In a message dated 7/11/2003 4:34:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> If you think he was the most dominant pitcher on a
> per-game basis you're also wrong, but at least you
> have a case and we can talk about it.  Arguing that he
> was better than Seaver or Clemens is foolish.  He
> didn't pitch for long enough.

He didn't pitch long enough because he pitched in a different era. He was every bit 
the physical specimen that Clemens is. For 5 years consecutive years he was the best 
in the game. No one else can make that claim. 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to