Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Otter

Halladay vs. Santana

Who is the best starter in baseball?  

1 member has voted

  1. 1. Who is the best starter in baseball?



Recommended Posts

Please. I already proved to you Halladay was better last season too earlier in this thread about a month ago.

What did you prove? That you cited that Halladay pitches deeper into games and walked a few less batters, while omitting that he gave up more hits and thus, had a higher WHIP than Santana... I hope you're not a criminal defense lawyer.

You also seem to always conveniently forget that AL pitcher stats can't be directly compared directly to NL stats as one is a much, much tougher league to pitch in.

You must have missed my post on ERA+. Santana was superior to his league averages by a wider margin than Halladay.

But whatever. Try to convince yourself that if you had you still wouldn't have made the playoffs last year if you had Halladay instead of Santana. You're still wrong. When your starter goes deeper into games, your bullpen doesn't even get the chance to blow it for him.
And put Halladay on the Marlins with their awful infield defense and see how many more runs he gives up. Santana having wins blown by the Mets bullpen last season has absolutely nothing to do with who the better pitcher is... the very fact you are using this argument shows that you're grasping at straws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please. I already proved to you Halladay was better last season too earlier in this thread about a month ago. You also seem to always conveniently forget that AL pitcher stats can't be directly compared directly to NL stats as one is a much, much tougher league to pitch in.

Talk about track record all you want. Pedro Martinez has a better track record than Zach Greinke. Doesn't even remotely mean he's a better pitcher than him right now.

But whatever. Try to convince yourself that if you had you still wouldn't have made the playoffs last year if you had Halladay instead of Santana. You're still wrong. When your starter goes deeper into games, your bullpen doesn't even get the chance to blow it for him.

lol.....the only person who thinks you proved that halladay was better last season is you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol.....the only person who thinks you proved that halladay was better last season is you.

Wrong. Most non-Mets fans fully acknowledge the fact. Did you forget how your entire argument was based on WHIP and I shot multiple holes in that theory, highlighted with the fact that Halladay in fact had a lower one?

Face it: if Santana pitched for the Phillies, you'd be in 100% agreement with me.

Edited by Guido Monzino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong. Most non-Mets fans fully acknowledge the fact. Did you forget how your entire argument was based on WHIP and I shot multiple holes in that theory, highlighted with the fact that Halladay in fact had a lower one?

Face it: if Santana pitched for the Phillies, you'd be in 100% agreement with me.

Dude, you've been beaten like a drum in this thread, and you continue to claim you have "proven" to everyone. The only reason I brought up the the Yankee angle was to counter your theory that "only Met fans" think Santana is superior. Look at the poll on this board. How many non Yankee fan actually thought that Halladay is superior. Everyone knows this is your way of justifying the ridiculous non trade for Santana. I actually think it's pretty funny. You must go to the Roger Clemens school of reality. When everyone else disagrees with you, you are still right. Go going buddy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What did you prove? That you cited that Halladay pitches deeper into games and walked a few less batters, while omitting that he gave up more hits and thus, had a higher WHIP than Santana... I hope you're not a criminal defense lawyer.

If you can't understand why a guy that throws more strikes gives up more hits, there is nothing I can do to make you understand this game.

If you can't understand why a guy that faces a DH and much tougher lineups overall would give up more hits, there is nothing I can do to make you understand this game.

You must have missed my post on ERA+. Santana was superior to his league averages by a wider margin than Halladay.

I read it. I also notice you shoot your first point in the foot in that you pass right over WHIP+ as a stat. Probably because it doesn't work for your argument.

And put Halladay on the Marlins with their awful infield defense and see how many more runs he gives up. Santana having wins blown by the Mets bullpen last season has absolutely nothing to do with who the better pitcher is... the very fact you are using this argument shows that you're grasping at straws.

If you can't understand that a pitcher going deeper into games isn't better for your bullpen (no matter how good or bad that bullpen is) and the team overall, then I really can't help you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude, you've been beaten like a drum in this thread, and you continue to claim you have "proven" to everyone. The only reason I brought up the the Yankee angle was to counter your theory that "only Met fans" think Santana is superior. Look at the poll on this board. How many non Yankee fan actually thought that Halladay is superior. Everyone knows this is your way of justifying the ridiculous non trade for Santana. I actually think it's pretty funny. You must go to the Roger Clemens school of reality. When everyone else disagrees with you, you are still right. Go going buddy.

Did you miss the part about me not going to have this discussion any further with someone who clearly has not watched Roy Halladay pitch?

It's even funnier that you now prove to everyone that you base your opinion on what the polls tell you think. Scientific polls to boot. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you miss the part about me not going to have this discussion any further with someone who clearly has not watched Roy Halladay pitch?

It's even funnier that you now prove to everyone that you base your opinion on what the polls tell you think. Scientific polls to boot. :rolleyes:

Apparently you found a scientific poll where only Met fans thought Santana was a better pitcher. Again how much did it cost you to enroll in the Roger Clemens School?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently you found a scientific poll where only Met fans thought Santana was a better pitcher. Again how much did it cost you to enroll in the Roger Clemens School?

Hey, let's change course a bit. Want to discuss the German Social Democratic Party's candidate for District 251's Bundestag seat and his stance on health care? I know you probably don't know much about him or even have any clue what I'm talking about, but your opinion will still probably carry a lot of weight anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong. Most non-Mets fans fully acknowledge the fact. Did you forget how your entire argument was based on WHIP and I shot multiple holes in that theory, highlighted with the fact that Halladay in fact had a lower one?

Face it: if Santana pitched for the Phillies, you'd be in 100% agreement with me.

that's not true. i pretty much hate the yankees, yet i can admit that mariano is the best closer in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey, let's change course a bit. Want to discuss the German Social Democratic Party's candidate for District 251's Bundestag seat and his stance on health care? I know you probably don't know much about him or even have any clue what I'm talking about, but your opinion will still probably carry a lot of weight anyway.

Good 'ol guido. Thoroughly owned in a debate. Why not change the subject? I am still curious. How much did it cost you to graduate from Roger Clemens U again? I am sure besides, learning about how to distort reality you probably received a good education on the German Social Democratic Party's candidate for District 251's Bundestag seat and his stance on health care. Good going.

It's clear to everyone outside of the Mets fan circle that right now he is the best pitcher in baseball.

I must have missed this scientific poll, maybe you would be so kind as to show me the link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The both suck. Watch how I spin this. They both wont make the playoff. Hence they are useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that's not true. i pretty much hate the yankees, yet i can admit that mariano is the best closer in the game.

Totally different situation. All that tells me is that your sad, pathetic blind hatred of the Yankees is not nearly as strong as your bling homerism of all things Mets (besides, Mariano being the best closer is one of the most obvious facts out there).

Think about it. If Cole Hamels put up identical numbers to Santana, you'd be siding with me in this discussion. Don't even kid yourself into thinking you wouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good 'ol guido. Thoroughly owned in a debate. Why not change the subject? I am still curious. How much did it cost you to graduate from Roger Clemens U again? I am sure besides, learning about how to distort reality you probably received a good education on the German Social Democratic Party's candidate for District 251's Bundestag seat and his stance on health care. Good going.

Maybe I went too far trying to bring in a political subject. Maybe we should try something more your speed. Like 4th grade English. Then again, from the looks of this post, that might be a stretch too.

Keep pounding away at the bad Clemens joke too. The more you use it, the funnier it gets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe I went too far trying to bring in a political subject. Maybe we should try something more your speed. Like 4th grade English. Then again, from the looks of this post, that might be a stretch too.

Keep pounding away at the bad Clemens joke too. The more you use it, the funnier it gets.

Its only funny because you made the claim that "only Met fans" think Santana is a better pitcher. Then made a follow up about some scientific poll. The poll on this thread is relevant because this thread is about Santana/Halladay, which is more evidence than you've ever been able to provide.

I continue to hammer the lame Clemens joke just like you continue to deny you've been thoroughly destroyed in this thread, and I am not saying I am the one to do so.You continually change the subject, you continually bring up the inning issue with disregard for anything else. You are obviously the type to refuse reality and have been able to convince yourself you can do no wrong.You've pretty much become an embarrassment. Did you leave JI because you were made fun of, only to have folks on this board make fun of you too. Wow it must be a tough being Guido, can't even find acceptance on a silly message board.

For a guy, who won't get into a conversation with me, I sure am getting a lot of responses from a guido Monzino. This may be yet another lesson from the Clemens school of Reality. "Don't believe what your eyes see, believe me, I am Guido Monzino."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you can't understand why a guy that throws more strikes gives up more hits, there is nothing I can do to make you understand this game.

Strike Percentage in 2009 starts

Halladay - 69%

Santana - 69%

You really made your point there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strike Percentage in 2009 starts

Halladay - 69%

Santana - 69%

You really made your point there...

"But Halladay pitches in the AL, and he can pitches deeper into games" -guido monzino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a little late to this thread, but in an effort to put to bed the mind-numbing argument of "strength of league", will cite the wonderful statistic known as ERA+.

For the uninitiated, adjusted ERA+ is a relative measure of a pitcher's performance against the league average and is ballpark-adjusted, to remove the advantage/disadvantage of playing in a pitcher's/hitter's park. Thus, if the league-average ERA in the NL is a half run better than the AL, ERA+ will remove that advantage for a fair head-to-head comparison across leagues. An ERA+ of 100 is considered to be average, with a higher number an indicator of better performance.

For their careers, Santana currently has an ERA+ of 146, while Halladay's is 133. Halladay has never led his league in ERA+, while Santana led the AL in that category 3 times (and is currently leading the NL this year). Santana also is currently tied for the 4th best ERA+ of all-time (with Walter Johnson and a few others), behind only Mariano (a ridiculous 199), Pedro (154) and Lefty Grove (148).

The argument of Halladay being a better pitcher for going deeper into games is weak at best. He is an extreme groundball pitcher (57%) that doesn't strike out a ton of batters (6.49 K/9). Obviously, he is going to use less pitches that a guy who is a dominant strikeout pitcher (9.3 K/9). Arguing that Santana relies more on others (his bullpen) than Halladay, because the latter pitches deeper into games is moronic, when Halladay relies on his infield defense to put away all those ground balls he induces.

I certainly wouldn't mind either one on my team, but being that I'm especially partial to pitchers that miss bats (don't leave anything to chance), I would take Santana in a heartbeat.

This was a great post, and sadly ignored amongst the semantical BS. Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole AL bias and how much tougher it is to pitch in the league is blown out of proportion.

Does the AL score more runs? Absolutely.

Is it as much of a difference maker as Guido makes it out to be? Certainly not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strike Percentage in 2009 starts

Halladay - 69%

Santana - 69%

You really made your point there...

First, care to provide a link to your stat?

Second, explain to me how a guy with twice as many walks as another guy throws the same amount of strikes.

Edited by Guido Monzino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This whole AL bias and how much tougher it is to pitch in the league is blown out of proportion.

Does the AL score more runs? Absolutely.

Is it as much of a difference maker as Guido makes it out to be? Certainly not.

Well that's certainly a solid analysis. Care to quantify that?

If you think there isn't a HUGE difference between facing the Red Sox, Yankees, Rays and Orioles for a majority of your schedule and facing the Phillies, Marlins, Braves and Nationals, then I have a bridge to sell you.

And that is before you even factor in smaller ballparks and the DH rule. Oops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This was a great post, and sadly ignored amongst the semantical BS. Well said.

It was a good post about a stat. But it leaves out the part that ERA+ is by no means the be-all-end-all statistic when it comes to evaluating pitchers. Not even close.

Like I said, you can grab any one of a single statistic to make your case. There are plenty of "+" stats that swing in Halladay's favor too.

Here's a stat you probably don't all know about: tRA. It is far more effective than ERA+. Read about it here: http://www.statcorner.com/tRAabout.html

Here's last year's numbers: http://www.statcorner.com/leader.php?type=2&year=2008&leag=MLB&limit=300

Edited by Guido Monzino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Santana is going to be the best pitcher at the golf course in October. lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets look at this in a very stupid manner-numbers alone, to quell Guido's AL bias:

The average AL team scored 775 runs last year

The average NL team scored 734 runs last year

That is a difference, on average, of 41 runs

If you take 41 runs by team, that means an AL team, on average scored .25 more runs/game than the NL counterparts.

Johan made 34 starts last year. Let's be totally cruel and give him an extra .25 runs per game (unfair because he is not an average pitcher, and did not pitch full games in order to accrue that .25 runs)-that gives him an extra 9 runs (rounded up from 8.5).

We will even say all those runs were earned runs.

That makes his era jump up to 2.88, in the cruelest set of circumstances.

More than Halladay's 2.78, but Halladay does not offset the things Santana brings.

Here you go Guido, It was right in this thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the experts chime in:

In this weeks SI, Scouts and executives were asked "Who are the top 5 active players you would pick to start a franchise?"

The results of the top 11:

Albert Pujols

Evan Longoria

Zach Greinke

Joe Mauer

Hanley Ramirez

Johan Santana (2 first place votes out of 20)

Roy Halladay (0 first place votes out of 20)

Alex Rodriguez

Jonathan Papalbon

Tim Lincecum

Grady Sizemore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its only funny because you made the claim that "only Met fans" think Santana is a better pitcher. Then made a follow up about some scientific poll. The poll on this thread is relevant because this thread is about Santana/Halladay, which is more evidence than you've ever been able to provide.

I continue to hammer the lame Clemens joke just like you continue to deny you've been thoroughly destroyed in this thread, and I am not saying I am the one to do so.You continually change the subject, you continually bring up the inning issue with disregard for anything else. You are obviously the type to refuse reality and have been able to convince yourself you can do no wrong.You've pretty much become an embarrassment. Did you leave JI because you were made fun of, only to have folks on this board make fun of you too. Wow it must be a tough being Guido, can't even find acceptance on a silly message board.

For a guy, who won't get into a conversation with me, I sure am getting a lot of responses from a guido Monzino. This may be yet another lesson from the Clemens school of Reality. "Don't believe what your eyes see, believe me, I am Guido Monzino."

Now I feel a little bad because I realize I was going at it with someone who is obviously a child. I'm sorry, little guy.

Just one last tip for you, kid, about this topic. The simple fact that you think that I have been"schooled" or whatever makes you look by far the most ridiculous person on the board. No matter what side of the issue you are on, all the reasonable people here would agree that it is close. No matter who you think is better, it is certainly a viable comparison to make. There is no run-away, decisive winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here you go Guido, It was right in this thread

Point is, we could talk stats until we're blue in the face. But the truth is, none of these really help us much in an argument that pits two guys that are so dominant and so close. Sure, those stats are useful and display the many ways Santana would be a much better pitcher than the average guy, but not in this case.

In this case, you have two guys that go out and dominate on a consistent basis. Most of their stats are very close to each other's especially when you consider where they both are relative to the rest of the league.

Therefore, for me, I would much prefer the guy on my team that dominates for 8 innings than the guy that dominates for 7. It's that simple. At their level, all of the other stats are pretty much a wash. The walks stat speaks to their ability to throw less pitches, and therefore last longer, which is why I brought it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Point is, we could talk stats until we're blue in the face. But the truth is, none of these really help us much in an argument that pits two guys that are so dominant and so close. Sure, those stats are useful and display the many ways Santana would be a much better pitcher than the average guy, but not in this case.

In this case, you have two guys that go out and dominate on a consistent basis. Most of their stats are very close to each other's especially when you consider where they both are relative to the rest of the league.

Therefore, for me, I would much prefer the guy on my team that dominates for 8 innings than the guy that dominates for 7. It's that simple. At their level, all of the other stats are pretty much a wash. The walks stat speaks to their ability to throw less pitches, and therefore last longer, which is why I brought it up.

It all depends how your ball club is built, and your club philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It all depends how your ball club is built, and your club philosophy.

Under what build or philosophy would you prefer your starters to throw less innings? Besides the All Star game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Under what build or philosophy would you prefer your starters to throw less innings? Besides the All Star game?

One where I trust my bullpen or one where I want to limit my starters innings or pitches, to finish the year strongly.

The Mets have a huge investment in Santana, for years to come. No reason to abuse an arm.

I don't know if that is what they are thinking, but it is a possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One where I trust my bullpen or one where I want to limit my starters innings or pitches, to finish the year strongly.

The Mets have a huge investment in Santana, for years to come. No reason to abuse an arm.

I don't know if that is what they are thinking, but it is a possibility.

Relievers are relievers for a reason. If you have a dominant starter, you want him in as long as possible. It's the same as the Joba debate. You want your best pitchers throwing the most innings. It's pretty basic.

It's not as if Santana is on a much stricter pitch count than Halladay. The point I was making is that both guys are dominant, it just so happens that Halladay does it more efficiently. Santana averages 104 pitches, Halladay 107. Yet Halladay gets more than a full inning per start out of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was a good post about a stat. But it leaves out the part that ERA+ is by no means the be-all-end-all statistic when it comes to evaluating pitchers. Not even close.

Like I said, you can grab any one of a single statistic to make your case. There are plenty of "+" stats that swing in Halladay's favor too.

Here's a stat you probably don't all know about: tRA. It is far more effective than ERA+. Read about it here: http://www.statcorner.com/tRAabout.html

Here's last year's numbers: http://www.statcorner.com/leader.php?type=2&year=2008&leag=MLB&limit=300

You are right MadMike err Guido.

Last year was the first time Roy had a better tRA since 2003. Way to make your point. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are right MadMike err Guido.

Last year was the first time Roy had a better tRA since 2003. Way to make your point. :rolleyes:

How does that not make the point of who has the better pitcher recently (as in 2008 and 2009?):rolleyes: I know baseball isn't your strong suit, but try to keep up with the discussion. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How does that not make the point of who has the better pitcher recently (as in 2008 and 2009?):rolleyes: I know baseball isn't your strong suit, but try to keep up with the discussion. Thanks.

A selection of "experts" chose Santana over Halladay, if they were to start a franchise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A selection of "experts" chose Santana over Halladay, if they were to start a franchise.

Come on. Come with something stronger than that.

They also chose a closer with a history of arm worries over Tim Lincecum. And what do you think about their selection of Sizemore over Beltran? Hmm?

Edited by Guido Monzino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How does that not make the point of who has the better pitcher recently (as in 2008 and 2009?):rolleyes: I know baseball isn't your strong suit, but try to keep up with the discussion. Thanks.

So your whole point is Halladay is better because of the last season and a third. Despite overwhelming evidence that your stat says Santana has been better over the last 4.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



Content Partnership

Yes Network

Site Sponsor

MILE-Social - NJ Social Media & SEO company
×
×
  • Create New...