why do you have asterisks everywhere
I dunno. I posted, then they appeared for some reason. I couldn't delete them because I was on my iPod. Whatever.
ok this is the better pitcher because his career ERA+ is a few points higher.
I posted my belief on the matter, and not once did I state it was hands down on Santana's side. In fact, you did, so now you're contradicting yourself with that logic.
I bring up Halladay's dismal 99-00 because they inflate his career numbers, which according to you are the only thing that matter
What? No, I never said such a thing. I said Santana has had the better career, which includes Halladay's '99-'00, but if you're going to eliminate those two season because it inflates his numbers, then it's only fair you should eliminate Santana's '00-'01 as well.
The fact that you dismiss intangibles are what makes your whole argument moot and what tells me you dont actually watch baseball as much as study statistics. Theres a reason crazy things happen in baseball that stats cannot predict, such as the 83 win cardinals winning the world series, and they are intangibles. To dismiss them is completely ridiculous.
Let me get this straight.
I'm not trying to predict the future by using stats (even though I could with some things, but that's another topic)
. I dismiss intangibles simply because they are immeasurable, and you can have as much fun as you want trying to translate them into on field value. They are subjective and are not factual evidence.
Hustle, heart, leadership, etc are not what makes a player good. That's what makes them likable. However, likability =/= valuable. I would rather take a talented player with an attitude but could produce instead of a player with a great work ethic but his talents were limited. The former types simply offer more wins to a ball club. Of course, the attitude can't overshadow the ability. I'm shooting more for a Manny Ramirez type of player with my first point and not a Lastings Milledge.
As for the comment about the Cards, they were not the best team that season. They were simply lucky. However, not once did I try to predict the future, I was stating who I thought was the best (between Santana and Halladay), which is exactly why I'm ruling out intangibles.
I am not arguing that Halladay has had a better statistical career than Santana, I am arguing that Halladay is a better pitcher than Johan Santana, and those are different claims.
Then please go about your business and prove to me that Halladay is a better pitcher. It doesn't matter how talented you are. If you can't produce, then you're as good as every 30 year old minor leaguer out there. Production > talent, every time.
Any team should want to have Halladay rather than Santana, even assuming there was a 100% guaruntee both pitchers would be completely healthy.
It depends how far you'd wanna go. If Santana is guaranteed to pitch like he has his career, and likewise for Halladay, then I'd take Santana. However, with the durability issue, I wasn't just implying injuries, but I also included the possible decline for both. Santana is declining I expect him to burn out in a few years, which is precisely why I'd take Halladay from here on out. However, I never stated the contrary. All I said was that Santana has had the better career so far.
it tells me you don't care about winning a world series, you just care about what your career numbers look like.
More baseless assumptions? Please. That's not true. I'm trying to show who's been the better pitcher, not who's going to win a ring.
If player a had the superior stats to player b, but player b has won more rings, player a is still the better pitcher. He's simply been on a worse team, and winning a ring is a team accomplishment and should not be brought up when discussing how good someone was.
How can you honestly say you don't care how a pitcher performs against the best competition possible in rating his value?
No, I don't care, because you're nitpicking and choosing 1/29 teams one would possibly play against (and besides, it's an unfair amount of playing time between the two). It evens itself out against other teams, and fairly accounting for difference in competition is already done by ERA+, which is where Santana has had the lead.
How can you call a pitcher who crumbles against the best opposition better than one who dominates them?
Aha, that logic is stupid, sorry. Once again, you're nitpicking. Also, using that logic, you must also believe that Scott Kazmir is better than Santana, and so are Tim Hudson, Freddy Garcia, and Jon Garland. I bet I could find more, but my point stands. One's success against a specific team does not play a part in determining how good said player is, because, well, there's still other teams one must play against.
Also, Halladay has not exactly dominated the Rsox, Angels, or Rangers, so picking the Yankees and not any of those three (who have also had a good offense this decade) is really, really arbitrary.
How is 57 IP a small sample size when it is 10 years worth of data against one team?
Why does the time span even matter? How is 57 IP over ten years any different from 57 IP in one season?
You would have played against the team an equal number of times. So uhh, your point is moot.
When is it ok to rate a pitchers performance against a team, after he has been pitching in the league for 40 years and has ammassed 200 innings against that team?
You could do that all you want, but fact of the matter is, it carries little to no weight when determining one's value.
and you have not given me any argument
Likewise, all you're doing is nitpicking and speculating and have not given me any concrete and factual evidence behind your claim.
a 5 point difference in one (flawed) pitching metric.
Are you going to claim that and not provide any evidence on why you believe such a thing?
But seriously, of course it's flawed. Every metric imaginable is flawed, but ERA+ still does an excellent job in accounting for the difference in competition.