Phillies

Transactions & Such

Winter leagues

Part of CSNPhilly.com


« Halladay notches 20th win; Phillies lead East by five | Main | Phils' affiliate could become reality for West Chester »

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Comments

I was three years old when Steve Carlton had his 23-11 1982 season. As a lifelong Phillies fan it meant quite a lot to see Roy Halladay join an elite group of Phillies arms. I couldn't be happier that we have this guy on our team and he's been nothing short of a thrill to watch all season. Here's hoping there's a Cy Young for him this season because I definately think he deserves it.

Wonder how he shall not be named feels now that the Rangers are limping into the playoffs.

Also, did anyone else see Rosenthal's tweet about how Werth and Crawford may not be locks for the Yanks thanks to Granderson stepping up?

Nice touch to Doc's 20 game winning season is that he's wearing Robin Robert's #36 on his sleeve while he becomes the first Phillies righthander to pitch for 20 wins since Robbie did it 55 years ago.

@JT Ramsay - he probably feels terrible about it. It's not like C____ L___ has control of being traded to poor teams.

He, like any of us if we were in his situation, would try to maximize our contract. Remember, this is about a person's livelihood as much as it is about a game. I hope he gets the contract that he deserves from the team willing to pay him that.

JW posted that Monday's game was highest rated in their history on Comcast - does anyone know where to get that info?

I wanted to check last night's game numbers.

Yes, Doc's worked his way out of jams. However, he falls behind too many hitters, hasn't racked up many Ks lately and is more prone to give up the HR. He's more mortal than Hamels and Oswalt at this point.

jason.tp: I got it from an in-house press release. If another floats across my desk today, I'll post it.

I think what you will likely see for the final series of the year, is Halladay being shelved and Hamels and Oswalt only pitching a few innings (maybe 60 pitches tops), just to stay sharp and in rythem.

A likely scenario:

AT Braves-

Friday- Hamels starts. Pitches 3-4 innings.
Saturday- Worley starts for Halladay.
Sunday- Oswalt starts. Pitches 3-4 innings.

Halladay, Hamels and Oswalt pitch the first 3 games of the NLDS, with plenty of rest.

JW: you. are. the MAN!

I agree denny.

With a 5 game lead for the best record in the NL, and only 10 games to go, it's likely we'll have the best record in the NL wrapped up going into that series.

Not sure how long this has been going on, but Doc was definitely tipping his changeup last night. Halladay uses the split-finger or "vulcan" grip on his changeup, and if you look at the tape it is quiet obvious when he wants to throw it.

Doc would grip the changeup on his leg OUTSIDE of his glove, and every time he would throw that pitch. Jose Contreras, for example, grips the split in his glove every time and then adjusts from there. That split-finger grip is pretty easy to spot, and I'm sure the the hitters picked up on it as they weren't swinging at his changeup as often.

I realize this isn't the only problem Halladay has been having, but maybe someone with an MLB tv account can confirm this for me?

Fatalotti: Actually... the Ankiel play came with just one out. The run scores either way and Halladay got out of that inning without any further damage.

Halladay didn't pitch poorly (7 IP, 7 H, 2 BB), but he wasn't as dominant as he's been earlier this year. I, for one, am not worried about him.

I agree that Doc hasn't been as overpowering lately as we were initially used to, but sometimes you gotta step back and look at the big picture. The connection to Steve Carlton is interesting as he, like Halladay, was one of the most dominating pitchers of his era for a good 10+ years. I lived through all of that and remember vividly how totally he could take charge of a game, but he also had times very similar to Doc where he had to struggle for the win and even blew up from time to time. He lost a few big games, but won most of them, and history suggests that will be what Doc does too.

In unrelated news, psychopath Michael Vick was just named starting QB of the Eagles.

I am so glad the Phillies are doing well so I can just ignore the Eagles.

Heather... agreed. The embarrassment that is being an Eagles fan is more than offset by this team's awesomeness. Thank god for that.

Yeah CJ, I realized that later as I was falling asleep, and wasn't able to come on here to correct it, and unfortunately, it's now on the splash page.

Whatever.

Halladay gives us a good chance to win the game every time he steps on the mound. And with Hamels and Oswalt piching the way they are, we easily have the best top 3 in baseball, hands down.

Can't wait for the postseason to start. Doc's going to get some rest, he'll have his second wind, and this team is just money this time of the year.

Can't wait!!

No reason for Halladay to start/pitch long against the Mets. Let him go about 50 pitches and yank him.

I hope the Phils pour it on vs. Hanson. This will be the biggest start of his young career, and if he can get a goold old fashioned Philly beatdown on the field and booed out of the stadium - he'll always have that in the back of his mind for future years.

Wow, the Grand Pooh-Bah of BL has included my posting in a thread header! I am honored to be quoted for a positive momentous occasion as Roy Halladay achieving his 20th win. (Being quoted in the thread header is weighed heavily in consideration of acceptance into the BL Elite.) Oops! Forget that you saw this last parenthetic sentence.

I have just made a screen print of the thread header to save for posterity. I will have it blown up, printed and framed. I will pass it on to my yet to be born grandchildren.

While I know they have been good at the same time in the past, recently I've been been getting the George & Elaine vibe from them. When one is up, the other must go down.

Halladay is battling his mechanics and possibly fatigue, but he is warrior and is still giving the team a great chance to win.

When Kendrick and Blanton have similar struggles they "put up a snowman on the scoreboard, Tom". (Wheels voice)

" It's not like C____ L___ has control of being traded to poor teams."

No more control that Halladay had over injuries that impacted his run support for large chunks of the season.

The term "ace" is subjective and has several interpretations. My own interpretation can be explained using Halladay, Hamels and Lee. For as amazing of a season as Hamels has had (and Lee), the difference between a great pitcher and an ace is the ability to work it out regardless of other circumstances.

Hamels and Lee are great pitchers.
Halladay is an ace.

(no disrespect intended to Hamels or Lee)

Will: I agree with you to an extent, but if you are using that logic there are about 3-4 "aces" in MLB.

How is Hamels not an ace this year?

You're saying that when he went 7 innings, giving up all of 1 run, twice in a row against the Mets, yet the Phillies got shutout both games...you're saying that Doc would have found a way to win those games?

Or when Hamels pitched 8 scoreless against the Reds in early July, and yet the game went to extra innings tied at 0. Halladay finds a way to win that game as well?

Or when Hamels pitched 8 innings of 1 run ball against the Cardinals on May 4, but the game went to extras tied at 1. Halladay finds a way to win that game?

How about when Hamels left the game against the Twins with a 10-4 lead. Then the bullpen imploded and lost the game. Halladay would have found a way to not make the bullpen implode there, right?

Or when he pitched 6.1 innings of 2 run ball against the Mets, during the stretch where the Phillies were shut out in all three games at Citi Field (what is with hamels and pitching greatly against the Mets and the Phils getting shut out?) Again, Halladay would have found a way to win that game, right?

Or when Hamels gave up 2 ER over 8 innings against the Marlins in April, but the Philies got shut out once again with him on the mound. Doc wins that one, obviously.

Give Hamels those games there, and he's 19-6, as opposed to 12-10, and he's among the frontrunners for the Cy Young award. And he deserved tow in EVERY ONE OF THOSE GAMES.

I don't follow your logic...

Hamels was an ace in 2008, and he's a big time ace this year.

So is Lee...

Fats... great post. And I completely agree.

I don't know if he's been tipping pitches all of a sudden... It seems to me, he's been doing that grip on the side of his leg all season long...

I'll have to go back to the perfect game i downloaded on my ipad to check...

HammRadio: Thanks, good idea!

Since Ryan Howard's rookie season of 2005 (Chase's first full season), the Phillies have been in an honest-to-goodness playoff hunt on this day every year. That's 6 straight seasons of caring about wins and losses in September.

From what I can tell, September mattered to Phillies fans just 3 times between 1984-2004.

Beerleaguer looks better on an iPad, anyway. ;)

Hamels is an ace. He was the best player on the planet during the 2008 postseason and is now back to form in 2010.

Halladay is a future hall of famer in my opinion - Hamels could be but is doubtful in my mind.

jason.tp: if hamels has found a career groove remotely approaching this year's/08's performance, he's a lock for HOFer.

lets hope for that.

The crazy thing about Cole Hamels is that he's seeing this massive success in his arbitration years and lefties are often late bloomers. Scary thought.

My interpretation of "ace" is more strict than Fatalotti's and more like Will's. There are only a handful of "aces" in MLB. Off the top of my head:

1. Halladay
2. Hernandez
3. Johnson
4. Lincecum
5. Sabathia
6. Lee

In addition, your "ace" is your #1 starter. Contrary to what people say, it is impossible to have more than one "#1" starter. Therefore, there can only be one "ace," if any, on one team. Halladay is the Phillies "ace." Hamels, if he played for Pittsburgh, for example, would be their "ace." He is not, however, the Phillies' "ace." He's our #2.

Just my $.02.

R. Billingsly: So if Felix Hernandez got traded to the Phillies... one of them would no longer be an ace?

CJ: Yes. How can a team have more than two #1s? It's impossible.

Again, this is just my definition. There is no right or wrong answer.

Through his age 26 season, Roy Halladay had been a 2 time AS and had won a CY award, with a career 3.84 ERA.

Hamels, after this season, will finish in the top 10 in CY voting twice (top 6 in 2007; somehow got no love in 2008, despite having a lower ERA and leading the league in WHIP...but only had 14 wins...how I hate the W/L record), will have been a 1 time AS and will have a career ERA of about 3.5, while also having a championship, NLCS MVP and WS MVP.

I'd take Hamels career through age 26, to be honest.

He may have a HOF career ahead of him, if he keep it up.

Ankiel really wasn't out of the basepaths on that play, He easily could've touched the bag at second which is really the only requirement.

That should read: How can a team have more than one #1?

Ace means "ace of the staff," right? Meaning, your "top of the rotation," best starter. How can a team have more than one? Best is singular. You can't have two bests. It's impossible.

R. Billingsly: Strange definition, but you're welcome to use it. The term "ace" comes from the most powerful card in the deck... and there are four of them. I guess any team can have up to four aces :-)

you can't have more than 1 #1 starter, but you can definitely have multiple Aces. The 90s Braves didn't have 3 aces? The Phils don't have 3 aces?

R. Bill- Nice problem to have though.

Which of these 3, all deserving of top honors, is the best on my team?

Phillies haven't had a dilema like that very often!

RBill, your definition of an ace is too simplistic and restrictive...

Pedro Martinez said it perfectly. Everytime he steps on the mound, he's the team's ace, no matter who else is on the staff.

An ace is a pitcher who goes deep into game, who consistently shuts down teams, who is a stopper. He's the kind of pitcher, where if you're the opposing manager, you're playing the infield in in the 3rd inning, and playing small ball early, because you know how tough it is to score off this guy.

You don't do that stuff when Joe Blanton is on the mound. You do that stuff when H2O is on the mound.

A team can only have one #1, of course, because only one guy can start a game. But they certainly can have multiple aces, guys that they can slot into any big game and feel extremely confident that they will win this game.

Look at it this way. They had the opportunity to swap Doc and Hamels in the rotation in this Atl series to get Doc into game 1 and Hamels in game 2, but they didn't.

And that wasn't an indictment of Doc at all (he'll most likely start game 1 of the NLDS), but they are SO confident in Hamels right now (as confident as they are in Oswalt and Doc), that it wasn't even an issue.

That is why Hamels is an ace.

So Tom Glavine, John Smoltz and Don Drysdale are hall of famers or future hall of famers, but they are not aces. Makes sense.

Wait, what?

CJ: I don't see how that's a strange definition, but ok.

I wasn't aware that term "ace" in baseball came from a deck of cards. To continue with that analogy, though, an ace is the top card for a specific suit. MLB is the deck of cards, the different suits are the teams. The Hearts only have one Ace. The Clubs, one Ace, etc. Each suit, however, has other powerful cards, that if used correctly can be as dominant as the Ace.

What can I say, I like restrictive definitions. I run a tight ship. I think Ace is thrown around way too liberally (as are most complimentary terms in baseball -- a lot of hyperbole in this game). At one time, Halladay, Oswalt and Hamels were the Aces of their respective teams. I just think that an Ace is your #1 and since you can only have one #1, you can only have one Ace. Sorry.

And Pedro Martinez says a lot of weird things. I very rarely agree with him :-).

Fatalotti, I agree with Will and R.Billingsly in stating that Halladay is our "ace". Hamels is a potential "ace" if he can put together a whole season of excellence and Oswalt was an "ace" in his glory years with Houston. A deck of cards may have four "aces", but an individual pitching staff can only have one. We can correctly state that we have three top of the rotation quality starters, but of those three Halladay is our "ace".

Jim: Are there no non-ace pitchers in the Hall of Fame?

It's all semantics anyway, but this team absolutely has 3 Aces. The way they are pitching, they all qualify.

Lake Fred: Thank you. I figured there had to be one other intelligent person on this board! ;-)

RBill, the analogy fails for this reason:

The King may be as effective as the ace in certain situations, but there are situations in which is CAN'T be as effective.

In a word, the King is inherently inferior to the Ace, whereas a pitching rotation can have 3 pitchers who are legitimately as good as one another, with not one being inferior.

And of our top 3 pitchers, the one who is pitching the worst right now (thought not poorly) is Roy Halladay.

Old Phan: Definitely semantics. Again, you know things are going well for the Phils when arguments like this break out.

I wouldn't have it any other way. I love this place!

Rbill, I agree!

Who cares what you call it? They're each having great seasons.

But, if you agree you have pitchers on two separate teams who are aces and pitcher 2 gets traded to team 1 so that team 1 now has two pitchers who were accorded ace status at least until the moment of the trade, does one of the pitchers lose his ace status? I don't think so.

Yeah, silly argument RBill, but it's fun.

And also, Hamels wouldn't have to go the Pirates to be their ace. hell, Blanton culd be their ace.

There are easily 20 teams in this league where Hamels would the ace, hands down.

Fatalotti:

The king is inherently inferior to the Ace. So is a #2 pitcher...or he'd be a #1.

For me, this argument is a lot more fun (and meaningful) than talking about UZR, FIP, BAIP, et al.

I know a couple other commenters and I have already posted this, but Hamels is clearly a better pitcher in 2010 than he was in 2008.

The narrative sorta looks like this: In 2008, Cole Hamels benefitted from quite a bit of luck, and we all thought he was an ace. In 2009, his luck swung in the other direction, even though by almost every measure he was the same exact pitcher, and we all thought he was weak or tired or whatever.

Hamels probably thought something was wrong, too, so he went out and added 10-15 pounds of muscle as well as two more pitches to his repertoire. This year his K% is up 25%, and he's inducing more ground balls than ever before -- boosting his double play rate.

The story is that Hamels bought into the idea that something went wrong last year, and he went and made himself a better pitcher. If he hadn't struggled with bad luck, maybe he wouldn't have tried so hard to improve, and maybe he wouldn't be the pitcher he is in 2010.

Funny how luck can cause real changes in behavior.

3 of the Top 15 pitchers in baseball are on the Phillies. In Baseball!

Letes just enjoy it.

***Ace means "ace of the staff," right? Meaning, your "top of the rotation," best starter. How can a team have more than one? Best is singular. You can't have two bests. It's impossible.***

Your contention that a team can only have one #1 pitcher is a semantics game.

If ace means the singular "best" pitcher on a team's staff, then you are right there can be only one per team. However that also means there are 30 aces in the majors, one on every team. Somebody, no matter how mediocre, is the best pitcher on *every* team.

If ace is a qualitative level that any pitcher can attain but very few actually do, then a team can have multiple aces. If you were to construct a rotation of five of the players you named, four of them do not lose any of their ability to pitch.

The standard rotation starts off with a team's best pitcher and gets worse each game. In the scenario above what you would end up with is a team whose rotation would reset every game back to #1. If it helps semantically, think of it as a team with five separate one man rotations. Each pitcher the #1 of their own mini-rotation.

"The king is inherently inferior to the Ace. So is a #2 pitcher...or he'd be a #1."

But RBill, what if the pitcher's are equal in dominance. You'd still HAVE to pick a #1, just because it would get crowded on the mound if they both started the game.

Therefore, #1 is more a pragmatic designation, whereas "Ace" is more a designation of status.

For example, if you had Walter Johnson and Cy Young on the same team, and you were heading into a WS, you'd have to pick one of those guys to start game 1 (making him the #1), obviously, but you're kidding me if you're telling me that only one of those guys is an ace.

Toss one of them in LF and have them alternate innings on the mound.

R Billingsley: In your list of aces, which Johnson are you talking about? I keep thinking of Randy, but since he's not playing anymore....which Johnson?

***To continue with that analogy, though, an ace is the top card for a specific suit. MLB is the deck of cards, the different suits are the teams.***

No. Suits are a bad analogy for an indiviual team. A team would be the hand you are dealt. And you can have multiple aces in your hand. No matter how your arrange them, one ace will come first. But they all remain aces.

sifl-
Reminds me of an old quote-
"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it."
Thomas Jefferson

Probably that josh johnson fella...heard he's pretty decent.

::facepalm:: duh. thanks NEPP

***Toss one of them in LF and have them alternate innings on the mound.***

Match up your aces lefty-righty and have them alternate by hitter.

Ha ha. This got out of control. Sorry.

It is absolutely semantics. There is no definition for "ace". That's why this is interesting. One word can mean a few different things. My initial post of 11:23 is my basic interpretation of the term.

Lincoln: No. My definition invovles a pitcher reaching a certain level of greatness, but is restricted to one team, one Ace. There are teams with no Ace. Pittsburgh comes to mind (sorry to keep picking on the Pirates).

People are talking about Halladay being in contention for the Cy Young Award. No one is talking about Hamels or Oswalt as being in Cy Young contention, yet people on this board are arguing that Hamels is our "ace" because his last handful of games have been better than Halladay's games. Halladay is leading the league in Wins, Strikeouts, Complete Games, Shutouts, and Innings Pitched all by himself. He's third in ERA and fourth in WHIP, but to some of you BL posters think Hamels is our "ace." Give me a freaking break!

And I'm aware of rule 3.03 but why ruin a good game plan with practicalities like "is it legal?"

Lincoln: I disagree with your interpretation of the card analogy. Suits are the teams. Hell, they even wear the same uniform :-)

Heather: Yes, Josh Johnson. Thanks, NEPP.

I am BeerLeaguer's dumbest argument yet.

@R.Bill - Ha, funny you said that. I was going to use the Pirates as a humorous example and decided not to for exactly the same reason. Felt like I was picking on them.

LF, the term "team ace" (not just ace) is a fluid term, and is determined by who's pitching the best. Right now, and over the past month, Hamels is just simply pitching WAY better than Roy Halladay. Oswalt is also pitching way better than Doc.

But, I wouldn't be upset with any one of them starting game 1.

Suits are a bad analogy for teams. Suits are the categories of players. Like one suit would be starting pitchers, another suit would be relievers, another suit would be position players, another suit would be bench players.

You shuffle them all together, and you either get a bad hand (the Pirates :)) or you get a great hand, complete with 3 aces, (the Phillies).

Teams where Hamels and Oswalt would be the #1 (in the world according to awh):

TOR
BAL
CWS (Peavy cmg off surgery)
CLE
OAK
LAA (IMHO they're better than DH & JW)
SEA
ATL (they're better than Hudson, IMHO)
WSN
CIN
HOU
CHC
MIL
PIT
SDP (IMHO they're better than Latos)
COL
LAD (IMHO they're better than CK)
ARI

Teams where they MIGHT be the #1:

NYM
TEX (Is Lee really better than Oswalt or Hamels right now?)
KC (Is Greinke regressing?)
DET (Verlander's great, but is he really better than H and R2?)
BOS (Lot's of injury problems here, Bucholz the best now?)

In any event, IMHO there are about 18 teams where either RoyO or Hamels would be considered the #1, with a few question marks.

Feel free to debate and disagree.

(In an attempt to change the subject)

Tommy Hanson's two starts against the Phils this year:

4/20: 4.2 IP, 6H, 2ER, 1BB, 4SO
5/31: 6.2 IP, 3H, 1ER, 1BB, 2SO

Both were decent and he got wins in both starts. Both, however, were in ATL. Any predictions as to how he will fare in CBP.

I have a feeling he'll crack and the Phils' offense will have a great night. Phils will win big tonight.

Tyler Durden must be a Braves fan seeing as he doesn't really exist.

Say it with me, "I am Bobby's empty stadium."

Scratch boston from that list. I had a brain cramp and forgot about Lester.

AWH, Seattle has a guy named Felix Hernandez. He's probably a little better than Cole and Oswalt.

Also, Jimenez is the bona fide number 1 on Colorado right now, so if those gusy went there, they would be slotted in as 2s.

Otherwise, I pretty much agree.

Actually, since ASB, King Felix (both he and Cole are nicknamed "King") is the only pitcher in the majors better than Cole.

So, in my opinion, Cole would be the #2 there.

From the Atlanta paper-

"Facing the estimable Roy Halladay, who needs little help, they nonetheless aided and abetted his 20th victory of 2010. In the third inning of a 0-0 game Rick Ankiel drew a leadoff walk, bringing to bat the rookie pitcher Mike Minor, who has never had a big-league hit. Everybody in the ballyard expected a bunt. Minor swung and grounded into a double play, prompting everybody in the ballyard to say, ”Huh?”

Said Braves manager Bobby Cox, speaking of Minor: “He missed the [bunt] sign.”

Yeah, how the hell didn't Minor know to bunt there?

From John Smallwood's piece in the Daily News, courtesy of philly.com:

"It's special," Halladay said of winning 20 for the third time in his career, "but the best part is that it's the secondary item to the team winning."

Read more: http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/phillies/20100922_John_Smallwood__This_is_what_Halladay_dreamed_about_when_he_came_to_Phillies.html?viewAll=y#ixzz10HC2SJIK

OP - Excuses are like something...something everyone has, but I can't quite remember...is it ears? Excuses are like ears, Bobby? That doesn't sound right...

"No one is talking about Hamels or Oswalt as being in Cy Young contention, "

Lake Fred, I've mentioned on several occasions that if Hamels had the victories to go with several of his performances (in my opinion, he should be 19-6 right now), he'd most definitely be in the CY discussion, especially with his 2.93 ERA and 207 strikeouts.

Crashburnalley.com did a post a couple weeks back mentioning that Hamels should be in the Cy Young mix.

I think he'll get some votes.

Fatalotti: Absolutely right. Bunt sign or no, he has to know he's up there to bunt. Perhaps I'm remembering this incorrectly, didn't he square on the first pitch and GIDP on the second?

Either way, a head-scratching move.

Why limit ourselves to Haiku?

If the Phillies win but two of four
And the Padres six of ten,
The Bravos, as in days of yore
Will miss the cut again.

(with apologies to George E. Phair)


Yeah RBill, he claimed that he got the bunt sign for the first pitch, but didn't see it for the second pitch, so figured he is supposed to swing away.

Not a very high baseball IQ in that situation, as the only time the bunt sign will be taken off in that situation is with 2 strikes, and with a batter with 0 major league hits facing a groundball inducing machine like Halladay, even with 2 strikes, I'd still expect it to be on.

"If you are using that logic there are about 3-4 "aces" in MLB."

I'd go along with that assessment.

Again, the term "ace" is subjective. It doesn't really mean anything concrete.

I don't subscribe to the idea that an "ace" is the equivalent of a pitching MVP on a team. I use the term to refer to hall-of-fame caliber starting pitchers and to pitchers who achieve outstanding feats in or over a career (Carlton winning 27 games for a last place team, Ryan's 7 no-hitters, etc).

I don't exclude anyone from being called an "ace" to disrespect anyone. I just reserve the term to elite starters; the absolute greatest of the great in their era and overall.

Halladay is an ace. Halladay has an established record of greatness above and beyond the obstacles in his career (such as playing for a cellar dwelling team in Toronto).

Hamels has pitched like an ace in 2010. Ubaldo had a stretch of time where he was pitching like an ace, as have Oswalt and Lee, but whereas they are great, few would argue that they wouldn't rather have Halladay or Pedro Martinez/Roger Clemens, his prime.

...just an opinion. No offense intended to anyone.

Fatalotti, yep, that's what happens when one hastily throws together a list.

Still, drop BOS, COL and SEA from the list and it's still adds up to 15 teams other than the Phillies.

Also, if you look at the "questionables", NYM, KCR, DET, TEX, on ecould make a case for one of those teams.

But it doesn't matter, really:

Bottom line: The Phillies have 3 of the top 15 - 16 (and arguably 13 - 14) top SP in MLB.

Regarding the NYM and KCR, Hamels and Oswalt would have to take the #1 pitcher status. Both have playoff experience (World Series, at that), whereas Santana doesn't have the same credentials, and Greinke has never been in 1st place past April.

With Lee and Verlander, it's just splitting haris. There really is no right or wrong answer.

Kind of like what we have here. We have three ace-level pitchers, and I'm as giddy as can be when any one of them takes the mound. I was really excited going into Tuesday's game with Hamels on the mound, equally as excited last night, and I can't wait for tonight's game.

Friday's game is going to be a letdown.

Sorry Blanton, just the way it is.

Also, with Santana's recent injury issues, he's no longer the same pitcher he once was.

The term ruler implies only one person but occasionally there have been co-rulers in history e.g. William and Mary in England or even triumvirate rulers as occurred in Rome. Interesting enough in Rome's triumvirate over the course of time, one of the three became the Caesar - the number one ruler. Perhaps the same is true of a team with three aces.

Konstany pictched first game of world series in 1950 - We had Roberts and Simmons, but since Konstany pitched he was our ACE??? lol

Render unto Halladay that which is Halladay's?

@ Fatalotti
LOL - and maybe tomorrow it is "Hail Cole!"

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories

HardballTalk

Rotoworld News

SHOP CSN


Advertisements


Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel

CSG