Better Big Three? Red Sox or Yankees?

Which team has the better Big Three Pithcers?

 
Total votes: 0

Boston's Future
Pro Prospect
Posts: 791
And1: 0
Joined: Jun 26, 2007
Location: Plymouth/Springfield, MA

Better Big Three? Red Sox or Yankees? 

Post#1 » by Boston's Future » Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:47 am

Right now i would have no faith in Daisuke in a playoff game. He has been in such a slump of things of late it will be hard to rely on him. But he's the best option for the Sox number 3. Beckett is the best pitcher out of the group, Wang isn't too far behind. Both Clemens and Schilling big game pitchers and still got enough to show up and help their respective teams win big games. Pettite's got big game experience. Basically in ranking the pitchers for the a playoff series it would go: 1. Beckett, 2. Wang 3. Schilling/Clemens, 5. Pettite 6. Daisuke. I hate to say it, but I'd rather have the Yankees big three.
34Celtic
Analyst
Posts: 3,406
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 02, 2007

 

Post#2 » by 34Celtic » Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:52 am

1. Beckett 2. Wang 3. Pettitte 4. DiceK 5. Clemens/Schill....

I'll take the Yankees, but of course I'm a homer
HCYanks wrote:Thanks for reminding me Clay Buchholz is a couple of blocks away from me, Fox. Now I have to go hide my laptop.
User avatar
Black Jesus 1
Banned User
Posts: 13,083
And1: 2
Joined: May 08, 2006
Location: Arizona

 

Post#3 » by Black Jesus 1 » Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:19 am

Give me Boston.
Image
sunshinekids99
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 19,744
And1: 228
Joined: Apr 10, 2001

 

Post#4 » by sunshinekids99 » Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:06 am

I'm going to take Boston, but really only cause I don't know how much Clemens can provide right now with his arm injury. Dice-K has been horrible lately, hopefully he can bounce back with an extra day rest.

If I had to rank them I would go.

1. Beckett
2. Pettitte
3. Wang
4. Schilling
5. Dice-K
6. Clemens
Image
User avatar
Basketball Jesus
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,180
And1: 7
Joined: Sep 04, 2003
Location: P-nuts + hair doos

 

Post#5 » by Basketball Jesus » Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:52 pm

I'd probably rank them:

1. Beckett
2. Wang (He's a groundball freak)
3. Daisuke
4. Pettitte
5. Schilling
6. OldLOL
Manocad wrote:The universe is the age it is. We can all agree it's 13 billion years old, and nothing changes. We can all agree it's 6000 years old, and nothing changes. We can all disagree on how old it is, and nothing changes. Some people really need a hobby.
stro4swift
Starter
Posts: 2,319
And1: 0
Joined: Jun 29, 2006
Location: Montreal

 

Post#6 » by stro4swift » Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:34 pm

1. Pettitte
2. Beckett
3. Dice-K
4. Wang
5. Schilling
6. Clemens
User avatar
brewcityboii
Rookie
Posts: 1,128
And1: 0
Joined: Feb 28, 2007
Location: BRETT FAVRE >> Any other QB in NFL History!!!

 

Post#7 » by brewcityboii » Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:35 pm

I'd Take Bostons

Ranks:
Beckett
Wang
Petite
Schilling
Dice-k
Clemens
User avatar
Da Schwab
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 33,822
And1: 3,619
Joined: Apr 19, 2005
Location: Somewhere in the between.
Contact:
       

 

Post#8 » by Da Schwab » Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:37 pm

I'd take the Yankees (here comes the storm).

Ranking:

1. Beckett
2. Wang
3. Pettitte
4. Dice-K
5. Clemens
6. Fat (Please Use More Appropriate Word) Who Should Never Open His Mouth Again


I'm hoping, though, that the Yanks Big 3 will turn into Wang, Pettitte and Hughes.
User avatar
Basketball Jesus
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,180
And1: 7
Joined: Sep 04, 2003
Location: P-nuts + hair doos

 

Post#9 » by Basketball Jesus » Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:09 pm

gunnabdaschwab09 wrote:Ranking:

1. Beckett
2. Wang
3. Pettitte
4. Dice-K
5. Clemens
6. Fat (Please Use More Appropriate Word) Who Should Never Open His Mouth Again


You listed Clemens twice.
Manocad wrote:The universe is the age it is. We can all agree it's 13 billion years old, and nothing changes. We can all agree it's 6000 years old, and nothing changes. We can all disagree on how old it is, and nothing changes. Some people really need a hobby.
User avatar
brewcityboii
Rookie
Posts: 1,128
And1: 0
Joined: Feb 28, 2007
Location: BRETT FAVRE >> Any other QB in NFL History!!!

 

Post#10 » by brewcityboii » Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:21 pm

[quote="Basketball Jesus"]-= original quote snipped =-



You listed Clemens twice.[/quote]

:rofl:
User avatar
Da Schwab
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 33,822
And1: 3,619
Joined: Apr 19, 2005
Location: Somewhere in the between.
Contact:
       

 

Post#11 » by Da Schwab » Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:23 pm

Walked right into that.
User avatar
HeelSox
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,303
And1: 0
Joined: Jan 03, 2004
Location: Hansbrough's World

 

Post#12 » by HeelSox » Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:07 pm

hahahahahahahahahahahah
"The guy is an idiot," Pedroia said regarding Cabrera. "I dropped my bat. It kind of freaked me out. I was upset they took him out of the game. He is good to hit. He's 9-15. The guy [stinks]."
poklop12
Sophomore
Posts: 232
And1: 0
Joined: Aug 05, 2007

 

Post#13 » by poklop12 » Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:40 pm

Red Sox
litex
Veteran
Posts: 2,895
And1: 425
Joined: Jul 05, 2006

 

Post#14 » by litex » Mon Oct 15, 2007 3:27 pm

Schilling vs. Pettitte is a wash. Both aging former aces who are now very solid #3's who really know how to pitch big games.

Clemens is done. Dice-K hasn't been all that impressive, but at least he can still play.

Beckett is better than Wang in every concievable way.
cmaff051
Inactive user
Inactive user
Posts: 13,071
And1: 2
Joined: Nov 02, 2006

 

Post#15 » by cmaff051 » Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:12 pm

litex wrote:Schilling vs. Pettitte is a wash. Both aging former aces who are now very solid #3's who really know how to pitch big games.

Clemens is done. Dice-K hasn't been all that impressive, but at least he can still play.

Beckett is better than Wang in every concievable way.


When Beckett is right, he's better than Wang. But this is the same Beckett that posted a 5.00 ERA last year. To say he's better than Wang in every conceivable way is laughable. He wasn't better in every conceivable way when he was doing his best Eric Milton impression last year.
User avatar
Basketball Jesus
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,180
And1: 7
Joined: Sep 04, 2003
Location: P-nuts + hair doos

 

Post#16 » by Basketball Jesus » Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:48 pm

cmaff051 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



When Beckett is right, he's better than Wang. But this is the same Beckett that posted a 5.00 ERA last year. To say he's better than Wang in every conceivable way is laughable. He wasn't better in every conceivable way when he was doing his best Eric Milton impression last year.


Beckett
Manocad wrote:The universe is the age it is. We can all agree it's 13 billion years old, and nothing changes. We can all agree it's 6000 years old, and nothing changes. We can all disagree on how old it is, and nothing changes. Some people really need a hobby.
cmaff051
Inactive user
Inactive user
Posts: 13,071
And1: 2
Joined: Nov 02, 2006

 

Post#17 » by cmaff051 » Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:07 pm

Anybody who watched him realized there was nothing unlucky about his performance last year. Much like Randy Johnson's last year when everybody thought he was getting unlucky because he was striking out a good amount of guys and giving up less than a hit an inning. They looked at his peripherals, but didn't watch the games when every time somebody reached base against RJ he would hang his slider and the hitters would hit it to the moon.

Similar thing happened with Beckett. He wasn't get unlucky. He just couldn't throw his curveball for strikes consistently and his fastball command was ****. Hitters smacked his straight, badly located fastball out of the park. Nothing "unlucky" about that.

It wouldn't suprise me if 2006 was an outlier for him either, but to say that Wang is better than Beckett in every conceivable way is very funny.
User avatar
Basketball Jesus
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,180
And1: 7
Joined: Sep 04, 2003
Location: P-nuts + hair doos

 

Post#18 » by Basketball Jesus » Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:38 pm

cmaff051 wrote:Anybody who watched him realized there was nothing unlucky about his performance last year. Much like Randy Johnson's last year when everybody thought he was getting unlucky because he was striking out a good amount of guys and giving up less than a hit an inning. They looked at his peripherals, but didn't watch the games when every time somebody reached base against RJ he would hang his slider and the hitters would hit it to the moon.

Similar thing happened with Beckett. He wasn't get unlucky. He just couldn't throw his curveball for strikes consistently and his fastball command was ****. Hitters smacked his straight, badly located fastball out of the park. Nothing "unlucky" about that.

It wouldn't suprise me if 2006 was an outlier for him either, but to say that Wang is better than Beckett in every conceivable way is very funny.



Oh I'm not saying he was unlucky: his BABIP actually suggest he was a bit lucky (.270 last season) and LD%/GB%/FB% are all within career norms. I watched him pitch on a regular basis and he was throwing John Wasdin specials when he was behind in the count. The weird thing was he'd be alternately good/awful from batter to batter so it wasn't as if it was a sudden disappearance of ability. He just had this mentality that every time he fell behind in the count he could blow a couple of fastballs past the hitter and all is well. Yeah, that doesn't work all that well when the hitters were sitting on the damn thing the entire time.

Wang, on the other hand, well....power sinkerballers are just awesome.
Manocad wrote:The universe is the age it is. We can all agree it's 13 billion years old, and nothing changes. We can all agree it's 6000 years old, and nothing changes. We can all disagree on how old it is, and nothing changes. Some people really need a hobby.

Return to Player Comparisons