EastCoastNiner Posted August 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 (edited) You contradicted yourself by saying your argument isn't really laughable. I was laughing for part of it. Bandwagoning? I was born in California, I've followed the Giants since I was 5. Name one duo with a better ERA, or more wins coming from less offense, or even more wins for that matter. There aren't any. Strikeouts? I don't think there's a single duo with more. Lincecum can't be touched sometimes, in about a third of his starts in fact. He throws more complete games (and shutouts) than anyone I know of. Yeah, Boston has good teams. Whoopdie-do. The Bruins aren't the best, the Red Sox aren't the best (6 straight losses, ouch. might now even make the playoffs if the Rays keep it up, or the Rangers get hot, but I doubt it), and the Patriots aren't the best. Yeah, the Pats. There won't be a title this year. To say that Josh Beckett and Jon Lester are a better 1-2 punch than Linceum and Cain is ridiculous. They aren't even better than Verlander and Jackson, or maybe even Jackson and Porcello. Nah, I'll give you that one. Forget Porcello. To say that Beckett, whoever the other 2 guys were, and Schilling is better than Lincecum and the other 3 guys is stupid. I mean Curt Schilling. The guy is how old? He's done. He's a HOFer, he's done. Homer. I never said that the Boston Red Sox were the best team right now, but the Boston Bruins finished 1st in the Eastern Conference for the regular season, and the New England Patriots are the favorites for the Super Bowl, as they have the best odds in Las Vegas, but I don't like to discuss them because I am superstitious. Also, here we go. In 2008, Tim Lincincum pitched 7 games against teams that made the playoffs. This year, out of the teams that would make the playoffs right now, he has pitched 5 games against teams that would make the playoffs if the season ended right now. In 2008, Josh Beckett pitched 12 games against playoff teams, and that's obviously not including the New York Yankees. This year, out of the teams that would make the playoffs right now, he has pitched 8 games, and there is no doubt that these playoff teams are better than the teams in the NL. In the AL East alone, they have 4 teams in the "Top 5" in runs scored this season. I could go on and on, but for you to say that Josh Beckett isn't nearly as good as Tim Lincincum is quite ridiculous in my opinion. I was very critical of Josh Beckett last season, and even this year as I made a thread questioning the trade of him, but I have seen him go out against the best competition that this league has, and post a 3.12 ERA after a completely [expletive]ty start to the season. I didn't include teams that were on the fringe because that would make this even more lopsided. Do you know how many times I saw Arizona and San Diego show up in Tim Lincincum's game log? . Also, I never said that Josh Beckett and Jon Lester were definately a better 1-2 punch, but thanks for trying to put words in my mouth. . And, if you still don't understand the point of Curt Shilling being there, then I don't know what else to say. Edited August 11, 2009 by EastCoastNiner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flight Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted August 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 lol That defense mechanism doesn't work anymore. You never try and support any of your claims, no matter how outlandish they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish7718 Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 lol The NL West is a push over are you kidding? This isn't debatable the NL West isn't even the best division in the NL. Lol it might be the worst division in the NL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trutrojan8 Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 lol The NL West is a push over are you kidding? This isn't debatable the NL West isn't even the best division in the NL. Lol it might be the worst division in the NL.According to ESPN, the #2, #9, and #10 teams in the whole league are from the NL West. #5, #13, and #14 are from the NL East #7, #12, and #18 are from the NL Central So why isn't the NL West the best division in the NL? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted August 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 According to ESPN, the #2, #9, and #10 teams in the whole league are from the NL West. #5, #13, and #14 are from the NL East #7, #12, and #18 are from the NL Central So why isn't the NL West the best division in the NL? I think that there is more balance in the Nl East and NL Central, which isn't the case for the the NL West. Obvious the NL East have the Washington Nationals, and the NL Central has the Pittsburgh Pirates, but other than that, those divisions are really strong as a whole, and I think the Mets will start playing a little better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly3rs18 Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 i am not gonna even waste my time reading this thread, there is really no point. its all just ecn telling everyone else that they are wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trutrojan8 Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Average NL West Ranking = 14.2Average NL East Ranking = 16.6Average NL Central Ranking = 17.5 If that doesn't get through your thick skull I don't know what will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted August 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 i am not gonna even waste my time reading this thread, there is really no point. its all just ecn telling everyone else that they are wrong Well, you're wrong. You didn't read the thread. I'm not saying anyone is wrong, I'm just not as sucked in the the hype of certain players, and I never once said that any of them were bad, and I never said I thought Josh Beckett and Jon Lester were the best 1-2 punch in the MLB, and haven't even said that the Boston Red Sox have the best pitching. So, maybe next time you should read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phightins Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 If I threw Cole Hammels in there I'm sure you wouldn't hate the argument, but anyways........ This is one sport where one individual position makes all of the difference in the world, and there have been other great pitchers that haven't fared well in the playoffs, so I fail to see how it is a dumb argument. 1. It is Cole Hamels...1 "m". 2. You really are not in a position to be suggesting somebody else is a homer, sorry... 3. It is comparing apples to oranges, that is why it is a dumb argument. If you cannot justify why Tim Lincecum, Roy Halladay, or Cliff Lee will or will not perform well in a playoff game since there are no statistics to back it up one way or the other, there is absolutely no use of bringing it up. It is like saying Ryan Zimmerman is a [expletive]ty player because he is a Washington National, or Adrian Gonzalez should not be compared to Kevin Youkilis (or any other good first baseman on a good team, Youk was just the first to come to mind) because he plays on the [expletive]ty San Diego Padres. When comparing these guys in those two hypothetical rotations, we only have two things to compare...pure talent and regular season numbers. Sure you can use Beckett's postseason numbers as a reason to call him clutch, but you cannot use Roy Halladay's lack of postseason experience against him. Doesn't work, sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trutrojan8 Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 1. It is Cole Hamels...1 "m". 2. You really are not in a position to be suggesting somebody else is a homer, sorry... 3. It is comparing apples to oranges, that is why it is a dumb argument. If you cannot justify why Tim Lincecum, Roy Halladay, or Cliff Lee will or will not perform well in a playoff game since there are no statistics to back it up one way or the other, there is absolutely no use of bringing it up. It is like saying Ryan Zimmerman is a [expletive]ty player because he is a Washington National, or Adrian Gonzalez should not be compared to Kevin Youkilis (or any other good first baseman on a good team, Youk was just the first to come to mind) because he plays on the [expletive]ty San Diego Padres. When comparing these guys in those two hypothetical rotations, we only have two things to compare...pure talent and regular season numbers. Sure you can use Beckett's postseason numbers as a reason to call him clutch, but you cannot use Roy Halladay's lack of postseason experience against him. Doesn't work, sorry.lmao. Another great post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly3rs18 Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 (edited) i am not gonna even waste my time reading this thread, there is really no point. its all just ecn telling everyone else that they are wrong Well, you're wrong.You didn't read the thread. I'm not saying anyone is wrong, I'm just not as sucked in the the hype of certain players, and I never once said that any of them were bad, and I never said I thought Josh Beckett and Jon Lester were the best 1-2 punch in the MLB, and haven't even said that the Boston Red Sox have the best pitching. So, maybe next time you should read. HAHAHAHA Edited August 11, 2009 by fly3rs18 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted August 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 HAHAHAHA You are wrong, and go show me where else I said "You are wrong" to anyone else. And, I love when people play the "homer"(for you Kyle) card, when it's not my fault that Boston has great sports teams, and they can all be considered the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phightins Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 You are wrong, and go show me where else I said "You are wrong" to anyone else. And, I love when people play the "homer"(for you Kyle) card, when it's not my fault that Boston has great sports teams, and they can all be considered the best. What does this have to do with anything? You are still a huge homer. I am too, as is everybody on OTR, but you especially. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted August 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 1. It is Cole Hamels...1 "m". 2. You really are not in a position to be suggesting somebody else is a homer, sorry... 3. It is comparing apples to oranges, that is why it is a dumb argument. If you cannot justify why Tim Lincecum, Roy Halladay, or Cliff Lee will or will not perform well in a playoff game since there are no statistics to back it up one way or the other, there is absolutely no use of bringing it up. It is like saying Ryan Zimmerman is a [expletive]ty player because he is a Washington National, or Adrian Gonzalez should not be compared to Kevin Youkilis (or any other good first baseman on a good team, Youk was just the first to come to mind) because he plays on the [expletive]ty San Diego Padres. When comparing these guys in those two hypothetical rotations, we only have two things to compare...pure talent and regular season numbers. Sure you can use Beckett's postseason numbers as a reason to call him clutch, but you cannot use Roy Halladay's lack of postseason experience against him. Doesn't work, sorry. You can use that argument, as it has a lot of credibility. Assuming that you think one of these QB's is better, which would you rather have in the playoffs? Phillip Rivers, Jay Cutler, or Donavan McCCCCCCNNAAABBBBBBB, or would you rather have Ben Rothelisburger? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted August 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 What does this have to do with anything? You are still a huge homer. I am too, as is everybody on OTR, but you especially. Ummm, because if I ever say anything positive about Boston teams, I'm automatically labeled a "homer". You can't say that the Philadelphia Phillies, Flyers, or Eagles have any chance at the post-season, you can't say that Brian Westbrook is one of the best RB's, and you can't say that Chris Pronger is going to help the Philadelphia Flyers or you are just being a complete "homer". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phightins Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 You can use that argument, as it has a lot of credibility. Assuming that you think one of these QB's is better, which would you rather have in the playoffs? Phillip Rivers, Jay Cutler, or Donavan McCCCCCCNNAAABBBBBBB, or would you rather have Ben Rothelisburger? See, those guys all have playoff experience or "big game" experience, so you can actually construct an argument. There is statistical evidence to back it up. Until Tim Lincecum, Roy Halladay, and Cliff Lee pitch in the postseason or a meaningful September game, you cannot use their lack of experience against them. /thread. Please, for the sake of the last ounce of your credibility, do not try to fight this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phightins Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Ummm, because if I ever say anything positive about Boston teams, I'm automatically labeled a "homer". You can't say that the Philadelphia Phillies, Flyers, or Eagles have any chance at the post-season, you can't say that Brian Westbrook is one of the best RB's, and you can't say that Chris Pronger is going to help the Philadelphia Flyers or you are just being a complete "homer". It's because you have earned that reputation. It goes beyond "being positive". If it were not 1:45 am and I actually felt like it, I would search for examples (although there probably are not many on the new forums). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly3rs18 Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 You can use that argument, as it has a lot of credibility. Assuming that you think one of these QB's is better, which would you rather have in the playoffs? Phillip Rivers, Jay Cutler, or Donavan McCCCCCCNNAAABBBBBBB, or would you rather have Ben Rothelisburger? id almost rather have mcnabb. looking at stats now, big ben really did not do much in his playoff runs. he did make the plays when he had to, but the defense carried the team and won the superbowl twice. its an argument for another thread, not here though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted August 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 I understand that you feel like it is unfair, but that's not the same tune you were singing last year or this year during the Stanley Cup Finals was it? I'm sure most people picked the Detroit Red Wings becuase they probably thought they were better, but a lot had to do with the experience of the Detroit Red Wings and inexperience of the Pittsburgh Penguins in 2008. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phightins Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 I understand that you feel like it is unfair, but that's not the same tune you were singing last year or this year during the Stanley Cup Finals was it? I'm sure most people picked the Detroit Red Wings becuase they probably thought they were better, but a lot had to do with the experience of the Detroit Red Wings and inexperience of the Pittsburgh Penguins in 2008. If anything that just goes to show that in a seven game series anything can happen, especially in a game 7. Experience was a factor in my pick of Detroit I will give you that, however it was based primarily on the fact that on paper they were a much deeper roster. Also, using your logic, I am sure you were picking against the Celtics in the postseason two years ago because of their lack of experience, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted August 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 If anything that just goes to show that in a seven game series anything can happen, especially in a game 7. Experience was a factor in my pick of Detroit I will give you that, however it was based primarily on the fact that on paper they were a much deeper roster. Also, using your logic, I am sure you were picking against the Celtics in the postseason two years ago because of their lack of experience, right? No, not really. Paul Pierce, KG, Ray Allen, P.J. Brown, James Posey, and others had all been in the playoffs before, so that wasn't the greatest example. Baseball is unique though, and it's not just the teams experience when it comes to pitching, but the pitcher needs to know how to handle the pressure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phightins Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Baseball is unique though, and it's not just the teams experience when it comes to pitching, but the pitcher needs to know how to handle the pressure. I do not disagree with this, in fact I agree 100%. What I do disagree with is using the lack of experience with certain guys against them just because they have had the [expletive] luck of playing on bad teams. At least give them the chance to perform in a big game before you use this against them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren2ThaG Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Baseball is the most unpredictable sport, thats what makes the playoffs fun. Any1 has equal chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flight Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Guys, just get over it. ECN's E-Penis is bigger than any of ours. I don't support my "outlandish" claims because there's no need to. If you really believe that Josh Beckett and Jon Lester are better than Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain, good for you. As you once said, "Well, you're wrong." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.