O/T Life or Death, One Game, My Starting 9

[ElCabron]

Originally Posted by freakhappy

One great postseason makes a player elite and worth starting over all of the all time greats? Laughable. Bumgarner is a really good pitcher, but let's not get carried away.

Um, one postseason? Madison Bumgarner has 3 rings. That's as many as Koufax. That's as many as Bob Gibson and Walter Johnson combined. Oh, and he's 25 years old. What's laughable is the willful ignorance displayed by so many that automatically think older is better. The theoretical question posed here was about who would be best in one game, LIFE OR DEATH, meaning the highest possible pressure situation. The closest comparison as far as baseball stats would be when the pressure is highest, namely, the postseason. More specifically, the World Series.

So, tell me this, without cheating and looking below, which postseason stats are better:

A) 4-0, 0.25 ERA, 0.528 WHIP, 31 K, 36 IP, 1 shutout.
B) 7-3, 2.14 ERA, 0.883 WHIP, 77 K, 88.1 IP, 2 shutouts.
C) 3-3, 2.52 ERA, 1.420 WHIP, 35 K, 50 IP, 1 shutout.
D) 4-3, 0.95 ERA, 0.825 WHIP, 61 K, 57 IP, 2 shutouts.
E) 7-2, 1.89 ERA, 0.889 WHIP, 92 K, 81 IP, 2 shutouts.
F) 3-0, 0.87 ERA, 0.935 WHIP, 8 K, 31 IP, 1 shutout.

Perhaps that will help give you some objectivity. There are still other factors that should be considered, such as the 60s being an incredibly pitcher-friendly era, and the modern game's dearth of complete games, and therefore shutouts.

So would you like to know who is who? Here ya go:

A) Madison Bumgarner - career World Series
B) Madison Bumgarner - career postseason total
C) Walter Johnson - career postseason (all World Series)
D) Sandy Koufax - career postseason (all World Series)
E) Bob Gibson - career postseason (all World Series)
F) Babe Ruth - career postseason (all World Series)

And for the record, I chose 5 pitchers and said I'd be fine with any of them. Bumgarner was one, and still is. And like I said before, I HATE HIM! I also chose Mathewson, but it's very difficult to compare pitching stats from the deadball era.

-Ryan

[freakhappy]

Originally Posted by ElCabron

Um, one postseason? Madison Bumgarner has 3 rings. That's as many as Koufax. That's as many as Bob Gibson and Walter Johnson combined. Oh, and he's 25 years old. What's laughable is the willful ignorance displayed by so many that automatically think older is better. The theoretical question posed here was about who would be best in one game, LIFE OR DEATH, meaning the highest possible pressure situation. The closest comparison as far as baseball stats would be when the pressure is highest, namely, the postseason. More specifically, the World Series.



So, tell me this, without cheating and looking below, which postseason stats are better:



A) 4-0, 0.25 ERA, 0.528 WHIP, 31 K, 36 IP, 1 shutout.

B) 7-3, 2.14 ERA, 0.883 WHIP, 77 K, 88.1 IP, 2 shutouts.

C) 3-3, 2.52 ERA, 1.420 WHIP, 35 K, 50 IP, 1 shutout.

D) 4-3, 0.95 ERA, 0.825 WHIP, 61 K, 57 IP, 2 shutouts.

E) 7-2, 1.89 ERA, 0.889 WHIP, 92 K, 81 IP, 2 shutouts.

F) 3-0, 0.87 ERA, 0.935 WHIP, 8 K, 31 IP, 1 shutout.



Perhaps that will help give you some objectivity. There are still other factors that should be considered, such as the 60s being an incredibly pitcher-friendly era, and the modern game's dearth of complete games, and therefore shutouts.



So would you like to know who is who? Here ya go:



A) Madison Bumgarner - career World Series

B) Madison Bumgarner - career postseason total

C) Walter Johnson - career postseason (all World Series)

D) Sandy Koufax - career postseason (all World Series)

E) Bob Gibson - career postseason (all World Series)

F) Babe Ruth - career postseason (all World Series)



And for the record, I chose 5 pitchers and said I'd be fine with any of them. Bumgarner was one, and still is. And like I said before, I HATE HIM! I also chose Mathewson, but it's very difficult to compare pitching stats from the deadball era.



-Ryan

Easy bub...you act like it matters. I know the World Series is the biggest stage, but there are usually five or so pitchers better than bumgarner every year....but this coming year he may be top three. I get he just had an amazing playoff run this past year, but it was in fact, this year's run that put him on your list. So those scoring at home, it's....

Ryan 1
Mike 1




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ElCabron]

Did you just really call me Bub? Anyway, I wouldn't put Bumgarner in the top 5 last year or this year. He's a good pitcher, but not close to Kershaw. And there are several others that are also currently better than him. But he becomes someone else when it matters the most, and that's what we're talking about.

-Ryan

[Runscott]

At least no one picked Kershaw for their 'one game only' team. That would certainly be lunacy, given his meltdown in critical post-season games.

I agree with Ryan that the only do-able way to quantify 'one game only' performance is through post-season stats, but if you had the time (the 'Stache being the only person here who has that kind of time) I suppose you could go through a list of candidates' careers, picking out critical games only;e.g-I wouldn't count game 4 of the World Series if your team is up 3-0, but I would count critical games at the end of the season when you are in a pennant race.

In the end, gut feel seems to be as good a method as any. Personally, I find the wide variety of 'gut feels' on our forum to be very interesting, especially among those of us who have followed baseball players during the same periods. It's also interesting to see all the names on people's lists that represent completely non-quantifiable players, given that they played during periods where we don't have enough stats to make such judgements. But even in those instances, 'gut feel' based on what they've read about such players, is as valid as any method for choosing.

[Lgarza99]

Originally Posted by ElCabron

Did you just really call me Bub? Anyway, I wouldn't put Bumgarner in the top 5 last year or this year. He's a good pitcher, but not close to Kershaw. And there are several others that are also currently better than him. But he becomes someone else when it matters the most, and that's what we're talking about.

-Ryan

That's what we are talking about. Like Kershaw being the top starter in this day and age. But, he wouldn't sniff the ball park in a life and death game for me!

[Orioles1954]

Compare Brooks Robinson's postseason stats to Mike Schmidt and the player who I would want manning the hot corner becomes very, very evident.

[packs]

LF - Rickey Henderson
SS - Honus Wagner
RF - Babe Ruth
1B - Lou Gehrig
CF - Ken Griffey Jr.
DH - Ted Williams
2B - Rogers Hornsby
3B - George Brett
C - Yogi Berra

SP - Walter Johnson

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Compare Brooks Robinson's postseason stats to Mike Schmidt and the player who I would want manning the hot corner becomes very, very evident.

Brett OPS 1.023 .337 .397 .627
Brooks OPS .785 .303 .323 .462
Schmidt OPS .690 .236 .304 .386

It's clear to me who I want manning the hot corner, George Brett.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rats60

Brett OPS 1.023 .337 .397 .627
Brooks OPS .785 .303 .323 .462
Schmidt OPS .690 .236 .304 .386

It's clear to me who I want manning the hot corner, George Brett.

Small sample sizes such as "post season batting" can be so misleading. You make it seem as if Brett was somehow Mr. Clutch throughout his career in the post season. What if 1981 playoffs George Brett shows up? 1984? Again, if we are just looking at one game as a sample size and are willing to look at 150 at bats in the playoffs versus an entire career, why not just go with performance in one game? Didn't Rennie Stennett go 8 for 8 one game? That would make him the choice over Hornsby etc.

Now... Brett is a fine choice at third no matter the criteria, especially in his prime. Just don't base it exclusively on what he did in 150 at bats over the course of 12 seasons.

Tom C

[freakhappy]

Originally Posted by ElCabron

Did you just really call me Bub? Anyway, I wouldn't put Bumgarner in the top 5 last year or this year. He's a good pitcher, but not close to Kershaw. And there are several others that are also currently better than him. But he becomes someone else when it matters the most, and that's what we're talking about.



-Ryan

I was having some fun glad you didn't take offense to it.

Anyway, it might sound ridiculous, but kershaw is better than bum and I'd still take him in one game. I think he will prove it to us in the near future. That being said...bum has been great in the playoffs and I get why anyone would want him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lgarza99]

I still couldn't go with Kershaw because the future is now. There is no future if Kershaw is taking the mound.

[btcarfagno]

I don't really get the idea of using the playoff stats as what I will base my life on. I mean....if small sample sizes are what I am going to base it on why not go with Mark Whiten on the day he hit four homers? Ed Delahanty the day he hit four? Len Barker the day of his perfect game?

I wouldn't base my life on the outcome of small sample sizes. My "team" has so much hitting and pitching that it will more than make up for any "lack of clutchness" or whatever those using playoff stats are trying to say.

Tom C

[freakhappy]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

I don't really get the idea of using the playoff stats as what I will base my life on. I mean....if small sample sizes are what I am going to base it on why not go with Mark Whiten on the day he hit four homers? Ed Delahanty the day he hit four? Len Barker the day of his perfect game?



I wouldn't base my life on the outcome of small sample sizes. My "team" has so much hitting and pitching that it will more than make up for any "lack of clutchness" or whatever those using playoff stats are trying to say.



Tom C

This is why I choose kershaw...because overall he is a beast and has better overall numbers. But bum has been really good in the postseason, so apparently he is better than Walter Johnson and Christy Mathewson....uh, no


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk