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

[Inside Pitch]

7 hours ago, ScottT said:

Please remind me.

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

"If you can't beat them, join them" was the big one...   Main reason the Angels struggled .vs Boston was cause Lackey was their bitch most of the time.

[Inside Pitch]

9 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

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, 

Weaver had the better peak, Lackey the longer sustained level of performance.  Neither guy was Chuck Finley but they were the best they have had since him.

[Angelsjunky]

15 minutes ago, T.G. said:

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.

And then there are guys who enjoy both conversations. I'd count myself in that group, even if I post mostly about numbers and such. Although that said, I generally don't enjoy pissing contests about "who is better" just for the sake of winning. My "statistical inquiries" are almost never about me trying to prove myself right and almost always come about from having a question that I want a better answer to, and wanting to know beyond my own--or someone else's--subjectivity. I find that statistical analysis is a good way to answer questions, or at least come closer to some degree of objectivity. But even that isn't an exact science; not only are not all stats created equally, but they must be contextualized.

There are instances where my subjective view breaks with what is logical or what seems statistically correct. For instance, I think there's a valid argument that the Angels org would be better--on paper--if they had traded Trout a few years ago. But I never wanted that, and still don't want that, even if we're not far from his decline. To me he is the Angels. He's the best player they've ever had, and maybe will ever have. As Al Pacino said in Any Given Sunday, "Football has to be more than just winning." Or some such.

[AngelsLakersFan]

I think it's close but I definitely have to go with Weaver. He fell off a cliff while Lackey remained productive into his 30's, but that run Weaver had, really from when he first got called up to the season before he crashed and burned, was as good and as long of a run as a pitcher can reasonably have.

[floplag]

Weaver, all day every day.
He cared about the name on the front of the jersey as much as the back, Lackey, not so much. 

[T.G.]

16 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

And then there are guys who enjoy both conversations. I'd count myself in that group, even if I post mostly about numbers and such. Although that said, I generally don't enjoy pissing contests about "who is better" just for the sake of winning. My "statistical inquiries" are almost never about me trying to prove myself right and almost always come about from having a question that I want a better answer to, and wanting to know beyond my own--or someone else's--subjectivity. I find that statistical analysis is a good way to answer questions, or at least come closer to some degree of objectivity. But even that isn't an exact science; not only are not all stats created equally, but they must be contextualized.

There are instances where my subjective view breaks with what is logical or what seems statistically correct. For instance, I think there's a valid argument that the Angels org would be better--on paper--if they had traded Trout a few years ago. But I never wanted that, and still don't want that, even if we're not far from his decline. To me he is the Angels. He's the best player they've ever had, and maybe will ever have. As Al Pacino said in Any Given Sunday, "Football has to be more than just winning." Or some such.

While I don't engage in conversations about statistics for the most part, I appreciate the perspective good data analytics brings to the table.  I'm just not the guy who's going to do that analysis - at least not in any depth. 

When I think of Weaver, I don't think of his numbers.  However, seeing his 233 K's in 2010 or his numbers in his 2011 season helps me appreciate what I saw with my eyes even more.  His 2012 season was pretty nice too.  I knew he was pretty good during that 3 year stretch - seeing his numbers helps me put that in perspective.

[oldguy]

I'm old enough to have seen Ryan, Tanana, and Messersmith in their prime.  My first choice in a big game would be to give the ball to Tanana (in his prime), my second choice would be Weaver.

[Blarg]

That is if Tanana was sober enough and got any sleep from a night of partying. He was the polar opposite of Ryan about taking care of himself before he blew up his arm. 

[oldguy]

True....but he also had one of the greatest all-time quotes that epitomized the early '70's Angels... "Next year we've got everybody coming back...and that's the problem!"

[T.G.]

@Angelsjunky can I get back to making stupid jokes, posting gifs and memes now?

[Angelsjunky]

3 minutes ago, T.G. said:

@Angelsjunky can I get back to making stupid jokes, posting gifs and memes now?

Yes. You are released from statistical custody.

[Pancake Bear]

It was back in May of '06. My Dad literally got handed two tickets to the Angels game that night by some guy who couldn't use them. Wasn't able to go himself, so my brother and I went to the game. It was kinda late by the time we got the tickets, so we got to our seats around the second inning, iirc. Some rookie we'd never heard of (didn't follow them that closely back then) was throwing his first start for the big club. 

Well, this 23 year old kid throws 7 shutout innings before getting replaced for the final two by Kevin Gregg who promptly blows the shutout. Meanwhile, the bash brothers were putting on a show against the O's, with big fly's from Salmon, two from Kendry(s), and one that my memory told me was Juan Rivera, but the box score says was Tommy Murphy (who?).

Pretty sweet night, tbh. One of my favorites I remember seeing at the stadium. My early Angel game memories were all in the pre-02 days when the team just wasn't that good. So it was nice to go to the park in the 2000's and have a better than even shot at seeing a win. 

[T.G.]

It was May 27.

My wife and I had bought tickets to see the Padres and the Cardinals. We wanted to see David Eckstein (Scott Speizio was also on the team)

When the news broke that Weaver was making his MLB debut, we adjusted our plans.  We still went to the Padtes/Cardinals game (it was a day game), but we left a little early to make sure we got to see Weaver's debut.  It was a great day of baseball.  My wife is awesome, BTW.

[Torridd]

1 hour ago, T.G. said:

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.

Now you mention it, my favorite Angels starter is probably Mike Witt.

[Torridd]

35 minutes ago, oldguy said:

I'm old enough to have seen Ryan, Tanana, and Messersmith in their prime.  My first choice in a big game would be to give the ball to Tanana (in his prime), my second choice would be Weaver.

Wow, that's saying something. I think I'd choose Witt over Weaver although I agree with Tanana. 

[eligrba]

1 hour 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. 

 

I didn't realize or remember how good Chuck Finley was for the Angels.  Thanks for the info.

[UndertheHalo]

I think Weaver was the better pitcher but it’s not a huge gap.  I think @ten ocho recon scouthas a good point about the times coloring opinions.  Lackey was pitching at his best during the best stretch in the teams history.  

[EdmontonAngelsFan]

Neither of them sent me a signed baseball card when I was 9 soooo...

I'd go with Weaver but Lackey had that attitude that I liked about him too. Both pitched well for us.

[PattyD22]

This is a really good topic to discuss.  I was always a Weaver fan, he was a local guy who stayed true to the Angels when he could have bolted for more money.  Lackey didn't.  I liked Lackey's grit, but don't forget...Weaver was a gritty guy also.  I'll never forget Weaver throwing a ball over Alex Avila's head after Carlos Guillen sat and admired his home run.

I look at baseball like @T.G.does.  As a fan, not as a stat guy.  Stats have their place I suppose, maybe as it pertains to trades, but I just remember what I choose to remember as a fan of Angels baseball, and for that, I'm giving the nod to Weaver.

Oh yeah...And Weaver had this also.

[ten ocho recon scout]

4 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I think it's close but I definitely have to go with Weaver. He fell off a cliff while Lackey remained productive into his 30's, but that run Weaver had, really from when he first got called up to the season before he crashed and burned, was as good and as long of a run as a pitcher can reasonably have.

Its been so long, and you (meaning us) remember yeah, the bad ending, but mostly the great peak.

Lost in it, because so much time has passed, was the very beginning. When he looked young as hell (lets face it, he aged badly, looked like a scarecrow), and had that either rookie record or just below it of innings without giving up a run. I think david ortiz broke it up, and if i remember correctly, there was like a shitty call of a ball that should have been a K that extended the at bat.

Weave was everything as advertised for a long run here. 

And he had a cool factor. With both his temper, and his soft side. Like the NA on the mound every start, and naming his kid aden.

He told me the story of that once, and it was pretty touching. 

[ten ocho recon scout]

4 hours ago, floplag said:

Weaver, all day every day.
He cared about the name on the front of the jersey as much as the back, Lackey, not so much. 

Well, if jeff weaver was your brother, youd want people to ignore the name on the back, too.

 

[ten ocho recon scout]

3 hours ago, Torridd said:

Now you mention it, my favorite Angels starter is probably Mike Witt.

Were you let down that it wasnt really him in the naked gun?

 

I literally just realized that like 10 years ago... spent my whole life thinking it was him.

 

[ten ocho recon scout]

Seriously, pick the real one out of those two.

I also thought rob wilfong was bobby grich when i was a kid.

[Dtwncbad]

Tim Foli or Freddy Patek?

[Torridd]

1 hour ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Were you let down that it wasnt really him in the naked gun?

 

I literally just realized that like 10 years ago... spent my whole life thinking it was him.

 

Ha! No, I never caught the likeness.