L. East as they are in the N.L. West with getting to face 2 of the WORST batting teams in MLB - 19 times a year.
New York Yankees  
#54 | 1752 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
ML31 wrote:
One more thing...  Tim Lincecum's career in IL games is 3-2 in 8 starts.  Not bad for a guy whose team can't hit water if they fell out of a boat.
Going by the stats that you provided, Then that means that Linecum only finshed 62% of the games he pitched in against A.L. Teams and only WON 60 % of those same games that he actually finished- meaning that he only WON 37% of his total career starts against American League Teams...... You say "not bad" and I say "not good either" for a Pitcher who is supposed to be the BEST Pitcher in the N.L......... just a thought! 
New York Yankees  
#55 | 1752 days ago

The Giants would probably finish in 3rd place in the AL East.  It wouldn't matter that they couldn't hit.  Well, they would hit a bit better against the AL East.  But still wouldn't finish better than 3rd as there are two AL East teams that are better and 3 that are worse.
New York Yankees  
#56 | 1752 days ago

AJ wouldn't even be a #2 starter on the Giants last year.  And with Baumgardner coming soon, he wouldn't even be #3.  The Giants pen is superior to every member of an AL East bull pen save two players.
New York Yankees  
#57 | 1752 days ago

vindog wrote:
Going by the stats that you provided, Then that means that Linecum only finshed 62% of the games he pitched in against A.L. Teams and only WON 60 % of those same games that he actually finished- meaning that he only WON 37% of his total career starts against American League Teams...... You say "not bad" and I say "not good either" for a Pitcher who is supposed to be the BEST Pitcher in the N.L......... just a thought! 
Oh come on...  I never mentioned how many games he finished.  He did finish 2 of his 8 AL starts BTW.  Let's see...  He finished 25% of his AL starts and the Yankees as a team finished 1.9% of their 162 starts all last season.

And did you forget that the Giants can't hit?  Many of his games he got no decision because he kept those 'powerful' AL lineups from scoring while the Giants didn't score not because the AL pitching was so good, but because, as you repeat over and over and I agree with, the Giants offense is so very weak.  For someone who gets next to zero run support, 3-2 in 8 starts is pretty damn good.

Funny how you conveniently forget some basic premises about a game you claim to know about.
New York Yankees  
#58 | 1752 days ago

If you can name me one other pitcher in the history of the game to win the Cy Young award his first two full seasons in the Majors....  I will retract my comment on Timmy's pitching prowess.

Care to give that a shot?
New York Yankees  
#59 | 1752 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
ML31 wrote:
Oh come on...  I never mentioned how many games he finished.  He did finish 2 of his 8 AL starts BTW.  Let's see...  He finished 25% of his AL starts and the Yankees as a team finished 1.9% of their 162 starts all last season.

And did you forget that the Giants can't hit?  Many of his games he got no decision because he kept those 'powerful' AL lineups from scoring while the Giants didn't score not because the AL pitching was so good, but because, as you repeat over and over and I agree with, the Giants offense is so very weak.  For someone who gets next to zero run support, 3-2 in 8 starts is pretty damn good.

Funny how you conveniently forget some basic premises about a game you claim to know about.
Well, if he was 3-2 in 8 starts, that means that he only "finished" 5 of those 8 games... Does it not? A "no decision" means that you didn't finish a game- whether it was a loss or win- or whether you pitched good or not....  He could have left the game with a 10-0 lead or a 10-0 deficit- it matters not- he didn't finish the game. I'm not holding that against him at all- I'm just saying that somebody who is supposed to be the BEST Pitcher in the National League SHOULD have a much better winning percentage against a League that is "clearly inferior" (as you like to put it) to the mighty National League- shouldn't he?   Funny also that ALL 3 of his career wins against A.L. teams were against the Oakland A's (hardly a hitting "powerhouse") and BOTH of his losses were to A.L. teams that can hit the ball pretty well- the Angels and the Blue Jays. And in his no decisions, his ERA was 6.23 against the A's in 2007;  5.14 against Detroit in 2008,  and 9.00 against Kansas City in 2008- so quite obviously he pitched HORRIBLE in those 3 no decisions as well.   It also means that the one and only A.L. East team that he got the start against (that bottom dwelling Toronto squad- lol)- Linecum LOST to and had an ENORMOUS 17.38 ERA against- Hmmmmmmm
New York Yankees  
#60 | 1752 days ago
vindog (+)

ML31 wrote:
If you can name me one other pitcher in the history of the game to win the Cy Young award his first two full seasons in the Majors....  I will retract my comment on Timmy's pitching prowess.

Care to give that a shot?
To be fair (even though Linecum did win it last season), he really didn't deserve it in MANY peoples opinions.... Wainwright and Carpenter were probably a little more deserving in my opinion.
New York Yankees  
#61 | 1752 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
vindog wrote:
Well, if he was 3-2 in 8 starts, that means that he only "finished" 5 of those 8 games... Does it not? A "no decision" means that you didn't finish a game- whether it was a loss or win- or whether you pitched good or not....  He could have left the game with a 10-0 lead or a 10-0 deficit- it matters not- he didn't finish the game. I'm not holding that against him at all- I'm just saying that somebody who is supposed to be the BEST Pitcher in the National League SHOULD have a much better winning percentage against a League that is "clearly inferior" (as you like to put it) to the mighty National League- shouldn't he?   Funny also that ALL 3 of his career wins against A.L. teams were against the Oakland A's (hardly a hitting "powerhouse") and BOTH of his losses were to A.L. teams that can hit the ball pretty well- the Angels and the Blue Jays. And in his no decisions, his ERA was 6.23 against the A's in 2007;  5.14 against Detroit in 2008,  and 9.00 against Kansas City in 2008- so quite obviously he pitched HORRIBLE in those 3 no decisions as well.   It also means that the one and only A.L. East team that he got the start against (that bottom dwelling Toronto squad- lol)- Linecum LOST to and had an ENORMOUS 17.38 ERA against- Hmmmmmmm
You seem to not understand the concept of "finishing" a game.   A "Finish" does not mean "gets a decision".  A closer can "finish" games.  A starter can "finish" a game only if he throws for the full 9 or 9+ if the game goes that far.  Therefore, 2 complete games = two games "finished".  A "no decision" = not qualifying for a decision.  Could be for many reasons.  Most most often because the pitcher didn't go the 5 required for a win or the team was tied when he left or the bull pen gave up a lead after he left.   And to be fair, Timmy did lose most of his games because the Giants couldn't muster more than a run or two.

You need to get your facts straight...  I never never never never said the AL was "clearly inferior".  I have always said the two leagues are practially on the same skill level.  They are about as even as it comes.  It is dragon who is deluded into thinking that the AL is "clearly" superior.   Therefore, my point he is over .500 against a league that someone thinks is "clearly superior" ought to open some eyes for that someone.  It shouldn't matter that the wins all came against one team.  There is only one AL team the Giants play a lot.  So it makes sense.  Plus, since a certain someone is of the opinion that only one NL team is on par with the entire AL, it follows that it doesn't matter what teams he got his wins against.  That team is superior by virtue of being a member team of the American League.
New York Yankees  
#62 | 1752 days ago

vindog wrote:
To be fair (even though Linecum did win it last season), he really didn't deserve it in MANY peoples opinions.... Wainwright and Carpenter were probably a little more deserving in my opinion.
Even though some (Cardinal fans mainly) think he didn't deserve it, he did indeed win it.  And there are none who think was was not a worthy candidate to win it.

So to be fair....  He did indeed win two Cy's in his first two seasons no matter how much you wish he didn't.
New York Yankees  
#63 | 1752 days ago

 If Lincecum didn't deserve the Cy Young award, he wouldn't have won it twice in his first two seasons. Trust me.

He's the best pitcher in baseball and if he ever gets full command of his curveball and slider, facing him will be a futile assignment.
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim  
#64 | 1752 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
ML31 wrote:
You seem to not understand the concept of "finishing" a game.   A "Finish" does not mean "gets a decision".  A closer can "finish" games.  A starter can "finish" a game only if he throws for the full 9 or 9+ if the game goes that far.  Therefore, 2 complete games = two games "finished".  A "no decision" = not qualifying for a decision.  Could be for many reasons.  Most most often because the pitcher didn't go the 5 required for a win or the team was tied when he left or the bull pen gave up a lead after he left.   And to be fair, Timmy did lose most of his games because the Giants couldn't muster more than a run or two.

You need to get your facts straight...  I never never never never said the AL was "clearly inferior".  I have always said the two leagues are practially on the same skill level.  They are about as even as it comes.  It is dragon who is deluded into thinking that the AL is "clearly" superior.   Therefore, my point he is over .500 against a league that someone thinks is "clearly superior" ought to open some eyes for that someone.  It shouldn't matter that the wins all came against one team.  There is only one AL team the Giants play a lot.  So it makes sense.  Plus, since a certain someone is of the opinion that only one NL team is on par with the entire AL, it follows that it doesn't matter what teams he got his wins against.  That team is superior by virtue of being a member team of the American League.
O.K.- I'll give you that one..... So lets throw the "no decisions" out then.  He is still ONLY 3-2 (or 60% winning percentage) against American League teams and ALL 3 of his wins came against perennial bottom feeder- the Oakland A's. When he actually faced good to "decent" competition- The Angels who are very good, and the Blue Jays who are decent to an extent- he LOST!   Hence the reason WHY I feel that he would not fair as well if placed in the A.L. East and having to face those A.L. East line-ups 19 games a year..... He has shown- by his stats- that he is merely an average pitcher when facing A.L. competition- plain and simple. Last season for example, Linecum was 15-7 as a Starter- which is roughly a 70% winning percentage (2 of those 15 wins were against a horrible Oakland Team and 1 loss was against a very good Angels Team-BTW)  - yet he has a 10% LOWER winning percentage against A.L. competition and is 0-1 against the A.L. East....  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Linecum is a much better pitcher when he gets to face N.L. Teams than he is when he faces A.L. competition- the stats speak for themself!
New York Yankees  
#65 | 1752 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
bayareabeast21 wrote:
 If Lincecum didn't deserve the Cy Young award, he wouldn't have won it twice in his first two seasons. Trust me.

He's the best pitcher in baseball and if he ever gets full command of his curveball and slider, facing him will be a futile assignment.
Once again, that's a matter of opinion.  Linecum went 15-7(68.2% winning percentage) with a 2.48 ERA,  Carpenter went  17-4 (80.9% winning percentage) with a 2.24 ERA, and Wainwright went 19-8 (70 % winning percentage) with a 2.63 ERA.  Both Carpenter and Wainwright had MORE wins than Linecum and a higher winning percentage. And Carpenter had 1 less loss AND a LOWER ERA than Linecum ( and BTW the Cardinals were a playoff team as well) ......  So to say that Timmy is the BEST pitcher in baseball isn't necessarily true at all by those stats....
New York Yankees  
#66 | 1752 days ago

vindog wrote:
O.K.- I'll give you that one..... So lets throw the "no decisions" out then.  He is still ONLY 3-2 (or 60% winning percentage) against American League teams and ALL 3 of his wins came against perennial bottom feeder- the Oakland A's. When he actually faced good to "decent" competition- The Angels who are very good, and the Blue Jays who are decent to an extent- he LOST!   Hence the reason WHY I feel that he would not fair as well if placed in the A.L. East and having to face those A.L. East line-ups 19 games a year..... He has shown- by his stats- that he is merely an average pitcher when facing A.L. competition- plain and simple. Last season for example, Linecum was 15-7 as a Starter- which is roughly a 70% winning percentage (2 of those 15 wins were against a horrible Oakland Team and 1 loss was against a very good Angels Team-BTW)  - yet he has a 10% LOWER winning percentage against A.L. competition and is 0-1 against the A.L. East....  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Linecum is a much better pitcher when he gets to face N.L. Teams than he is when he faces A.L. competition- the stats speak for themself!
You are still missing the point.

According to some, the entire AL is so far above the NL that it is laughable.  It doesn't matter that the A's are a "perenial bottom feeder" in the AL (Although they weren't as bottom as you might have thought last year.  In 2009 they were the 9th best team in the AL...  Better than AL East members Jays and O's as well).  According to some, even the "bottom feeders" are WAY better than 15 of the 16 NL teams.  So just getting any wins at all against such a vastly superior League ought to open some people's eyes.

In reality, one start against one team is hardly enough to determine a trend.  And the point of the whole thing was to blow a hole in some people's asinine idea that the AL is so far above the NL that the NL may as well be single A ball.
New York Yankees  
#67 | 1752 days ago

vindog wrote:
Once again, that's a matter of opinion.  Linecum went 15-7(68.2% winning percentage) with a 2.48 ERA,  Carpenter went  17-4 (80.9% winning percentage) with a 2.24 ERA, and Wainwright went 19-8 (70 % winning percentage) with a 2.63 ERA.  Both Carpenter and Wainwright had MORE wins than Linecum and a higher winning percentage. And Carpenter had 1 less loss AND a LOWER ERA than Linecum ( and BTW the Cardinals were a playoff team as well) ......  So to say that Timmy is the BEST pitcher in baseball isn't necessarily true at all by those stats....
The fact that the Cards won their division doesn't change the fact that Timmy was a legitimate Cy Young contender.  I have always said that a good case can be made for all three of the finalists.  And any of them would be a deserving choice.  Not only that, all three had good reasons to NOT vote for them as well.
New York Yankees  
#68 | 1752 days ago

vindog wrote:
Once again, that's a matter of opinion.  Linecum went 15-7(68.2% winning percentage) with a 2.48 ERA,  Carpenter went  17-4 (80.9% winning percentage) with a 2.24 ERA, and Wainwright went 19-8 (70 % winning percentage) with a 2.63 ERA.  Both Carpenter and Wainwright had MORE wins than Linecum and a higher winning percentage. And Carpenter had 1 less loss AND a LOWER ERA than Linecum ( and BTW the Cardinals were a playoff team as well) ......  So to say that Timmy is the BEST pitcher in baseball isn't necessarily true at all by those stats....
Wins and losses mean nothing, let's just start with that. You forgot to mention that Lincecum had WAY more K's than Carpenter, and a significantly better WHIP than Wainwright. His K/9 is better than anyone in the league by FAR, and opposing batters only hit .206 against him, compared to .226 against Carpenter, and .244 for Wainwright.

If you want to pick and choose certain stats, it's easy to make one guy or another look better. But the bottom line (in my eyes) is that all 3 had a great season, and I wouldn't have really objected to any of them winning. In my book, Wainwright was the 3rd best out of the trio, but he was still great this year. But to say that Lincecum didn't deserve it is a bit of a reach, no matter what.
Boston Red Sox  
#69 | 1752 days ago

Good lord....  Why do you have to always be on one extreme or the other?  I never claimed the Giants were as good as the Yankees.   In fact, I have always rated the Yankees as the best team in the majors last year while ranking the Giants at #9.  I also agreed that the Yankees were the team of the decade.  What more do you want?

The Yankees had good starters too.  None as good as Timmy and only one better than Cain...  But they didn't need good starters as they had an incredible offense to back them up.  Which is a huge part of why they were the best team last year.  (forgetting that the reason behind those great players as a payroll no other team can come close to matching)
New York Yankees  
#70 | 1752 days ago
vindog (+)

Pat wrote:
Wins and losses mean nothing, let's just start with that. You forgot to mention that Lincecum had WAY more K's than Carpenter, and a significantly better WHIP than Wainwright. His K/9 is better than anyone in the league by FAR, and opposing batters only hit .206 against him, compared to .226 against Carpenter, and .244 for Wainwright.

If you want to pick and choose certain stats, it's easy to make one guy or another look better. But the bottom line (in my eyes) is that all 3 had a great season, and I wouldn't have really objected to any of them winning. In my book, Wainwright was the 3rd best out of the trio, but he was still great this year. But to say that Lincecum didn't deserve it is a bit of a reach, no matter what.
I NEVER reached and said Linecum "wasn't deserving"- I said that in my opinion, Wainwright and Carpenter were more deserving than Timmy!
New York Yankees  
#71 | 1752 days ago

vindog wrote:
Once again, that's a matter of opinion.  Linecum went 15-7(68.2% winning percentage) with a 2.48 ERA,  Carpenter went  17-4 (80.9% winning percentage) with a 2.24 ERA, and Wainwright went 19-8 (70 % winning percentage) with a 2.63 ERA.  Both Carpenter and Wainwright had MORE wins than Linecum and a higher winning percentage. And Carpenter had 1 less loss AND a LOWER ERA than Linecum ( and BTW the Cardinals were a playoff team as well) ......  So to say that Timmy is the BEST pitcher in baseball isn't necessarily true at all by those stats....
Tim struck out 261 hitters in 2009. His whip was barely above 1.04. 

Tim is the logical choice for two reasons. Dominance, (it doesn't matter who's playing behind you, because the batter isn't going to make contact)

and secondly, if the Giants could score any runs at all, Lincecum is an easy 20 game winner and we aren't even having this discussion.

The funny thing is, the voting in all honesty should not have even been this close.

If Lincecum had St Louis' Offense behind him he goes 21-4. Thankfully the voters were able to realize this.

WIns is a stat that is being overlooked more and more nowadays for a reason. It is dependent upon your offenses performance, and not solely yours.

To really assess a pitchers ability and stats, look at strikeouts to innings, WHIP, ERA, INNINGS PITCHED, COMPLETE GAMES, AND SHUTOUTS.




Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim  
#72 | 1752 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
Pat wrote:
Wins and losses mean nothing, let's just start with that. You forgot to mention that Lincecum had WAY more K's than Carpenter, and a significantly better WHIP than Wainwright. His K/9 is better than anyone in the league by FAR, and opposing batters only hit .206 against him, compared to .226 against Carpenter, and .244 for Wainwright.

If you want to pick and choose certain stats, it's easy to make one guy or another look better. But the bottom line (in my eyes) is that all 3 had a great season, and I wouldn't have really objected to any of them winning. In my book, Wainwright was the 3rd best out of the trio, but he was still great this year. But to say that Lincecum didn't deserve it is a bit of a reach, no matter what.
I'm not disregarding any of those "other" stats- but (IMHO) ERA is the MAIN stat that counts. Having a lower WHIP or more K's per inning is great and all- but what matters is how many runs cross the plate when you are pitching! Literally, a pitcher can face 4 batters an inning, strike out 3 of them, and give up a home run to one of them each inning; and lose the game 9-0. Sure he struck out 27 batters- but he also gave up 9 runs- so which is better? Obviously the lower ERA is the stat that (normally) translates into more wins. If you are giving up less runs- your team has a much better chance of winning- plain and simple!
New York Yankees  
#73 | 1752 days ago

vindog wrote:
I'm not disregarding any of those "other" stats- but (IMHO) ERA is the MAIN stat that counts. Having a lower WHIP or more K's per inning is great and all- but what matters is how many runs cross the plate when you are pitching! Literally, a pitcher can face 4 batters an inning, strike out 3 of them, and give up a home run to one of them each inning; and lose the game 9-0. Sure he struck out 27 batters- but he also gave up 9 runs- so which is better? Obviously the lower ERA is the stat that (normally) translates into more wins. If you are giving up less runs- your team has a much better chance of winning- plain and simple!
If ERA is the main one that counts, then how is Wainwright more deserving than Lincecum?

And your hypothetical situations are nice, but that's not what happened, so it's kinda irrelevant.

Basically, I think that when you look at the entire body of work, the difference between Lincecum and Carpenter this year was marginal at best, and Wainwright is behind them both.
Boston Red Sox  
#74 | 1752 days ago
vindog (+)

Pat wrote:
If ERA is the main one that counts, then how is Wainwright more deserving than Lincecum?

And your hypothetical situations are nice, but that's not what happened, so it's kinda irrelevant.

Basically, I think that when you look at the entire body of work, the difference between Lincecum and Carpenter this year was marginal at best, and Wainwright is behind them both.
Once again, that's your opinion. I feel differently..... It doesn't matter though because Linecum did win the Cy Young Award for the N.L.  no matter how I feel about it.
New York Yankees  
#75 | 1752 days ago

 It was a close race, but Tim deserved it.

He's the best pitcher, and playing for an inferior offense. Plus he had better stats.

PLUS HE IMPROVED ON HIS CY YOUNG CAMPAIGN OF THE PREVIOUS SEASON IN HIS SECOND FULL YEAR IN THE BIG LEAGUES WHILE TAKING A BONG RIP

How could he not be the logical choice?
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim  
#76 | 1752 days ago

 Tim or Cain to the Yankees? Keep dreaming son. 
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim  
#77 | 1752 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
O.K; so for me- I'm going back to the original question on this poll....... The Yankees are the team of the Decade in my opinion based on their 4 World Series appearances this Decade combined with their 2 World Series wins and 8 American League East Pennants as well. As Pat puts it- you HAVE to base it on "the ENTIRE body of work"- right?    So did you base your vote for the Red Sox on their "entire body of work this Decade" Pat? Or was that merely a HOMER pick?  LOL
New York Yankees  
#78 | 1752 days ago

I don't know where the hell you get your giant graphs from, but they aren't needed.  All one needs to do is look up their numbers on any one of MLB stat websites.  The numbers all show Eckersley to be superior to Rivera.  And will even be more so as Rivera gets up there in age and starts falling off and his stats with him.  Just as it happened to Eckersley in the end.

This is for you.

Let's look at average season as a closer.  For Eckersley, I will only take his numbers through age 39.  Rivera's current age.

Eck:  4-2  2.45 ERA.  39 Svs  72K's  9BB's  (That is amazing)  Opp BA .209  Opp OBP:  .239  Opp Slg: 323
Riv:   5-3  2.25 ERA  35 Svs   67K's  17BB's  OppBA:  .211  Opp OBP: .264  Opp Slg:  .292.

I will grant you that Eckersley's numbers took a severe nose dive when he was 38 and 39.  But those are included in the averages and he STILL out numbers Rivera.

From this poitn of view, anyone who thinks Rivera was a better closer than Eckersley isn't looking at skill or the actual numbers but only at what uniform he wears.
New York Yankees  
#79 | 1752 days ago

 What are you talking about??? Your ignorance is really leaking through here...

The D-backs, Dodgers, and Rockies all can hit.



Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim  
#80 | 1752 days ago

When you pay big money for players who can score 5 runs a game, you don't need to spend money on pitchers who give up 3 or less.
New York Yankees  
#81 | 1752 days ago

(Edited by Chief_aka_James)
Other  
#82 | 1752 days ago
(+)

D-Backs are not any good lol
#83 | 1752 days ago
(+)

Make them using real MLB number I have the link on the other polls.
#84 | 1752 days ago
(+)

Chief_aka_James wrote:
If your think your bad enough to do it try lol
#85 | 1752 days ago
(+)

Dead last
#86 | 1752 days ago
(+)

We would get to your pitching open it up
#87 | 1752 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
bayareabeast21 wrote:
 What are you talking about??? Your ignorance is really leaking through here...

The D-backs, Dodgers, and Rockies all can hit.



Ummmm, the Diamondbacks were the 4th WORST team in MLB for batting average last season- the Giants were the 6th WORST, and the Padres were DEAD LAST!  So 3 of  6 of the WORST batting teams in MLB ( the others 3 were the Cubs, Pirates, and Reds)all reside in the N.L. West...... just saying
New York Yankees  
#88 | 1752 days ago

vindog wrote:
Ummmm, the Diamondbacks were the 4th WORST team in MLB for batting average last season- the Giants were the 6th WORST, and the Padres were DEAD LAST!  So 3 of  6 of the WORST batting teams in MLB ( the others 3 were the Cubs, Pirates, and Reds)all reside in the N.L. West...... just saying
They were still 12th in Homeruns and Total Bases and 11th in team slugging. They can put up some runs at home.
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim  
#89 | 1752 days ago

OK...  So now you are going to ignore the numbers.  

I get it.
New York Yankees  
#90 | 1752 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
The stats I use come from that very same site.

But those stats aren't presented color coded like you show it.
New York Yankees  
#91 | 1752 days ago

You want to talk careers?

How many no hitters has Mariano thrown?   How many 20 win seasons has he had?  How  many complete games does Rivera have?  You want to go full careers, then Eckersley kicks Rivera's ass even further because he showed he could do more than just close out games.

You want to use only careers as a closer?  Then look at the numbers I provided.  Either way, Rivera looses.

The only way he doesn't is if you think Yankee Pinstripes is the end all be all of any pitching stat.
New York Yankees  
#92 | 1752 days ago

(Edited by Chief_aka_James)
For a 10 year career, it's good, not HOF worthy, but if you think Jackie Robinson was in the HOF solely based on numbers, you're sadder than I ever thought before.
Other  
#93 | 1752 days ago

How many starts has Rivera made?

If he didn't make more starts than relief appearances those first two seasons...  He was a bull pen guy from day one.
New York Yankees  
#94 | 1752 days ago

The argument is best closer.

Then why in your stats did you include Eckersley's entire career?

Eckersley is the better pitcher when you look at entire careers, and when you compare only the relief years, Eeckersley STILL has the better numbers.  You just can't get past the uniforms.
New York Yankees  
#95 | 1752 days ago

I don't know.  How long did he play?  WHEN did he play?  What position did he play?   Was he good defensively?

I need a lot more than just a few offensive numbers to determine if a player is of Hall of Fame caliber.
New York Yankees  
#96 | 1752 days ago

NO ONE had more impact on baseball than Babe Ruth.
New York Yankees  
#97 | 1752 days ago

His number 42 shouldn't even be retired among MLB.  The only reason it is was because MLB wanted some PR in the late '90's after the strike and wild card and all that other bad stuff that happened.
New York Yankees  
#98 | 1752 days ago
(+)

Im talking about Jackie Robinson. I'm a Ruth Fan but Jackie Robinson had more impact then Ruth ever could
#99 | 1752 days ago
(+)

I was talking about Jackie Robinson if you don't think 42 shouldn't be retired I feel bad for you wow
#100 | 1752 days ago
(+)

Thats Jackie Robinson
#101 | 1752 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
Eck:  4-2  2.45 ERA.  39 Svs  72K's  9BB's  (That is amazing)  Opp BA .209  Opp OBP:  .239  Opp Slg: 323
Riv:   5-3  2.25 ERA  35 Svs   67K's  17BB's  OppBA:  .211  Opp OBP: .264  Opp Slg:  .292.

This is Eckersley as a closer through Rivera's current age.

Rivera has more wins and a lower Opponants slugging avg.

Eckersley has fewer losses, more saves, more K,s fewer walks, lower opp BA and OBP.

And lastly...  Wins is even more a function of luck for a reliever than it is for a starter.  Plus relievers almost never come into tie game....

Remind me again of how "blind" I am...
New York Yankees  
#102 | 1752 days ago

You're kidding, right?  Ruth almost single handedly saved the game of baseball from obscurity.  If it wasn't for Ruth, there would be no game for Robinson to break the color barrier in!

You really need to get as many clues as possible.
New York Yankees  
#103 | 1752 days ago

(Edited by bayareabeast21)
 8 to 1 Strikeout to Walk Ratio and opponents hitting .209 is tough to argue with. Eckersley's numbers are better than Rivera's.


Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim  
#104 | 1752 days ago

It should be retired by the Dodgers.  But league wide?  No way.  No more than Willie O'Ree's number should be retired by the entire NHL.
New York Yankees  
#105 | 1752 days ago

Then yes.  Those numbers belong to a deserving Hall of Famer.  But those should not be numbers by which to judge other potential Hall of Famers.
New York Yankees  
#106 | 1752 days ago

bayareabeast21 wrote:
 8 to 1 Strikeout to Walk Ratio and opponents hitting .209 is tough to argue with. Eckersley's numbers are better than Rivera's.


Yep.  The numbers are close, I have to admit.  But the superior numbers belong to Eckersley.
New York Yankees  
#107 | 1752 days ago

If those were his numbers he wouldn't have lasted 10 seasons (probably wouldn't last beyond 2 tops) and certainly wouldn't be in the Hall of Fame.
New York Yankees  
#108 | 1752 days ago

What??????
New York Yankees  
#109 | 1752 days ago

Where the hell did this Jackie Robinson stuff come from, anyway?
New York Yankees  
#110 | 1752 days ago

The baseball hall of fame is about numbers, with the exception of those very few people that change the sport of baseball - Jackie Robinson was one of those that helped change the sport of baseball along with having a good 10 year career in the game.

Do not confuse that when speaking about Mariano Rivera and Dennis Eckersley - did either one of those players change the sport of baseball? In my mind, Eck has a better case being he had way more value to the Closer position.

Mariano has been dominant at his position - but as the numbers have provided, even the career numbers of both Eck and Rivera, Eck has a slight advantage.

I also wasn't the one to say Ruth had a larger impact than Jackie.
Other  
#111 | 1752 days ago

ML31 wrote:
Where the hell did this Jackie Robinson stuff come from, anyway?
Not a clue, unless he wanted to make that numbers that he previously said Mariano "clearly" dominated in, don't matter at all, because of Jackie Robinson...
Other  
#112 | 1752 days ago

Chief_aka_James wrote:
The baseball hall of fame is about numbers, with the exception of those very few people that change the sport of baseball - Jackie Robinson was one of those that helped change the sport of baseball along with having a good 10 year career in the game.

Do not confuse that when speaking about Mariano Rivera and Dennis Eckersley - did either one of those players change the sport of baseball? In my mind, Eck has a better case being he had way more value to the Closer position.

Mariano has been dominant at his position - but as the numbers have provided, even the career numbers of both Eck and Rivera, Eck has a slight advantage.

I also wasn't the one to say Ruth had a larger impact than Jackie.
And the concept of the closer shouldn't be atributed to Eckersley.  It was Tony LaRussa who pioneered the concept.  Eck was just the first to be used in such a manner.

I was the one who said that Ruth had a far greater impact that Robinson, though.  And I stand by that.
New York Yankees  
#113 | 1751 days ago

Where are you getting your numbers from?  They aren't from baseball-reference.  That's where I got mine from. 

I rounded the wins and losses off but if you want to include the decimal places...  Rivera averages 4.733 wins while Eck averages 4.449 wins.   That means Rivera won .304 more games.  Pretty bloody close especially for a stat that is more of a bonus than anything else.

In what world do you live in is 2.449 the same as 3.467?  This shows that Eck lost on average damn near one full loss less per season.

Eck's winning % is .645.  Rivera's is .577.  Ecks is 68 points better.

Eck averaged 67 1/3 innings.  Rivera averaged 72 2/3 innings.  That's a mere 5 1/3 innings difference.

Rivera appeared in 61 games on average.  Eck averaged 60.  One game difference and in 1994 he missed 1/3 of a season due to the strike.  So I would call this category a wash.

I'll give you homers.  Eck averaged more than Rivera per season.

But Eck kicks Rivera's ass in whip and K/BB ratio.

Those stats are using all the relief years but Eckersley's do not include numbers beyond age 39.  That is Rivera's current age so as to be fair about losing skill in the older ages.

The numbers show that while Rivera beats Eck in a few categories, Eckersley is the superior pitcher AND the superior reliever.

The numbers are not jury rigged in any way.  Obviously yours are.
New York Yankees  
#114 | 1751 days ago

Would you like some cheese with your whine?
New York Yankees  
#115 | 1751 days ago
(+)

ML31 wrote:
Where are you getting your numbers from?  They aren't from baseball-reference.  That's where I got mine from. 

I rounded the wins and losses off but if you want to include the decimal places...  Rivera averages 4.733 wins while Eck averages 4.449 wins.   That means Rivera won .304 more games.  Pretty bloody close especially for a stat that is more of a bonus than anything else.

In what world do you live in is 2.449 the same as 3.467?  This shows that Eck lost on average damn near one full loss less per season.

Eck's winning % is .645.  Rivera's is .577.  Ecks is 68 points better.

Eck averaged 67 1/3 innings.  Rivera averaged 72 2/3 innings.  That's a mere 5 1/3 innings difference.

Rivera appeared in 61 games on average.  Eck averaged 60.  One game difference and in 1994 he missed 1/3 of a season due to the strike.  So I would call this category a wash.

I'll give you homers.  Eck averaged more than Rivera per season.

But Eck kicks Rivera's ass in whip and K/BB ratio.

Those stats are using all the relief years but Eckersley's do not include numbers beyond age 39.  That is Rivera's current age so as to be fair about losing skill in the older ages.

The numbers show that while Rivera beats Eck in a few categories, Eckersley is the superior pitcher AND the superior reliever.

The numbers are not jury rigged in any way.  Obviously yours are.
I don't Round either I use real baseball number to the third decimal
#116 | 1751 days ago

Then you jury rigged the numbers.  Rivera relieved for 15 seasons.  You should have divided by 15.  It is also unfair to use Eckersley's old man years when Rivera hasn't had a chance to have crappy old man numbers yet.  That is why since Rivera is 39, I only used Eck's numbers through his age 39 season.  Which means his numbers must be divided by 7.  Not 12.

If you want, I'll include his first A's season when LaRussa didn't know what to do with him.

Be right back with those...
New York Yankees  
#117 | 1751 days ago

You can't include Eckersley's numbers from age 40-43.  You need to stop them at the same time for both.  Rivera is 39.  So I only used Eck up to age 39.  Your numbers were skewed on purpose in your favor.
New York Yankees  
#118 | 1751 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
For wins that's stupid because you can' t win .478 games.

Plus, who says baseball stats have to go to the 3rd decimal?  ERA only goes to the 2nd.  Why is that stat exempt?
New York Yankees  
#119 | 1751 days ago

And I'm using all the years they relieved.

A more accurate telling.
New York Yankees  
#120 | 1751 days ago

OK... 

Here is the average Dennis Eckersley season as a reliever through age 39...

Eck:  4.625--3.125  2.56 ERA.  36.375 Svs  77.25K's  10.125BB's  Opp BA .213  Opp OBP:  .243  Opp Slg: 331
Riv:   4.733-3.467  2.25 ERA  35.067 Svs   67.067K's  17.067BB's  OppBA:  .211  Opp OBP: .264  Opp Slg:  .292.

The numbers are a little closer.  But still favor Dennis.  What also must be considered is that Eckersley did not have as long to pad his reliever stats as Rivera did.  Rivera is using 15 seasons for his averages and Eckersley is using 8.  And as it turns out he was a much better reliever than he was a starter.  One can reasonably conclude that had the closer position been created when he first started and had he been the closer from nearly day one like Rivera was, that his ERA and other numbers would be much better than they were for the mere 8 year period used.

Another sample to use is the best 5 year stretch for either pitcher to get the numbers of both when they were in their prime.

I think I will do that.

Be right back with the results...  If you get back fast enough, I will let you pick what 5 year stretch you want to use for Rivera.
New York Yankees  
#121 | 1751 days ago

I didn't take anything off of Rivera's numbers.

Let's do best 5 year stretch...  What 5 years do you want to use for Rivera?
New York Yankees  
#122 | 1751 days ago
(+)

What is fair when it comes to Baseball numbers they are set in stone you got what you got which show Rivera over all Relief Career was better so be it Eck picked until he was an old man. Like I keep on saying in the same amount of time Rivera has more then 100 more save which is the most important number a closer can have point blank. You can have all the window dressing you want but its the house that most important case closed. At the end of his career he will nearly have 200 more save then Eck he only close for 13 year relieved for 14 or 15 I used only his closing years. Plus his post season his untouchable. His post season were he isn't babied his number are crazy good that is why he is going to the Hall of Fame he has 39 Career Saves and counting in the post season 18 save in the World Series numbers that might never be touched again. 5 time World Series Champion. Say he was on the Yankees on a bought team but he was one of the main pieces in thoses wins. Only two pitcher pitching today has 5 rings he is one of them the other is good.
#123 | 1751 days ago

OK...  The fairest way I can think of.

Compare the best 5 consecutive seasons for each.  This way you cannot include early seasons when they weren't closers nor can you include late age seasons when they weren't nearly as good as they were earlier.  It also omits the possibility of one player padding stats because he did it longer than the other.

Eckersley from 1988-1992
4.8 (5)--1.8 (2)  1.09 ERA.  44 Svs  62 G  72 IP  49 H  76K's  8BB's  Opp BA .190  Opp OBP:  .214  Opp Slg: 288  WHIP: 0.792
Rivera from 1997-2001
4.8 (5)-3.4 (3)  2.19 ERA  42 Svs   65 G  71 2/3IP 55H 59K's  18BB's  OppBA:  .209  Opp OBP: .262  Opp Slg:  .291  WHIP: 1.024

Looks like Eckersley wins here too.

Do you have a different set of 5 years you want to use?
New York Yankees  
#124 | 1751 days ago

If you want to include Eckersley's old years, then you have to wait until Rivera does the same thing.

I just did one for the same amount of time.  Eck averaged 2 more saves per season over that span.

Plus Eckersley had 10 full seasons as a closer.  Not 13.  I have no idea where you pulled those extra three years from.  Did you count 1987?  If you do then you need to count Rivera's year before he was the closer.  You are loading the deck, chief.  It doesn't work that way.

Post season doesn't count towards player career numbers.
And even if you wanted to use it, it is a VERY unfair comparison.  Rivera pitched in the expanded playoff era.  He had far more opportunities to pad his stats.  Eck did not.

Rivera was not responsible by himself for 5 Yankee World Series wins.  If he was, he would be the highest paid Yankee, don't you think?  But we have been through this before.  You didn't listen then I have no reason to think you will now.
New York Yankees  
#125 | 1751 days ago

Hey...  Those are the years I chose.

The results are listed above.
New York Yankees  
#126 | 1751 days ago

Of course he is part of the puzzle.  But probably one of the least important pieces. 

Usually when ANY pitcher comes in to start the 9th with the bases empty the game is over.  Rivera isn't that special in that regard.  Lots of saves just means the team he plays for has lots of leads.  And nothing else.

I don't include the post season for career numbers because they don't count towards career totals.  Does Babe Ruth have 729 home runs or does he have 714?  Guess what...  The big celebration for Hank Aaron came after he hit his 715th homer.  Not his 730th.

No one says Rivera is the best ever except you and other Yankee fans who think anyone who doesn't wear pinstripes suck.  No one.  You may be confused because some may say he is the best in the game today, but not all time.

Funny...  You seem to have ignored the 5 year comparison. 

It figures.....
New York Yankees  
#127 | 1751 days ago
(+)

Not Just this team either a few teams.
#128 | 1751 days ago

Again, the best on the roster.  Not the best ever.  I wouldn't trust ESPN when it comes to baseball.  They are almost as Yankee-centric as you are.  

Post season stats are just that.  Post season stats.  They count towards post season numbers.  Not towards career numbers.

Why do you keep misrepresenting me?  I never claimed post season stats "mean nothing".  You need to learn to comprehend what you read better.

Funny how you ragged on the 5 year thing AFTER you saw the numbers.  Before, you even said what 5 year stretch you wanted to use.  If it was a bad idea to begin with, you should have said so instead of offering to take part.

If you would care to look at the totals, Eck had more saves.  220 to Rivera's 210.   And in fewer games with more innings pitched.  Which is pretty telling about how Rivera is used because Eck almost NEVER came in the game with runners on or before the 9th.

You keep saying Rivera is better but so far you have nothing to support it.  Thus far, the only reason you seem to think he is better is because Rivera pitched for the Yankees.  The numbers sure don't support it.  But then, I have given up on you accepting reality.
New York Yankees  
#129 | 1751 days ago

When Rivera gets in the HoF, he will just be yet another of a whole bunch of players who do not deserve to be in.  No big deal.

The only time I wear my "hate mask" is when I speak of the Doyers.  And even then, I am capable of removing it and getting a strong dose of reality from time to time.

How about you taking your Yankee blinders off once in a while?
New York Yankees  
#130 | 1751 days ago
(+)

ML31 wrote:
When Rivera gets in the HoF, he will just be yet another of a whole bunch of players who do not deserve to be in.  No big deal.

The only time I wear my "hate mask" is when I speak of the Doyers.  And even then, I am capable of removing it and getting a strong dose of reality from time to time.

How about you taking your Yankee blinders off once in a while?
According to you its If he get into the Hall of Fame
#131 | 1751 days ago

Not true.  I am looking at an entire career.  It's just that if you want to compare Rivera to Eckersley, it is reasonable to NOT include years Eck pitched which Rivera has yet to.  One must also consider that had Eckersley closed before he did, his closer totals would have increased.  Rivera had an extra 7 years to amass his numbers.
You cannot possibly know what is being said on all programs.  Don't even go there.
Hoffman is sure as hell not going to say he is better.  He has class.  Why not ask who Rivera himself thinks is better if you want to go there? 

I didn't delete anything that Rivera did.  I included his entire career.  Eck beats Rivera for a career and he beats him when you use any 5 year window.  No matter how you slice it, Eck is better than Rivera.  Deny it all you like.  But the real fact is you can't see beyond the Yankee uniform.
New York Yankees  
#132 | 1751 days ago

Are you trying to tell me I have no idea who the "Goose" is? 

Wrong again skippy!
New York Yankees  
#133 | 1751 days ago

No.  The BBWA have incredibly low standards for the Hall.  He'll get in.
New York Yankees  
#134 | 1750 days ago

???  I didn't screw with anything Rivera did.  You accuse me of that but then do not explain what exactly it was that I "screwed" with.

So now you want to compare a starters ERA to a closers?  Even the best starters don't have ERA's as low as closers because closing games is so very much easier than starting.  Which is another reason Eckersley is superior to Rivera.  Eck started games and was decent at it.  If Rivera was any good, he would have started games instead of finishing them.  He was given a shot to start when he first came up.  Couldn't cut it.  So he was relegated to the pen.

You are funny.  You love to use your little made up color coded graphs for "stats" and now, when the real stats don't support you, suddenly it's, "I don't need stats".

You are incredible.
New York Yankees  
#135 | 1750 days ago

Both closed 12 to 13 years.

No they didn't....

Eck didn't start start closing until he was 33.  Rivera started when he was 27.  That is a 6 year head start.  6 more seasons to pad stats.

It even as far as im concerned

THAT'S EVEN????  A 6 year head start?
Not only that, (and I keep telling you this but you choose to continue to ignore it) Rivera is still an active player and has unknown seasons ahead of him.  Eckersley's career is long over.  All players tail off their final years so you are ignoring the potential Rivera end of season collapse while including Eckersley's.  That is why I stopped Eckersley's numbers at the same age as Rivera was in 2009.  (Which, BTW, includes multiple crappy seasons and he was STILL better than Rivera) 
It is foolish and biased to do otherwise.

Stats are color to make it easier to see what is what.

Unlike you, my eyes work.  I do not need color coding to see what is what.  Maybe if I color coded the stats I presented to you....?

"In history"!   Ha!   That's a laugh.  The history of closers goes way way back to 1988!
New York Yankees  
#136 | 1750 days ago

Just because you have some saves that doesn't make you the "closer".  Plus, the closer as LaRussa created it and that we know today didn't exist in 1987 when Eckersley was 32.  But if you want to go there, fine.  I see Saves for Rivera a year earlier to.   So he started closing, using your line of thinking, when he was 26.  Either way, Rivera still has 6 years of relief work on Eckersley.

No matter how much you try, you fail.
New York Yankees  
#137 | 1750 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
If you want to compare the entire body of work, the you can't do it with Rivera as he is still an active player and his complete story has yet to be told.

As closers, Eckersley was better.  As a starter, Eckersley was better.  Eckersley had more saves over the same amount of time.  This has all been proved by the numbers thrown at you over and over again that you still refuse to accept.  Once again, you can lead a horse to water...

So Rivera was better at 38 than Eckersley.  So what?  I thought you needed to compare "the whole body of work". 

Once again, you only believe what you say when you feel it benefits you to do so.

You fail again...   There was no lock out in '94.  And since officially the players got credit for a full season, there is no reason to delete '94 from the record.  But if I did, it removes a bad Eck season and it will only make his numbers look better.

I would gladly watch the Giants over the Yankees.  Thank you.  The Giants are a fun young team to watch while the Yankees are a boring overpaid machine.
New York Yankees  
#138 | 1750 days ago

Better starter, better reliever, better pitcher overall.  Feel free to live in your dream world where no non-Yankee could possibly be better at their position.  The rest of us know better.

You are wrong again about the Giants sucking.  They were an above average team last year.  For 40% of what the Yankees cost, too.  Would the Yankees be as good as the Giants if they were forced to work with only 40% of what they do?  I don't think so.

I think it better to be a fan of an up and coming team than to be a fan of a team that represents all that is wrong with MLB. 

So knock yourself out, Mr Bandwagon fan.
New York Yankees  
#139 | 1749 days ago

Again, you accused me of cutting something out of Rivera's career numbers.  And yet again you fail to tell me exactly what I cut out.  When I did the career comparison, I used Rivera's entire career.  When I did the best five year stretch, a format you initially did not find a problem with until you saw how much better it showed Eckersley to be, I used the same 5 year stretch YOU suggested to use.

Overall his number when he retires will be better.

Now you can predict the future?  You know, I can't include the portions of Rivera's career that HASN'T HAPPEND YET.

He will have 200 or so more saves.

Of course he will have 200 more.  He started 8 years before Eckersley did!  Something you don't want to mention.  And saves are stupidly easy to get, too.

your going to bring up he played for the Yankees.

No, I'm not.  That is not an issue to me like it is to you.

Ask any Yankee Jeter, A-Rod they all say Rivera is the most important player on the Yankees.

Then why isn't he paid like it?

In my eyes they suck.

That is a fantastic complement coming from you.  We all know how reasoned your line of thinking is!

They are not good.

88 wins does not = "suck".  No matter how you slice it.

Yankees are always up and coming.

No, they aren't.  As long as they have tons and tons of money to blow they never will be.  You Yankee defenders have no idea what it is like to truly earn your titles. 

Yankees save baseball dude you even said so on a poll say Ruth saved baseball.

Babe Ruth does not = the Yankees.  Where's your head?

thank them they are what is right and they saved baseball.

The Yankees didn't do crap.  If there was a salary cap in place today, I would thank the Yankees for saving baseball because the cap would only be in place because of their reckless spending.  Without, the Yankees represent all that is wrong with baseball.  That the rich will always win.  There is something very wrong with that picture.

If the Giants was in the same position they would do the same.

And if they were, I would be saying the same thing about them.  But they aren't so I don't.

Teams like yours are what wrong about baseball

Teams that do all they can to win and stay within their operating budget are what is wrong with baseball?  You are so very short sighted and lost if you really think that.

If teams put more money into the team fans will come

Not enough will come to offset the losses.  This has been proved over and over in markets NOT called New York.  But people like you don't get that fact.

Instead of blaming the Bigs Bad Yankees for everything.

You really need to pay attention better.  I'm not "blaming" the Yankees for it.  They are taking advantage of the system.  But they are showing everyone that the system is messed up and needs to be altered.

Fact that some of these people cater to you is bull I'm write in almost everything

I guess that "almost" you refer to is that you can't "write".

That last sentence is just too funny....  It sums you up in the proverbial nutshell.
New York Yankees  
#140 | 1749 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
I have to admit, I have never heard of that.  When I looked it up, I was stunned someone as dim as you are towards baseball even knew what it was.  But in reality, I actually most astonished that you seem to have spelled it right!

But then, I have no idea what a theoretical and speculative scale has to do with the Yankees being the end all be all of human existence.
New York Yankees  
#141 | 1749 days ago

Congratulations.  Still wondering what that has to do with baseball.
New York Yankees  
#142 | 1749 days ago

Great.

But baseball shouldn't be like that.  All teams should rank at the same place on a scale to ensure the best competition for the enjoyment of the customers.
This is something that can be mended.
New York Yankees  
#143 | 1749 days ago

Possibly, but there is no reason why you shouldn't take steps to make things as equal as possible.  Even a little more even that what it is now would be an improvement.
New York Yankees  
#144 | 1749 days ago

I would take that wager.

I still think players would go to whoever payed them the most.  Side deals aren't a sure thing.  Contracts are.  There is the possibility of becoming a media whore in NY, but it is far from 100%.  Players like certainty.  Which is why they prefer long term deals.

If the Royals were able to offer $1 million more than the Yankees, most would take the Royals deal.  Period.
New York Yankees  
#145 | 1749 days ago

George Brett didn't need New York.  Tony Gwynn didn't.  Barry Bonds didn't.  Hank Aaron Didn't.  Cal Ripken didn't.  Albert Pujols doesn't.  There is a very long list of players who were stars who didn't/don't need New York.

Players will go where the money is no matter where that is.  The only time geography plays a role is if they were deciding between two VERY close offers.  

It is stunning to me that you, as a Yankee fan, would even think otherwise.  You of all people ought to know that the Yankees have to severely overpay players to go there.
New York Yankees  
#146 | 1749 days ago

You have GOT to be kidding.

There are precious few players who have been pressured by the MLBPA to go for the bucks.  98% of them need no urging whatsoever.
Interesting that you brought up Sabathia.  He publicly said he wanted to play closer to his California home.  But it took a HUGE amount of money to get him to play for the Yankees.  There is a case of a player going for the bucks over preference.

Gwynn has told tales of being pressured to enter the free agent market.  But he wanted to stay in his home town.  I find that honorable.  But you know what?  There is no Yankee who wouldn't jump ship for a dime more.  That isn't a shot at the Yankees.  Most players would do that.
New York Yankees  
#147 | 1749 days ago

This is really hard to follow...   From what I can tell, you are agreeing with me that the Yankees HAVE to overpay for players.
New York Yankees  
#148 | 1749 days ago

I don't know what you are talking about here...  I can only guess that you are responding to something I said but since you didn't cite me, I have no idea what.

But...   That is "bubble gum money" only to the Yankees.  To almost everyone else, it is something HUGE.
New York Yankees  
#149 | 1749 days ago

If I were happy with where I was, it would take a great deal to get me to leave.

You put a weird spin on it, but it sounds like you are agreeing that the Yankees HAVE to overpay to get players to play for them.  It seems that all things being equal, many would not be playing for the Yankees.
New York Yankees  
#150 | 1748 days ago

I didn't say anything about things having to be equal.  I said if all things were equal, I doubt many players would want to play for the Yankees.

And if this is another dig at a salary cap, you are wrong about all pay being about the same.  Different teams would still pay different rates for different players.  The only difference would be that some teams would not be able to out spend most others overall.
New York Yankees  
#151 | 1748 days ago

I think he likes getting paid a lot.  (In fact, on that one I am positive)  I think he likes his World Series bonus.  He probably even likes all the expensive fancy player amenities in the new Yankee Stadium.  But that's about it I would think.
New York Yankees  
#152 | 1748 days ago

A lot of teams give perks.  But this falls into the "Yankees have more money than anyone" category.

And if I were implementing a cap, I would also have the cost of the "perks" be included when totaling pay against the cap.
New York Yankees  
#153 | 1748 days ago

Actually, overall they wouldn't.  The only players who may see a drop would be the Roy Holliday's, Derek Jeter's and Alex Rodriguez' of the world.  The vast majority wouldn't see any drop at all.  In fact, many of them would get an increase because the few big names would no longer be sucking away all the money.

The other thing is, if the cap is related to how well finanacially MLB is doing on the whole, as the game does better, then the players make more money.  It gives them a financial stake in improving the game.  Maybe some of their attitudes towards fans would change if it effected what they make.

Teams would NOT be setting up similar salaries.  How could they?  Teams would offer free agents what they could.  If the Yankees had $2million in cap room but the Royals had $8 million, and they were both interested in a certain player, the Royals would be in a position to offer way more.  And that player would take it because players love money more than they love the game.   A "wage limit" WOULD make the best offers the same.  And would be far worse for players.  An overall cap works best.  It allows teams the most maneuvering room while getting the players the opportunity to make the most money.

Yankees would be able to set themselves up for other free agents other teams wouldn't be able to do that.

Look at the above example I set.  The only way they could is if they had more cap room than anyone else.

I think they would still be able to get the top free agents no matter what system you put in.

You keep saying this but you offer absolutely no reasoning behind this foolish conclusion.  A cap is specifically designed to prevent one team from out spending and stacking up with every free agent that came down the pipe.  As the Yankees do now.

Fact they would get them cheaper.

Again, you say this, but offer no reasons as to why.
New York Yankees  
#154 | 1748 days ago

Wrong.&nbs; There would be no need for a floor.&nbs; The incentive would be that it was no ossible to actually make a legitimate crack a cometing.&nbs; Teams don't do it now because there is no u side to doing it.

Most owners are not "chea".&nbs; If they were, they wouldn't buy a Major League Baseball team.&nbs; There are lenty other and better investments than that.

I&nbs;agree that you need a fair ca.&nbs; That would be a ca that even the lowest revenue team could reach if they stretched.

I tell you what.&nbs; Imlement a reasonable and fair ca.&nbs; If 1/3 of the owners still don't try, only then can your statement be considered valid.&nbs; Until then, it is not chea owners.&nbs; It is a desire to not get involved in a race that cannot be won.&nbs; That would be foolish.&nbs; So in a sense, it is smart owners.&nbs; Not chea ones.
New York Yankees  
#155 | 1748 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
ML31 wrote:
Wrong.&nbs; There would be no need for a floor.&nbs; The incentive would be that it was no ossible to actually make a legitimate crack a cometing.&nbs; Teams don't do it now because there is no u side to doing it.

Most owners are not "chea".&nbs; If they were, they wouldn't buy a Major League Baseball team.&nbs; There are lenty other and better investments than that.

I&nbs;agree that you need a fair ca.&nbs; That would be a ca that even the lowest revenue team could reach if they stretched.

I tell you what.&nbs; Imlement a reasonable and fair ca.&nbs; If 1/3 of the owners still don't try, only then can your statement be considered valid.&nbs; Until then, it is not chea owners.&nbs; It is a desire to not get involved in a race that cannot be won.&nbs; That would be foolish.&nbs; So in a sense, it is smart owners.&nbs; Not chea ones.
New York Yankees  
#156 | 1748 days ago

(Edited by Chief_aka_James)
<FanIQ is currently a little buggy, I suggest using the greater-than and less-than symbols to start and end a Post to avoid those &am;nbs; codes..lower-cased P's seem to not work right now, so I also suggest using only caPital ones..

APologies, but should be fixed soon.>
Other  

Post a Comment   Already a user? Sign in here
Join FanIQ - It's Free
FanIQ is the ultimate free community for sports fans.
Talk sports with fans from all over - 1,649,417+ Comments
Track your game picks - 38,670,182,382+ Sports Predictions
Prove you know sports - 116,275+ Trivia Questions
Find fans of your teams - 11,453,110+ New Friends
MLB**Chasing Joe D**The FanIQ Hitting Streak**10/25**World Series Game 4**
Asked by Michael_G | MLB, KC, SF | 3 questions asked Yesterday
15 predictions | 1 comment | Last by jdk1948
MLB**Chasing Joe D**The FanIQ Hitting Streak**10/24**World Series Game 3**
Asked by Michael_G | MLB, KC, SF | 3 questions asked Yesterday
18 predictions | 5 comments | Last by jdk1948
MLB**Chasing Joe D**The FanIQ Hitting Streak**10/22**World Series Game 2**
Asked by Michael_G | MLB, KC, SF | 3 questions asked Yesterday
18 predictions | 1 comment | Last by jdk1948
MLB**Chasing Joe D**The FanIQ Hitting Streak**10/21**World Series Game 1**
Asked by Michael_G | MLB, KC, SF | 3 questions asked Yesterday
27 predictions | 2 comments | Last by jdk1948
Who are your heroes among zeroes (0/00)?
Asked by hclcdestin | MLB, FanIQ | 3 questions asked 08/03/14
18 opinions | 3 comments | Last by huskerdoug2009