Originally posted by uzlessSuper. Get to work.
I think the only way to settle this for sure is to take a sampling of the same individual hitters that each pitcher has faced.
Say the top 100 hitters in the league. How did each pitcher do against the top 100 hitters in the league over several years?
Originally posted by darvlaythe pitcher actually does have a lot to do with the resultant fielding of the balls that are put into play. The quality of pitches plays a huge role in determining how well the ball is hit. A routine grounder or pop-up is much more likely to turned into an out than a bullet line drive. Even when a fielder commits an error, it's more likely when the ball is hit well and the fielder has to make a "relatively" difficult play
That 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:
"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 ...[text shortened]... s walks and strikeouts are determined almost solely by the pitcher's ability level."
on the other hand, even strikeouts and walks aren't really "fielder independent" -- if a pitcher isn't confident in his fielders' ability to make plays behind him, he's going to very wary and try to throw the perfect pitch every time - an approach that usually leads to lots of walks. And if a pitcher is always behind in the count, it becomes much harder to get strikeouts.
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesFrom 2004-07, when both were starters in the AL, Santana averaged 6.8 innings per start and Halladay 7.0. Giving each say 34 starts, that difference equates to about 7 innings over a 162 game season. Is it your claim that "saving" 7 innings a year for a bullpen of 6 or 7 relievers, makes any significant difference?
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
Originally posted by quackquackHalladay broke his leg in '05 and missed half the year. Halladay also struggled through an injury for a lot of '04. I know this has already been mentioned but you seem to need constant reminding of things...
If all you are interested in, is saving your bullpen, from '04-07, Santana did a significantly better job. Santana pitched over 912 innings while Halladay pitched under 720.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderbut if we look at recent performance -- 07-present
From 2004-07, when both were starters in the AL, Santana averaged 6.8 innings per start and Halladay 7.0. Giving each say 34 starts, that difference equates to about 7 innings over a 162 game season. Is it your claim that "saving" 7 innings a year for a bullpen of 6 or 7 relievers, makes any significant difference?
Halladay has averaged 7.42 innings while Santana has averaged 6.74 innings
Halladay has averaged 14.49 pitches per inning, while Santana has averaged 15.35 pitches -- so it takes Halladay 6.90 innings to reach 100 pitches, while it takes Santana 6.52
if a manager took each out after 100 pitches, Halladay would average an additional 0.38 innings per start -- which would save the bullpen about 13 innings over the course of the season
when evaluating bullpen wear, I prefer to focus on appearances rather than innings per se -- even a one-pitch appearance involves a good number of intense warm-up pitches. So Halladay would be saving the bullpen 13 appearances if each reliever averaged one inning apiece.
since both are ace pitchers, those 13 extra innings would accrue mainly to the setup man or closer -- probably saving at least 5 appearances for each one.
Now if a team could replace their entire starting rotation with an equal quality pitcher (making an equal number of starts), except for being able to pitch an additional 10 innings per season with the same number of pitches. You could save the bullpen 50 appearances - and that could make a huge difference. Just ask the Mets
Not only have you guys gotten away from the issue of who has been better for their career. (Santana has more Cy Youngs, a better ERA when they were in the same league and when they were in different leagues and who led the AL in WHIP the last 4 years he pitched so I think their is not much to discuss).
You also have fabricated a durability issue. Santana made 33 or 34 starts each year since 2004. Halladay reached 33 once in that time period. Missed starts kill your bullpen far more than handing off the ball to a closer. Years like 2004 and 2005 when Halladay had a combined total of 40 starts just have not happened to Santana. Finally you make it sound like Santana does not throw innings. Santana has pitched more innings 4 of the last 5 years. The year Santana threw more, he threw a whopping 11.2 more innings.
Would I love to have Halladay on my team? Sure who wouldn't. He just hasn't been as good as Santana so far in his career
Originally posted by quackquackI think you've fabricated a fabrication of a durability issue. Santana is extremely durable. No one has contested that. Stamina and long-term durability are two different characteristics.
You also have fabricated a durability issue.
And don't look now but Mr. Santana is now third in the NL in ERA and only 0.13 lower than Halladay. 😲
Originally posted by quackquackHere you've fabricated a durability issue. A broken leg is not something I would consider a recurring injury. And given the fact that Halladay has missed only one start since the season he broke his leg (3+ years), I think it's fair to consider them equal in durability going forward.
Halladay reached 33 once in that time period. Missed starts kill your bullpen far more than handing off the ball to a closer. Years like 2004 and 2005 when Halladay had a combined total of 40 starts just have not happened to Santana.
I am not sure why we are arguing pitches thrown (maybe becuase it is settled that Santana was better pitcher for his career) but nevertheless I have just one question:
If Santana pitched more innings in four of the last five years, doesn't that save the bullpen work regardless of how many pitches he threw?
Just for the record, I hate the Mets and I hope Santana gives up 46 earned runs in his next start. Based on his career; however, it probably won't happen
4 edits
Originally posted by quackquackthe extra innings pitched were because Santana made more starts than Halladay (mainly in 2004 and 2005 when Halladay missed almost half of each season).
I am not sure why we are arguing pitches thrown (maybe becuase it is settled that Santana was better pitcher for his career) but nevertheless I have just one question:
If Santana pitched more innings in four of the last five years, doesn't that save the bullpen work regardless of how many pitches he threw?
Just for the record, I hate the Mets and I h ...[text shortened]... s up 46 earned runs in his next start. Based on his career; however, it probably won't happen
I will agree - we've been overanalyzing Halladay's efficiency, this is only one part of the equation - and Halladay's missed time in 04 and 05 cannot be completely disregarded, but not every injury is evidence of a pitcher's lack of "durability" - sometimes it's just a bad luck thing.
Comparing entire careers, Santana's ERA is almost 0.40 runs lower than Halladay. When comparing divisions, the AL East has had a lot of dreadful Baltimore and Tampa Bay teams -- so Santana may have had a slight advantage from pitching in the AL Central, I don't think it's that big of a factor.
BUT -- Halladay has apparently raised his game a notch last year and so far this year, at the ages of 31 and 32 - so if you compare them in terms of how they've pitched over the last couple years, they seem very even. The ultimate comparison will come when their careers end -- Santana was definitely better before age 30, but it's very possible Halladay will have had better numbers after age 30 than Santana.
Originally posted by MelanerpesI think we can all agree on this. 🙂
BUT -- Halladay has apparently raised his game a notch last year and so far this year, at the ages of 31 and 32 - so if you compare them in terms of how they've pitched over the last couple years, they seem very even. The ultimate comparison will come when their careers end -- Santana was definitely better before age 30, but it's very possible Halladay will have had better numbers after age 30 than Santana.
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesComparing a pitcher in the NL to one in the AL as regards IP per game is foolish. There's this thing called the DH in the AL whereas in the NL pitchers are often pulled for PHs because of the game situation.
but if we look at recent performance -- 07-present
Halladay has averaged 7.42 innings while Santana has averaged 6.74 innings
Halladay has averaged 14.49 pitches per inning, while Santana has averaged 15.35 pitches -- so it takes Halladay 6.90 innings to reach 100 pitches, while it takes Santana 6.52
if a manager took each out after 100 pitches, ...[text shortened]... could save the bullpen 50 appearances - and that could make a huge difference. Just ask the Mets
Your stats are bogus; it's unsurprising that the bullpens get used more in the NL. When Halladay and Santana were both pitching in the AL, the IPs per game was statistically insignificant. Your "apples to oranges" approach doesn't wash; guess who led the NL in IPs and batters faced last year?