PDA

View Full Version : MORE Media buffoonery - How much does ESPN hate the Sox?


Clembasbal
05-10-2005, 12:52 PM
On the ESPN MLB page, right now, you can vote for any of the best five young pitchers in the game who could possibly win 300 games in their career.

Your options:

1. Johan Santana (26 years old, 48 wins)
2. C.C. Sabathia (24, 56 wins)
3. Jake Peavy (23, 35)
4. Rich Harden (23, 18)
5. Jeremy Bonderman (22, 22)

My question to you is, if they are listing players that are at least 26 years of age...why not Mark Buehrle? He is a young 26 (March 23rd), with a mere 74 WINS. Or heck...even Jon Garland, who is 25, with 52 wins.

Once again, ESPN is pure stupidity.

Clembasbal
05-10-2005, 12:53 PM
Not that I really care what ESPN thinks, I am just posting this because it is ridiculous.

I can care less what ESPN thinks. I know Mark is a stud.

SoxEd
05-10-2005, 01:06 PM
On the ESPN MLB page, right now, you can vote for any of the best five young pitchers in the game who could possibly win 300 games in their career.

Your options:

1. Johan Santana (26 years old, 48 wins)
2. C.C. Sabathia (24, 56 wins)
3. Jake Peavy (23, 35)
4. Rich Harden (23, 18)
5. Jeremy Bonderman (22, 22)

My question to you is, if they are listing players that are at least 26 years of age...why not Mark Buehrle? He is a young 26 (March 23rd), with a mere 74 WINS. Or heck...even Jon Garland, who is 25, with 52 wins.

Once again, ESPN is pure stupidity.

The really annoying thing about it is I couldn't find any way of emailling their columnists to call them out for anti-Sox bias.

(If it's really obvious and just indicative of my gross ineptitude that I couldn't find the link to email them, will somebody please PM me with it?)

This kind of baloney makes me :angry:.

Clembasbal
05-10-2005, 01:10 PM
The really annoying thing about it is I couldn't find any way of emailling their columnists to call them out for anti-Sox bias.

(If it's really obvious and just indicative of my gross ineptitude that I couldn't find the link to email them, will somebody please PM me with it?)

This kind of baloney makes me :angry:.

I was thinking about emailing too, but I couldn't find an address. I was thinking about emailing Peter Gammons or Harold Reyonlds and just informing him of this mistake. Reason being...don't they usually then talk about this poll on BBTN? I mean, nothing better than letting them have it for ESPN's stupidty

Qdaddy
05-10-2005, 01:46 PM
Did anyone see today's ESPN's baseball poll?

"Which pitcher is most likely going to win 300 games?"

Santana 26yrs old 48 wins

Sabathia 24yrd old 46 wins

Peavy 23yrs old 35 wins

Harden 23yrs old 18 wins

Bonderman 22yrs old 22 wins


Ummmmmm, I guess Buehrle being 26yr's old and having 74 wins didn't make the list. Whatever... Where's WOOD's 270 Sim. Wins.

NEXT!
MMark Buehrle ark Buehrle

Orta 4-6-3
05-10-2005, 02:07 PM
ESPN is good for only three things, and now that there is no NHL, only two: ESPN Classic and College Football.

NorthlakeTom
05-10-2005, 02:10 PM
Yeah, that's typical for ESPN.

Truth be told, the chance of any pitcher reaching 300 wins in the future is very remote.

Here's what the named pitchers would have to average over the rest of their careers if they all play until they're 40 years old:

Santana - 18 wins per year
Sabathia - 15.88
Peavy - 15.59
Harden - 16.59
Bonderman - 15.44

Buehrle - 16.14

From this perspective, it's apparent that Santana will have a hard time reaching 300 victories. As far as the others go, everything depends on the teams they have backing them up. If they are lucky enough to pitch for winning ballclubs, and they perform consistently over the course of the next 15 years or so, they have an outside shot at best.

Personally, I think the 300 win barrier will never be broken again, and the new yardstick of greatness will become 250.

Flight #24
05-10-2005, 02:15 PM
Yeah, that's typical for ESPN.

Truth be told, the chance of any pitcher reaching 300 wins in the future is very remote.

Here's what the named pitchers would have to average over the rest of their careers if they all play until they're 40 years old:

Santana - 18 wins per year
Sabathia - 15.88
Peavy - 15.59
Harden - 16.59
Bonderman - 15.44

Buehrle - 16.14


Flamethrowers are sexy & all, but IMO Buehrle's got the best shot of anyone on this list for a couple of reasons:
1 - his team's going to be good enough to consistently get him 15+wins, and at least for this year, looks like it can get him 20. Santana & Peavy have good teams as well, but the rest look like they might struggle a bit.

2 - Mark's got the best bet of all of these guys to maintain his productivity. Flamethrowers tend to lose effectiveness as they get older. Plus the hard throwers tend to have more arm problems. Mark's easy delivery & pitching style (control, pace of game) make him the most sustainable of the bunch.

Combine those and I'd bet Buehrle ends up with the most wins from here on out among the group listed above. Whether that's enough to approach 30 is debatable.

Sox of White
05-10-2005, 02:15 PM
Yeah, that's typical for ESPN.

Truth be told, the chance of any pitcher reaching 300 wins in the future is very remote.

Here's what the named pitchers would have to average over the rest of their careers if they all play until they're 40 years old:

Santana - 18 wins per year
Sabathia - 15.88
Peavy - 15.59
Harden - 16.59
Bonderman - 15.44

Buehrle - 16.14

From this perspective, it's apparent that Santana will have a hard time reaching 300 victories. As far as the others go, everything depends on the teams they have backing them up. If they are lucky enough to pitch for winning ballclubs, and they perform consistently over the course of the next 15 years or so, they have an outside shot at best.

Personally, I think the 300 win barrier will never be broken again, and the new yardstick of greatness will become 250.

Just out of curiousity, what would the rest of the Sox rotation need to average per year?

NorthlakeTom
05-10-2005, 02:33 PM
Just out of curiousity, what would the rest of the Sox rotation need to average per year?

Well, if we use the same parameter of pitching until 40, El Duque would have to win 235 more games this year.

Seriously though, here's the numbers from the start of this season:

Contreras is out.

Garcia - 21.5 (for the next ten years, so he's out)

Freddy needs 11.5 per year to reach 200. Very possible. 16.5 to reach 250. Not as likely, but still possible.

Garland needs 16.93 over the next 15 years.

Buehrle has the best chance, as Flight #24 pointed out. If Jon is for real, and he has longevity, he has a slim chance. I'd say Mark and Jon have a good shot at 200, and a possible shot at 250.

Edit: Can you imagine what Nolan Ryan would have accomplished with winning ballclubs? I think he would have at least approached 400 wins.

And another thing; why does the HOF board keep snubbing Tommy John? He has 288 victories - the most by any non-HOF'er - and his comeback from surgery alone should be considered.

Nellie_Fox
05-10-2005, 02:48 PM
Truth be told, the chance of any pitcher reaching 300 wins in the future is very remote. I've been hearing this ever since baseball went to the five-man rotation. With every new 300 game winner, there have been predictions that "he may be the last one." But they keep coming along. There will be more.

rwcescato
05-10-2005, 02:57 PM
[QUOTE=Clembasbal]I was thinking about emailing too, but I couldn't find an address. I was thinking about emailing Peter Gammons or Harold Reyonlds and just informing him of this mistake. Reason being...don't they usually then talk about this poll on BBTN? I mean, nothing better than letting them have it for ESPN's stupidty[/QUOTE
Go to ESPNNEWS.http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/index?mode=news They have a spot to e-mail thier experts. It has Gammons for baseball.

NorthlakeTom
05-10-2005, 03:02 PM
I've been hearing this ever since baseball went to the five-man rotation. With every new 300 game winner, there have been predictions that "he may be the last one." But they keep coming along. There will be more.
True, but they will be few and far between (more rare than now, that is).

20 game winners have become rare. Remember the '71(?) Orioles? Four 20 game winners on that staff. That was an amazing feat, for sure, but when was the last time the league had four 20 game winners?

mccombe_35
05-10-2005, 03:22 PM
True, but they will be few and far between (more rare than now, that is).

20 game winners have become rare. Remember the '71(?) Orioles? Four 20 game winners on that staff. That was an amazing feat, for sure, but when was the last time the league had four 20 game winners?

2003 in the AL.

Halladay, Loaiza, Pettitte, & Moyer.

batmanZoSo
05-10-2005, 10:59 PM
Yeah, that's typical for ESPN.

Truth be told, the chance of any pitcher reaching 300 wins in the future is very remote.

Here's what the named pitchers would have to average over the rest of their careers if they all play until they're 40 years old:

Santana - 18 wins per year
Sabathia - 15.88
Peavy - 15.59
Harden - 16.59
Bonderman - 15.44

Buehrle - 16.14

From this perspective, it's apparent that Santana will have a hard time reaching 300 victories. As far as the others go, everything depends on the teams they have backing them up. If they are lucky enough to pitch for winning ballclubs, and they perform consistently over the course of the next 15 years or so, they have an outside shot at best.

Personally, I think the 300 win barrier will never be broken again, and the new yardstick of greatness will become 250.

There's no way in hell, nobody lets these guys finish games or go over 110 pitches without feeling they've scarred them for life. And you gotta wait four days to pitch. You never know what'll happen with surgery in the future, but I don't see anyone from this generation touching 300 wins.

FedEx227
05-11-2005, 08:05 AM
2003 in the AL.

Halladay, Loaiza, Pettitte, & Moyer.

...owned?