Page 2 of 2

PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 6:28 pm
by SoxFanPJ
Mulder

2001: 21-8 229IP 214hits 16HR 51BB 153K 3.45ERA 1.16Whip
2002: 19-7 207IP 182hits 21HR 55BB 159K 3.47ERA 1.14Whip
2003: 15-9 186IP 180hits 15HR 40BB 128K 3.13ERA 1.18Whip

Colon

2001: 14-14 222IP 220hits 26HR 90BB 201K 4.09ERA 1.39Whip
2002: 10-4 116IP 104hits 11HR 31BB 75K 2.55ERA 1.16Whip (AL)
2002: 10-4 117IP 115hits 9HR 39BB 74K 3.31ERA 1.32Whip (NL)
2003: 15-3 242IP 223hits 30HR 67BB 173K 3.87ERA 1.20Whip

Mulder's '03 season was cut short because of the hip injury. But he was having a very good year, career low ERA.

Colon would give you more Complete games, but will also give you more HR allowed, a higher ERA and Whip.

They are close but given Colons weight issues and the rumor about his elbow(Gammons column) I would go with Mulder.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 6:31 pm
by Zito is God
IN MY OPINION I would rather have Colon. hes a workhorse, lost weight over the offseason. Has amazing power. Plays with a team that has a MUCH better offense then the A's. Also Pedro has been teaching him some secrets over the offseason! :-D

PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 6:51 pm
by mtarail
Mulder. It's all about the #'s and Mulder is better across the board, except for K's. If Mulder hadn't gotten hurt towards the end of the year he probably would have hit 160 K's like he did in 2002. So is Colon's 20 extra K's worth 1/2 a run drop between their ERA's? Nope.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 7:08 pm
by NZF
I would rate Mulder slightly ahead of Colon mainly on the score of consistency. Neither figure in my Top 12 SP though.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 9:35 pm
by fezzik
I like Mulder a little more...basicly, just for the era...if CG's are a category, I'd go with Mulder too, since I'm not convinced Colon will get as many chances to throw CG's this year with the Angels pen being so dominant...there's no need to make him go 9.