MLB thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well id like to apologize for that terrible start but I do have those games when I pitch at ban boxes roy halladay is a very differnt pitcher then me I'm a fly ball pitcher he's a ground ball pitcher we are supposed to follow our home ball park structures. Last year he had his worst start at a ban box yankee statium his era is now 4.50 but some one needs to striegten him out
 
you've got to be fucking kidding, right? do not give the bandbox argument. that does not hold water when HE WALKED A 47 YEAR OLD PITCHER to set up the grand slam. throwing strikes has to be the easiest thing a pitcher can do. especially when you're throwing to a 47 year old man. laze one down the middle: i am almost positive moyer cannot hit one out of even THAT stadium. santana failed, plain and simple. there is no defending him from that putrid start, a start where he was supposed to "right" us after being so badly beaten by a proper ace. it was a reality check, and the reality is the mets aren't nearly as good as the phillies and santana isn't half the pitcher halladay is.

also if it wasn't cbp, the score would've been 0-y, where y>= 2, cause utley's homer was out anywhere. so whatever.
 
it is pretty much splitting hairs

Uhh, statistical evidence is splitting hairs? *Uhh no.

It should also be noted that Roy Halladay had absolutely dismal 1999 and 2000 campaigns where he might as well have been a different pitcher.

This is relevant in what way? *My claim was that Santana has had the better career thus far, so your point is moot.*

After the 2000 season where he allowed 80 runs in 60 some odd innings he went down to AAA and basically reinvented himself, developing the trademark movement on his fastball that you see today, so it really is only fair to start comparing from this point. Even if you count these years, however, the numbers are still close.

I could use the same logic against you. *Santana had not established himself until '02, so:

Santana, '02-now: 1614 IP, 151 ERA+
Halladay: 1795.1, 146 ERA+ *

I don't care how close they are. *Santana has had the better career.*

I'm sure we can both agree stats are not everything though...

No, but they do tell a vast majority of the picture. *What else would you use? Single game performances? *Intangibles? *LOL.*

The deciding factor here is blatantly obvious: divisional play.

It's too bad ERA+ already accounts for ballpark factor and league competition, so the tougher division argument is an irrelevant one.*

Halladay spent his career dominating the offensive titans of the Yankees and Red Sox (and more recently the Rays) while Santana fed off tigers and royals teams that were complete jokes in the mid 2000s and some bad Indians teams too.

See: ERA+.*

I crunched some numbers to see how right I was, and lo and behold:

Career Stats vs AL East
Santana: 289.2 IP, 3.73 era, 1.22 whip.
Halladay: 965.1 IP, 3.35 era, 1.17 whip.

Again keep in mind that this includes those dismal two seasons. When you can do that much better over that much long of a time, that is impressive.

The kicker? This should be all you really need to see to close out this argument:

Career Stats vs New York Yankees
Santana: 57.1 IP 4.40 era, 1.38 whip
Halladay: 247.1 IP, 2.84 era, 1.11 whip

You're severely nitpicking here. *It doesn't matter how he fares against the Yanks. *A pitcher's job is to prevent runs for as long as possible, not to beat good teams. *If Santana was able to beat bad teams, but Halladay was not, then what's the difference? *Besides, you used a minuscule sample size of 57 IP. *Please don't do that.*

Were talking about unbelievable numbers here in a huge sample size against the best offensive team in baseball through the decade.

Who cares? *Beating one team does not make you a good pitcher.*

makes you wonder just how good he would be in the playoffs.

The same.*

Moving on from the division argument, the 52 complete games to 9 is another focal point.

No, it's not. *Single game performances don't matter. *CGs are only important when factored into IP, which is an area Halladay does not have a big enough lead on to make up for the ERA+ disadvantage.*

Santana doesn't win you games alone; he will likely get you into the 7th with a good shot of winning but there is still work to be done.

You're saying it'd be the starter's fault if the bullpen blows a lead. *That logic = stupid.*

who any sane team would rather have

Well, Halladay, since I trust his durability a lot more, but that wasn't my point.*

@aamto:
i take it back. santana's not even half the pitcher halladay is. not even a quarter as good. he walked JAMIE MOYER with the bases loaded. not just any pitcher, jamie fucking moyer and his 47 years of experience after being spotted 5 runs. absolutely pathetic. i hope its just the after effects of surgery or something but santana at this point should not even be mentioned in the same breath as someone like halladay or lincecum or ubaldo jimenez.

Wow. *That post truly illustrates how ignorant you are about the game. *Walking Moyer somehow deteriorates everything he's done? *One bad game is somehow is enough to make up for his dominance this decade? *I'm sorry, but that's extremely foolish. *Not even a quarter of Halladay's ability? *Please. *Go check the stats. *

Oh, and Ubaldo Jimenez is at the same level as Halladay? *Let me guess, you think that because of his no hitter and performance this month? *Ahahahaha. *
 
@aamto:

Wow. *That post truly illustrates how ignorant you are about the game. *Walking Moyer somehow deteriorates everything he's done? *One bad game is somehow is enough to make up for his dominance this decade? *I'm sorry, but that's extremely foolish. *Not even a quarter of Halladay's ability? *Please. *Go check the stats. *

Oh, and Ubaldo Jimenez is at the same level as Halladay? *Let me guess, you think that because of his no hitter and performance this month? *Ahahahaha. *
walking jamie moyer was really just a show of how bad he was that night. but, losing 3-4 mph on average off the fastball makes him less than half the pitcher. easy. santana's a flyball, fastball-change pitcher. his fastball has been slowing down over the years, from a consistent 92-94 to 88-90 (average 89.5 mph this year, down from 91.8 2 years ago). meanwhile, his change still sits at 80. losing the velocity means losing the velocity difference which means far less effectiveness. ask the phillies last night. it happens with age...but at the same time, you don't see halladay showing signs of decline, do you? one start doesn't undo what he's done in his career, but that's the thing: it's in the past. henry aaron was a very good hitter 40 years ago. is he still good now?

as for jimenez, yeah its premature, but how often do you see a guy with a throwing a 99 mph fastball with movement. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that he's going to be great. have you even seen him pitch at all? the league hit .229 against him last year and he's continued to roll this year. he's not gonna keep up a 0.79 but i'd take him as a cy young candidate end year. he's a top young pitcher who deserves to be mentioned in the upper tier and to dismiss that is foolish. maybe you should stop checking stats and start watching games. you might learn a thing or two.
 
*If Santana was able to beat bad teams, but Halladay was not, then what's the difference?

The point of the argument is that its much easier to beat bad teams when you face them on a much more regular basis. If both pitchers would pitch at a near equal efficiency, and one faced more bad teams then the other, then the other would obviously beat more bad teams.

*Besides, you used a minuscule sample size of 57 IP. *Please don't do that.*

The minuscule sample size argument in this continuation is pushing how freely you use minuscule sample size. When used in comparison against any of Johan Santana's other seasons, it essentially equates to a quarter year of baseball. How is this a small sample size? There becomes a point when this argument can't continue to really be argued.
 
1) why do you have asterisks everywhere, I did not even want to read your post.

2) after having did manage to get through your post, you did not really manage to convince me of anything. When I say splitting hairs, I mean that both pitchers numbers are relatively close, and thus you cannot definitively say, "ok this is the better pitcher because his career ERA+ is a few points higher. I bring up Halladay's dismal 99-00 because they inflate his career numbers, which according to you are the only thing that matter.

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.

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. Any team should want to have Halladay rather than Santana, even assuming there was a 100% guaruntee both pitchers would be completely healthy.

Also, despite you simply dismissing the NYY argument, it tells me you don't care about winning a world series, you just care about what your career numbers look like. How can you honestly say you don't care how a pitcher performs against the best competition possible in rating his value? How can you call a pitcher who crumbles against the best opposition better than one who dominates them? How is 57 IP a small sample size when it is 10 years worth of data against one team? 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?

Roy Halladay is a better pitcher than Johan Santana, and you have not given me any argument to make me believe otherwise except for a 5 point difference in one (flawed) pitching metric.
 
I'm going to hide each response just for cleanliness.

@ aamto:

walking jamie moyer was really just a show of how bad he was that night. but, losing 3-4 mph on average off the fastball makes him less than half the pitcher. easy. santana's a flyball, fastball-change pitcher. his fastball has been slowing down over the years, from a consistent 92-94 to 88-90 (average 89.5 mph this year, down from 91.8 2 years ago). meanwhile, his change still sits at 80. losing the velocity means losing the velocity difference which means far less effectiveness. ask the phillies last night. it happens with age...but at the same time, you don't see halladay showing signs of decline, do you?
Cool. Too bad that has nothing to do with what I said.

it's in the past.
So what? My point was that Santana has had the better career thus far, which is, well, the past. I have no idea what you're getting at.

he's a top young pitcher who deserves to be mentioned in the upper tier and to dismiss that is foolish.
Of course, he's legitimate ace. One of my favorites, actually, and what he brings to the table is almost exactly what I'd take in a pitcher. However, I do not see him in the same class as Halladay and the like. I don't think he'll get there either, and just because he throws hard, it most certainly doesn't mean imminent improvement. He's basically reached his ceiling imo, but that's not to take anything away from him. He was fantastic last season.

maybe you should stop checking stats and start watching games. you might learn a thing or two.
Uhh, you do realize there's a direct correlation with what happens on the field and stats, right? Please, don't go there with the baseless assumptions. Just because I base my arguments off of stats it most certainly does not mean I do not watch baseball games. I use stats simply because they are recorded events of games and are 100% legitimate, whereas what you get from watching a ball game can be subjective and selective memory plays a huge part when you're basing your beliefs on something. For the enjoyment of baseball, I'd rather watch a game, but for the sake of arguments such as this, stats are the way to go.

@ moi:

The point of the argument is that its much easier to beat bad teams when you face them on a much more regular basis. If both pitchers would pitch at a near equal efficiency, and one faced more bad teams then the other, then the other would obviously beat more bad teams.
And that's exactly the flaw with that argument. If player x was able to beat team 1 at a superstar rate, whereas player y was only able to do it at an average rate. Now, let's say player y was able to dominate team 2 (the inferior team), but player x struggled constantly against said team, then how would you go about weighing each success equally? It's nothing but speculation to assume player x was superior simply because his success came against a more legit team. ERA+ accounts for difference in competition, which is an area where Santana has the edge.

The minuscule sample size argument in this continuation is pushing how freely you use minuscule sample size. When used in comparison against any of Johan Santana's other seasons, it essentially equates to a quarter year of baseball. How is this a small sample size? There becomes a point when this argument can't continue to really be argued.
You do know the problem with small sample sizes, right? They aren't a large enough sample to get concrete evidence of how well a player actually performed. In such a small sample, luck heavily plays a part. And no, 1/4 of a season really is not a lot.

@ Jackal:

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.
 
I'm going to hide each response just for cleanliness.

@ aamto:
Cool. Too bad that has nothing to do with what I said.

So what? My point was that Santana has had the better career thus far, which is, well, the past. I have no idea what you're getting at.

and i said santana isn't half as good as halladay is now. what we have here is a failure to communicate. why you need to bring his past stats into a discussion of a pitcher now is what confuses me.

in the end, what i'm saying is santana's numbers (velocity, era, and baa) have been trending up (the wrong direction) over the years and halladay's have been largely the same or better. i don't care that "santana's had the better career," i care about now. and right now, santana is not as good as halladay. he is most certainly better than what he showed on sunday and is still probably an high tier pitcher, he just isn't as good as roy or the others AND he's on the decline. if we're gonna take a player based on his career and he pitches to his career numbers, its a tossup and i'd still probably take halladay just because a groundball pitcher is more efficient than a flyball pitcher. but from here on out, i would take halladay 6 days a week and twice on sunday.

Of course, he's legitimate ace. One of my favorites, actually, and what he brings to the table is almost exactly what I'd take in a pitcher. However, I do not see him in the same class as Halladay and the like. I don't think he'll get there either, and just because he throws hard, it most certainly doesn't mean imminent improvement. He's basically reached his ceiling imo, but that's not to take anything away from him. He was fantastic last season.
you think a 26 year old pitcher who's just starting to harness his control has already hit his peak? that is...curious. jimenez's strikeouts per nine are up, his walks per nine are down, and he's generating the same number of groundballs as to last year. it's hard to get much better than what he's doing now and he most certainly will not keep up a sub 1.00 era, but i would say 2010's jimenez is much closer to his ceiling than the 2009 version, and that is saying a lot, cause the 2009 version was still quite good.

Uhh, you do realize there's a direct correlation with what happens on the field and stats, right? Please, don't go there with the baseless assumptions. Just because I base my arguments off of stats it most certainly does not mean I do not watch baseball games. I use stats simply because they are recorded events of games and are 100% legitimate, whereas what you get from watching a ball game can be subjective and selective memory plays a huge part when you're basing your beliefs on something. For the enjoyment of baseball, I'd rather watch a game, but for the sake of arguments such as this, stats are the way to go.
i was talking more in regards to you're "hahaha" @ jimenez, which led me to believe you've never actually seen what he can do. once again, a miscommunication.
 
ERA+ takes into account league average era, meaning the era of a pitcher in the AL Central or AL East are weighted identically in determining this league average. Which would also mean that it does not account for divisional play at all, simply AL vs NL

correct me if I am wrong.
 
ah!!! me and aamto were at the same game i wish i had known before hand i would have invited him to tailgate with us lol

he actually would have fit in considering the group i was with was more mets fans than phillies fans X_x
 
So has anyone found out why Jason Bay is really struggling but who knows Mark Texeria Struggled and look what happened to them last year should i be worried
 
^ Teixeira is a notoriously slow starter; like clockwork, he struggles in April and then turns it around in May.

Bay on the other hand is a streaky player and is either red hot or ice cold for months at a time (look at his monthly splits for the red sox last year). i'm not too worried about him yet, he has too much of a history of this kind of play. he's gonna need to turn it on soon though or home games in new york could get ugly for him.
 
@aamto:

you think a 26 year old pitcher who's just starting to harness his control has already hit his peak? that is...curious. jimenez's strikeouts per nine are up, his walks per nine are down, and he's generating the same number of groundballs as to last year. it's hard to get much better than what he's doing now and he most certainly will not keep up a sub 1.00 era, but i would say 2010's jimenez is much closer to his ceiling than the 2009 version, and that is saying a lot, cause the 2009 version was still quite good.

Well, I can see his numbers getting better, but I would hardly call that an improvement. Most players start their peak at around age 26 anyways.

@Jackal:

ERA+ takes into account league average era, meaning the era of a pitcher in the AL Central or AL East are weighted identically in determining this league average. Which would also mean that it does not account for divisional play at all, simply AL vs NL

lgERA isn't league ERA exactly. lgERA is basically an adjusted stat based on ball park factor, which takes into account how a team fares in that ball park in comparison to their other games at other parks (so it can actually vary from player to player, though players from the same team will have the same lgERA) and compared to the league average.

It doesn't place a heavy emphasis on divisional play, but really, divisional play can be at times vastly overstated.
 
I am going to go ahead and completely disagree with you there, seeing as it is not too hard to argue that four of the best 5 teams in the AL are currently in the AL East, and that it has been this way for a few years now.

But I am sure we can agree to disagree.
 
well no one can argue with the fact that the best two teams in the AL are the rays and yankees. However I do not really know who rounds out the top 5. So far in this season no other team in the AL has really been that impressive to be even COMPARED to the yanks and rays. Not to mention boston is getting older and older and will probably be number 4 in the AL in 2-4 years time.

ALso I assume you meant 3 of the best 5 in the AL
 
I am going to go ahead and completely disagree with you there, seeing as it is not too hard to argue that four of the best 5 teams in the AL are currently in the AL East, and that it has been this way for a few years now.

But I am sure we can agree to disagree.

More like three... But whatever.

Anyways, I did not say divisional play doesn't matter, although I have met some people that act like it's the only thing that matters.

@ultimifier:

Not to mention boston is getting older and older and will probably be number 4 in the AL in 2-4 years time.

Not true in the slightest. They have a solid youth core in the majors so far, with guys like Pedroia, Lester, Buchholz, and Ellsbury isn't so bad himself. Also, their farm is stacked with talent. Casey Kelly, Ryan Westermoreland, Junichi Tazawa, Josh Reddick, Lars Anderson, Michael Bowden, etc... They'll still be one of the best in a few years.
 
I am going to go ahead and completely disagree with you there, seeing as it is not too hard to argue that four of the best 5 teams in the AL are currently in the AL East, and that it has been this way for a few years now.

But I am sure we can agree to disagree.

I sure hope to god you're not including the Jays amongst the best AL teams? An 18-13 start doesn't automatically class them in that league, you're not gonna get an idea of whether they're for real or not till about the halfway point of the season.
 
when I said that I meant more the past few years. The Jays went 26-46 in divisional play last season and dominated the other two divisions. I would have no issue saying the Jays were the fifth best team in the AL last year, behind the Yankees, Red Sox, Rays and Angels. The same can be said for 08, which was a much better representation of the Jays seeing as the 08 and 09 teams were very similar. 86 wins in the AL East is much, much better than 89 in the central.

So I guess "in recent times" yes, the Jays are a borderline top 5 team in the American League but simply do not have a chance at all to make anyone believe that due to their division, and the fact that the teams ahead of them in that division are literally so much better than any other competition that it is kind of silly.
 
Dude, you need a lot more emotion when a perfect game happens. More like, HOLY FUCKING SHIT DALLAS BRADEN JUST THREW A PERFECTO! Great game. Kinda strange it happened against the game's best offense.
 
i guess a-roids can't call him a nobody anymore! funny that the rays are on wrong end of a perfect game 2 years in a row.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top