Re: _..._, Ed Grinnell wrote to Terry May on 24 Jan 98:
 EG> His numbers aren't as good as you think. Neagle hasn't been a starter
 EG> for nearly as long (Part of Leyland's philosophy of using young
 EG> players as relievers first) and in the time that he has been starting,
 EG> his numbers are as good as Smoltz (Plus, he's using his full talents.
 EG> John's wasted his over the years. There should have been a lot more 24-
 EG> 8 seasons in his past instead of just ONE good season).
        Smoltz        Neagle
Year   IP    ERA     IP     ERA
1997  256    3.02   233.1   2.97
1996  253.2  2.94   221.1   3.50
1995  192.2  3.18   209.2   3.43
Looks to me like Smoltz has clearly been the better pitcher over the last 
three years, especially considering '95 he was pitching in AFCS and Neagle 
was pitching in Three Rivers.
Even last year, when Neagle was supposedly a Cy Young candidate, and Smoltz 
supposedly had a down year, you could argue that Smoltz had the better year, 
given the virtually equal ERA, yet 22.2 more innings pitched.  (I don't care 
about W-L records, because it's a ridiculous way to judge a pitcher.  I won't 
use Smoltz's '96 W-L record, either.)
And there's NO ONE I'd rather have pitching for me in a big game than Smoltz, 
and that includes Maddux and Glavine.
You can argue that Smoltz is an underachiever and Neagle is an overachiever.  
It doesn't matter.  It only matters what they achieve, not how they get 
there.  And Smoltz makes no excuses for his regular seasons not matching his 
postseasons.  He says he puts so much into his postseason starts, that if he 
did that during the regular season, he'd be dead long before he ever got to 
the postseason.  But I think a lot of teams could live with his 3 ERAs during 
the regular season.
... Hockey is like sex:  "He shoots, he scores!!!"
--- JetMail 1.00alpha0
---------------