Originally posted by darvlayEasily take the over on 22. I say 26 wins. The man finally gets to be placed among the gods after this season.
Quackquack, no1 et al. - How many wins do you think Halladay has a shot at this year? I think he has a legit shot to win 25. I'd put the over/under at 22. How many do you think Santana gets this year?
It's the only reason to watch baseball this year folks.
(maybe tune in when strasburg pitches)
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessSimple fact: when they were both in the AL, Santana was better than Halladay.
Put santana on the jays and halladay on the mets and who do you think would have better numbers for those years halladay was a jay?
Hands down, santana wouldn't have been able to hack it having to pitch to the yankees and redsox all those years like halladay had to.
In 2010, 26 wins is an insane number; the combined win totals for last year Cy Young winners is 31. Anything could happen but you are predicting something crazy for a guy who is excellent but he does not even have the career of Santana or the back to back Cy Youngs of Lincecum.
Originally posted by quackquackI disagree with you that Santana was better pitcher than Halladay. Santana had much more help that Roy did. Roy pitched more CG's than Santana because the Jays bullpen was not very good. Santana had the luxury of better hitting and solid relief corps behind him. Santana did have more electric stuff than Halladay, but in my impression, Halladay was a better "pitcher", and still is today. He may shock the world with his numbers in Philly. I am not trying to take anything away from Santana, but if I was given the choice, I would take Halladay over Santana. Halladay is "old school" and he gets the job done, without excuses, and he stays healthy.
Simple fact: when they were both in the AL, Santana was better than Halladay.
In 2010, 26 wins is an insane number; the combined win totals for last year Cy Young winners is 31. Anything could happen but you are predicting something crazy for a guy who is excellent but he does not even have the career of Santana or the back to back Cy Youngs of Lincecum.
Originally posted by shortcircuitI agree with you except for on this point. The Jays did have a few years where their pen was great. The simple reason why Roy gets so many CGs is just the way he ptiches. He attacks the strike zone accurately and relentlessly and has 4 pitches that he can put on any part of the plate at anytime. He induces so much contact/ground balls that his pitch count is always low.
Santana had much more help that Roy did. Roy pitched more CG's than Santana because the Jays bullpen was not very good.
Originally posted by shortcircuitSantana is a work horse too. In the AL he pitched 231.2, 233.2, 219.0, 234.1 innings in consecutive years and had 34, 33, 34, 33, 34, 33, 34 starts in consecutive years. Two of those years led the league in both starts and inning pitched (including Halladay). Santana's highest ERA in a year with more than 5 decisions is 3.33; his second highest is 3.13.
I disagree with you that Santana was better pitcher than Halladay. Santana had much more help that Roy did. Roy pitched more CG's than Santana because the Jays bullpen was not very good. Santana had the luxury of better hitting and solid relief corps behind him. Santana did have more electric stuff than Halladay, but in my impression, Halladay was a bet ...[text shortened]... . Halladay is "old school" and he gets the job done, without excuses, and he stays healthy.
Halladay had a 4.20 ERA in 2004 and a 3.70 ERA in 2006 both significantly high than Santanas worst season. Halladay pitches in 40 games total 2004 to 2005? I'm sorry whose more durable?
Halladay has one CY; Santana two. Santana led the league in WHIP 4 years in a row (halladay once) and Ks three years in a row (Halladay never).
I just don't see the argument.
Originally posted by quackquackThat is because you are looking strictly at stats and not at circumstances.
Santana is a work horse too. In the AL he pitched 231.2, 233.2, 219.0, 234.1 innings in consecutive years and had 34, 33, 34, 33, 34, 33, 34 starts in consecutive years. Two of those years led the league in both starts and inning pitched (including Halladay). Santana's highest ERA in a year with more than 5 decisions is 3.33; his second highest is 3.13. ...[text shortened]... alladay once) and Ks three years in a row (Halladay never).
I just don't see the argument.
Flip the teams they played for and I believe the numbers would be closer.
You are probably one of those people who don't believe Jack Morris and Bert Blyleven merit HOF because the numbers on stats don't measure up for you. I believe they both do have HOF credentials.
My point is, it isn't simply all about the stats. The conditions you play under merit consideration.
Both pitchers are great, both will be in the HOF and I would gladly accept second choice to have either one of them.
Originally posted by darvlayI don't think the Jays pen has been good since Henke left.
I agree with you except for on this point. The Jays did have a few years where their pen was great. The simple reason why Roy gets so many CGs is just the way he ptiches. He attacks the strike zone accurately and relentlessly and has 4 pitches that he can put on any part of the plate at anytime. He induces so much contact/ground balls that his pitch count is always low.
Originally posted by badmoonGee, that is a mighty gutsy statement. Lincecum is probably going to be favored against ANY pitcher in MLB right now. Bet he doesn't win all the games he pitches though....so he ain't Superman. I also bet his career won't be as long as many because that motion will take a toll on his back as age creep in. Mark my words. But he is fun to watch now.
I think that the Freak in SF will out perform Super Roy.
Originally posted by shortcircuitI agree both are great. I just think far too much has been made about certain atributes (halladay's complete games vs. Santana 8 innings performances and not enough about the fact that the numbers just aren't close.
That is because you are looking strictly at stats and not at circumstances.
Flip the teams they played for and I believe the numbers would be closer.
You are probably one of those people who don't believe Jack Morris and Bert Blyleven merit HOF because the numbers on stats don't measure up for you. I believe they both do have HOF credentials.
My ...[text shortened]... , both will be in the HOF and I would gladly accept second choice to have either one of them.
Jack Morris never finished first or second in Cy Young voting, never led the league in WHIP, ER, ERA plus. He had a 3.90 ERA and 254 career wins. Very good career but no dominant years and never really compiled the great numbers of other Hall of Famers. Pitched well in big games although his 3.80 ERA in the post season is not as spectalular as his best performances. I'm looking for more for the Hall of Fame and I believe he's simply over praised.
Originally posted by quackquackI guess Jim Kaat deserves the HOF then. No one won as many gold gloves as he did. Greg Maddux is his closest suitor. That is greatness when NO ONE was better than you were...right??
I agree both are great. I just think far too much has been made about certain atributes (halladay's complete games vs. Santana 8 innings performances and not enough about the fact that the numbers just aren't close.
Jack Morris never finished first or second in Cy Young voting, never led the league in WHIP, ER, ERA plus. He had a 3.90 ERA and 254 career ...[text shortened]... ormances. I'm looking for more for the Hall of Fame and I believe he's simply over praised.
1 edit
Originally posted by darvlayDarv, not you too!!!
Maybe you're joking but the Jays did in fact have the best pen ERA for an entire season only a few years ago. It was their only bright spot.
Bullpen ERA is a bit of a joke. You can have a 0.00 ERA and 60 blown saves.
Don't be blinded by the math.
Just like HR numbers. Players that play half of their games in a tough hitters park will tend to be less gaudy that those who play in a bandbox.
The same is true of base stealing teams who have their home park groomed to their strength.
It has been happening for years too. many different ways to do it.
Most moderate fans don't have a clue about it though.
Then there is the game between the lines that most haven't got a clue about.
Numbers can be convoluted to prove any point your try to make...within reason.
Stats are a way of trying to place equivalence among players, but it just is not totally accurate.
You, of all people, know that.
Originally posted by shortcircuitI agree entirely but until everyone here gets caught up on sabremetrics, I'm bound by the ERA and WHIP in these discussions. 😛
Numbers can be convoluted to prove any point your try to make...within reason.
Stats are a way of trying to place equivalence among players, but it just is not totally accurate.
Regardless, I still maintain that Toronto's pen has not been as historically bad as painted in this thread.
2 edits
Originally posted by darvlayOk Darv, I will let you decide.
I agree entirely but until everyone here gets caught up on sabremetrics, I'm bound by the ERA and WHIP in these discussions. 😛
Regardless, I still maintain that Toronto's pen has not been as historically bad as painted in this thread.
Given your choice, would you rather have the pen of a few years ago or Tom Henke in his prime?
Yep, I would rather have Henke as well!!! 😛