Johan Santana throws no hitter

[Blackout]

Mets fans, where are you

[SMC]

HE DID IT!!!

CONGRATULATIONS, JOHAN SANTANA & MET FANS! FIRST NONO IN 51 YEAR HISTORY.

[Blackout]

So glad to see Johan do it

Johan, the greatest pitcher of this millennium

[billybroome]

HE DID IT!!!

CONGRATULATIONS, JOHAN SANTANA & MET FANS! FIRST NONO IN 51 YEAR HISTORY.

I guess they were due. Not an easy task either against the Cardinals.

[JonEJet]

Congrats Mets fans

[faba]

Thanks Johan Mets fans have waited so long- we can cherish this always.

[Larz]

*

j/k congrats mets fans

[RutgersJetFan]

I'd have given an appendage easily to be the dude in the jorts who rushed the field and celebrated with the rest of the team. Guy got mauled by security and spent the night in jail and that had to be 100% worth it. Pure jealousy over here. I would have done the exact same thing.

[PFSIKH]

So glad to see Johan do it

Johan, the greatest pitcher of this millennium

Verlander scoffs at your opinion.

Roy Halliday as well.

[Blackout]

Verlander scoffs at your opinion.

Roy Halliday as well.

Pitchers from 2001-today

Verlander: 3.48 ERA, 1,396 IP, 112 wins, 60 losses, 125 ERA+

Sabathia: 3.52 ERA, 2,442 IP, 183 wins, 98 losses, 125 ERA+ (plus a WS ring)

Randy Johnson: 3.44 ERA, 1,636 IP, 124 wins, 71 losses, 132 ERA+ (plus a WS ring)

Oswalt: 3.21 ERA, 2,154 IP, 159 wins, 93 losses, 133 ERA+

Halladay: 3.01 ERA, 2,372 IP, 179 wins, 83 losses, 146 ERA+

Santana: 2.92 ERA, 1,890 IP, 134 wins, 68 losses, 148 ERA+

Verlander? LMAO you must be effing kidding with that.

I mean Halladay certainly has his argument (for sure) but you said Verlander? ahahhahahaha that is silly of you.

[PFSIKH]

Pitchers from 2001-today

Verlander: 3.48 ERA, 1,396 IP, 112 wins, 60 losses, 125 ERA+

Sabathia: 3.52 ERA, 2,442 IP, 183 wins, 98 losses, 125 ERA+ (plus a WS ring)

Randy Johnson: 3.44 ERA, 1,636 IP, 124 wins, 71 losses, 132 ERA+ (plus a WS ring)

Oswalt: 3.21 ERA, 2,154 IP, 159 wins, 93 losses, 133 ERA+

Halladay: 3.01 ERA, 2,372 IP, 179 wins, 83 losses, 146 ERA+

Santana: 2.92 ERA, 1,890 IP, 134 wins, 68 losses, 148 ERA+

Verlander? LMAO you must be effing kidding with that.

I mean Halladay certainly has his argument (for sure) but you said Verlander? ahahhahahaha that is silly of you.

Do not get me wrong, I think Santana was as great as Pedro was late last century for a brief period . Whether injury or expectation burdened him, he has not been as great as a Met as he was with the Twinkies. Now, he is coming off a major injury.

[BroadwayJoe12]

Pitchers from 2001-today

Verlander: 3.48 ERA, 1,396 IP, 112 wins, 60 losses, 125 ERA+

Sabathia: 3.52 ERA, 2,442 IP, 183 wins, 98 losses, 125 ERA+ (plus a WS ring)

Randy Johnson: 3.44 ERA, 1,636 IP, 124 wins, 71 losses, 132 ERA+ (plus a WS ring)

Oswalt: 3.21 ERA, 2,154 IP, 159 wins, 93 losses, 133 ERA+

Halladay: 3.01 ERA, 2,372 IP, 179 wins, 83 losses, 146 ERA+

Santana: 2.92 ERA, 1,890 IP, 134 wins, 68 losses, 148 ERA+

Verlander? LMAO you must be effing kidding with that.

I mean Halladay certainly has his argument (for sure) but you said Verlander? ahahhahahaha that is silly of you.

If we're going millenium like you originally said, Santana wouldn't even make my top five (Pedro, Randy, Clemens, Maddux and I waffle for the fifth. Even though he didn't have the longevity that these other guys had, Pedro was the most dominant pitcher that I've ever seen. His run from '99 - '03 was filthy.

Year ERA- FIP-

1999: 42 30

2000: 35 46

2001: 52 36

2002: 50 51

2003: 48 49

I mean no one in history really even comes close to being as dominant as he was for that stretch, it's absolutely ridiculous. I like Santana a lot actually and as a yankee fan, although I appreciated Pedro, never particularly cared for him, so this is a bit tough to get out, but for my money, he's the best pitcher that I've ever witnessed.

[Blackout]

oh you sons of guns are gonna count Greg Maddux and Roger Clemens just BECAUSE they pitched after 2001? then you got me

[Blackout]

Whether injury or expectation burdened him, he has not been as great as a Met as he was with the Twinkies. Now, he is coming off a major injury.

well this is true, but Santana was the best for a good 3-4 year span and his first year as a Met as dominant too.

[billybroome]

I'd have given an appendage easily to be the dude in the jorts who rushed the field and celebrated with the rest of the team. Guy got mauled by security and spent the night in jail and that had to be 100% worth it. Pure jealousy over here. I would have done the exact same thing.

Watching that beatdown behind the Mets celebration was hilarious! I'm surprised they didn't yank down his jorts and take him to pound town.

[PFSIKH]

well this is true, but Santana was the best for a good 3-4 year span and his first year as a Met as dominant too.

No doubt.

[RutgersJetFan]

Watching that beatdown behind the Mets celebration was hilarious! I'm surprised they didn't yank down his jorts and take him to pound town.

So worth it.

[RutgersJetFan]

If we're going millenium like you originally said, Santana wouldn't even make my top five (Pedro, Randy, Clemens, Maddux and I waffle for the fifth. Even though he didn't have the longevity that these other guys had, Pedro was the most dominant pitcher that I've ever seen. His run from '99 - '03 was filthy.

Year ERA- FIP-

1999: 42 30

2000: 35 46

2001: 52 36

2002: 50 51

2003: 48 49

I mean no one in history really even comes close to being as dominant as he was for that stretch, it's absolutely ridiculous. I like Santana a lot actually and as a yankee fan, although I appreciated Pedro, never particularly cared for him, so this is a bit tough to get out, but for my money, he's the best pitcher that I've ever witnessed.

I think the fact that Pedro was doing it in the steroid era makes it that much more impressive. You look at how all the batting numbers have come back down to earth the past half decade, and it's just insane how he was able to do that.

[Blackout]

Oh, how I miss the steroid era now!

[BroadwayJoe12]

I think the fact that Pedro was doing it in the steroid era makes it that much more impressive. You look at how all the batting numbers have come back down to earth the past half decade, and it's just insane how he was able to do that.

Definitely. I'm not sure if you already have, but if I you haven't, you should go take a look at fangraphs' minus advanced stat. It's basically the pitching equivelant of wRC+, which I love because it's league and park adjusted. It's also a bit different than a lot of advanced stats in that lower is better: ie. 100 is league average and a rating of 60 means that you are 40% better than the league average and vice versa. (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-minus-stats/)

For my money, no one had as dominating a stretch as Pedro did and it's just surreal the era he did it in. He gets knocked down a bit for not having the longevity of someone like Clemens, Johnson and Maddux, but the fact that his peak is better than anyone's peak ever, makes him my number one of the era...that and the whole Clemens steroid thing.

[Jetsfan80]

For my money, no one had as dominating a stretch as Pedro did and it's just surreal the era he did it in. He gets knocked down a bit for not having the longevity of someone like Clemens, Johnson and Maddux, but the fact that his peak is better than anyone's peak ever, makes him my number one of the era...that and the whole Clemens steroid thing.

Well, I think Sandy Koufax would disagree with this statement. But I certainly wouldn't argue with Pedro getting the # 2 spot.

So glad to see Johan get the first no-no. He is classy AND uber-talented, something you have to respect. I'm really enjoying watching this Mets team, and this weekend against the Cards could be a sign of a special season.

[BroadwayJoe12]

Well, I think Sandy Koufax would disagree with this statement. But I certainly wouldn't argue with Pedro getting the # 2 spot.

So glad to see Johan get the first no-no. He is classy AND uber-talented, something you have to respect. I'm really enjoying watching this Mets team, and this weekend against the Cards could be a sign of a special season.

The last four years of Koufax's career were indeed one of the best stretches ever, absolutely amazing, but I think if you dive a little closer at pedro's '99-'03 you'll see he dominated the league moreso than Sandy did. Pedro had a better ERA-/ERA+ and FIP- during his four year run; he just was that much better than everyone else during that stretch.

That having been said, given a game 7 of the world series, based on statistics, I take Koufax.

[Scott Dierking]

You would have to consider Bob Gibson, also, from '68-'71.

134 game starts, 99 complete games. Just that alone is amazing, and a simple statement how difficult it is to compare pitchers from years past, to present. Criteria that is variable:

-Mound being lowered by an inch

-The modern day phenomenon of a quality start being 6 innings, 3 runs.

-The steroid era

-better athletes today.

etc, etc, etc.

[JohnnyHector]

Well, I think Sandy Koufax would disagree with this statement.

Of course he would. But he'd be wrong.

[BroadwayJoe12]

You would have to consider Bob Gibson, also, from '68-'71.

134 game starts, 99 complete games. Just that alone is amazing, and a simple statement how difficult it is to compare pitchers from years past, to present. Criteria that is variable:

-Mound being lowered by an inch

-The modern day phenomenon of a quality start being 6 innings, 3 runs.

-The steroid era

-better athletes today.

etc, etc, etc.

That's all true, but that's why I'm a big - no pun intended - fan of Fangraphs minus and plus stats, because it allows one to compare how each athlete did compared to the rest of the league. When you get these league adjusted stats, you can see just how incredibly dominant some of these players were; especially when you're able to take out a lot of the extraneous factors that these pitchers have zero baring on.

Gibson's whole '68 to '73 stretch was surely great, but the only season he truly dominated on the level of Pedro was the '68 season. I tend to not judge era to era or pitcher to pitcher, but how I base players is how each one dominated their own era and then compare that. That's why I've always been on the Pedro bandwagon.

[Jetsfan80]

Of course he would. But he'd be wrong.

Explain, please.

[Blackout]

walter johnson > pedro

[JohnnyHector]

Explain, please.

Simply put, Pedro's performance vs. league average >>> Koufax's performance vs. league average

[Scott Dierking]

Simply put, Pedro's performance vs. league average >>> Koufax's performance vs. league average

Please educate me here-BUT, wouldn't that statement be dependent upon the quality of pitchers during that specific period, in comparison?

[GM]

Here is the entire 9th inning for you Mets fans:

http://video.staged.com/greenmachine/santana_nohitterlast_inning

[JohnnyHector]

Please educate me here-BUT, wouldn't that statement be dependent upon the quality of pitchers during that specific period, in comparison?

No more so than being dependent on the quality of hitters during that specific period, a good number of which were on PED's during Pedro's career.

[Scott Dierking]

No more so than being dependent on the quality of hitters during that specific period, a good number of which were on PED's during Pedro's career.

There would seem to be a multitude of variance here, but I understand what you are saying. Thanks.

[BroadwayJoe12]

Simply put, Pedro's performance vs. league average >>> Koufax's performance vs. league average

This. In addition to his fielding independent metrics being just surreal, especially when you go the step further and look at something like FIP that compare it to the rest of the league. His ERA- and ERA+ are otherworldy, which is expected since he dominated the league during an era that pitchers just didn't do that. Some of the pitchers mentioned above like Gibson, Walter Johnson etc. had similiar ERA-/+, because compared to the rest of the league they were phenomenal at going the distance and keeping the runs down. However, none of them were able to do that while at the same time dominate the things that only pitchers can control;strikeouts, walks, hbp, homeruns etc. Pedro just blows me away every time I look at what he's done and when he did it.

[Scott Dierking]

This. In addition to his fielding independent metrics being just surreal, especially when you go the step further and look at something like FIP that compare it to the rest of the league. His ERA- and ERA+ are otherworldy, which is expected since he dominated the league during an era that pitchers just didn't do that. Some of the pitchers mentioned above like Gibson, Walter Johnson etc. had similiar ERA-/+, because compared to the rest of the league they were phenomenal at going the distance and keeping the runs down. However, none of them were able to do that while at the same time dominate the things that only pitchers can control;strikeouts, walks, hbp, homeruns etc. Pedro just blows me away every time I look at what he's done and when he did it.

Educate me some more here-Take a pitcher like Pedro Martinez, who RARELY completed games, and would often take himself out after 6 or 7 innings.

Do those metrics that you provide, give any consideration to the Gibson's of the world who DID expose themselves to more damage by going deeper in games and allowing hitters to see them 3 or 4 times?

That creates a definite advantage to the hitter. As well the value of the pitcher increases as he does not expose the pen.

Is that at all a factor?

[T0mShane]

Congrats Mets fans

How's CC doing this year?