Given the explosion of comments in the Brock thread, I can say that HHH is certainly a draw on the blog. So let's keep beating that dead horse!
The whole "HHH is not a draw" fallacy really was shot down by Meltzer a few years back, when looking at the historical records of guys like Bruno and Hogan in MSG and the like. Basically because HHH was on top of the company for such an ungodly long period of time (1999-2007 or so we'll say) he piled up a very large cumulative attendance figure, where yeah, Austin headlined for 20,000 people a night for 3 years and then left, but HHH did it for 10,000 people a night for close to 10 years, that kind of thing. Really, just by virtue of being a top guy for so long and never leaving, HHH ended up nearly on top of the all-time drawing card list. Which isn't to say that Austin coming back and headlining a stadium show is going to draw as many people as HHH headlining a stadium show. Obviously guys like Hogan and Austin and Rock are much bigger draws in their own contexts. But for sheer volume, HHH is right up there.
So Triple H's drawing power is more to the fact that he's never gone away? It's more long-term than the short-time but bigger draws like Austin and Hogan?ReplyDelete
Does that mean Triple H's drawing power is Stockholm syndrome?
That's exactly what I'd say, and it's not an uncommon argument. The general consensus favors pitchers like Sandy Koufax and Pedro Martinez, who burned far brighter than Ryan, but for a shorter period of time:ReplyDelete
What about stuff like 7 no hitters? Does longevity explain that?ReplyDelete
It doesn't hurt. Koufax had 4 no hitters and only pitched until he was 30. 14 more years for Koufax at Dodger Stadium (especially with 1968 two years before his retirement) he might have thrown 7 more no hitters.ReplyDelete
Nash didn't do that much worse at drawing than Yokozuna, Bret Hart or Shawn Michaels.ReplyDelete
He also was forced to work with guys like Sid, Mabel and Bulldog.
To a certain extent, yes. If Ryan's career had ended earlier, he obviously wouldn't have been there to accumulate those no hitters.ReplyDelete
Look, I'm not saying Ryan was a bum. He was obviously a great pitcher, and reliable longevity has value too. But in the case of no hitters, it's not an especially good statistic for gleaning actual value. A guy like Pedro's peak was SO much greater than Ryan's that he actual approaches him in overall value. Ryan accumulated 106 WAR, while Pedro earned 86 WAR IN HALF THE INNINGS. And Pedro beats Ryan in career K/9, BB/9, and FIP. It's not even especially close between them. I would say the same of Austin versus a HHH.
Put it a different way... who do you want, in their prime starting game 7 of the world series for your team?ReplyDelete
Pedro Martinez, and it's not even close. Pedro in '99 is arguably the greatest pitcher at any given point of all time. I want '99 Pedro pitching a game to decide the fate of humankind, much less the World Series.ReplyDelete
He was my favourite wrestler for quite a while, so I'll definitely back the idea that he's a draw.ReplyDelete
Not to get all stat nerdy, but it's a shame someone can't come up with a "Value Over Replacement" statistic or model like they have in baseball. I realize it's totally impossible since there's exactly one company during almost that entire time period, but it may be doable since HHH had significant spans during that time period where he was injured and not wrestling.ReplyDelete
It's a shame because wrestling is just begging for someone to come in and model things like ticket sales, television ratings, merch sales, PPV buys, and crowd response. You could build some nice objective measures and manage a company with "moneyball" principles applied to wrestling booking and contract negotiations.
Flair, nwa, let's get on it.ReplyDelete
To flip your argument on it's ear it's like saying Yaz wasn't a great hitter because Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, and Barry Bonds were better hitters.ReplyDelete
I can honestly say that I've never gone to a show or bought a PPV because of Triple H. It was always an example of say Wrestlemania 20 where I wanted to see Benoit win the title, and Triple H happened to be the other guy working in the match. He's had a great career, but I don't think Triple H was ever THE draw rather he was always apart of the draw.ReplyDelete
I ebb and flow on HHH. To say that he was never a draw is insane. He was the perfect foil for the Rock during the biggest year in the business, he was an amazing worker until he got hurt, and people were hugely excited to see him come back in 2002.ReplyDelete
There are things that I really dislike about him, mainly his inability to ever look even slightly vulnerable after 2002 and his belief that plodding, slow matches like the last few Wrestlemanias are entertaining but I'd never say he wasn't a draw.
This is all useless information because being a great draw has nothing to do with how entertained you are by a wrestler's performance in any aspect of his/her on-screen persona. The whole topic is ludicrous.ReplyDelete
Pedro from '99ReplyDelete
Yeah, but you have to factor in guys who historically come up big in big situations. Roger Clemens was a great pitcher, but if you have to choose between Roger at his best or Pedro at his best who do you choose? It's Pedro and it's not even close.ReplyDelete
I'd go more along the lines of his feuds with Goldberg, Eugene, Jeff Hardy (the 1st time), RVD, Kane (not Katie Vick (meant the unmasking angle on free TV), but if you want to add that, be my guest), and Booker T as my reasons why I could do without him. Not to mention him blowing up the Angle-Stephanie potential goldmine.ReplyDelete
Question - would Nash have been WWF champ had the crowd not cheered for him during the Royal Rumble?ReplyDelete
Wrestlers get ranked according to categories: work-rate, charisma, drawing power, mike skills, whatever... I don't think HHH is exceptional in any of those, but what he does have a lot of is dependability. He never drank or did drugs. He was never out of shape. His style was low risk and outside of the quad tear, he was never injured that much. He's apparently quite fundamentally sound and doesn't hurt other performers. And now, he has direct interest in seeing WWE succeed, not just for himself, but for his family. He will never leave, never embarrass the company. You can count on him. That's good for Vince, especially these days. But dependability behind the scenes doesn't always translate into great performances in the ring.ReplyDelete
I'm not sure that's true, since the biggest draws are presumably the most entertaining. But I do think different fans like different things. The Hogan/Rhodes/Rock -types are the best at providing something for a wide range of people (including very casual fans.)ReplyDelete
I'd rather watch Nash (in his prime) vs. a good worker than HHH vs. a good worker. He was just a more interesting wrestler.ReplyDelete
Yeah, that was what I was referring to about not being vulnerable by burying those guys. I'm a little more inclined to give him a pass for the Angle-Stephanie thing because he was so awesome at the time.ReplyDelete
Wait, are you saying you'd rather watch Nash (in his prime) vs a good worker than HHH in his prime (we're talking 2000-quad injury) vs. a good worker?ReplyDelete
Triple H is a guy who isn't bad at anything. But isn't the number one guy at anything either. An all around above average talent.ReplyDelete
HHH vs. a good worker would lead to some very entertaining matches (even though I can't stand HHH).ReplyDelete
Nash vs. a good worker was always going to be good because guys like Bret and Shawn were wrestling themselves out there. I mean, Nash's 3 moves were powerbomb, snake eyes, and brushing his hair back. A true technical worker could work with that like an artist with a box of crayons.
Two things make Triple H a draw:ReplyDelete
1. Boy-oh-Boy I want to see this guy get his ass kicked, heel heat.
2. Someone to bump for him.
Triple H is not a good 'work rate' guy, which is a bummer, so a lot of his matches tend to be a bit on the boring 'deliberately paced' side of things, which is annoying because you get bored very easily. As a result, the matches work better when Triple H has the upper hand pretty much the whole way, and then when a face makes comeback, you cheer and cheer and cheer "YEAH FUCKING HIT HIM!" and so on.
When he's face you're supposed to root for his big, energized comeback, and the guy doesn't have the speed or pizaz (outside of the facebuster) to really pop a crowd.
He's a great draw, a decent worker, and compelling character as a HEEL. As a face it just seems self serving and pedantic.
I got Wrestlemania 19 primarily because I wanted to see Booker T kick the living shit out of Triple H.ReplyDelete
It was that day I stopped watching wrestling as a die hard fan.
Well, it'd be easy to do, just adjust money for inflation and you could get a decent idea of who's doing how much money and when.ReplyDelete
There'd have to be more to it than that. There needs to be some measure for actual performance. That's what makes this difficult, because wrestling isn't baseball where there's cut-and-dried results, a winner and a loser in a real competition. But in terms of critical acclaim, I'd say either Scott or Meltzer's ratings are respected/established enough to act as a standard in this regard.ReplyDelete
Somebody like him? HuhReplyDelete
Seven no-hitters is amazing and all, but it's more amazing in a "huh, that's wacky" way than as a telling career stat to really measure him by as a pitcher. It certainly showed how dominant he was capable of being even late into his career, but I'd venture to guess that, even if he allowed a weak-ass hit here or there, that the seven best starts of Pedro's much briefer career would hold up in actual value to those seven no-hitters.ReplyDelete
This, and the only guy that's close is Pedro from '00.ReplyDelete
As Jim Cornette says, "Triple H is the guy who works with the guy who draws the money."ReplyDelete
I'm 27. The best big game pitchers of my lifetime were Dave Stewart (who, correct me if I'm wrong, owned a 4,500,830,320,111 and 0 record head-to-head with Roger Clemens), Pedro in '99-'01, Curt Schilling from '01-'04, and Cliff Lee.ReplyDelete
I was a Red Sox/Phillies fan (parents got married in Boston, brother born in Philadelphia) and was a bigger Red Sox fan until the '07 season when I was at Temple and was more upset about the Phillies losing than happy the Red Sox won. But Game 5 of the '09 World Series haunts me.
If you tell me I have to pick a starter and a closer to win one game, do-or-die with it all on the line it's Pedro from '99 with Mo Rivera from '98.ReplyDelete
I haven't read all the comments here - but whenever people get into an argument about who is or isn't a draw, they often hold people up to a overly high standard - unless someone drew as well as Hogan/Austin/Rock they weren't a draw. Which is obviously a bit of a fallacy - because wrestling organizations drew money without those guys on top.ReplyDelete
Or they pick and choose data. You see that a lot with Flair. He had a lot of feuds that drew really well, and some feuds that didn't draw very well. Depending on their own feelings about him, people tend to cherry-pick his feuds to prove their point.
Anyway, I think HHH falls under both of those categories. Never the mega-star that Hogan or the Rock, was, he still had a pretty good run at the top. And because so many people hate him, they'll look for excuses to downplay his successs.
1991-2001 still had Rock, Austin and Foley around.ReplyDelete
Cena was a pretty big draw from 2004 on.
So we have 2002-2003. Which is where the company quickly went back to the same levels it was at before the Monday Night Wars.
You'd have to come up with some function that accounted for PPV buys, house show gates, and TV ratings. You'd just take players in the main event since that is what sells the tickets.ReplyDelete
Yep. I'm not a big Nash fan, but his title reign was during the worst period in company history.ReplyDelete
And any wrestling booker should know that you play to the strengths of your champ. Nash should have been feuding with guys like Bret, HBK, and Hall and never been put in the position of trying to do something with freakin' Mabel.
Dude that is like, 99 percent of the fun of being a wrestling fan.ReplyDelete
Totally valid point. It is curious why fans care so much about buyrates and who draws or not. I didn't care one bit how much money Vince was making or what rating Raw was drawing once HHH and Cactus were bringing the house down at Rumble 00, just as a random example.ReplyDelete
Bob Gibson strenousuly objects.ReplyDelete
Look, I'm not saying Nash would have been a huge draw, but come on.ReplyDelete
Diesel vs. Bret Hart
Diesel vs. Shawn Michaels
Diesel vs. The Undertaker
Diesel vs. Razor Ramon
These are money matches that we could have been seeing all of 1995. They couldn't have made money off that? Really?
Phil Niekro fits that description to a tee. He was an average pitcher at best, but got 300 wins and a HOF plaque just because he pitched for 25 years.ReplyDelete
Can a heel count as the/a "draw" in the WWE system? I feel like doing the math in that way is a little disingenuous.ReplyDelete
theres a joke in scotts argument somewhere thats related to cultstatus being a top poster cause he has so many more posts than everyone else :PReplyDelete
Pedro was sick in '99.ReplyDelete
Here's a great list from baseball reference for best ERA in a single post-season:
. Waite Hoyt .00 27.0 1921
Christy Mathewson .00 27.0 1905
Kenny Rogers .00 23.0 2006 (say what? This shocked me)
Matt Cain .00 21.1 2010
Carl Hubbell .00 20.0 1933
Mike Boddicker .00 18.0 1983
Whitey Ford .00 18.0 1960
Pedro Martinez .00 17.0 1999
Joe McGinnity .00 17.0 1905
Duster Mails .00 15.2 1920
So by that standard, Pedro is not #1 since he had less innings.
I'm glad someone made this point. I agree that at least PART of Nash's failure as top guy was that he had no one to draw against. Mabel, Yoko, and Bulldog are hardly Andr, Savage, Dibiase, and Warrior (Hogan) or Vince, Michaels, Rock, HHH, Foley, Taker (Austin).ReplyDelete
Bob Gibson can strenuously object all he wants. He dominated in the most pitcher-friendly era ever. Pedro put up numbers that still would have been borderline shocking in 1968. But he put them up in 1999, the biggest offensive year of all time. Gibson also never again came close to his 1968 season. Pedro outdid himself in 2000.ReplyDelete
Yeah, Gibson's ERA+ was 258 in 1968, so even in that pitcher-friendly era, he still was above and beyond. Pedro's ERA+ in '99 and '00 was 243 and 291, respectively, so he was as above his peers as Gibson was. Pedro was striking out 13 per 9 innings those years with nearly a 9/1 K/BB ratio.
As great as Gibson was, there's really not much of a comparison. Pedro was just destroying people in the greatest era of offensive baseball ever.
Almost thought Nash's reign was Vince not having enough "quality heels" to feud with him. But Nash as a babyface was a disaster, no matter who you put him up against.ReplyDelete
Nash as an anti-hero or cool heel? Now THAT'S money.
1996 Nash against those guys? Yeah, that might work.ReplyDelete
1995 babyface Nash? P-U.
Not blaming the suck entirely on him, but there were ways both he and the 'E could've made it work.
That and Game 2 of the '10 NLDS. Really dude? YOU HAD A FOUR RUN LEAD AND YOU SCREWED IT UP?!ReplyDelete
To this day when people blame Howard's Achilles for costing them the DS and that 102 win season, I say look at Lee and Game 2. And then I hit them in the face with a cream pie.
By almost any measurable standard, Pedro's 2000 season is untouchable in the modern era.ReplyDelete
I also think Gooden's '84 and Clemens '97 are fairly insane seasons and even then, they're still not as good as Pedro's '00.
The real fallacy is that anyone other than Austin or Hogan can be called a Draw or not a draw in the ppv era. Too many other factors involved to credit or blame anyone once it went beyond the idea of advertising next week or month's house show with a specific feud or headliner. Being able to call someone a draw or not a draw ended when the territory days ended.ReplyDelete
I'd call him all-around average, but not bad at anything.ReplyDelete
I find no joy in debating how much money different people made for some guy who isn't me.ReplyDelete
And thousands of more upvotes.ReplyDelete
The more things change...ReplyDelete
By that logic, I still think Bret is an interesting case. While certainly a better draw (moneywise) than Shawn overall, he never exactly drew great money here in the states. I'm pretty sure his Canadian and overseas gates were fairly exceptional, however.ReplyDelete
I was reading a wrestling blog, and a baseball debate broke out! I'z in Heaven!ReplyDelete
This whole argument is a straw man, if I can remember my Advanced Logics course terminology from college correctly. Theoretically, anyone programed as the centerpiece of a promotion will "draw" money by virtue of being the man promoted in such a role. Triple H was the centerpiece from late 2002 through most of 2003, and so he drew money; you can then look at him as top tier wrestler from 1999 to 2001 and from 2004 to about 2010, so it's obvious that he drew money during that stretch too.ReplyDelete
The real argument is this: whether or not during his time as a tippy-top guy (or THE guy), was the product positively or negatively influenced by his presence in that role. In my estimation, it varies—his work was absolutely grand from late 1999 til his first quad tear in 2001. He was pretty inoffensive from about 2006 until his semi-retirement in 2010, but egads did his 2002-2005 run suck complete ass. I think Triple H will be remembered as a very good worker whose backstage politicking hurt the product at times and his fellow wrestlers as well.
Except that HHH on his own (i.e. facing lesser stars/draws) drew better than the Brets, Shawns, Angles, Ortons etcetera of the world.ReplyDelete
My argument in the other thread wasn't that HHH is as big of a draw or a bigger draw than megastars like Hogan, The Rock, Stone Cold just on account of drawing a lot of money over time, rather that he was generally a very good (but not great) draw over the course of his main event and a better draw than guys like Bret, Shawn, Angle, Edge, 'Taker (for the most part), Orton, some of them in the same era and under similar circumstances, and others (like Bret) in different eras and under different (i.e. worse) circumstances.ReplyDelete
The whole "HHH is the guy who wrestles the guy who draws money" Cornette-ism is tired and mostly untrue when you take into account that he was a big draw even when feuding with lesser stars and draws. What's also rather tiresome is the tendency of some people (e.g. jobber123) to be biased, not give credit where it's due, and use their negative opinions of the guy to create fallacious "facts".
Fun fact: Niekro won 20 games more times than Ryan did. (yes I know pitcher wins are not a top indicator of pitching ability)ReplyDelete
I never heard that HHH is "the guy who wrestles the guy who draws money" Cornette-ism. I have to call bullshit tho, the best programs have two acts who are creatively booked that the public has a vested interest in. That's why I tend to view Brett's and HBKs runs more leniently bc they were working with UT, Diesel, and then fucking Isaac Yankem, and other scrubs.ReplyDelete
Look below, Greg Phillips uses that very Cornette-ism in this thread.ReplyDelete
They can if they're bigger stars than their face opponents. Which is pretty much HHH's entire 2002-2004 heel run minus the Goldberg feud.ReplyDelete
That's a bit extreme. Yes, he accumulated stats, but in his prime he was well above average. He had six seasons of 6+ WAR, which is phenomenal.ReplyDelete
As for the best pitcher at his peak - definitely Pedro. If you want to go with the best combo of peak plus longevity, I'd go with Walter Johnson.
I guess, if he was on top of the show and they weren't doing something else at the ME. But I would think they drew alot better at the house shows when he was working as a face.ReplyDelete
Looking at some 2003 shows now, alot of the ones they ran, they had to run someone else up top, unless Nash or Goldberg was involved.
Average for a wrestler or average for a WWE main-eventer?
Yeah, back in 2003, the SmackDown match-ups were invariably better and usually bigger as well (e.g. Lesnar/Angle as opposed to HHH facing some briefly elevated midcarder).ReplyDelete
1999-2007 is a very generous timeline for Mr. H, especially with over a year's worth of quad injuries. When was he the draw, the man, the guy you wanted to see, the guy you watched or paid tickets for?ReplyDelete
Are we talking October 1999 to about February 2001 where he was THE man? I know I never watched specifically for HHH after that point and a lot of the credit can go to The Rock for 2000. The Rock/Austin era ended by about 2002. The Cena/Batista era started in early 2005.
So does HHH get credit for wrestling's great downfall during that period? Does that make him a draw?
Did HHH draw anyone in from mid-2002 to early 2005? He didn't put my ass in a seat. In fact, I'd call myself a casual fan for most of that period other than for the fact that I specifically followed HBK, Angle, and Guerrero. Don't get me wrong, HHH was mind-blowing for a good 16-17 months about 13 years ago, and he also had a very underrated late 2007 and 2008. I wouldn't call him a draw. He's a poor man's Harley Race.
RVD is actually the most common ME guy just glossing over the show results. Second half of the year it was him and Kane when Goldberg wasn't working.ReplyDelete
Average for a main eventer. Mind you, considering how he was pushed, maybe not even that.ReplyDelete
IMO, to be called average in every category is a compliment these days.
ERA is not the best stat to judge a pitcher's performance. FIP (Fielder Independent Pitching) would give you a much better view of how the pitcher himself performed, though I don't think you could find a list of the best single postseasons by FIP.ReplyDelete
No, it's not, especially when he also lost 20 games in one of those seasons. His career win percentage is .537, BTW.ReplyDelete
Not relevant with that list considering those guys gave up ZERO RUNS. Just saying.ReplyDelete
He was without a doubt the main draw in the year 2000 which was arguably WWE's biggest year ever as far as drawing goes. Can anyone name a hotter heel since that point? He had 2 amazing matches with Foley. 2 with Jericho. Probably the most underrated iron man match in history with the Rock. Great matches with Benoit, Angle and even Taka. Yea he came back slow and not quite the same worker after the quad tear, but he was the man in the year 2000ReplyDelete
Considering giving up zero runs could just as easily be due to defense or luck than pitching, I'd say it's extremely relevant. For instance, Matt Cain's 2010 postseason FIP was 3.13. A big reason for that difference was a mixture of very good luck (.206 average on balls in play -- league average is typically .280-.300) and a top-notch defense. Those two factors turned what was likely a good pitching performance into an exceptional one.ReplyDelete
Kenny Rogers in 2006? Pretty much the exact same thing. Great luck (.161 average on balls in play) and great defense. He still pitched very well, but not "0.00" well.
And since all these guys allowed zero runs, a better way to separate the wheat from the chaff would be FIP.
He had a bigger PPV universe than Bret ever did.ReplyDelete
I can see average for a main-eventer. Outside of psychology perhaps. Average for a wrestler? Bullshit. I've seen too many indy goofs.ReplyDelete
But let's be fair: Hogan had a great formula to draw with, Austin had The Rock, Foley, Taker etc. to draw with.ReplyDelete
They see him Pedigreein', they HHHatin'.
Hey guys? Baseball sucks.ReplyDelete
"He was without a doubt the main draw in the year 2000"ReplyDelete
Don't be ridiculous! 2000 was Rock's year through and through. Might not have had such a hot year if it wasn't for HHH's brilliant heel act, but no way was Hunter anything approaching a draw in 00.
Nothing the Rock did without Triple H's involvement that year came close to being on par with Triple H's work with Jericho and Foley.ReplyDelete
What do you mean? Quality wise? Draw wise?ReplyDelete
The first quarter of the year the draw was Foley chasing Triple H, second was Rock Chasing Triple H, third was Rock with Benoit and Angle, even though the best storyline was Triple H/Stephanie/Angle love triangle the 4th quarter draw was stone cold coming back for revenge on Triple H.ReplyDelete
You haven't answered my question(s).ReplyDelete
If you want to use more advanced metrics to separate THAT list, ok, but that is the quintessential post-season performance list. Zero runs is the benchmarks, period. BTW, I don't know why you're harping on "luck" so much, when it is a very obvious part of any sport. Unless a pitcher has thrown a perfect game with 27 strikeouts, he will tell you that they needed luck (a bounce here or there, wind conditions, etc) to win.ReplyDelete
BTW, I don't see how Cain's BaBip is luck. There's a direct correlation between a pitcher's velocity and control (ball placement) vs. where the hitters hit the ball. If anything, Cain was flinging beebees that series and caused hitters to be way below league averages. PS I'm not a Giants fan.
Unlike in other sports, in baseball it's much easier to determine if someone's performance is aided or hurt by luck or if there's actual improvement or loss of skill. BABIP, LOB% and HR/FB% are the 3 biggest I've seen that will greatly influence a player's performance and are very much luck-based. Cain was otherworldly in all 3 categories and those factors aren't skill-based (for the most part).ReplyDelete
Research was done in the early-00s that showed pitchers have little control over balls put in play. And while both hitters and pitchers can consistently have a higher or lower BABIP than others, it won't be .206. Cain actually has a very good career BABIP of .263, but he was still 57 points lower than that. That points to him not pitching as well as the zero runs suggests.
League-average LOB% is typically 70-72% while 80% is considered excellent. Cain's career mark is 74.7%. In the 2010 postseason, it was 95.5%.
League-average HR/FB% is typically 9-11% while 5% is considered excellent. There's really only 1 way to improve your HR/FB%: increase your groundball rate. Cain is a notorious flyball pitcher -- 43.7% career FB% -- and his flyball rate in those playoffs was slightly higher (46.6%). And he allowed 0 HR in the 2010 postseason.
Cain had every factor working for him in October 2010 to the point there are likely a ton of guys who actually outpitched him over the years but didn't get the same results. So if your goal is to find the best *pitching performances* in postseason history, you won't find that looking at ERAs. Best results, sure. But not best performance (though your list is very likely to be included). ERA is just such a flawed stat as are most of the well-known counting stats (RBI, HR, W).
You're still correlating luck in a case where the sample size allows things out of the ordinary to happen. Barry Bonds can have a shitty series and be well below career and league averages BECAUSE the sample size may be only 5-7 games. If a WS was, hypothetically, 100 games, the odds are very slim that Bonds would be below career averages.ReplyDelete
A pitcher, in this case Cain, can absolutely be well below his career (and league) averages if the sample is only 3-4 games. That is not only not an outlier, but probable based on historical post-season averages and other statistical measures of "every day Joe" type players throughout the history of baseball.
So, if he allowed 0 HR in the 2010 postseason along with 0 runs, you can find all of the "ifs" and "buts" you want, it happened. It's historical. There's no arguing it. I'm not an intangibles guy (heart, momentum, etc), I believe in the numbers. In this case, I continue to believe in the ACTUAL numbers and not try to demean them because it doesn't fit within the larger context of season averages.
Excellent point man. Makes me think of Yokozuna, who one wouldn't name right away when talking about "big draws", but who, according to Scott and Meltzer, drew really respectable gates during his 93-94 house show run, defending agains Yoko, Tatanka, Luger, etc.ReplyDelete
To me, I see "draw" as really meaning "did you exceed expectations". So, Austin/Rock/Hogan are huge draws,because they skyrocketed past what the business was use to.
Yokozuna being pushed to the limit by Tatanka in Saskatoon may have just done 7000 seats in a 10 000 seat arena, but it was better than the 5000 the company was expecting, or that the company drew their last time arund in the arena, so, Yoko is still a "draw".
If you believe in the numbers, the numbers say he didn't pitch as well as his ERA suggests. There's nothing demeaning about it, it's simply the truth. Cain pitched very well, but not "all-time great performance" well.ReplyDelete
It's luck because the areas where Cain was otherworldly (BABIP, LOB%, and HR/FB%) are extremely luck-based, especially when you aren't striking a ton of guys out and you give up a lot of flyballs. They're so far to the end of the spectrum that you simply can't perform at that level even if you are at your very best for the entire duration. And those are the areas that allowed him to put up a 0.00 ERA.
This discussion has gotten off-track. All I was pointing out is ERA is a flawed stat that shouldn't be used to determine a pitcher's performance because it includes defense and BABIP, which can vary wildly and two things a pitcher can't control.
I'm aware about the ERA limitations, but I have to go back to my original point that it's irrelevant because they gave up 0 ER. Now, you can pick that list apart with advanced metrics and determine among them who actually had the best pitching performance. However, there's no arguing that a guy with 1 ER had a better performance than a guy with 0 ER - not that you did that mind you.ReplyDelete
You owe Bill Simmons royalties on the Stewart v. Clemons joke.ReplyDelete
1) I meant to type Game 4 of the '09 WS. Phillies were down 4-2 after the 6th and tied it up in the bottom of the 8th. It was a vintage Phillies game from '08 where they came back late and Lidge slammed the door. Lidge blew the save, they lost the game and the series. If they win that game and the series proceeds the way it did anyway (we win game 5 and lose game 6) we have Cliff Lee going in game 7. Watch Games 1 & 5 and tell me you don't think we win in 7.ReplyDelete
2) I never mentioned Game 2 of the 2011 NLDS. I don't blame Howard's Achilles, baseball is like most sports: you can have faults but they can't be glaring. In 2009 the fault was that the closer situation was shaky, 2010 & 2011 was that we couldn't manufacture runs. In 2011 that showed up in the worst way. If you can't score two runs in a do-or-die game you don't deserve to win. Ryan Howard doesn't hurt his Achilles, he still ground out to end them game.
3) The much more frustrating moment was in, I believe, the bottom of the 4th when Hunter Pence was on 3rd and Raul Ibanez flew out.
same here. didnt even finish the show i was so disgusted.ReplyDelete
maybe wwe has something like that internally, maybe its some kind of "moneyball" like formula that has them refusing to turn Cena for example.ReplyDelete
wow man you just opened my eyes.ReplyDelete
i mean, i always liked Pedro and considered him "good" but i had no idea he was actually GODLY.
So where does he sit? Top 5 all time? top 3??
1) Oh absolutely. That nonchalant catch Lee made was incredible. Plus, they got a lot out of Pedro - more than they should've expected. True, people here like picking on Hamels, and if he was Hamels of 08 they would've won outright, but they should have won outright.ReplyDelete
2) Not you per se, but the nimrods who want to blame everything on Howard. He's not making things easy now, true, but it's this irrational hatred towards Howard (while Utley gets a free pass - not saying he doesn't deserve it at times, but you know). And yeah, that should've been the death-knell for the team - not scoring 2 runs, at home, with a legacy-defining loss on the line. They could've been facing 99 Pedro for all I cared - a 102 win team still got shut out at home in their most important game of the season, when your horse throws like 140 times and gives up one blasted run. It's one reason why I can't stand this fanbase.
3) Yeah, I'll grant that, but even still, Lee was lights-out and he was in that situation a lot that year. To say Lee could not shut down a 4 run lead was mind-boggling.
1) Yeah, if you see my sports history Petey winning a title with us and riding off into the sunset would have done my heart good. Hamels got a pass for his beastmode in '08. Hamels is the perfect #2 guy to me. I don't think he'll ever be an ace but I'll always have a soft spot for him (I have an authentic Cole '08 WS jersey).ReplyDelete
2) I only speak for myself but Ryan Howard gets less heat from me than most but if he does get heat and Chutley doesn't it's because Howard's contract is completely indefensible. I'm a big believer in being a littler irrational about certain players (Brian Dawkins never should have suited up for another team, for example) but my beef is more with RAJ than with Howard.
3) Yeah, it was shocking to me too.
To defend the Phila fanbase: LA is more violent, Boston is more racist, and Atlanta is more apathetic. Not saying there aren't shitty Philly fans, just that they get overblown and overhyped. Most of them are from South Jersey or the Northeast. I also think '08 took a LOT of the edge off. Philadelphia is the fifth largest city in the country. In between titles in Philly New York had the Yankees, the Mets, the Rangers, and the Giants, LA had the Lakers, Chicago had the Bears and the Bulls, Houston had the Rockets, and Boston had the Celtics and the Red Sox (full disclosure: I'm a Celtics fan over the Sixers) all win titles.
MAJOR What if? The Sixers almost traded Doctor J straight up for Jordan after the draft. Which would have meant that the starting five for Jordan's rookie year is Mo Cheeks (an underrated point guard), Jordan, Andrew Toney, Charles Barkley, and Moses Malone.
Now I'll cry myself to sleep over that "What if". Still, I don't think management here would've given Jordan everything he needed.ReplyDelete
I like my Philly bretheren, but I gotta call them out for their foolishness from time to time. No different than any other fanbase, but I stopped listening to the local sports talk here b/c every other call would be "trade Ryan Howard for the top guy from the Dodgers" or "The Eagles will go 10-6 next year" (with a below average QB and a D that's a dumpster fire). Ah well.
The best nickname I heard about RAJ? "Ruin Tomorrow, Jr."
What did you think about the Celtics trade? Seems like the Nets should be top contenders for the 2006 NBA title. I was surprised at the trade, but then I remembered Billy King is the Nets' GM, and my surprise melted away.
What would he have needed besides Barkley and Moses? Jordan never played with a great big man. Pippen was a good point forward but damn.ReplyDelete
Oh yeah, there are the super-obnoxious Philly fans who worship Buddy Ryan and that sort of thing. But they're no worse than any other fanbase, IMO. I grew up a couple hours south of DC (which was fun on the bun with my rooting interests) and the delusions of Redskins fans were priceless.
As for the Eagles I could see anywhere from 6-10 (change has to be good for at least two wins, right?) to 10-6 (assuming everything breaks our way).
As a Celtics fan I had mixed feelings. I wanted Garnett and Pierce (especially Pierce) to retire as Celtics and I'm not thrilled about taking on the Wallace contract. THAT SAID I'm glad with what we got back if we're blowing up and starting over again.
For the Nets this is a trade that has no middle ground. If Garnett and Pierce stay healthy and play to their ceiling I think they're a beast. Garnett gives them interior defense and an attitude at his best, Pierce gives them a wing threat that Wallace didn't. If they miss significant time because of injury then it looks awful. The biggest x-factor is Kidd as the head coach.
Would they have gotten rid of Moses once they got Jordan? That's really my question - shoot, with Barkley as a rook and Moses and Doc on the tail ends of their careers, they should've been able to compete more, before they traded Moses like dunderheads. <- Wait, I didn't realize that's a real word! Dunderhead dunderheadReplyDelete
Not to mention they traded Mo in the most cold stupid way possible (where the media was waiting for him in his driveway and he broke down once he heard it from them - they couldn't even bother reaching out to him in some way).
I have low expectations on the Eagles - only because 1) offensive talent is overrated, like last year, and 2) that secondary is blah. But that doesn't mean I'm rooting for them to suck - the stuff Kelly has done makes me feel like there's someone competent behind the wheel for the first time in like 5 years.
Agreed on the Nets - no middle ground and Kidd as a coach. Well, at least they'll be interesting to watch.
Doc was always overrated. But I don't know, I wouldn't be shocked if they kept Moses. But you HAVE to figure in '85 the Sixers would have been competitive.ReplyDelete
It depends on the line for the Eagles. And it depends on how the talent reacts. My assumption is 8-8 with 6-10 as a nadir and 10-6 if the stars align.
Even then, though, is there really a definitive correlation between match quality and how much the top guys drew? I'd wager that Austin's drawing ability from PPV to PPV wasn't based on whether he had a 3.5 versus 4 star match that night.ReplyDelete
You missed a hilarious Shooting Star Press.ReplyDelete