July 7, 200322 yr LMAO, this thread ruled! Bmr is right, though. MB is NOT a great pitcher. It's next to impossible for a pitcher with just 2 full seasons under his belt to be great, and while MB has been impressive since jumping from AA to our ace, he's not been great. Merely "good" and at times "very good". Until he wins 20, and/or has an ERA in the 2's, and/or wins a Cy Young, he cannot be regarded as "great".
July 7, 200322 yr LMAO, this thread ruled! Bmr is right, though. MB is NOT a great pitcher. It's next to impossible for a pitcher with just 2 full seasons under his belt to be great, and while MB has been impressive since jumping from AA to our ace, he's not been great. Merely "good" and at times "very good". Until he wins 20, and/or has an ERA in the 2's, and/or wins a Cy Young, he cannot be regarded as "great". Ahhhh common sense!!
July 7, 200322 yr LMAO, this thread ruled! Bmr is right, though. MB is NOT a great pitcher. It's next to impossible for a pitcher with just 2 full seasons under his belt to be great, and while MB has been impressive since jumping from AA to our ace, he's not been great. Merely "good" and at times "very good". Until he wins 20, and/or has an ERA in the 2's, and/or wins a Cy Young, he cannot be regarded as "great". Ahhhh common sense!! Heh, sorry I wasn't here while this thread was evolving. But reading it in its entirety does have its advantages. The words "great" and "legend" get tossed around so much nowadays that we as fans have really become jaded to their meanings. To me, someone who is "great" is among the best that EVER PLAYED. Hell, whether MB is in the top 10 of pitchers in MLB right now is very questionable to say the least. He may just be in the top 20 if you actually went through and ranked every starting pitcher. But when you expand the pool of pitchers to EVERY PITCHER WHO EVER PLAYED, MB wouldn't even be on the radar screen. He may be with time, but to say that he's "great" in his 3rd full season is just silly. I suppose it's a matter of opinion even with the way "great" is defined, but like Bmr said, opinions such as these cannot be wrong. They're merely opinions.
July 7, 200322 yr LMAO, this thread ruled! Bmr is right, though. MB is NOT a great pitcher. It's next to impossible for a pitcher with just 2 full seasons under his belt to be great, and while MB has been impressive since jumping from AA to our ace, he's not been great. Merely "good" and at times "very good". Until he wins 20, and/or has an ERA in the 2's, and/or wins a Cy Young, he cannot be regarded as "great". Ahhhh common sense!! Heh, sorry I wasn't here while this thread was evolving. But reading it in its entirety does have its advantages. The words "great" and "legend" get tossed around so much nowadays that we as fans have really become jaded to their meanings. To me, someone who is "great" is among the best that EVER PLAYED. Hell, whether MB is in the top 10 of pitchers in MLB right now is very questionable to say the least. He may just be in the top 20 if you actually went through and ranked every starting pitcher. But when you expand the pool of pitchers to EVERY PITCHER WHO EVER PLAYED, MB wouldn't even be on the radar screen. He may be with time, but to say that he's "great" in his 3rd full season is just silly. I suppose it's a matter of opinion even with the way "great" is defined, but like Bmr said, opinions such as these cannot be wrong. They're merely opinions. Eh those two just go after me cuz i tell them how it is, and they dont like it. LOL whatever.
July 7, 200322 yr LMAO, this thread ruled! Bmr is right, though. MB is NOT a great pitcher. It's next to impossible for a pitcher with just 2 full seasons under his belt to be great, and while MB has been impressive since jumping from AA to our ace, he's not been great. Merely "good" and at times "very good". Until he wins 20, and/or has an ERA in the 2's, and/or wins a Cy Young, he cannot be regarded as "great". That is almost as ridiculous as the original statement we were arguing about. MB has won 19 and barely missed getting his 20th. Don't try to tell me that because he missed winning that last game that he cannot be considered great. I was all ready to give you your due until you backed up your opinion with that? If you guys are going to share your opinion, either state it and leave it the hell alone, or back it up with something that has merit. See the big picture sometimes. See past the numbers. It won't hurt you, I promise. I am not going to get into another one with you cluj, or continue this with Bmr. I don't have a problem at all with you thinking Mark B is not a great pitcher. That is an opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. The word "great" can mean different things to different people, so I have no problem with varying opinions. Bmr, I apologize for calling you stupid. I should have stuck to calling your point stupid. LOL Kind of like saying to an umpire "that call sucked" rather than saying "you suck". Lastly, Phil Niekro may not have been the most dominating pitcher of his time but the man is a Hall of Famer. Perhaps your definition of great is different than mine, but in my mind if a guy is good enough to get to The Hall, I am going to call him great without thinking twice.
July 7, 200322 yr Hmm great pitchers in the league now..............Pedro, randy, Schilling, Clemens, maddux......Zito may be the next. I am sure i forgot a few, but MB doesnt even come close to qualifying.
July 7, 200322 yr LMAO, this thread ruled! Bmr is right, though. MB is NOT a great pitcher. It's next to impossible for a pitcher with just 2 full seasons under his belt to be great, and while MB has been impressive since jumping from AA to our ace, he's not been great. Merely "good" and at times "very good". Until he wins 20, and/or has an ERA in the 2's, and/or wins a Cy Young, he cannot be regarded as "great". Ahhhh common sense!! Heh, sorry I wasn't here while this thread was evolving. But reading it in its entirety does have its advantages. The words "great" and "legend" get tossed around so much nowadays that we as fans have really become jaded to their meanings. To me, someone who is "great" is among the best that EVER PLAYED. Hell, whether MB is in the top 10 of pitchers in MLB right now is very questionable to say the least. He may just be in the top 20 if you actually went through and ranked every starting pitcher. But when you expand the pool of pitchers to EVERY PITCHER WHO EVER PLAYED, MB wouldn't even be on the radar screen. He may be with time, but to say that he's "great" in his 3rd full season is just silly. I suppose it's a matter of opinion even with the way "great" is defined, but like Bmr said, opinions such as these cannot be wrong. They're merely opinions. Whether Mark was great or not was not the argument. The argument was based on the statement that Mark Buehrle could not be great because he started 2-10. There is a big difference.
July 7, 200322 yr LMAO, this thread ruled! Bmr is right, though. MB is NOT a great pitcher. It's next to impossible for a pitcher with just 2 full seasons under his belt to be great, and while MB has been impressive since jumping from AA to our ace, he's not been great. Merely "good" and at times "very good". Until he wins 20, and/or has an ERA in the 2's, and/or wins a Cy Young, he cannot be regarded as "great". That is almost as ridiculous as the original statement we were arguing about. MB has won 19 and barely missed getting his 20th. Don't try to tell me that because he missed winning that last game that he cannot be considered great. I was all ready to give you your due until you backed up your opinion with that? If you guys are going to share your opinion, either state it and leave it the hell alone, or back it up with something that has merit. See the big picture sometimes. See past the numbers. It won't hurt you, I promise. I am not going to get into another one with you cluj, or continue this with Bmr. I don't have a problem at all with you thinking Mark B is not a great pitcher. That is an opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. The word "great" can mean different things to different people, so I have no problem with varying opinions. Bmr, I apologize for calling you stupid. I should have stuck to calling your point stupid. LOL Kind of like saying to an umpire "that call sucked" rather than saying "you suck". Lastly, Phil Niekro may not have been the most dominating pitcher of his time but the man is a Hall of Famer. Perhaps your definition of great is different than mine, but in my mind if a guy is good enough to get to The Hall, I am going to call him great without thinking twice. Winning 20 1 time means nothing. Well, it doesn't mean NOTHING, but it doesn't mean much. There've been more than a handful of pitchers who have won 20, and they certainly were not great pitchers (see Jose Lima). Perhaps I wasn't clear enough -- but a pitcher has to win 20 on a somewhat regular basis in order to be considered great. Obviously, there are other things that a pitcher can do to be considered great (like, if a pitcher pitches for the Devil Rays his whole career and had an ERA of 2.00), but winning 20 is a big component of that.
July 7, 200322 yr LMAO, this thread ruled! Bmr is right, though. MB is NOT a great pitcher. It's next to impossible for a pitcher with just 2 full seasons under his belt to be great, and while MB has been impressive since jumping from AA to our ace, he's not been great. Merely "good" and at times "very good". Until he wins 20, and/or has an ERA in the 2's, and/or wins a Cy Young, he cannot be regarded as "great". That is almost as ridiculous as the original statement we were arguing about. MB has won 19 and barely missed getting his 20th. Don't try to tell me that because he missed winning that last game that he cannot be considered great. I was all ready to give you your due until you backed up your opinion with that? If you guys are going to share your opinion, either state it and leave it the hell alone, or back it up with something that has merit. See the big picture sometimes. See past the numbers. It won't hurt you, I promise. I am not going to get into another one with you cluj, or continue this with Bmr. I don't have a problem at all with you thinking Mark B is not a great pitcher. That is an opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. The word "great" can mean different things to different people, so I have no problem with varying opinions. Bmr, I apologize for calling you stupid. I should have stuck to calling your point stupid. LOL Kind of like saying to an umpire "that call sucked" rather than saying "you suck". Lastly, Phil Niekro may not have been the most dominating pitcher of his time but the man is a Hall of Famer. Perhaps your definition of great is different than mine, but in my mind if a guy is good enough to get to The Hall, I am going to call him great without thinking twice. Winning 20 1 time means nothing. Well, it doesn't mean NOTHING, but it doesn't mean much. There've been more than a handful of pitchers who have won 20, and they certainly were not great pitchers (see Jose Lima). Perhaps I wasn't clear enough -- but a pitcher has to win 20 on a somewhat regular basis in order to be considered great. Obviously, there are other things that a pitcher can do to be considered great (like, if a pitcher pitches for the Devil Rays his whole career and had an ERA of 2.00), but winning 20 is a big component of that. I'll give you that. A solid qualifiable answer. That's all I ask.
July 7, 200322 yr I qualified. You just didnt like my answer. You forgot the logical reasoning with your qualification.
July 7, 200322 yr You forgot the logical reasoning with your qualification. AHh lets not get into this again. Great pitchers dont start 2-10 and i will never back off that.
July 7, 200322 yr AHh lets not get into this again. Great pitchers dont start 2-10 and i will never back off that. So they can't start 8 games under .500 but they can end 8 games under and that is okay?
July 7, 200322 yr So they can't start 8 games under .500 but they can end 8 games under and that is okay? Yup, it means they didnt go 4-20 right?
July 7, 200322 yr That made no sense at all. Nor did your comment. Just let it go before you start name calling again.
July 7, 200322 yr LMFAO!!! Here we go again. *pours more Stoli and sits back for the show* Nah, not worth it.... I know I am right, that is all that matters.
July 7, 200322 yr LMFAO!!! Here we go again. *pours more Stoli and sits back for the show* Nah, not worth it.... I know I am right, that is all that matters. Party pooper.
July 7, 200322 yr LMFAO!!! Here we go again. *pours more Stoli and sits back for the show* Nah, not worth it.... I know I am right, that is all that matters. Party pooper. Let the guy think hes right. Somehow i think its more important to him, than it is to me.
July 7, 200322 yr LMAO, this thread ruled! Bmr is right, though. MB is NOT a great pitcher. It's next to impossible for a pitcher with just 2 full seasons under his belt to be great, and while MB has been impressive since jumping from AA to our ace, he's not been great. Merely "good" and at times "very good". Until he wins 20, and/or has an ERA in the 2's, and/or wins a Cy Young, he cannot be regarded as "great". Actually BMR is not right on a few things. 1.opinions can certainly be wrong. This should be self explanitory but if you want me to throw out an absurd "opinion" I shall. 2.He said that MB will never be a great pitcher. If you belive it is absurd to call him great after a mere 3 seasons, then it is also quite absurd to say he will never be great after 3 seasons. Again example are quite readily available. 3.To say that it is not possible for a pitcher to start 2-10 and be great is just silly,as has been pointed out already. If MB finished 21-11 with this season, he would not be great because he started 2-10. Yet Ryan can go 8-16 for a year without afecting his title as great. We can agree one one thing at least, the thread was entertaining.
July 7, 200322 yr Now I see how people get up to 1,000 posts really quickly. I'll take the MB of now, although everyone can see that if he pitched on Friday or Saturday he would have lost. Run support is huge.
July 7, 200322 yr Here's my two cents.... I don't consider Mark Buehrle "great" at this point in his career. I believe greatness has to be proven over the long hual. A pitcher can pitch a great game (Don Larson) and not ever be a great pitcher. However, I could not even begin to say Buehrle will not be considered a great just because he had that 2-10 start this year. If he resorts back to being the Mark Buehrle of old ... and does that for 12-15 years. Yes, I'll say he 's great.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.