Blue Jays GDT: (2017 v5.0) @ TB |Tue, Aug 22| 7pmET/4pmPT |Rowley vs Archer

[canucksfan]

Buck re: top 40 Blue Jays -

"We think the first should be Dave Stieb. And we can probably agree on teeee.... twelve of the first ten guys."

Buck Martinez: 120% of the time he's right every time...

Also the correct answer for #1 is probably Halladay more than Stieb.

Doc had:
-equal ERA
-better FIP
-better walk rate
-better strikeout rate
-worse BABIP (which would make things tougher on his #s)
-more fWAR, by a fair bit.
-and did it in 800 fewer innings.

Halladay for sure is the best Jays pitcher.

Positional players is tough. Would it be Delgado? Lots of good players that played with the Jays but they didn't last long typically.

 

[Canada4Gold]

Buck re: top 40 Blue Jays -

"We think the first should be Dave Stieb. And we can probably agree on teeee.... twelve of the first ten guys."

Buck Martinez: 120% of the time he's right every time...

Also the correct answer for #1 is probably Halladay more than Stieb.

Doc had:
-equal ERA
-better FIP
-better ERA- and FIP-
-better WHIP
-equal HR rate
-better walk rate
-better strikeout rate
-worse BABIP (which would make things tougher on his #s)
-more fWAR, by a fair bit.
-and did it in 800 fewer innings.

Stieb's advantage is pretty much just in counting stats (benefiting from his additional 800 innings and like 120 additional starts) and opposing batting average.

and if we want to go subjective, Doc played for some really junk Jays teams and during the flaxseed era of the late 90s/early 00s

Tabler picked Stieb because he had a no hitter. That was literally his entire logic. Buck actually was the voice of reason for a second stepping in and saying a lot of bad pitchers have had no hitters, and then agreed that Stieb was really good AND had a no hitter so that settles it

 

[The Nemesis]

Halladay for sure is the best Jays pitcher.

Positional players is tough. Would it be Delgado? Lots of good players that played with the Jays but they didn't last long typically.

Delgado probably makes the most sense, but I think the impact/peak value/icon status of Robbie Alomar (even if Delgado had the single best season between the two of them in that year he was robbed of MVP consideration in favor of A-Roid.)

I usually suck at these lists but I would probably go

1) Halladay
2) Stieb
3) Delgado
4) Alomar
5) Bautista
6) Olerud
7) Donaldson
8) Barfield
9) Fernandez
10) Moseby

though honestly anything after 5 could probably be shuffled a dozen different ways with a bunch of other names receiving consideration.

 

[The Nemesis]

Tabler picked Stieb because he had a no hitter. That was literally his entire logic. Buck actually was the voice of reason for a second stepping in and saying a lot of bad pitchers have had no hitters, and then agreed that Stieb was really good AND had a no hitter so that settles it

If you're going to lie, at least make it a believable lie

 

[The Nemesis]

Miguel Cabrera is having none of your ****.

 

[The Nemesis]

Pearce called time earlier than a bunch of batters who've gotten it while facing Stroman. Of course.

 

[Discoverer]

Delgado probably makes the most sense, but I think the impact/peak value/icon status of Robbie Alomar (even if Delgado had the single best season between the two of them in that year he was robbed of MVP consideration in favor of A-Roid.)

I usually suck at these lists but I would probably go

1) Halladay
2) Stieb
3) Delgado
4) Alomar
5) Bautista
6) Olerud
7) Donaldson
8) Barfield
9) Fernandez
10) Moseby

though honestly anything after 5 could probably be shuffled a dozen different ways with a bunch of other names receiving consideration.

I have Alomar 6th-ish with Stieb/Halladay/Bautista/Delgado/Fernandez ahead of him. Fernandez's peak isn't far off of Alomar's and he has the longevity to go with it. He's not the icon Alomar was, but... meh.

 

[theaub]

Here is my top 10 from back in May

1) Halladay
2) Bautista
3) Stieb
4) Delgado
5) Fernandez
6) Key
7) Alomar
8) Barfield
9) Wells
10) Moseby

The big issue with this or any list is very simple - how much do you value winning? If you want to say that Vernon Wells put up 10 years of worthlessness and Joe Carter had a .900 OPS in the World Series and walked off the damn thing once are you really wrong? The top four on that list never won anything (if your biggest World Series moment is falling over the top step of the dugout trying to celebrate you didn't win anything), so should Alomar be above them?

Like if anyone's going to tell me Jack Morris is a top 40 Blue Jay when he did nothing but get his **** lit in the playoffs in '92 and then died in '93 then just no.

 

[The Nemesis]

I have Alomar 6th-ish with Stieb/Halladay/Bautista/Delgado/Fernandez ahead of him. Fernandez's peak isn't far off of Alomar's and he has the longevity to go with it. He's not the icon Alomar was, but... meh.

That's kind of why I had Alomar higher and Fernandez lower. Alomar ticks the box of being a notable player to casual fans because of iconic/important moments, whereas Tony Fernandez is probably as "forgettable" of a superstar as the Jays have ever had. he's the guy you remember being pretty good, then you hit the Fangraphs career stats list and recognize that he was a lot better than you probably remember. Kind of along the same lines as Tabby saying Stieb is #1 because of the no-hitter because people lose the shine on Doc's greatness because it was consistent excellence without a single defining moment outside of that near-no-hitter as a rookie (which doesn't really count because it was before his reinvention/ascension)

I think Alomar and Olerud's importance to the WS winning teams prop them up a little more, as do Bautista and Donaldson's more recent success. I could easily flip-flop Barfield and Fernandez though.

 

[Del Preston]

Todd Stottlemyre is on my top ten list because of his chin-first slide during the '93 World Series.

 

[Discoverer]

That's kind of why I had Alomar higher and Fernandez lower. Alomar ticks the box of being a notable player to casual fans because of iconic/important moments, whereas Tony Fernandez is probably as "forgettable" of a superstar as the Jays have ever had. he's the guy you remember being pretty good, then you hit the Fangraphs career stats list and recognize that he was a lot better than you probably remember. Kind of along the same lines as Tabby saying Stieb is #1 because of the no-hitter because people lose the shine on Doc's greatness because it was consistent excellence without a single defining moment outside of that near-no-hitter as a rookie (which doesn't really count because it was before his reinvention/ascension)

I think Alomar and Olerud's importance to the WS winning teams prop them up a little more, as do Bautista and Donaldson's more recent success. I could easily flip-flop Barfield and Fernandez though.

Yeah, I fully understand the argument for Alomar being higher. Hell, I was a 7-8 year old kid during the World Series years, so I've idolized him my whole life. I just tend to view these things as "who was actually the best" and try to take emotional attachment and team success out of it (while still crediting players for their own big moments and their individual playoff success).

I wasn't around for peak Fernandez, but I remember when he came back to the Jays in the late '90s. In an era where HR were king, one of my favourite things to watch in a baseball game was Tony Fernandez flicking the bat at borderline pitches and fouling them off to stay alive.

 

[Eyedea]

While he didn't have the same icon status as Alomar, in terms of peak value one could make the argument that White was on par or better during their Jays tenure.