1. Cliff Lee
2. Curt Schilling
3. Josh Beckett
4. Chris Carpenter
5. John Lackey
6. Randy Johnson
7. Cole Hamels
8. Other

- Jack Bauer of All Sports

Dr. Sports Fan

Other.

I’m going with the best pitcher in the game not named Cliff Lee: Roy Halladay. I mean he was one blown call from winning game one against Lincecum — not too mention that dominating no-hitter against the Reds. I have a feeling that he’s gonna be lights out in his next start. I’m calling it now because, unfairly or not, he is being judged against Cliff Lee. He has to keep up with him.

He knows it. We know it. You KNOW IT!

Mr. Dude and Stuff

I don’t know.  It’s hard to argue against Cliff Lee.  He’s just making hitters look foolish up there.  The only postseason start he had that wasn’t absolutely dominating and completely manhandling the lineup was Game 5 of the 2009 World Series against the Yankees, and he still won the game.

The Phoenix

As much as I would love to pick Cliff Lee strictly for his ownership of the New York Yankees (which is so comical), I can’t because it’s too small a sample size right now (only 8 games) despite how dominant he is.

I can’t say Halladay despite his no-hitter in his postseason debut.  As impressive as it was, that game was his debut.  He’s got another three years on his deal with the Phillies so he’ll probably get more notches on that postseason win belt.  Too early to go with him right now.

Much like Dr. Sports Fan, I’m gonna go with “Other”.  As much as this pick will cause boos and hisses and possible excrement on (or in) my car, I’m taking Andy Pettitte.

I know he’s only won 20 games twice in his career (’96 & ’03).  I know he’s 38, but the dude flips a switch come playoff time.  He is 19-10 all-time in postseason play with a 3.83 ERA.  Not overly dominant, but serviceable.

But why Pettitte specifically for me?  NO ONE has more wins in series clinching games than Pettitte (6).  World Series.  Game 7.  Give the ball to Andy Pettitte.  As good as Lee was in Game 2 last night, Pettitte wasn’t horrible: 2 runs, 5 hits and 5 strikeouts through 7 innings.  That match-up last night was the equivalent of a Texas Hold ‘Em game where Pettitte had a full house, but Lee flopped quad aces.  What the hell was Pettitte gonna do?

I’m not saying that Lee can’t nail down a series or he can’t be dominant, but I am saying I need more of a body of work than eight games.

Mr. Dude

I don’t discount the argument against Pettitte because he does have quite a track record, but that is quite insane to be dismissive of Cliff Lee because 8 postseason games is only a “small sample size.”  When some pitchers on any given postseason run may get 3-4 starts a run if they’re lucky.  Most of the pitchers on this list had 15 postseason starts or less.  Randy Johnson has had 10 over the past 10 years and Chris Carpenter has 9.  Pettitte had the good fortune to play for a Yankees team that allowed him to get 42 postseason starts, but that’s not the norm for any other pitchers in the league.  Any other dominant pitcher you can think of in the modern postseason has what you would deem a small sample size.  Postseason games are few and far between for starters.  They’re not everyday lineup players so 8 games, 7 of which absolutely dominant, are a pretty big sample size.  Dominating in the arguably biggest stage in sports against the Yankees for 2 starts and winning 3 is nothing to snuff at.

So in conclusion, I’ll still take Lee’s 8 games and 1.26 postseason ERA over Pettitte right now in a must win situation

Phoenix

I’m not trying to be dismissive, and I do recognize the greatness that is Cliff Lee from last year to now in the postseason (can’t argue the 7-0 1.28 ERA and 3 complete games).  For me, experience matters in the postseason.  Nothing against Lee at all, but in a “gotta have this win situation”, I’m taking a guy with 13 playoff seasons of experience than a man with two.  For that reason, I’d take Pettitte over Lee, and I’d probably take Beckett over Lee as well.

Mr. Dude

Beckett over Lee?  That’s 4 seasons of postseason experience with two of them being complete duds?  He was downright awful in the 2008 and 2009 postseason.  2008 ALDS 7.20 ERA, 2008 ALCS 9.64 ERA, and 2009 ALDS 5.40 ERA.

Once again, I just find dismissing Lee’s pitching performances because other people started more games (some of which not by much) ignorant.

Dr. Sports Fan

I have to call Bonkers on that notion as well, Phoenix. Your Andy Pettitte argument can hold water, but this new Josh Beckett one is just plain crazy talk. True Beckett was once in the same rarefied air that Cliff Lee currently occupies until injuries (and arm fatigue?) slowed him down.

Where you erred — if I may be so bold — was in saying that Cliff Lee’s playoff resume is brief because of having a mere 8 starts, plenty of pitching for a postseason career. You might have been able to say that just two postseasons might be a small sample size, but even that’s pushing it. Lee has dominated the best lineup in the past two postseasons. Thoroughly.

The way I see it: you might just be the only person that hasn’t seen enough of Lee in the postseason.

The Phoenix

Listen, I have no problem getting rick-rolled for my opinion on the matter, but I’m sticking to my guns on this one.  When it comes down to the postseason, I prefer to have more experience on the mound.  As I stated previously, there is no doubting what Lee has done.  He did a little to sway my opinion in game 5 of the ALDS vs. Tampa Bay when he went the distance striking out 11, but Pettitte has been in more “gotta have it” games.  Experience in those situations speaks VOLUMES to me.  If Jimmy “The Gent” Conway has a gun to my head saying, “Okay, you pick Pettitte or you pick Lee.  Your pick has to win, or I’ll kill you,” I take Pettitte.

(And yes, Beckett has been lambasted lately when he pitches, so I’m starting to regret saying that.)

Mr. Dude

Although Pettitte didn’t pitch badly at all the other night, Lee’s “inexperience” with a team clouded in postseason inexperience did beat Pettitte’s experience.

Dr. Sports Fan

Obviously if we were going on a body of work, then Pettitte would be the guy. I think for one postseason game, with either pitcher at the top of his game, I still have to go with Lee over Pettitte. And I’d go with Halladay over Lee — so there!

Jack Bauer of All Sports

Give me Curt Schilling. Between 2001 and 2007, Schilling was a part of three world series winning teams (Arizona-2001, Boston- 2004, 2007) and was simply lights out as a big game pitcher during this time span. Pitching in the steroids era, Schilling compiled a 11-2 career postseason record with a measly 2.23 ERA and 120/25 strikeout to walk ratio. In seven World Series starts, Schilling was 4-1 with a 2.06 ERA. Over the last ten years, nobody was consistently better (Adio’s track record test: PASS) when it mattered most.

When I originally thought of this 5 minute break topic, Schilling was the first to come to my mind reflecting back, and the numbers back it up. Lee and Halladay are simply fantastic right now, but I accept to a degree Adio’s argument of a longer track record. Schilling has that. I understand Adio’s case for Pettitte, but it is no contest for me on who I’d rather have with a season on the line. I agree Pettitte is a fine choice for a pitcher who I can count on to keep my team in the game and have a chance to win, but in the postseason and when championships are at stake, give me the ultimate clutch performer on the mound from the past ten years.

Sports Drone

I gotta agree with Jason.  I took time to think about every one of these guys and there was something to be said about each of them.  Cliff Lee has been unbelievable in his playoff time… but until he wins a WS, I gotta go with someone who has.  Some players may never see 7 playoff games, and what Lee has time with his playoff time has been legendary.  But, Schilling is my guy.  Schilling was legendary during the season and stepped it up even more in the playoffs… every… single… time.

And then there’s Josh Beckett.

With the punishments finalized from the Beckett-Bobby Abreu incident, I think this is a prime opportunity to re-evaluate Major League Baseball’s approach to punishing starting pitchers for various incidents — including intentionally throwing at a batter’s head.

That was the case last Sunday in Anaheim.

Major League Baseball’s initial disciplinary actions included a six-game suspension for Becket and a one-game suspension for Angels hitting coach Mickey Hatcher. However, it was announced Sunday that Becket’s suspension was reduced to five games, and Red Sox manager Terry Francona has since informed the world that Beckett will now not have to miss his turn in the starting rotation.

To briefly recap what happened: Abreu was granted a time out by the home plate umpire because Beckett was taking a nap on the pitcher’s mound instead of delivering the next pitch within a reasonable length of time. Then Abreu was almost hit in the head by a pitched ball because, for some reason, Beckett was completing his pitching motion even after time was granted to Abreu.

No one should blame Beckett for completing his pitching motion — not doing so would risk injury — but the fact that the pitched sailed within arm’s length of Abreu’s head is definitely something Beckett should be blamed for. One can only speculate if Beckett’s intentions on the 1-2 pitch were to throw Abreu high and tight when he began his delivery or to buzz one near Abreu’s head out of disgust… Either way, despite completing his normal delivery, Beckett certainly did not have to throw the ball at Abreu’s head, despite his intentions.

Understandably, Abreu took exception to bean ball. While he jawed at Beckett from home plate, it was Beckett who continued to mouth at Abreu and approach home plate to clear the benches.

In spite of the incident, the umpiring crew obviously did not feel Abreu’s actions, nor Beckett’s for that matter, were worthy of an ejection from the game. It has been widely speculated that Beckett did intend to “buzz” Abreu in retaliation for calling time, and that the umpiring crew believed the action did warrant an ejection; but they didn’t want to remove a starting pitcher in just the first inning. Tell me if you believe what crew chief Cowboy Joe West said after the game:

“Do we believe he threw it at Abreu? No. Would we have warned him had both benches not emptied? Probably not.”

Whatever side of the argument one is on, my issue is with the appropriateness of suspensions. With respect to Bobby Abreu, I am in agreement with a non-suspension.

Abreu did not approach Beckett and never struck a Red Sox player during the brawl. He had every right to take exception to the pitch by Beckett and give Beckett a piece of his mind. If Abreu said anything worthy of suspension by the League, it would have caused an ejection on the spot by the umpires. The only thing Abreu was guilty of in this incident is being the batter.

My beef is with the suspension for the Boston pitcher and, on a larger level, suspensions for all starting pitchers.

The problem with punishing starting pitchers is that they only pitch once every five games. A starting pitcher can be suspended for four games and not miss a single game while a normal position player will have to miss four games, if suspended for that length of time. If the League is going to punish a starting pitcher by suspension, there should be a fair punishment — one that’s relative to position players.

In the case of Beckett, he was suspended initially for six games, a suspension which would have kept him from missing his turn in the rotation and significantly hurt his team. Instead, with a five-game suspension, Beckett will simply swap positions with John Lester, who will instead start Friday against the rival Yankees (with Beckett pitching Saturday).

Presto! In spite of being suspended for five games, Beckett will not miss his turn in Boston’s starting rotation.

This is completely bogus. Regardless of one’s opinion on the severity of what Beckett did, Major League Baseball needs to get it together when suspending starting pitchers. If the League deems a starter should be suspended, actually make him miss a game or two!

Baseball is still a primarily a pitcher’s game, and a starting pitcher is ultimately the most important player on the field during the game and can set the tone for an entire game. This shouldn’t be an excuse to gloss over punishing a starting pitcher.

In Football, the quarterback is the most important position in the game, but signal-callers can be suspended when appropriate. In basketball, everything begins with the point guard, and yet point guards can foul out of games and be suspended.

Hockey is the only major sport in this country besides baseball that effectively grants certain players special treatment. In spite of the rule changes a few years ago to increase scoring, hockey — according to Dr. Sportsfan — is still a goalie-dominated game. While goalies can be suspended by the NHL, they do not, however, serve penalty minutes for any infractions on the ice.

For the record, I don’t like this either. Why should the goalie get special treatment and not have to spend time in the penalty box?

(Irrelevant to my argument, but as a point of potential conversation, I think it would be cool to see a goalie in the penalty box with all the gear on. Plus, the backup goalie will get some ice time.)

Because a hockey goalie is so important to his team, he should have to be extra cautious not to break the rules and to stay on the ice. The same should go for a starting pitcher in baseball. My solution would be to have a minimum suspension of eight games for a starting pitcher. This would be enough time to really screw up a team’s rotation and ensure that a team would require an emergency starter to fill the void. It’s better than the alternative, as is the case of Josh Beckett. If you are going to punish a player in any sport, actually punish him and not let him off the hook because he is special player (hockey goalie).

Especially if he only plays every five games anyway.