Desipio Message Board

Quote from: Oleg on April 08, 2009, 01:39:47 PM

Quote from: MAD on April 08, 2009, 01:36:19 PM
Mike Hampton may have had a better run with the 'stros than The Scuffballer and the Freak of Nature.

My first reaction was that you were talking crazy.  Upon further review, I think you're right.

edit: He did walk a lot of hitters, though.  Without looking at it more closely, I would think his defense had bailed him out a lot.  I think I'd put him below Ryan and above Scott.  His K/BB ratios are atrocious, but his one awesome year, '99, his WHIP was still 1.29.  Weird numbers, I'd say.

edit2: Man, it's good to have baseball back!

Compare his walks to Ryan's, who had a shit-ton.

Quote from: MAD on April 08, 2009, 01:47:24 PM

Quote from: Oleg on April 08, 2009, 01:39:47 PM

Quote from: MAD on April 08, 2009, 01:36:19 PM
Mike Hampton may have had a better run with the 'stros than The Scuffballer and the Freak of Nature.

My first reaction was that you were talking crazy.  Upon further review, I think you're right.

edit: He did walk a lot of hitters, though.  Without looking at it more closely, I would think his defense had bailed him out a lot.  I think I'd put him below Ryan and above Scott.  His K/BB ratios are atrocious, but his one awesome year, '99, his WHIP was still 1.29.  Weird numbers, I'd say.

edit2: Man, it's good to have baseball back!

Compare his walks to Ryan's, who had a shit-ton.

I guess it's way closer than I thought.  It didn't cross my mind to look up Oswalt's numbers as it didn't even dawn [sic?] on me that he'd even been in the league for eight years.  That's insanity.

Quote from: MAD on April 08, 2009, 01:47:24 PM

Quote from: Oleg on April 08, 2009, 01:39:47 PM

Quote from: MAD on April 08, 2009, 01:36:19 PM
Mike Hampton may have had a better run with the 'stros than The Scuffballer and the Freak of Nature.

My first reaction was that you were talking crazy.  Upon further review, I think you're right.

edit: He did walk a lot of hitters, though.  Without looking at it more closely, I would think his defense had bailed him out a lot.  I think I'd put him below Ryan and above Scott.  His K/BB ratios are atrocious, but his one awesome year, '99, his WHIP was still 1.29.  Weird numbers, I'd say.

edit2: Man, it's good to have baseball back!

Compare his walks to Ryan's, who had a shit-ton.

Ryan made up for it by striking out a shit-ton, too.  Although, I see your point.  The difference isn't as big as I thought.

Quote from: Oleg on April 08, 2009, 01:39:47 PM

Quote from: MAD on April 08, 2009, 01:36:19 PM
Mike Hampton may have had a better run with the 'stros than The Scuffballer and the Freak of Nature.

My first reaction was that you were talking crazy.  Upon further review, I think you're right.

edit: He did walk a lot of hitters, though.  Without looking at it more closely, I would think his defense had bailed him out a lot.  I think I'd put him below Ryan and above Scott.  His K/BB ratios are atrocious, but his one awesome year, '99, his WHIP was still 1.29.  Weird numbers, I'd say.

Speaking of weird numbers, Ryan's stats are fascinating.  His line from 1974 is bizarre:

332 IP (holy shit), 202 walks, 367 Ks, 2.89 ERA and 1.27 WHIP.  To walk 5.5 guys per nine innings and have a WHIP under 1.30 is just weird, even with his K rate.

Good pitchers are determined by win-loss records dude. Nolan Ryan wasn't that good.

Quote from: BH on April 08, 2009, 01:57:36 PM
Good pitchers are determined by win-loss records dude. Nolan Ryan wasn't that good.

Speaking of that, Roy Oswalt is 129-64.  My word.  On the other hand, Peavy's 86-62.  Peavy's the Cy Young pitcher and Roy Oswalt isn't.  (When checking out BR, in the awards column it says "CYA-5" and the like for Oswalt.  Does that mean he was fifth in the running for the award that year?)  If so, he was in the running for that award five out of eight years.  Peavy, once--he won.

The internet is a fascinating place.

Quote from: *In a Nutsack on April 08, 2009, 01:58:46 PM

Quote from: BH on April 08, 2009, 01:57:36 PM
Good pitchers are determined by win-loss records dude. Nolan Ryan wasn't that good.

Speaking of that, Roy Oswalt is 129-64.  My word.  On the other hand, Peavy's 86-62.  Peavy's the Cy Young pitcher and Roy Oswalt isn't.  (When checking out BR, in the awards column it says "CYA-5" and the like for Oswalt.  Does that mean he was fifth in the running for the award that year?)  If so, he was in the running for that award five out of eight years.  Peavy, once--he won.

The internet is a fascinating place.

Yeah, that means he finished 5th.

I despise Oswalt because he's basically what I thought Prior was going to be.

Quote from: *In a Nutsack on April 08, 2009, 01:58:46 PM

Quote from: BH on April 08, 2009, 01:57:36 PM
Good pitchers are determined by win-loss records dude. Nolan Ryan wasn't that good.

Speaking of that, Roy Oswalt is 129-64.  My word.  On the other hand, Peavy's 86-62.  Peavy's the Cy Young pitcher and Roy Oswalt isn't.  (When checking out BR, in the awards column it says "CYA-5" and the like for Oswalt.  Does that mean he was fifth in the running for the award that year?)  If so, he was in the running for that award five out of eight years.  Peavy, once--he won.

The internet is a fascinating place.

You're not wrong, but you're using the two worst indicators to make your point.  Looking at their stats, I can't believe they're not comps for each other. 

Gorddarnm, it's good to have baseball back.

Quote from: Oleg on April 08, 2009, 02:10:33 PM

Quote from: *In a Nutsack on April 08, 2009, 01:58:46 PM

Quote from: BH on April 08, 2009, 01:57:36 PM
Good pitchers are determined by win-loss records dude. Nolan Ryan wasn't that good.

Speaking of that, Roy Oswalt is 129-64.  My word.  On the other hand, Peavy's 86-62.  Peavy's the Cy Young pitcher and Roy Oswalt isn't.  (When checking out BR, in the awards column it says "CYA-5" and the like for Oswalt.  Does that mean he was fifth in the running for the award that year?)  If so, he was in the running for that award five out of eight years.  Peavy, once--he won.

The internet is a fascinating place.

You're not wrong, but you're using the two worst indicators to make your point.  Looking at their stats, I can't believe they're not comps for each other. 

Gorddarnm, it's good to have baseball back.

I know, but in 8 years to have 129 wins opposed to just 64 losses just raises the ole eyebrow.  I mean, that's something, right?

And, THI.

Quote from: *In a Nutsack on April 08, 2009, 02:16:11 PM

Quote from: Oleg on April 08, 2009, 02:10:33 PM

Quote from: *In a Nutsack on April 08, 2009, 01:58:46 PM

Quote from: BH on April 08, 2009, 01:57:36 PM
Good pitchers are determined by win-loss records dude. Nolan Ryan wasn't that good.

Speaking of that, Roy Oswalt is 129-64.  My word.  On the other hand, Peavy's 86-62.  Peavy's the Cy Young pitcher and Roy Oswalt isn't.  (When checking out BR, in the awards column it says "CYA-5" and the like for Oswalt.  Does that mean he was fifth in the running for the award that year?)  If so, he was in the running for that award five out of eight years.  Peavy, once--he won.

The internet is a fascinating place.

You're not wrong, but you're using the two worst indicators to make your point.  Looking at their stats, I can't believe they're not comps for each other. 

Gorddarnm, it's good to have baseball back.

I know, but in 8 years to have 129 wins opposed to just 64 losses just raises the ole eyebrow.  I mean, that's something, right?

And, THI.

It may just mean that he's played on some pretty good teams.  Although in his case, he has been pretty fucking good.

Quote from: *In a Nutsack on April 08, 2009, 02:16:11 PM

Quote from: Oleg on April 08, 2009, 02:10:33 PM

Quote from: *In a Nutsack on April 08, 2009, 01:58:46 PM

Quote from: BH on April 08, 2009, 01:57:36 PM
Good pitchers are determined by win-loss records dude. Nolan Ryan wasn't that good.

Speaking of that, Roy Oswalt is 129-64.  My word.  On the other hand, Peavy's 86-62.  Peavy's the Cy Young pitcher and Roy Oswalt isn't.  (When checking out BR, in the awards column it says "CYA-5" and the like for Oswalt.  Does that mean he was fifth in the running for the award that year?)  If so, he was in the running for that award five out of eight years.  Peavy, once--he won.

The internet is a fascinating place.

You're not wrong, but you're using the two worst indicators to make your point.  Looking at their stats, I can't believe they're not comps for each other. 

Gorddarnm, it's good to have baseball back.

I know, but in 8 years to have 129 wins opposed to just 64 losses just raises the ole eyebrow.  I mean, that's something, right?

And, THI.

Intrepid Reader: Muskrat

It means something. What that is is hard to define.

Quote from: Oleg on April 08, 2009, 02:10:33 PM

Quote from: *In a Nutsack on April 08, 2009, 01:58:46 PM

Quote from: BH on April 08, 2009, 01:57:36 PM
Good pitchers are determined by win-loss records dude. Nolan Ryan wasn't that good.

Speaking of that, Roy Oswalt is 129-64.  My word.  On the other hand, Peavy's 86-62.  Peavy's the Cy Young pitcher and Roy Oswalt isn't.  (When checking out BR, in the awards column it says "CYA-5" and the like for Oswalt.  Does that mean he was fifth in the running for the award that year?)  If so, he was in the running for that award five out of eight years.  Peavy, once--he won.

The internet is a fascinating place.

You're not wrong, but you're using the two worst indicators to make your point.  Looking at their stats, I can't believe they're not comps for each other. 

Gorddarnm, it's good to have baseball back.

Why is tonight different from all other nights?

Quote from: CBStew on April 08, 2009, 04:30:42 PM

Quote from: Oleg on April 08, 2009, 02:10:33 PM

Quote from: *In a Nutsack on April 08, 2009, 01:58:46 PM

Quote from: BH on April 08, 2009, 01:57:36 PM
Good pitchers are determined by win-loss records dude. Nolan Ryan wasn't that good.

Speaking of that, Roy Oswalt is 129-64.  My word.  On the other hand, Peavy's 86-62.  Peavy's the Cy Young pitcher and Roy Oswalt isn't.  (When checking out BR, in the awards column it says "CYA-5" and the like for Oswalt.  Does that mean he was fifth in the running for the award that year?)  If so, he was in the running for that award five out of eight years.  Peavy, once--he won.

The internet is a fascinating place.

You're not wrong, but you're using the two worst indicators to make your point.  Looking at their stats, I can't believe they're not comps for each other. 

Gorddarnm, it's good to have baseball back.

Why is tonight different from all other nights?

On all other nights, I enjoy the Cubs game with a beer, tonight, its with vodka.

You may be thankful that twenty years from now when you are sitting by the fireplace with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what you did in the great 2009 Championship Season, you WON'T have to cough, shift him to the other knee and say, 'Well, your Granddaddy was an Astros fan.'"

No, Sir! You can look him straight in the eye and say, 'Son, your Granddaddy rode with the Great Chicago Cubs and a Son-of-a-Goddamned-Bitch named Dave Patton!'

Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on April 08, 2009, 11:00:40 PM
You may be thankful that twenty years from now when you are sitting by the fireplace with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what you did in the great 2009 Championship Season, you WON'T have to cough, shift him to the other knee and say, 'Well, your Granddaddy was an Astros fan.'"

No, Sir! You can look him straight in the eye and say, 'Son, your Granddaddy rode with the Great Chicago Cubs and a Son-of-a-Goddamned-Bitch named Dave Patton!'

As long as he keeps getting ahead, this Patton fella might be on to something.

Also, we're a mere few games away from a serious Milton Bradley spit-swappin' shirtless-huggin' splooge-A-roonie. No hits yet but four walks already. I smell some serious ball pounding coming up.