Who Do You Got 2: Electric Boogaloo? Jered Weaver or John Lackey

[tdawg87 32,777]

To piggyback off of @Michifan's thread, I figured this would be another interesting discussion.

Just a few cherrypicked stats to get the ball rolling (Angels stats only):

Weaver: 36.1 bWAR, 114 ERA+, 7.1 K/9, 2.96 k/bb

Lackey: 24.8 bWAR (89 fewer starts), 116 ERA+, 7.2 K/9, 2.72 k/bb

I know this one might be tough as Lackey had a long career beyond the Angels, but I figured it was worth a discussion. Both guys are eerily similar in many ways, at least statwise. 

Or

[ten ocho recon scout 17,647]

Good one.

Its hard to choose. Lackey is at first the pick, but I think nostalgia clouds it a bit. Lackey was great here, and he was great when the team was great.

Weaver loses some there, just because he was still good when the team really wasnt... so it didnt "feel" as fun as Lackeys run.

And it could just be my memory slipping. But Lackey was good, but I dont remember him necessarily being that much better than the guys around him. Like escobar, colon, santana, etc. (Damn we used to have pitching)

Weave at his peak here seemed the flat out best guy. And his peak was pretty amazing

Im too young to know anything about ryan/tanana. And even the 80s guys Im too young to really have a take. But that short lived run of 2010 and 11.... Weaver and Haren back to back was the most dominant pitching duo ive ever seen. No bats really, but those two were just lights out.

[ten ocho recon scout 17,647]

Also tough to pick who was "cooler". Lackey had that texas dumb cool. Lackey the stoner cool. Both were always pissed off. 

[Bronson 1,159]

Weaver any day of the week. 2010-2012 he was a top 5 pitcher in the league. When he was in his prime I felt fully confident that he was just gonna shut down the other team when he was on the hill. Too bad we didn’t see him pitching in big playoff games during that time. Would have been a treat to watch.

[ScottT 2,609]

Weaver gets a lot of love from Angels fans.

Lackey, not so much.

[tdawg87 32,777]

23 minutes ago, ScottT said:

Weaver gets a lot of love from Angels fans.

Lackey, not so much.

Lackey definitely said some dumb shit after leaving. 

[ScottT 2,609]

Please remind me.

I remember it being somewhat accurate, though some might have preferred that he take the high road.

[tdawg87 32,777]

29 minutes ago, ScottT said:

Please remind me.

I remember it being somewhat accurate, though some might have preferred that he take the high road.

Can't find a link. 

Who do you think was the better pitcher?

Edited February 17 by tdawg87

[Dtwncbad 3,481]

Lackey acted so tough and then spit like a little girl. 

[tdawg87 32,777]

Ok but who was the better pitcher 

[Torridd 454]

I'd go with Weaver.

[Jason 11,071]

I think Lackey was the better pitcher but not by much. I just liked Weaver as a better person and teammate. This goes back to the club friendly contract he signed when he could have gotten more. Lackey also kind of looks like Butt-Head

[Chuckster70 21,387]

This is a great one. I'm leaning toward Lackey due to his Game 7 heroics in 2002, but Weaver's got the tenure and numbers. hmmm

[eligrba 5,120]

I think not signing Lackey was another not-so-smart move by Tony.  Losing Lackey and his approach was probably a bigger loss than people thought.  I know he had some elbow issues, but the Red Sox found a way to negotiate that uncertainty into a contract.  Weaver at the end of his Angels tenure was more like a smoke an mirrors bad ass.  Too bad science can't copy Weaver's attitude and paste it into some of the current Angel pitchers.

[Taylor 17,088]

Weaver during his prime > Lackey during his prime > Lackey during his later years >>> Weaver during his later years

[Erstad Grit 2,344]

I'll take Weaver........but Chuck Finley is my  guy

Edited February 17 by Erstad Grit

[Angelsjunky 10,446]

Weaver and Lackey Angels seasons by RA9-WAR (which for the non-nerdy is basically ERA-based WAR):

8.3 Weaver 2011

6.4 Lackey 2007

5.5 Weaver 2012

5.4 Weaver 2010

5.0 Lackey 2005

5.0 Weaver 2006

4.9 Lackey 2006

4.7 Weaver 2009

3.6 Lackey 2008

3.3 Weaver 2013

3.2 Weaver 2014

3.1 Lackey 2009

3.1 Weaver 2007

2.6 Weaver 2008

2.3 Lackey 2004

1.9 Lackey 2002

1.7 Lackey 2003

1.0 Weaver 2015

0.4 Weaver 2016

That includes 11 Weaver seasons and 8 Lackey seasons. If you cut Weaver down to his 8 best, he's clearly better - all 8 are 3.1 or better, while Lackey has three below that. Plus, I think with Weaver having three of the top four, five seasons about 4 to Lackey's three, Jered has the clear edge.

 

 

[True Grich 12,219]

It's impossible for me to answer this objectively.

Although it's hard to go against the guy who helped the Angels win the biggest game in franchise history, I have to go with the Dirtbag, Jered Weaver.  My attitude about Lackey has mellowed some over the years, but when he signed with the Red Sox, it was like a punch in the stomach. Couple that with the things he said on his way out of Anaheim and that's why I hated the guy for a while.  He was also a scumbag for leaving his wife while she was fighting breast cancer.  He was a great competitor, but an a-hole too. I loved him when he was our a-hole and no so much afterwards.

I have no idea who was statistically better, but Jered Weaver will always be my favorite Angels pitcher, with Chuck Finley a close second.  I have lots of great memories watching Weave pitch and I always wanted to be at the stadium, every time he took the mound.  When he was at the top of his game, he was so much fun to watch. I thought the stadium should have been packed every time he was on the mound. I loved the way he pitched and we all know about his fire.  I'll never forget the joy he showed when he pitched the no-hitter. The look on his face was priceless.

I remember going to an Angels fan fest way back when and when Weave walked into the tent for an autograph session, he had mirrored sunglasses on and his long blonde hair was combed back.  When he sat down, he flashed a big smile as if to say, "let's do this" and it was like he was a rock star.  In that moment, he reminded me of David Lee Roth.  It cracked me up.  He was just having a good time.  He was always pretty good with the fans too.

Weave also had this side of him that just endeared him to fans... the "how much do you really need" statement cemented his place in Angels history as a fan favorite. It was hard watching him at the end of his career and I hated the fact that he ended it as a Padre.  Never-the-less, I would love to see him involved with the Angels in some capacity again.

Like I said, I can't do this objectively.  I'll take Weaver over Lackey any time.

Edited February 17 by T.G.

[Angelsjunky 10,446]

While we're at it, here are the top Angels pitchers by Angels career RA9-WAR:

50.2 Finley

42.5 Weaver

39.1 Ryan

33.3 Tanana

28.9 Lackey

27.3 Witt

24.7 Langston

23.6 Washburn

23.6 Chance

18.4 Percival

I was surprised to see Chance so low on the list, but forget that he only played six seasons with the Angels. 

 

[Angelsjunky 10,446]

8 minutes ago, T.G. said:

It's impossible for me to answer this objectively.

Like I said, I can't do this objectively.  

Yes you can, you're just lazy.

[Erstad Grit 2,344]

1 minute ago, Angelsjunky said:

While we're at it, here are the top Angels pitchers by Angels career RA9-WAR:

50.2 Finley

42.5 Weaver

39.1 Ryan

33.3 Tanana

28.9 Lackey

27.3 Witt

24.7 Langston

23.6 Washburn

23.6 Chance

18.4 Percival

I was surprised to see Chance so low on the list, but forget that he only played six seasons with the Angels. 

 

Crazy that Percival is up there with all the best SP. While not top tier, Ervin Santana was a pitcher I liked that felt under-appreciated. 

[True Grich 12,219]

Just now, Angelsjunky said:

Yes you can, you're just lazy.

Baseball has never been about the numbers for me.  It's always been about the memories created.  That's not likely to ever change for me.  That's my approach to baseball as a fan.  Looking back at Weaver's and Lackey's stats does nothing for me.  It's all about the memories.  That's always going to be subjective.  It has nothing to do with being "lazy." My fandom is different from yours.  I don't get excited every time Trout's WAR goes up.  I get excited when I watch him play. So... again, I can't compare Lackey and Weaver objectively.  It's not how I'm wired.

[Angelsjunky 10,446]

1 minute ago, T.G. said:

Baseball has never been about the numbers for me.  It's always been about the memories created.  That's not likely to ever change for me.  That's my approach to baseball as a fan.  Looking back at Weaver's and Lackey's stats does nothing for me.  It's all about the memories.  That's always going to be subjective.  It has nothing to do with being "lazy." My fandom is different from yours.  I don't get excited every time Trout's WAR goes up.  I get excited when I watch him play. So... again, I can't compare Lackey and Weaver objectively.  It's not how I'm wired.

I'm mostly joking. But I don't think it is that you can't, but that you choose not to. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Also, baseball can be enjoyed both ways: the numbers and the memories. I'm not saying that one "must" do both, just that the two aren't opposed.

I would argue that from a managerial and organizational perspective, the ideal is a combination of the two. Too much on one side and it becomes problematic. 

[True Grich 12,219]

5 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

I'm mostly joking. But I don't think it is that you can't, but that you choose not to. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Also, baseball can be enjoyed both ways: the numbers and the memories. I'm not saying that one "must" do both, just that the two aren't opposed.

I would argue that from a managerial and organizational perspective, the ideal is a combination of the two. Too much on one side and it becomes problematic. 

Again, my fandom is different from yours... not that's there's anything wrong with that.

I'll add this...

Two guys are in a bar arguing about who is better - Mookie Betts or Mike Trout.  They're talking about statistics, etc. I'm never going to be one of those guys.

I'm one of the guys in the other part of the bar, telling stories about what I saw Trout or Betts do on the field. I don't have this need to argue who is better.  I would rather appreciate them for the things I saw them do on the field. That's how I view baseball as a fan.  I'm not knocking those who spend a lot of time analyzing the game.  I don't care about projections or rankings or any of that stuff very much.  I know a lot of baseball fans do.  That's cool. It's just not me.

That also doesn't mean I don't appreciate the numbers side of the game.  I do.  That's why I enjoy reading IP's stuff and some others on this site.  But at the end of the day, it's not why I watch or talk about baseball.

Edited February 17 by T.G.

[True Grich 12,219]

7 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

I would argue that from a managerial and organizational perspective, the ideal is a combination of the two. Too much on one side and it becomes problematic. 

I would agree with that.