Originally posted by no1marauderDo you really think Doc's ability to throw complete games is irrelevant when discussing his talent as a starting pitcher? Toronto had the best bullpen ERA in the majors last year and Doc still threw 9 complete games.
It would seem that pitchers on teams with closers like Rivera have much less "efficiency and stamina" than those who don't.
Originally posted by darvlayYes, I think it's irrelevant when you are comparing him to Santana. Santana could finish a lot more games, but his managers choose to use their excellent closers (that's what they get paid for). Or they prefer not to burn extra innings out of him. Does it really say anything about Halladay's greatness that his manager lets him finish a 7-1 game, while Santana's takes him out?
Do you really think Doc's ability to throw complete games is irrelevant when discussing his talent as a starting pitcher? Toronto had the best bullpen ERA in the majors last year and Doc still threw 9 complete games.
Originally posted by no1marauderYes if Halladay finishes a game in 97 pitches like last game, while Santana gets pulled after needing 115 pitches just to get through 8 and is tired.
Yes, I think it's irrelevant when you are comparing him to Santana. Santana could finish a lot more games, but his managers choose to use their excellent closers (that's what they get paid for). Or they prefer not to burn extra innings out of him. Does it really say anything about Halladay's greatness that his manager lets him finish a 7-1 game, while Santana's takes him out?
Originally posted by uzlessHave you stats that show that Halladay throws less pitches per inning?
Yes if Halladay finishes a game in 97 pitches like last game, while Santana gets pulled after needing 115 pitches just to get through 8 and is tired.
The bottom line is that by standard measures, Santana has pitched better than Halladay throughout their careers. So far the explanations in this thread why this should be disregarded and Halladay acclaimed the "better" pitcher have been unconvincing in the extreme.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderwent to baseball-reference.com and did some calculations
Have you stats that show that Halladay throws less pitches per inning?
The bottom line is that by standard measures, Santana has pitched better than Halladay throughout their careers. So far the explanations in this thread why this should be disregarded and Halladay acclaimed the "better" pitcher have been unconvincing in the extreme.
so far this year, Halladay has averaged 14.0 pitches per inning and 3.6 batters faced, while Santana has averaged 15.9 and 3.8
last year Halladay had 14.4 and 3.6 batters -- while Santana had 15.4 and 3.7
in 2007, Halladay had 14.7 and 3.6 -- while Santana had 15.2 and 3.8
so - yes, Halladay has been more efficient - and is thus able to go more than one additional inning per start than Santana would given the same number of pitches
even if the teams have great bullpens, that extra inning from Halladay per start saves wear and tear on the relievers
Originally posted by no1marauderThe only thing that would get you to change your mind would be to reverse their era's, which as we've demonstrated, are largely dependant on the quality of the opposing hitters.
Have you stats that show that Halladay throws less pitches per inning?
The bottom line is that by standard measures, Santana has pitched better than Halladay throughout their careers. So far the explanations in this thread why this should be disregarded and Halladay acclaimed the "better" pitcher have been unconvincing in the extreme.
And we've clearly demonstrated that Halladay has had to face much tougher hitters than Santana.
You cling to this notion that era is the be all and end all of stats, when in fact, they only tell the partial story.
Originally posted by MelanerpesSo you are arguing last season Halladay had more complete games because he threw half a pitch less per inning or by the end of the eight inning 4 fewer pitches per game than Santana?
went to baseball-reference.com and did some calculations
so far this year, Halladay has averaged 14.0 pitches per inning and 3.6 batters faced, while Santana has averaged 15.9 and 3.8
last year Halladay had 14.4 and 3.6 batters -- while Santana had 15.4 and 3.7
in 2007, Halladay had 14.7 and 3.6 -- while Santana had 15.2 and 3.8
so - yes, Hal ...[text shortened]... e great bullpens, that extra inning from Halladay per start saves wear and tear on the relievers
I think it is far more likely that the difference is due to manager preference and traditional stats like ERA show a far more important picture.
1 edit
Originally posted by quackquackYes, we all know how much you love ERA.
So you are arguing last season Halladay had more complete games because he threw half a pitch less per inning or by the end of the eight inning 4 fewer pitches per game than Santana?
I think it is far more likely that the difference is due to manager preference and traditional stats like ERA show a far more important picture.
"I think it is far more likely that the difference is due to manager preference"
If that's the case then shouldn't Roy's career stats show fluctuations in CGs based on preferences of the different managers he's had? The bottom line is if you got a horse who can finish stronger than he started, you ride him to the end. He's one of those horses and any good manager knows how to get the most of his pitchers.
"C Rod Barajas saw the highlights of former Arizona Diamondbacks teammate Randy Johnson win his 300th against the Washington Nationals last week. “He’s one of the best I’ve ever caught, along with Roy Halladay and Curt Schilling,” Barajas said. “They’re alike in that they compete when on the mound, whether it is their first pitch or their 136th to start the ninth.”
Bill James on ERA:
You often show that conventional baseball statistics aren’t as important as they appear. In the book, you write “every year that passes, the ERA (Earned Run Average) becomes a little more irrelevant.” Why is that?
The reason the ERA is becoming a little more irrelevant every year is that pitchers don’t pitch whole innings anymore. Relief pitchers anyway. If you go back to 1915, 1920, really, all pitchers pitched full innings 99% of the time. And you could measure a pitcher’s effectiveness by how many runs he allowed in those whole innings. But modern pitchers, in particular modern relievers, pitch portions of an inning. And in a situation where each pitcher pitches a portion of an inning, who you charge the run to becomes critical. And the rule on whom we charge the run to is so careless and sloppy that it doesn’t work. It often leads to pitchers having ERAs that do not reflect how they really pitch, either because the reliever allowed a bunch of runs to score that were charged to somebody else, or because the starting pitcher who left guys on base got hurt by it.
Originally posted by quackquackI don't really care about the "complete games" per se -- it's the overall wear and tear on the bullpen that becomes a factor late in the season. So if a pitcher can go an extra 2/3 of an inning per start, those are two fewer outs per start that the bullpen has to get.
So you are arguing last season Halladay had more complete games because he threw half a pitch less per inning or by the end of the eight inning 4 fewer pitches per game than Santana?
I think it is far more likely that the difference is due to manager preference and traditional stats like ERA show a far more important picture.
Most managers use pitch counts as a major part of their decision on when to take a starter out of the game -- with 100 being a magic number of sorts -- so if a pitcher can keep his pitch count down, it allows his manager to "prefer" to keep him in the game longer.
Halladay's pitching efficiency doesn't necessarily make him "better" than Santana, but it's a legitimate part of the argument
Originally posted by darvlaygood point here -- although I still see ERA as useful for starters since they often come out of games at the end of an inning. But for relievers, ERA is meaningless unless it's extremely high or low.
Bill James on ERA:
You often show that conventional baseball statistics aren’t as important as they appear. In the book, you write “every year that passes, the ERA (Earned Run Average) becomes a little more irrelevant.” Why is that?
The reason the ERA is becoming a little more irrelevant every year is that pitchers don’t pitch whole innings any ...[text shortened]... charged to somebody else, or because the starting pitcher who left guys on base got hurt by it.
I'd like to see batting stats used for pitchers -- where they'd list the batting average, on-base pct, and slugging pct that a given pitcher has yielded.
Another idea would be to award fractions of runs depending on the situation a departing pitcher leaves on base -- for eg - if there's a runner on 3rd and none out, the departing pitcher would get something like 0.95 of the run if it scores and the pitcher coming in would get 0.05 -- while if there's a runner on first and two outs, departing pitcher only gets like 0.10 of the run. There would have to be a chart of all the situations based on the average probability that a given runner will score.
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesThat is a good point and I do agree that it's more aimed towards ERA for relievers. However, another inherent other flaw in ERA we should consider is it's correlation with fielding:
good point here -- although I still see ERA as useful for starters since they often come out of games at the end of an inning. But for relievers, ERA is meaningless unless it's extremely high or low.
"Several sabermetric methods use only these "defense-independent" pitching statistics to evaluate a pitcher's ability. The logic behind using only these statistics is that once a ball is put in play, most often the pitcher has no effect on the resultant fielding of the ball. But defense-dependent statistics, such as the rate of hits allowed on balls put into play, are sometimes affected by the quality and/or arrangement of the defense behind the pitcher. For example, an outfielder may make an exceptionally strong diving catch to prevent a hit, or a base runner may beat a play to a base on a ball thrown from a fielder with sub par arm strength. Defense-independent statistics such as walks and strikeouts are determined almost solely by the pitcher's ability level."