I think the NBA is different. In the MLB and NFL, sure, hot streaks entering the playoffs definitely carry over and often override better teams. But in the NBA, the teams that are the best throughout the regular season are generally the last ones standing, regardless how 'hot' their opponents may be entering the playoffs.
I didn't know HRs to bring your team within 1 run were meaningless. They weren't, nobody would argue otherwise, but 2004 Berkman was close to 98 Bagwell. Hidalgo was only a part time player in 98 (and really, so was Berry). Of course I'd agree the offense was better in 1998 than 2004, but the rotation was much better in 2004.
Right, for your argument's sake, you'll call them scrubs. Berry posted a 136 OPS+ in '98... a number which is significantly higher than '04 Bagpipes. You know, that same guy you just stated was "very good" in '04 1998 = GOAT Astro squad Even with many key injuries, they own the franchise's best record
Considering home ballpark (hitter's vs pitcher's)... both '98 Alou and Bags were better than '04 Berkman '98 had 4 starters who posted ERA's 3.30-3.70, then Unit's 1.28. '04 had 3 3.30-3.90, then Clemens' 2.98 Reality says '98 featured a better rotation... reasonable doubt says they were equal.... complete "mis-remembering" says '04 was "much" better IIRC, both Berry and Hidalgo got hurt in '98. Could be wrong though. It's pretty clear '98 was the GOAT team.
I like how you give the offense benefit for park, but then not do the same for pitching. The entire rotation was pitching way over their heads in 1998. Their FIPs show as much, not too mention the rest of their careers.
Ballparks is why I said "reasonable doubt" comparing the rotations. Both rotation's FIP's are similar... raw numbers say '98 holds the advantage At worst, those staffs were even. It's ludicrous to say '04 was much better In a one year comparison, "rest of their careers" is an invalid argument
Yeah... Walk the walk, the 2005 team was the best because they made the WS and don't sleep on 80 and 86.
Ultimate success can be argued. The 1998 squad was less fortunate in facing a dominant pitcher like Brown. The '05 squad can thank Beltran for lifting the huge 1st Round weight off its shoulders to help allow future success to occur.
If Richard had stayed healthy the 80 team would've won the WS. IMHO He was the starting pitcher on the all star team that yr. Most dominant pitcher I've seen.
Totally disagree. Guys having career years with a lot of luck don't hold much value to me. I'm not going to knock Bell for where his career went after 98, because he had a multi-year run of decent/solid production, but I am going to hold the career of Sean Bergman against him. Give me Pettitte, Clemens, or Oswalt over anyone in the 98 rotation not named Randy Johnson. In fact, if I rated the pitchers I'd go: 1. RJ 2. Clemens 3. Oswalt 4. Pettitte 5. Reynolds 6. Miller 7. Hampton 8. Lima The other guys in both rotations were bad pitchers.
A smart/honest person would take the guy who pitched above-average with some luck his career season over a guy who pitched like crap with no luck every season. A smart/honest person would accept all the help they could get. This debate is about ONE season, anyways.... career arguments are invalid. Also, that particular season goes... 1) Unit 2) Clemens 3) and so on
Jays keep mashing. Encarnacion had a 2 run HR, 3 run HR, and a Grand Slam today. Only a solo shot away from the hr cycle.
