|
|
Post by mrpickles on Aug 5, 2014 9:18:33 GMT -5
umm that is precisely how contract negotiations work ... please ignore the fact that my client has been far better over the last 4 years. "ignore the fact lester was lights out in 2013 playoffs, you wanna take a look at what cole hamels does in the regular season vs the likes of the mets" - drew rosenpickles dude, hamels has had 1 bad postseason ... 1 .... your argument is lame |
|
|
|
Post by Just Another Shem on Aug 5, 2014 9:20:07 GMT -5
why does Jon Lester always have a whip well over 1.2 ?? because he has to face a designated hitter every time through the lineup and not a guy where he can close his eyes and groove 3 fast balls and get an easy strike out. |
|
|
|
Post by mrpickles on Aug 5, 2014 9:21:14 GMT -5
and as I said ... thats wonderful snoogins. but at the end of the day, its one series in a career. it does not make him a better pitcher at all, ever their career numbers are virtually identical. Well I would concede that Hamels has a very very minor statistical advantage I would counter that by saying that he pitches in the National League. The National League sucks huge dick. It sucks gigantic fat floppy elephant dick. Massive humongous dinosaur shitty Tyrannosaurus dick. when you throw that into the mix and then look at the fact that Lester is a proven playoff base and Hamels is hit or miss? I don't see how you don't give the advantage to Lester. I really don't. Taking this a step further if you eliminate Lester is one outlier year where he was terrible his career numbers are better than animals. Now I understand that you can not just throw that out. However having said that unless you believe that Lester has the capability of putting up another five plus BR a season while he is still in his prime? You can't exactly ignore the point that that year was most definitely an outlier. put it this way ... ask this question year by year, at the time who would you take, Cole hamels or lester 2010 - Hamels 2011 - Hamels 2012 - Hamels 2013 - Hamels 2014 - oh its a coin flip thats the truth of the matter. |
|
|
|
Post by mrpickles on Aug 5, 2014 9:22:34 GMT -5
if Cole Hamels pitched in the 2009 World Series like Jon Lester pitched in the 2013 World Series do you think the Phillies win another ring? I will also ask if Jon Lester pitched in the 2013 World Series the way Cole Hamels pitched in the 2009 World Series do you think the Red Sox still win last year? Now do you understand why people think the post season stats are important? snoogs took smart pills today. when snoogs is schooling you pickles, it's time to hang 'em up. wanna laugh? look at cole's 2008 world series #'s, look at lester 2013, then realize cole got a world series mvo for that lmao. there 2008 and 2013 numbers are pretty much identical ... whats your point? get off snoogs dick, cause he honestly carrying you |
|
|
|
Post by mrpickles on Aug 5, 2014 9:24:05 GMT -5
I love this postseason argument ... honestly
they've basically pitched 80 innings each. And with cole hamels completely dog shit 2009 Lester has better numbers ... WOW
|
|
|
|
Post by Just Another Shem on Aug 5, 2014 9:25:34 GMT -5
their career numbers are virtually identical. Well I would concede that Hamels has a very very minor statistical advantage I would counter that by saying that he pitches in the National League. The National League sucks huge dick. It sucks gigantic fat floppy elephant dick. Massive humongous dinosaur shitty Tyrannosaurus dick. when you throw that into the mix and then look at the fact that Lester is a proven playoff base and Hamels is hit or miss? I don't see how you don't give the advantage to Lester. I really don't. Taking this a step further if you eliminate Lester is one outlier year where he was terrible his career numbers are better than animals. Now I understand that you can not just throw that out. However having said that unless you believe that Lester has the capability of putting up another five plus BR a season while he is still in his prime? You can't exactly ignore the point that that year was most definitely an outlier. put it this way ... ask this question year by year, at the time who would you take, Cole hamels or lester 2010 - Hamels 2011 - Hamels 2012 - Hamels 2013 - Hamels 2014 - oh its a coin flip thats the truth of the matter. another way to ask that question is would you rather face the s*** bag lineups then Hamels gets to feast on every year or would you rather have to spend your time going through the beasts of the American League. Particularly 40 games per year of the Yankees and Blue Jays lineups alone. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bag on Aug 5, 2014 9:26:16 GMT -5
"not even the red sox fans agree with you here" - mr denials you guys say the same dumb shit over an over ... if i have one game, im taking lester .... WHY? On seriously what basis? my guy is a fucking world series MVP and has been far better over the last 3 or 4 years .... but by all means let me listen to your stance that THIS YEAR they are a coin flip and in the postseason lester is far more dominant (again, misleading as shit) dude he posted a 2.77 era vs the fucking rays in 13 innings for that world series mvp. that is one of the most god awful atrocious mvp's ever. to put it in comparative terms, john fucking lackey in 2013 threw in 3 games, 14 innings, and had a 2.57 era vs the cardinals. let that sink in. then realize lester in 3 world series games as allowed 1 run in 21 innings. in 3 world series games for hamels, he has allowed 9 runs in 17.1 innings. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bag on Aug 5, 2014 9:27:52 GMT -5
if Cole Hamels pitched in the 2009 World Series like Jon Lester pitched in the 2013 World Series do you think the Phillies win another ring? I will also ask if Jon Lester pitched in the 2013 World Series the way Cole Hamels pitched in the 2009 World Series do you think the Red Sox still win last year? Now do you understand why people think the post season stats are important? and as I said ... thats wonderful snoogins. but at the end of the day, its one series in a career. it does not make him a better pitcher at all, ever ok let's not hump one series care to discuss his other world series appearance? im guessing you dont wanna discuss what hamels did vs an AL team with an actual offense. . . . |
|
|
|
Post by mrpickles on Aug 5, 2014 9:28:35 GMT -5
put it this way ... ask this question year by year, at the time who would you take, Cole hamels or lester 2010 - Hamels 2011 - Hamels 2012 - Hamels 2013 - Hamels 2014 - oh its a coin flip thats the truth of the matter. another way to ask that question is would you rather face the s*** bag lineups then Hamels gets to feast on every year or would you rather have to spend your time going through the beasts of the American League. Particularly 40 games per year of the Yankees and Blue Jays lineups alone. so you're saying during those years you wouldnt have preferred to have Hamels over Lester .... you'll probably lie about this though |
|
|
|
Post by NEW YORK on Aug 5, 2014 9:30:28 GMT -5
Lester/Hamels may be the definition of splitting hairs........Cant think of a closer comparison
|
|
|
|
Post by mrpickles on Aug 5, 2014 9:30:33 GMT -5
you guys say the same dumb shit over an over ... if i have one game, im taking lester .... WHY? On seriously what basis? my guy is a fucking world series MVP and has been far better over the last 3 or 4 years .... but by all means let me listen to your stance that THIS YEAR they are a coin flip and in the postseason lester is far more dominant (again, misleading as shit) dude he posted a 2.77 era vs the fucking rays in 13 innings for that world series mvp. that is one of the most god awful atrocious mvp's ever. to put it in comparative terms, john fucking lackey in 2013 threw in 3 games, 14 innings, and had a 2.57 era vs the cardinals. let that sink in. then realize lester in 3 world series games as allowed 1 run in 21 innings. in 3 world series games for hamels, he has allowed 9 runs in 17.1 innings. exactly... so again my point is, small sample size - dumb to use era, but by all means keep humping your precious postseason stats. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bag on Aug 5, 2014 9:30:59 GMT -5
their career numbers are virtually identical. Well I would concede that Hamels has a very very minor statistical advantage I would counter that by saying that he pitches in the National League. The National League sucks huge dick. It sucks gigantic fat floppy elephant dick. Massive humongous dinosaur shitty Tyrannosaurus dick. when you throw that into the mix and then look at the fact that Lester is a proven playoff base and Hamels is hit or miss? I don't see how you don't give the advantage to Lester. I really don't. Taking this a step further if you eliminate Lester is one outlier year where he was terrible his career numbers are better than animals. Now I understand that you can not just throw that out. However having said that unless you believe that Lester has the capability of putting up another five plus BR a season while he is still in his prime? You can't exactly ignore the point that that year was most definitely an outlier. put it this way ... ask this question year by year, at the time who would you take, Cole hamels or lester 2010 - Hamels 2011 - Hamels 2012 - Hamels 2013 - Hamels 2014 - oh its a coin flip thats the truth of the matter. ive asked for it numerous times, noone has been able to produce it. can we get lester numbers vs NL guys, and hamels guys vs AL guys? it's very hard to compare guys in different leagues. |
|
|
|
Post by mrpickles on Aug 5, 2014 9:31:53 GMT -5
and as I said ... thats wonderful snoogins. but at the end of the day, its one series in a career. it does not make him a better pitcher at all, ever ok let's not hump one series care to discuss his other world series appearance? im guessing you dont wanna discuss what hamels did vs an AL team with an actual offense. . . . i was talking about Hamels ... it was one series. that series grossly skewed the postseason stats to Lester. Thats fine I dont care. again its one series in a career. its a dumb argument is my point |
|
|
|
Post by The Bag on Aug 5, 2014 9:32:07 GMT -5
their career numbers are virtually identical. Well I would concede that Hamels has a very very minor statistical advantage I would counter that by saying that he pitches in the National League. The National League sucks huge dick. It sucks gigantic fat floppy elephant dick. Massive humongous dinosaur shitty Tyrannosaurus dick. when you throw that into the mix and then look at the fact that Lester is a proven playoff base and Hamels is hit or miss? I don't see how you don't give the advantage to Lester. I really don't. Taking this a step further if you eliminate Lester is one outlier year where he was terrible his career numbers are better than animals. Now I understand that you can not just throw that out. However having said that unless you believe that Lester has the capability of putting up another five plus BR a season while he is still in his prime? You can't exactly ignore the point that that year was most definitely an outlier. put it this way ... ask this question year by year, at the time who would you take, Cole hamels or lester 2010 - Hamels 2011 - Hamels 2012 - Hamels 2013 - Hamels 2014 - oh its a coin flip thats the truth of the matter. ive asked for it numerous times, noone has been able to produce it. can we get lester numbers vs NL guys, and hamels guys vs AL guys? it's very hard to compare guys in different leagues. "yea, gimmie hamels in 2013, lester's sub fucking 1 era in the world series is worthless". |
|
|
|
Post by The Bag on Aug 5, 2014 9:38:19 GMT -5
I love this postseason argument ... honestly they've basically pitched 80 innings each. And with cole hamels completely dog shit 2009 Lester has better numbers ... WOW uh 80 ip = same size to go by. lester did better in his chances on the big stage. except when hamels was just lights out for a 2.77 era in 2 games vs that offensive powerhouse the rays. |
|
|
|
Post by mrpickles on Aug 5, 2014 9:38:50 GMT -5
anyway im done with this nonsense ... any un-biased fan is taking hamels over lester. its been that way for years now. an this (coin flip) season would not be changing anyones mind Ok so im just going to listen to myself now I know Jon Lester's postseason misleadingly dominate hamels and that hamels last 4 seasons of stats "misleadingly" dominate Lester's |
|
|
|
Post by The Bag on Aug 5, 2014 9:39:21 GMT -5
I love this postseason argument ... honestly they've basically pitched 80 innings each. And with cole hamels completely dog shit 2009 Lester has better numbers ... WOW uh 80 ip = same size to go by. lester did better in his chances on the big stage. except when hamels was just lights out for a 2.77 era in 2 games vs that offensive powerhouse the rays. |
|
|
|
Post by mrpickles on Aug 5, 2014 9:39:29 GMT -5
I love this postseason argument ... honestly they've basically pitched 80 innings each. And with cole hamels completely dog shit 2009 Lester has better numbers ... WOW uh 80 ip = same size to go by. lester did better in his chances on the big stage. except when hamels was just lights out for a 2.77 era in 2 games vs that offensive powerhouse the rays. the same Rays from the mighty AL East? ok go away |
|
|
|
Post by The Bag on Aug 5, 2014 9:43:29 GMT -5
dude he posted a 2.77 era vs the fucking rays in 13 innings for that world series mvp. that is one of the most god awful atrocious mvp's ever. to put it in comparative terms, john fucking lackey in 2013 threw in 3 games, 14 innings, and had a 2.57 era vs the cardinals. let that sink in. then realize lester in 3 world series games as allowed 1 run in 21 innings. in 3 world series games for hamels, he has allowed 9 runs in 17.1 innings. exactly... so again my point is, small sample size - dumb to use era, but by all means keep humping your precious postseason stats. lol 80 post season innings is far from a "sample size", especially for elite pitchers. they are very similar in the regular season, so it's natural to look at their post season work to find a difference. the discussion ends there for some reason, but you are quick to bring up that terri-bad world series mvp. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bag on Aug 5, 2014 9:46:15 GMT -5
ok let's not hump one series care to discuss his other world series appearance? im guessing you dont wanna discuss what hamels did vs an AL team with an actual offense. . . . i was talking about Hamels ... it was one series. that series grossly skewed the postseason stats to Lester. Thats fine I dont care. again its one series in a career. its a dumb argument is my point lester put up back to back seasons of almost a 5 era. so hamels worst is worse than lester's worst, hamels best is worst than lester's best. pretty slam dunk to me... |
|
|
|
Post by mrpickles on Aug 5, 2014 9:46:19 GMT -5
exactly... so again my point is, small sample size - dumb to use era, but by all means keep humping your precious postseason stats. lol 80 post season innings is far from a "sample size", especially for elite pitchers. they are very similar in the regular season, so it's natural to look at their post season work to find a difference. the discussion ends there for some reason, but you are quick to bring up that terri-bad world series mvp. Do you know how math works? Serious question nobody is ending the discussion there. The postseason stats are closer than you think, they are misleading cause hamels had 1 bad postseason. you hump the shit out of Lester's 2013 ... ignore Hamels 2008 and WS MVP ... its odd then you bash him for dominating a shitty team in the WS.... A Shitty team from your red sox OWN division ... odder |
|
|
|
Post by The Bag on Aug 5, 2014 9:50:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by The Bag on Aug 5, 2014 9:53:29 GMT -5
lol 80 post season innings is far from a "sample size", especially for elite pitchers. they are very similar in the regular season, so it's natural to look at their post season work to find a difference. the discussion ends there for some reason, but you are quick to bring up that terri-bad world series mvp. Do you know how math works? Serious question nobody is ending the discussion there. The postseason stats are closer than you think, they are misleading cause hamels had 1 bad postseason. you hump the shit out of Lester's 2013 ... ignore Hamels 2008 and WS MVP ... its odd then you bash him for dominating a shitty team in the WS.... A Shitty team from your red sox OWN division ... odder so stats are skewed bc hamels took a complete shit in the entire 2009 postseason? lmfao. thats hysterical . and hamels didnt "dominate" anyone in the world series. he had a fucking 2.77 era in 2 games. do you realize how decent/not great that is? that world series mvp is one of the worst mvp's ive ever seen given out. hands down. world series mvp....2.77 era. lmfao. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2014 9:57:44 GMT -5
The argument is a toss up. Neither pitcher is a no brainer over the other when you look at their careers as a whole.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Bag on Aug 5, 2014 10:00:12 GMT -5
The argument is a toss up. Neither pitcher is a no brainer over the other when you look at their careers as a whole. i can live with that pickles "hamels is clearly better", and then moments later bringing up debvatable regular season stats while dismissing post season stats is just hysterical. "reggie jackson is overjetered, postseason stats are just a sample size". |
|
|
|
Post by mrpickles on Aug 5, 2014 10:04:10 GMT -5
The argument is a toss up. Neither pitcher is a no brainer over the other when you look at their careers as a whole. i can live with that pickles "hamels is clearly better", and then moments later bringing up debvatable regular season stats while dismissing post season stats is just hysterical. "reggie jackson is overjetered, postseason stats are just a sample size". you're hopeless ... i never once dismissed Lesters postseason stats ... and im not going to. Im just saying this huge gap in the postseaons stats (which is really not that huge) - is misleading. You're also acting like Lester is the Sandy Kofax of postseason pitching and Hamels has been dogshit ... thats whats funny about it. and im not sure what regular season stats are debateable... hamels stats are better across the board, hamels has been better and is better Fin |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2014 10:09:20 GMT -5
lesters 0.43 WS era is the best ever for guys with at least 20 IP
3-0
0.43 ERA
0.762 WHIP
21. IP
12 hits
1 run
1 walk
15 K's
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2014 10:12:11 GMT -5
lesters 0.43 WS era is the best ever for guys with at least 20 IP 3-0 0.43 ERA 0.762 WHIP 21. IP 12 hits 1 run 1 walk 15 K's 20 innings is not a lot. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2014 10:13:28 GMT -5
lesters 0.43 WS era is the best ever for guys with at least 20 IP 3-0 0.43 ERA 0.762 WHIP 21. IP 12 hits 1 run 1 walk 15 K's 20 innings is not a lot. no, but its enough according to baseball dominant in the WS |
|
|
|
Post by The Bag on Aug 5, 2014 10:13:44 GMT -5
i can live with that pickles "hamels is clearly better", and then moments later bringing up debvatable regular season stats while dismissing post season stats is just hysterical. "reggie jackson is overjetered, postseason stats are just a sample size". you're hopeless ... i never once dismissed Lesters postseason stats ... and im not going to. Im just saying this huge gap in the postseaons stats (which is really not that huge) - is misleading. You're also acting like Lester is the Sandy Kofax of postseason pitching and Hamels has been dogshit ... thats whats funny about it. and im not sure what regular season stats are debateable... hamels stats are better across the board, hamels has been better and is better Fin you havent dismissed lester's postseason stats?  ? "sample size", "hamels 2008 world series mvp". but to get this clear . 1 run difference in era in the post season, "not a big deal" .36 run difference in regular season for their career, "clearly better than the other guy". ill go with whatever their numbers vs the opposite league say before passing judgement. lemme see what lester has done vs the teeball league, and see what hamels has done vs the grownups. |
|
?