Boomer Wells
The Venerable Sarge
- in 06 3-5
OceanView
4e24-bb60-7...@z7g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:
> in '88 he was 3-5 - - in '92 7-9 - - - in '94 5-7 - - in 01 5-7 - -
> - in 06 3-5
>
In 1991 he was 15-10, in 1995 he was 16-8, in 1998 he was 18-4, in 2000 he
was 20-8. Lifetime, 239-157, .604 percentage. Dennis Eckersley (hall of
famer) was 197-171, a .535 percentage.
Did you really think nobody would check?
--
-------
We need an energy bill that encourages consumption. - George Bush
Christina
wrote:
>The Venerable Sarge <srgnt...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:eb7e3104-86fa-
>4e24-bb60-7...@z7g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:
>
>> in '88 he was 3-5 - - in '92 7-9 - - - in '94 5-7 - - in 01 5-7 - -
>> - in 06 3-5
>>
>
>In 1991 he was 15-10, in 1995 he was 16-8, in 1998 he was 18-4, in 2000 he
>was 20-8. Lifetime, 239-157, .604 percentage. Dennis Eckersley (hall of
>famer) was 197-171, a .535 percentage.
>
>Did you really think nobody would check?
Yes Ocean, I do not know what tricks Sarge has been up to, Darling ok
was not a great pitcher but Wells had a very impressive record, it is
not so easy to make him look bad!
McDuck
wrote:
>The Venerable Sarge <srgnt...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:eb7e3104-86fa-
>4e24-bb60-7...@z7g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:
>
>> in '88 he was 3-5 - - in '92 7-9 - - - in '94 5-7 - - in 01 5-7 - -
>> - in 06 3-5
>>
>
>In 1991 he was 15-10, in 1995 he was 16-8, in 1998 he was 18-4, in 2000 he
>was 20-8. Lifetime, 239-157, .604 percentage. Dennis Eckersley (hall of
>famer) was 197-171, a .535 percentage.
>
>Did you really think nobody would check?
Sarge was playing around, looking ONLY at W-L record. Few pitchers
have 18-3 on their resume. Lifetime, Dice-K has a winning percentage
of .642 (including his poor numbers for this year). Lots of ways that
Boomer may have better numbers, but not on W-L.
I did think that the announcers were patronizing Dice-K. I had no
problem with them being critical of his pitching --- that's their job,
after all. And they both have the credentials to be decent critics.
McDuck
Here is the list of all pitchers since 1900 who had no more than 3
losses and at least 18 wins.
WINNING PERCENTAGE YEAR PCT W L
1 Roy Face 1959 .947 18 1
2 Greg Maddux 1995 .905 19 2
3 Randy Johnson 1995 .900 18 2
4 Ron Guidry 1978 .893 25 3
T5 Preacher Roe 1951 .880 22 3
T5 Cliff Lee 2008 .880 22 3
T7 Roger Clemens 2001 .870 20 3
T7 David Cone 1988 .870 20 3
9 Orel Hershiser 1985 .864 19 3
10 Daisuke Matsuzaka 2008 .857 18 3
Pedro's best W-L year was 23-4, .852 (1999).
McDuck
Here is the short list of players with at least 24 wins and no more
than 4 losses in a season:
WINNING PERCENTAGE YEAR PCT W L
1 Ron Guidry 1978 .893 25 3
2 Lefty Grove 1931 .886 31 4
T3 Wild Bill Donovan 1907 .862 25 4
T3 Whitey Ford 1961 .862 25 4
T5 Roger Clemens 1986 .857 24 4
T5 Dwight Gooden 1985 .857 24 4
The Venerable Sarge
> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 23:55:18 -0400, McDuck
>
>
>
> <wallyDELETEMEMcD...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 01:32:27 +0000 (UTC), OceanView <F...@chance.org>
> >wrote:
>
> >>4e24-bb60-7219c3147...@z7g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:
Isn't Roger Moret in there some place ?
The Venerable Sarge
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 01:32:27 +0000 (UTC), OceanView <F...@chance.org>
> wrote:
>
> >4e24-bb60-7219c3147...@z7g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> - in 06 3-5
>
> >In 1991 he was 15-10, in 1995 he was 16-8, in 1998 he was 18-4, in 2000 he
> >was 20-8. Lifetime, 239-157, .604 percentage. Dennis Eckersley (hall of
> >famer) was 197-171, a .535 percentage.
>
> >Did you really think nobody would check?
>
> Sarge was playing around, looking ONLY at W-L record. Few pitchers
> have 18-3 on their resume. Lifetime, Dice-K has a winning percentage
> of .642 (including his poor numbers for this year). Lots of ways that
> Boomer may have better numbers, but not on W-L.
>
> I did think that the announcers were patronizing Dice-K. I had no
> problem with them being critical of his pitching --- that's their job,
> after all. And they both have the credentials to be decent critics.
My original intention was to pull the chains of the people who just
aren't satisfied with DiceK - and weren't even impressed when he
racked up good numbers last year. It seems like they would only be
happy if he pitched complete game shutouts with under 90 pitches every
time out. As I've said before, rarely does any pitcher have 2 great
years in a row. And if the team stops screwing around with him and
let's him do his thing there is plenty of time for him to have another
winning season - which would be his 3rd in a row.
bi...@ix.netcom.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes you are right Sarge, before he was instituitionalized he was 13-2
and 14-3, also the steamer was 15-2.
The Venerable Sarge
I think they called it a "catatonic state". I think it was in Texas.
The only player I believe who ever reached that "state".
> and 14-3, also the steamer was 15-2.- Hide quoted text -
I didn't remember Stanley's successes - just ground balls that seemed
to sneak through the infield.
bi...@ix.netcom.com
LOL Sarge, this is babip, maybe it is cause Hobson was so bad at 3B,
also Lansford had no range? Burleson was a really good shortstop
though. Stanley was funny looking, he was fat, he looked like he was
out of shape and worryed like a stock broker, maybe this is why he was
so unpopular, I liked him though, he could pitch alto of innings in
relief, also start or be some times a closer, he was valueable for the
staff.
OceanView
445b-945e-9...@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com:
>
> I didn't remember Stanley's successes - just ground balls that seemed
> to sneak through the infield.
>
That's the rub for the sinkerballer. Ground balls are a crap shoot. Stanley
had a very good career, though he still managed to piss me off on a regular
basis. He was also a real doof in interviews.
OceanView
> On Jun 8, 11:55�pm, McDuck <wallyDELETEMEMcD...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 01:32:27 +0000 (UTC), OceanView <F...@chance.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The Venerable Sarge <srgntbi...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> >news:eb7e3104-86fa-
>> >4e24-bb60-7219c3147...@z7g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> in '88 he was 3-5 - - in '92 �7-9 - - - in '94 �5-7 - - in 01 �5
They might well do that, leave him alone that is. Ironically, if the
guys in pawtucket start filtering up, he may go to the pen and they might
actually leave him alone then.