Did PG1985 steal Uncly's log in? I know Uncly isn't saying the best ever, she's saying one of. But I agree with Slotdirt, I have already heard from three friends of mine who are Phillies fans that said it's the best ever.

What is the rush to proclaim things the best ever nowadays?

I'm a Cleveland fan. Championships? Really? I am thrilled Lee signed with Philly. Everything I read was that he was gonna take the most money, period. The union is not gonna be happy he did this, but I think it is outstanding he shoved it in NY's face. Outstanding.

slot dirt started it ;)

honestly I really wanted to argue the Braves thing & have been talking modern history on paper. I dont know a ton about pre 80's baseball & I know there have been better rotations in the complete history of MLB.

the next few years will work themselves out... I'm extremely happy to be in the spot we are in though.

I'm a Philly sports fan who was born in 1983... I share your pain and praise a higher power for 2008.

What was your opinion? I think the guy was a warrior with the Birds who never had any weapons. Look what happened when he finally got a reciever, they went to the Super Bowl.

But refresh my memory.

I'd take the Phils rotation without question, but the Giant fan has an argument. They had an under 2 ERA in September and still took it to the last day against the Padres last year. That's how bad the offense they carried was. And in postseason they did it very, very well. Sanchez was best in the league in hits per 9 innings last year. Bumgarner is intriguing.

:tro:

How ironic to read this on a horsey board, of all places.

I was born long before you, and I'm old enough to remember the Broad Street Bullies (almost!), the '80 Phils, the early '80s Sixer team that won it all, so to me Phlly is a championship city machine comparitively!

you thought i was crazy for being thrilled we traded McNabb and thinking we'll be better with out him.

Granted the whole Mike Vick thing is different than me talking about Kolb... but I'll still take Kolb over McNabb any day of the week, and twice on Sundays... and so would every GM in football (especially the redskins)

I would bet lots of $$ that if McNabb was the qb, we would have lost our past two games. With McNabb, you know the team isnt going to come back. He was a very good qb up until 2005. ups and downs since then.. and overrated. but he is certainly someone you do not want to count on come crunch time, which is why we never got a SB. We had plenty of opportunities against the Pats.

I mean, the Skins benched him with 2 mins left and a 1 possession game.. for Rex Grossman. If that doesnt make my case than nothing will.

and i very much disagree with the weapons thing.

I'll take a stud O-line (which the eagles had) over a top WR every time.

B-West was one of the top weapons in football. We usually had a solid TE also. and a consistantly top 5 Defense.

The one thing I would have liked to see though, is Reid taking the ball out of McNabb's hands and running the ball a lot more. I'd be interested in seeing how that would have changed things, if I had a crystal ball or something.

Your right, your clearly the best now. Lets see them live up to it. They should be 1-5 to win the next 3 World Series Championships.
I doubt it though....

My argument was based on McNabb vs Kolb, and from what I remember Kolb did struggle a bit in his short time as QB. Obviously no one could have predicted Michael Vick playing at such a high level and having the sucess that he has had. But, you do have to admit that McNabb never had these types of weapons in all his years there. I don't know if they would be 9-4, but I believe that McNabb would have this team in playoff contention as well. I don't take any stock into the Grossman situation because I believe that Mike Shannahan isn't the genius that many people thinks he is.

He cant keep me off his mind, even in this time of being ignored.
I know it hurts him.

with our O-line the way it is, McNabb would be lucky to be 7-6 with this team. Our defense gives up a lot of points. McNabb doesnt have 1/4 the mobility that Vick has (nobody does... McNabb used to be mobile, but for some stupid reason he decided to become a pocket qb) I highly doubt we make the playoffs with McNabb at QB.

Also, we probably dont make the playoffs with Kolb, soley based on our O-line, not Kolbs play.

I disagree with the weapons thing. WR's arent the only weapons on a football team:

McNabb had a hugely better O-line.. much better defense.. RB is a wash.. TE is a wash, WR's were much worse.

Vick has better WR's... rb wash, te wash, o-line sucks, defense is average at best.

Kolb has started and finished 5 games in his career... and has been named the NFC offensive player of the week twice. He had a 133 passer rating against the Falcons, and played very solid against the 49ers. Titans game was rough. Green bay is dumb to go by.. he didnt have more than .2 seconds before the D was all over him, and people forget that they were running Vick in every other play. Kolb actually played only like 60% of the offensive snaps before he was concussed by Clay Matthews. One thing I can say with conviction, a two QB system of running guys in and out does not work. Vick sucked that first half too. Its not easy being the qb and istead of getting 3 downs, you start with 2nd and 13.

I read reports where 12-13 teams tried to get Kolb this past off season. Lots of them offered #1 picks... Eagles were only going to trade him for two 1st round picks, which nobody offered. barely anyone inquired about McNabb.. we had to give him to a division rival for goodness sakes!

Kolb has a 64% completion rating & 1,575 yards in his 5 starts & finishes the past two years. Thing is, he throws too many interceptions (tho the # is inflated by having two hail marys picked off). He needs experience. He also doesnt have incredible arm strength. Its not bad, and its certainly not as bad as some people make it out to be, but he has a tough time when the wind is blowing strong. Mike Vick is the better player, but whoever ends up with Kolb is getting a heck of a player. Unlike what the Skins got with McNabb.

Oh boy, now we're moving on to the Eagles. We all know antitrust's opinion of McNabb. I'll pass on that argument.

If Cole Hamels/Oswalt's 2011 season is better than Neagle's 1997 season (20-5, 4.1 WAR), Avery's 1993 season (18-6, 4.0 WAR), Kevin Millwood's 1999 season (18-7, 5.7 WAR), or any of the 1971 Baltimore Orioles (four starters with 20+ wins, 11, 18, 20, 21 CG, 12 combined CG SO, etc.), then maybe we can talk about 2011 Phillies being one of the all-time best rotations.

way to pick and choose those years.

and comparing a 5 man rotation to the 71 4 man rotation is pretty darn useless, as my 4 will have 33 combined less starts.... but you probably knew that..

you cannot judge it off wins and losses and it be a true reflection of how a pitcher pitched... but you know that also.

We can base it off WAR and ERA and strikeout to walk ratio.

You know how many times a Phillies pitcher went 7-9 innings and lost 2-1, or 1-0? Wins & losses arent always reflective of a pitcher. Take King Felix for example.

also eliminating the Eagles from the whole picture.. McNabb seems to be proving my points pretty darn well. Though I will say I watched in disbelief last week when the Skins and Low Throw actually scored a TD with less than a minute left.

Anyone else think that the Yankees were just a pawn in this bidding war. Pretty awesome if you ask me.

The one thing I will say about that rotation is that it is built for the regular season, and both Halladay and Lee should come into the playoffs ultra fresh. If you have to face Halladay and Lee guaranteed twice in a 7 game series, any team is in trouble.

I don't think you can say that they were a pawn based on him taking less money and a shorter deal.

I don't think he was ever going there. I think he was there just to drive up the deals from the other two.

When one is deciding the "best rotation ever," isn't one essentially picking the best rotation for THAT season alone? So how could I possibly be picking and choosing when picking a 4th starter's best year - given that the other three are named Smoltz, Glavine, and Maddux - to determine how the 90's Braves fall into the "best rotation ever" conversation?

Regardless, the Phillies 2011 rotation is going to have to do something pretty special to break into this conversation. On paper, they don't match up to the 60's Dodgers, 90's Braves, 70's Orioles, or even the 20's Yankees, but the actual season will obviously tell the tale.

for slotdirt: according to people who know what they are talking about, on paper, they seem to match up pretty damn well.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hotsto...son&id=5920160

Says Jayson Stark the former Phillies beat writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer.

ETA that antitrust obviously didn't read the last few lines of Stark's article:

But beyond that, it's a reminder of something more important:

Great as this Phillies rotation might look, it hasn't done anything yet. It's just four names printed out on a roster. Period.

They might be four awfully famous names, with already-spectacular track records. But until they actually pitch together, dominate together and win together, anyone who tries to compare them with the great rotations in history is just speculating -- or dreaming.

ZIPS projections have the 2011 Phillies rotation as the 15th best of all time. Like I was saying yesterday, it's obviously a great rotation, but let's not get ahead of ourselves with this "best of all time" nonsense.

yeah no shi.t... I've only posted that a few times in this thread.

I could care less about Stark's opinion... and he's absolutely correct with the above... but I posted the article so you could read the credible opinions of people in MLB who were associated with those past great rotations.

I think comparing them to the 90's braves is fair but what you see on paper will be deceptive. First of all, Hallady and Lee both pitched mostly in the AL. Halladay pitched in the AL EAST during a run by the yankees and red sox where they both outspent their competition by a large margin. Basically, he was doing it on his own and still putting up incredible numbers. You put him in the NL for a year with a real lineup behind him and look what he did. Give me Halladay ANY DAY over any of those Braves pitchers. None of them were as nasty.

Look at Lee's NL stats. Look at some of the teams he pitched for in AL. Are you saying he isnt just as good?

The Braves were better 3-4-5 in my opinion.

The REAL question is...who had the bigger nutcase in the pen?

The REAL question is...who had the bigger nutcase in the pen?

Baby.....only you.

Has there been a bigger actual "nutcase" than John Rocker in recent baseball history?

Oh my God.

Okay...You get a response out of me for that one. :tro:

Greg Maddux is one of the best pitchers of all time. His numbers he posted in peak performance enhancement era are sick. Don't insult him by comparing Halladay and Lee to him. None of the 4 are remotely close to Maddux in any way, shape, or form. This is remarkably silly even for you. Why is it so easy for everyone to forget history. The 1992-1998 run by Maddux was as dominating a run as any pitcher ever...ever. It as I said was in peak steroid days. Halladay is not anywhere near that level at any point in his career. Lee? Good God. You've lost your mind.

You know, Dahla...........















thud

Do you know who Roy Halladay is????

The one pitcher I've heard Halladay compared to by sportswriters/analysts is Greg Maddux. I've heard that many of times.

This guy Leo Mazzone, well he way Greg Maddux's pitching coach & probably knows a little bit about both Maddux and Halladay.

" Now, Mazzone looks back at his rotation, then looks at this Phillies rotation and almost feels as if he's staring into a mirror. That's how similar they look -- from a standpoint of stuff and talent -- to a man who ought to know.

"On an individual basis," Mazzone said, "Halladay is as good as Maddux. He's even got that signature Maddux pitch -- that ball he can start out of the zone on a left-handed hitter and bring it back into the zone for a called strike three. "


I dont think Lee can be compared to Maddux... but Halladay IS the Maddux of the 90's.

Halladay is indeed awesome, but in so far as career value goes, he's not in Maddux's ballpark - nor will he ever be barring several seasons of excellence - nor is he in the range of Glavine or Smoltz. Yet.

Maddux's numbers are absolutely sick when given a second glance. Fifth all time in WAR for pitchers. Four of the top 100 all-time seasons in Adjusted ERA+ (only five active players have top 100 all-time seasons, and none of them will be playing for the Phillies in 2011). Is he the greatest right hander to play the game since Tom Seaver? I'd say it's a pretty close race between Maddux, Pedro Martinez, and Clemens, though we know at least one of those guys was on roids.

That's fine. It's all hyperbole too. Halladay is one of the 3 or 4 best pitchers in the game for the last 5-10 years. It's not debatable. He's not as good as Maddux, never was, and never will be. Find me 7 consecutive years from hallady as good as Maddux was from 92-98. It can't be done, and it never will be done. Maybe Carl Crawford is the Roberto Clemente of the 60s right now. Whatever. Halladay is the Maddux of the 90s today...fine. He's simply not as good as the real Maddux.

You tell her to stick her twat in her zipper..HC!!

Maddux has three seasons of Adjusted ERA+ that are better than Halladay's top of 185 back in 2005, the last of which happened when Maddux was...32 years old.

Maddux may be the most underrated player of all time based on what he did in the era he pitched in. I can't believe how quickly people forget how good he was.

I went to look up his stats, and...well...355 wins? When did that happen? I know that stat has been bemoaned in this thread, but when a guy is the leader in that category for any player whose career started since World War II, well, that's pretty special.

I think he was better than Clemens for obvious supplemental reasons, as Maddux had the typical career progression with his peak when it should be from age 26-32. He declined steadily from that point but was still very, very good into his 40s, but his decline fit what a normal career should look like of a great player. At age 37 or 40 he didn't "magically" reproduce what he was able to do 10 years earlier like others we know of.

Agreed. 8th all time in WAR (trailing only Young, Clemens, Big Train, Lefty Grove, Seaver, and two guys who played in the 19th Century). 355 wins - trailing only Young, Johnson, Spahn, Matthewson and three guys who played in the 19th Century.

Though if one believes in WAR metrics (acknowledging that WAR for pitchers is still a bit unrefined), Niekro and Gaylord Perry, and Bert Blyleven are pretty darn underrated as well.