The other Santana …. No. The other one.
bgr
Posts: 1,872 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Johan Santana
I thought this guy was amazing and was shocked he was one and done. I know his career was short but he peaked like Koufax.
Are the overall stats not enough? I think this guy should get in via the eras.
0
Comments
7 years just isnt enough. Andruw Jones should be in before him
Had Johan played a little longer at a high level I can see the argument like with Jones
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Santana:
I'm not saying Santana belongs but if you like Koufax being in...
I completely forgot about this guy, brought me back to fantasy baseball
He's been on the ballot long enough and belongs. A 7th,8th, or 9th ballot guys seems right.
Who know what could have been had he not joined the NY Mets...
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Could have (should have?) won Cy Young in 2005 and 2008.
Was tremendous here in Minnesota.
Better than Koufax, his teams weren't as good.
I've always hated the whole what number ballot a guy should be that the writers gate keep for. If youre a HOFer than you should be in the first one. Youre either a HOFer or you arent. People can then decide the hierarchy of the HOF once everyone is in, but too many writers do the I will vote for him just not first or second ballot type thing and admit it openly
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
2008 was right, 2005 should have been hm. He was victim to the same thing Kevin Brown was during his career of voters putting to much emphasis on win loss. Kevin Brown was a 1 and done on the ballot as well and he had a better overall career
Mike Mussina getting in was a joke so I guess Santana should be in too and certainly Brown
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
In 2008 he had a lower era, lower WHIP and more innings pitched than Lincecum. ERA+ was almost identical.
Could have gone either way, I would have chosen Santana because of the numbers above. Another head scratcher on how Johan had a lower WAR.
My guess is the strikeouts. Made his FIP stronger.
The innings difference was less than 8, the ERA difference was 0.09, the WHIP difference was less than 0.03.
Everything was basically the same between the two other than Lincecum struck out significantly more batters and gave up half the homeruns. Homeruns given up isnt a significant stat but when basically everything else is the same it does give some indication of dominance.
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Certainly he struck out more guys, but the object is to allow the least amount of runs. I value WHIP over strikeouts.
Leading the league in both innings pitched and ERA would get my vote over strikeouts. Johan also walked fewer batters.
Obviously very close.
I was only speaking to the WAR. The high strikeout low era combo gives strong FIP which is great for pitcher WAR.
That Lincecum season was great! It could have gone either way.
Certainly.
Speaking of WAR, I see many instances where it makes little or no sense.
In this instance, Lincecum gave up the same amount of earned runs in less innings pitched, to me that's the bottom line on winning games.
I would like to see a reason Tim's WAR was any better. Won loss record? Shouldn't matter. Strikeouts are fun, but I'll take the lower ERA and WHIP plus the fewer walks. 5 of Santana's walks were intentional. Lincecum also had twice as many wild pitches.
Lastly, Santana was voted higher in the MVP rankings. How can he be more valuable and not win the Cy Young?
Lincecum wasn't the better pitcher either time he won the Cy Young. I guess the voters loved his strikeouts.
As I mentioned. Santana could/should have had 4 Cy Youngs. He's better than quite a few pitchers in the HOF.
Seems like another new, made up statistic that is meaningless, at least in this case.
I think that WAR for pitchers is a solution looking for a problem in some ways but I think FIP is a useful measure itself.
Or. Perhaps I would say something that measures the pitchers controllable performance well. FIP and DIP and DICE and stuff are all pretty goofy formulas and contrived of course.
But while strikeouts might be flashy they are outs that the pitcher didn’t need a defense for and that takes randomness out of the equation. As such they should be valued higher in my opinion.
I’m also fine just using WHIP and ERA. FIP is a great at-a-glance for relievers especially.
So a pitcher that not only strikes out fewer batters and gives up more home runs, yet still allows fewer runs per inning is a WORSE pitcher?
I don't think so. I would say that the opposite is true.
I would rather win the game than "dominate" the other team and lose.
I’m not justifying WAR for pitchers. Just talking about the calculation.
Johan in 2008 was 234.1 Innings, 2.53 ERA, 1.148 WHIP, 206 Strikeouts, giving up 206 hits and 23 HRs
Lincecum in 2008 was 227 Innings, 2.62 ERA, 1.172 WHIP, 265 Strikeouts, giving up 182 hits and 11 Hrs.
The difference in their innings, ERA and WHIP is nothing. The difference in their strikeouts, K to hit ratio and HRs given up showing that Lincecum was the more dominate pitcher is significant. When the other numbers difference are basically a rounding error or a couple of bloop hits you have to start looking at things for tie breakers like how dominate each pitcher was
Theres certainly a lot of other years where if Johan did that he would have won it, but ended up happening on a year where Lincecum did that. Johan should have been second though, Webb shouldnt have finished 2nd just because of his win total and Dempster should have finished ahead of Webb as well.
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Gale Sayers only played 7 years (I know, different sport)
I think theres a double digit number of players in the NFL one that played less than 8 seasons.
MLB the fewest seasons was Candy Cummings in the 1870s who only played 6 seasons. I dont really put any weight into stats back then, but he famous for being credited with introducing baseball to the curve ball. If he really was the first one to figure it out like he gets credit for that obviously had a massive impact on the game. One other had less than 10 seasons (I forget his name) who died before the 1910 season in the middle of his career.
Even the 10 year guys you can count on your fingers with ones to spare and one of those was Jackie Robinson who obviously could have had a couple more seasons. In modern baseball even 10 dominate seasons just hasnt been enough otherwise Andruw Jones and David Wright would be in
They seem to be looking for at least 14 or 15 seasons unless something tragic happens or somehow some major milestones are reached very quickly
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007