OK, let's compare them:

 

Maddux ... Volquez was 24 at the start of his first full season and is now 25. At age 24, Maddux was coming off seasons in which he was 18-8 with a 3.18 ERA and 19-12 with a 2.95 ERA. Before this year, Volquez had made 17 starts with a career ERA of 7.20 ... starting to see the picture here?

 

Cueto is currently 8-11 with a 4.90 ERA at age 22. At the same age, Maddux was 18-8 with a 3.18 ERA.

 

Neither is comparable to Maddux at this stage.

 

Smoltz ... At the age of 24, Smoltz was coming off seasons in which he was 12-11 with a 2.94 ERA and 14-11 with a 3.85 ERA. Volquez's performance prior to this year isn't even in the same universe.

 

Cueto is 8-11 with a 4.90 ERA at age 22. Smoltz was 12-11 with a 2.94 ERA.

 

Neither is comparable to Smoltz at this stage.

 

Glavine ... Glavine had two full seasons in by age 24. As a rookie, he was 7-11 with a 4.56 ERA. At age 23, he was 14-8 with a 3.68 ERA. At similar stages in his career, he is well ahead of Volquez.

 

Cueto is 8-11 with a 4.90 ERA as a rookie at age 22 ... Glavine, at the same age, was 7-11 with a 4.56 ERA.

 

Cueto and Glavine are rather comparable at the same age. Volquez and Glavine are not.

It's very much unthinkable. Pitching today is WAY different than it was back in the early 90's. Pitchers were more durable, pitched longer and a lot of other factors took place.

 

No pitchers will ever compare to Smoltz, Glavine, & Maddux..It's as simple as that.

 

 

I wouldn't say that no pitchers will ever compare to Smoltz, Glavine and Maddux, but I doubt we'll ever see three Hall of Famers in the same rotation for so many years again.

....People love the Big 3. Its not unthinkable that two pitchers on the same team may be as good as them one day.

Not often, pitchers of those caliber played for the same team. An outstanding rotation, combined with a solid offensive lineup.

 

Cueto and Volquez, may someday be comparable but only time will tell. One thing which is clear, the Reds position players and the Braves position players, aren't comparable.

I wouldn't say that no pitchers will ever compare to Smoltz, Glavine and Maddux, but I doubt we'll ever see three Hall of Famers in the same rotation for so many years again.

 

That's what I meant...I mean we may see pitchers similar compared individually but never again will we see a dominant 3 in the same rotation...I should have specified better..:thumb:

OK, let's compare them:

 

Maddux ... Volquez was 24 at the start of his first full season and is now 25. At age 24, Maddux was coming off seasons in which he was 18-8 with a 3.18 ERA and 19-12 with a 2.95 ERA. Before this year, Volquez had made 17 starts with a career ERA of 7.20 ... starting to see the picture here?

 

Cueto is currently 8-11 with a 4.90 ERA at age 22. At the same age, Maddux was 18-8 with a 3.18 ERA.

 

Neither is comparable to Maddux at this stage.

 

Smoltz ... At the age of 24, Smoltz was coming off seasons in which he was 12-11 with a 2.94 ERA and 14-11 with a 3.85 ERA. Volquez's performance prior to this year isn't even in the same universe.

 

Cueto is 8-11 with a 4.90 ERA at age 22. Smoltz was 12-11 with a 2.94 ERA.

 

Neither is comparable to Smoltz at this stage.

 

Glavine ... Glavine had two full seasons in by age 24. As a rookie, he was 7-11 with a 4.56 ERA. At age 23, he was 14-8 with a 3.68 ERA. At similar stages in his career, he is well ahead of Volquez.

 

Cueto is 8-11 with a 4.90 ERA as a rookie at age 22 ... Glavine, at the same age, was 7-11 with a 4.56 ERA.

 

Cueto and Glavine are rather comparable at the same age. Volquez and Glavine are not.

 

 

:thumb: You can't simply skip over what Volquez did before this season, he's been called up in 3 different seasons before this one and pitched enough to no longer be considered a rookie.

OK, let's compare them:

 

Maddux ... Volquez was 24 at the start of his first full season and is now 25. At age 24, Maddux was coming off seasons in which he was 18-8 with a 3.18 ERA and 19-12 with a 2.95 ERA. Before this year, Volquez had made 17 starts with a career ERA of 7.20 ... starting to see the picture here?

 

Cueto is currently 8-11 with a 4.90 ERA at age 22. At the same age, Maddux was 18-8 with a 3.18 ERA.

 

Neither is comparable to Maddux at this stage.

 

Smoltz ... At the age of 24, Smoltz was coming off seasons in which he was 12-11 with a 2.94 ERA and 14-11 with a 3.85 ERA. Volquez's performance prior to this year isn't even in the same universe.

 

Cueto is 8-11 with a 4.90 ERA at age 22. Smoltz was 12-11 with a 2.94 ERA.

 

Neither is comparable to Smoltz at this stage.

 

Glavine ... Glavine had two full seasons in by age 24. As a rookie, he was 7-11 with a 4.56 ERA. At age 23, he was 14-8 with a 3.68 ERA. At similar stages in his career, he is well ahead of Volquez.

 

Cueto is 8-11 with a 4.90 ERA as a rookie at age 22 ... Glavine, at the same age, was 7-11 with a 4.56 ERA.

 

Cueto and Glavine are rather comparable at the same age. Volquez and Glavine are not.

 

I'm not talking about ages. First seasons will do since thats the point Volquez and especially Cueto are at, which are the stats I posted. Just because the other three came up earlier and stayed up it is expected that they have more success at an earlier age. As I've said, and you have yet to disprove, pitchers do not come up as early today and were more durable back then. Another poster has already said that in this very thread.

:thumb: You can't simply skip over what Volquez did before this season, he's been called up in 3 different seasons before this one and pitched enough to no longer be considered a rookie.

 

If you can't over look what Volquez has done in mainly september callups then you can't over look what the other three have done either, which are still similar numbers.

Not often, pitchers of those caliber played for the same team. An outstanding rotation, combined with a solid offensive lineup.

 

Cueto and Volquez, may someday be comparable but only time will tell. One thing which is clear, the Reds position players and the Braves position players, aren't comparable.

 

Exactly my point.

Exactly my point.

....:thumb:

To me it is not even fair to compare young pitchers to 3 future HOFers.

I'm not talking about ages.

That is the problem with your comparison ... when comparing players from different eras and their careers, the best and fairest way to do is by comparing their performances at similar ages.

First seasons will do since thats the point Volquez and especially Cueto are at, which are the stats I posted.

Of course they do, because that's the only way your point remotely appears to be valid. But you're also ignoring the half-season (or slightly more) worth of results that Volquez compiled before this year.

Just because the other three came up earlier and stayed up it is expected that they have more success at an earlier age.

Of course ... those guys proved earlier in their careers that they were capable of pitching in the major leagues. That is a valid part of the argument.

That is the problem with your comparison ... when comparing players from different eras and their careers, the best and fairest way to do is by comparing their performances at similar ages.

Of course they do, because that's the only way your point remotely appears to be valid. But you're also ignoring the half-season (or slightly more) worth of results that Volquez compiled before this year.

Of course ... those guys proved earlier in their careers that they were capable of pitching in the major leagues. That is a valid part of the argument.

 

How do you figure it's more fair to compare what they did at a certain age then what they did in their first full season's. If you're going to talk about Volquez's 17ish starts which were mainly september call ups, then you have to talk about Smoltz 12ish starts which he had limited success and the other two have the same story. Once again, in the early 90's players were called up at an earlier age. Not only is their more depth today, pitchers are protected more. They are kept down longer to make sure they are ready when they come up. You just say that they are capable of pitching in the major leagues, Maddux and Glavine both struggled in their first full season much like Cueto is now. You're still not point out much of a difference between these guys.

How do you figure it's more fair to compare what they did at a certain age then what they did in their first full season's.

Logic.

 

It would be obvious that a 21-year-old pitcher in his first full season is in no way comparable to a 27-year-old in the same situation. The age difference matters.

If you're going to talk about Volquez's 17ish starts which were mainly september call ups, then you have to talk about Smoltz 12ish starts which he had limited success and the other two have the same story.

Most of Volquez's first 17 starts were so bad that he was sent back to the minors. The other guys were up to stay once they hit the majors.

Once again, in the early 90's players were called up at an earlier age. Not only is their more depth today, pitchers are protected more. They are kept down longer to make sure they are ready when they come up.

The first statement ... prove it.

 

Wouldn't it be logical to assume that players would come up earlier now that there are 30 teams in the major leagues, as opposed to 26 when Maddux, Smoltz and Glavine were coming up?

 

Pitchers aren't "kept down longer to make sure they are ready" ... they are in the minors until they've proven they are ready for the majors.

You just say that they are capable of pitching in the major leagues, Maddux and Glavine both struggled in their first full season much like Cueto is now. You're still not point out much of a difference between these guys.

Like I said, once they were up, they were up to stay ... unlike Volquez. And I've already shown you that those guys are generally well ahead of Volquez and Cueto at the same age.

 

I've already pointed out the differences. You simply choose not to acknowledge it.

Logic.

 

It would be obvious that a 21-year-old pitcher in his first full season is in no way comparable to a 27-year-old in the same situation. The age difference matters.

Most of Volquez's first 17 starts were so bad that he was sent back to the minors. The other guys were up to stay once they hit the majors.

The first statement ... prove it.

 

Wouldn't it be logical to assume that players would come up earlier now that there are 30 teams in the major leagues, as opposed to 26 when Maddux, Smoltz and Glavine were coming up?

 

Pitchers aren't "kept down longer to make sure they are ready" ... they are in the minors until they've proven they are ready for the majors.

Like I said, once they were up, they were up to stay ... unlike Volquez. And I've already shown you that those guys are generally well ahead of Volquez and Cueto at the same age.

 

I've already pointed out the differences. You simply choose not to acknowledge it.

 

Who's 27 here? That's what I thought, no one. Just because they were up to stay doesn't mean some of their starts weren't just as bad as Volquez's. Just look at their numbers of their first few starts. Not very impressive if you ask me. You say pitchers aren't kept down longer then they were back then. Yet you still haven't named more than two players who were up and stayed up before age 24. I can name plenty of people back in the 90's that came up at an earlier age. Smoltz, Maddux, Glavine, Pedro, Schilling, Roger Clemens, Mike Mussina, Kevin Appier, Jose Rijo, Jack McDowell, Dennis Eckersly, John Smiley, Ramon Martinez. All those names with very little effort. Today you don't see that as much. Names I can think of today are Cueto, Felix Hernandez, Houston Street, Joba, Jurrjens. thats pretty obvious difference in number off the top of my head.

 

Once again, I'm not trying to compare ages because it doesn't make sence to do that unless there is a bigger age difference as you pointed out like 21 to 27. There's isn't much of an age difference here. Cueto is up to stay at 22 and putting up comparable numbers to what Maddux and Glavine did in their first full seasons at ages 21 and 22. Volquez is showing Cy Young type stuff in his first full season (second season if you want to argue that) which is what all these pitchers have done.

Who's 27 here? That's what I thought, no one.

Never said anyone was ... I was speaking in general terms.

Just because they were up to stay doesn't mean some of their starts weren't just as bad as Volquez's. Just look at their numbers of their first few starts. Not very impressive if you ask me.

Yes, it does ... Volquez's early numbers were horrible, much worse than those of the "Big 3." That's why he was sent back down multiple times.

You say pitchers aren't kept down longer then they were back then. Yet you still haven't named more than two players who were up and stayed up before age 24.

I didn't know I was assigned that task ...

I can name plenty of people back in the 90's that came up at an earlier age. Smoltz, Maddux, Glavine, Pedro, Schilling, Roger Clemens, Mike Mussina, Kevin Appier, Jose Rijo, Jack McDowell, Dennis Eckersly, John Smiley, Ramon Martinez. All those names with very little effort.

You're also listing guys from back in the 70s and 80s ... if you have to go back that far to name guys, your point is rendered moot.

Once again, I'm not trying to compare ages because it doesn't make sence to do that unless there is a bigger age difference as you pointed out like 21 to 27. There's isn't much of an age difference here.

There is still a difference.

Cueto is up to stay at 22 and putting up comparable numbers to what Maddux and Glavine did in their first full seasons at ages 21 and 22.

Glavine, yes ... Maddux, no. My research bears that out.

Volquez is showing Cy Young type stuff in his first full season (second season if you want to argue that) which is what all these pitchers have done.

And he is also older than those guys were when he finally established himself as a pitcher. That is also relevant.