PDA

View Full Version : CC Sabathia vs. Johan Santana



Lincecum4CY
12-10-2008, 11:18 PM
Who would you rather have? Forget the contracts even though they aren't that far apart. If you had to choose, whose a better pitcher? I had this discussion with a few friends of mine and wanted to know your opinions.

xander
12-10-2008, 11:24 PM
Johan has been sooo consistent and one of the best pitchers in baseball. While CC has been great, he has had some rough patches and injuries along the way.

Tragedy
12-11-2008, 12:18 AM
Johan has been sooo consistent and one of the best pitchers in baseball. While CC has been great, he has had some rough patches and injuries along the way.
What injuries? :shrug:

I'd take Santana, but not by much.

quiksilver2491
12-11-2008, 12:25 AM
I would take Sabathia going forward.

cwilson21
12-11-2008, 12:26 AM
Santana.

bagwell368
12-11-2008, 12:28 AM
To date? Santana easily

From here on? I'd have to go with CC, but it would help if he lost 15 lbs and kept them off.

IndiansFan337
12-11-2008, 12:51 AM
I think I would rather have CC. He's a bit younger.

ShinobiNYC
12-11-2008, 12:54 AM
Santana, but it's close.

johnnylee722
12-11-2008, 12:56 AM
Johan

Lincecum4CY
12-11-2008, 01:27 AM
Johan has been sooo consistent and one of the best pitchers in baseball. While CC has been great, he has had some rough patches and injuries along the way.

From what i know, CC hasn't been injured. Nor has Johan although i'm not sure if i'm wrong someone please correct me.

TitusAndronicus
12-11-2008, 02:38 AM
Johan Santana and it's not close at all..

Twinke Masta
12-11-2008, 03:40 AM
I don't want to be homer but Johan, though I would take CC any day 2nd over all any other pitcher (well 3rd maybe...Halladay)

JAYZFAN9
12-11-2008, 04:06 AM
santana

Gigantes4Life
12-11-2008, 04:46 AM
C.C.'s been the better pitcher the last two years, throws more innings, and is younger.

Sabathia.

theLgndKllr35
12-11-2008, 05:21 AM
Santana has been doing it longer. You don't mess with the Johan.

VenezuelanMet
12-11-2008, 08:48 AM
Eh, i understand pointing the age thing when the difference is big, but here is only a year really no difference, in fact due to CC's weight and the fact that he's a power pitcher makes the age no factor.

I pick Johan but i could live with either.

Gigantes4Life
12-11-2008, 10:55 AM
Eh, i understand pointing the age thing when the difference is big, but here is only a year really no difference, in fact due to CC's weight and the fact that he's a power pitcher makes the age no factor.

I pick Johan but i could live with either.

You can argue that his weight could make him more durable.

ritz
12-11-2008, 11:54 AM
Yeah, he's not exactly in the best shape, but CC is a big dude. It's not like all of his weight in his top half and he has scrawny legs. I think he's durable as hell.

MetsFan19
12-11-2008, 01:10 PM
You can argue that his weight could make him more durable.

His weight will make it harder on his knees in the next few years
maybe a more durable upper body

but his lower body is screwed

nymetsrule
12-11-2008, 04:07 PM
Both are great, and I would take either and be happy with it (already have one of them, though :)) But Johan has been doing it longer and I really enjoy watching him pitch.

So, Johan.

Run Gardner Run
12-11-2008, 04:40 PM
Johan was better in 2005 and 2006
Sabathia was better in 2007 and 2008

If I had to pick someone for the future? It would be Sabathia.

If I based my pick on who has had a better career thus far? Santana.

But they are 2 of the top 3 pitchers in the game

cwilson21
12-11-2008, 05:53 PM
Santana is 29. Sabathia is 28. Why do people bring up age?

quiksilver2491
12-11-2008, 08:04 PM
His weight will make it harder on his knees in the next few years
maybe a more durable upper body

but his lower body is screwed

Or how about the fact that right now CC is pitching better then he ever has, mean while Johan has been on somewhat of a slow decline. I don't buy into this "he isn't durable" garbage, there is no evidence what so ever to suggest that his weight is a factor.

I would think that a 6'7 290 LB pitcher would be more durable and have the ability to eat more innings then a 6'0 210 LB pitcher. They both are top 5 pitchers, but CC has passed Johan at this point, 1 year might be a fluke but it has been 2 straight years now that CC has shown his dominance.

GiantYankKnicks
12-11-2008, 08:05 PM
I would take Sabathia going foward

cambovenzi
12-11-2008, 08:05 PM
Santana is 29. Sabathia is 28. Why do people bring up age?

santana sure looked over the hill posting a 2.53 ERA last year.:cool:

over the last 6 years or so its santana, and not really close.

what CC did with the brewers was impressive though.

NYMetros
12-11-2008, 08:54 PM
Johan.

Gigantes4Life
12-11-2008, 10:16 PM
Or how about the fact that right now CC is pitching better then he ever has, mean while Johan has been on somewhat of a slow decline. I don't buy into this "he isn't durable" garbage, there is no evidence what so ever to suggest that his weight is a factor.

I would think that a 6'7 290 LB pitcher would be more durable and have the ability to eat more innings then a 6'0 210 LB pitcher. They both are top 5 pitchers, but CC has passed Johan at this point, 1 year might be a fluke but it has been 2 straight years now that CC has shown his dominance.

Yeah that's the thing, CC has shown no signs of slowing down. Maybe the beginning of 2008, but I wouldn't worry too much about that.

Johan has been a rapid decline, rather than a slow one, he was just so good when it started that's it not too noticeable. He also has a great defense with the Mets.

quiksilver2491
12-11-2008, 10:25 PM
Well I would say a rapid decline would be more along the lines of Barry Zito (no offense :D) but you see my point. I agree though, a lot of his numbers get padded by having both Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran playing behind him. Its kinda funny to see so many people still think he is the best though.

papipapsmanny
12-11-2008, 11:17 PM
Santana not really close imo, as most of u know my (contreversial) stance on sabathia

kyubi256
12-12-2008, 12:28 AM
this season will determine a lot about these two IMO

roggydog
12-12-2008, 12:53 AM
i would say santana cuz he has more control and is a BEAST!!!!!!!!!!!!

cwilson21
12-12-2008, 01:17 AM
Well I would say a rapid decline would be more along the lines of Barry Zito (no offense :D) but you see my point. I agree though, a lot of his numbers get padded by having both Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran playing behind him. Its kinda funny to see so many people still think he is the best though.

That's because he is. 2.53 ERA in the biggest market (New York) in all of baseball? Pretty damn good.

Gigantes4Life
12-12-2008, 01:40 AM
That's because he is. 2.53 ERA in the biggest market (New York) in all of baseball? Pretty damn good.

I figured someone would go with ERA.

There's no point in trying to change people's minds, they'll just continue to go with it.

But Santana is no longer better than Sabathia.

cambovenzi
12-12-2008, 02:02 AM
CC has a SLIGHTLY better 2nd half of the season, and all of a sudden he is better than santana?
what a joke.

santana was also lights out the 2nd half of 08.

what makes CC better? .04 of whip? :rolleyes:
you cant just throw away ERA. thats their jobs. to not allow as many runs as possible. (unless in a certain situation, like a blowout or something)

Gigantes4Life
12-12-2008, 04:48 AM
tRA, pRAA, FIP, xFIP and I'm sure QERA as well.

All advanced pitching statistics rate Sabathia much better than Johan.

It's no coincidence.

You can throw away ERA. Johan has the advantage of having guys like Reyes and Beltran behind him, and Hunter, Mauer and Morneau in Minnesota.

Outside of Sizemore, the Indians defense was nothing special, and the same applies to Milwaukee outside of Hardy.

CC's LD% is lower, his HR% is lower, his GB% is lower, his BB% is lower, and his K% is higher. But I'm sure those things aren't important right?

cambovenzi
12-12-2008, 01:13 PM
tRA, pRAA, FIP, xFIP and I'm sure QERA as well.

All advanced pitching statistics rate Sabathia much better than Johan.

It's no coincidence.

You can throw away ERA. Johan has the advantage of having guys like Reyes and Beltran behind him, and Hunter, Mauer and Morneau in Minnesota.

Outside of Sizemore, the Indians defense was nothing special, and the same applies to Milwaukee outside of Hardy.

CC's LD% is lower, his HR% is lower, his GB% is lower, his BB% is lower, and his K% is higher. But I'm sure those things aren't important right?

tRA is such a weak stat. you dont even know. some of those are based off of predicted results, and not what actually happened.
its estimates, expectations, and predictions.
its not purely coincidence that Santana has had better #'s over the last however many years.

did CC have slightly better WHip and things like that this past year? sure.
HR%? GB%? K%? big freakin deal. Santana still got the job done better, despite having more flyballs.

you act like the mets defense is all world.
thats pretty funny.
i wish it was the case.

you can go with expectations all you want.
ill go with results on the field, and skill.
complex wanna-be formulas cant show everything.

cwilson21
12-12-2008, 05:32 PM
I figured someone would go with ERA.

There's no point in trying to change people's minds, they'll just continue to go with it.

But Santana is no longer better than Sabathia.

I figured someone would go with sabermetrics. Bunch of estimates and predictions like Cam said.

That's solely your opinion. Nothing more.

King Wright
12-12-2008, 06:15 PM
Johan Santana is the best pitcher in baseball.

Gigantes4Life
12-12-2008, 06:48 PM
tRA is such a weak stat. you dont even know. some of those are based off of predicted results, and not what actually happened.
its estimates, expectations, and predictions.
its not purely coincidence that Santana has had better #'s over the last however many years.

did CC have slightly better WHip and things like that this past year? sure.
HR%? GB%? K%? big freakin deal. Santana still got the job done better, despite having more flyballs.

you act like the mets defense is all world.
thats pretty funny.
i wish it was the case.

you can go with expectations all you want.
ill go with results on the field, and skill.
complex wanna-be formulas cant show everything.

ERA is such a weak stat. It shows many things out of the pitcher's control. It's based of off things that happened because of the defense. ERA should be considered a team stat, since it relies on 9 players and then the ballpark.

You're right, it isn't coincidence that Johan has had the better years. He can thank his defense and CC can't.

Jose Reyes=Very Plus defender
David Wright=Plus defender
Carlos Beltran=Plus defender
Brian Schneider=Plus defender
Ryan Church=Average, but plus defender
Endy Chavez=Extremely plus defender, despite little PT
Damion Easley & Luis Castill=not good
Carlos Delgado=Slightly below average
Murphy & Tatis=Average

The only weak defensive spot on the Mets all year was 2B, but LF, SS and CF definitely made up for it.

Jason Kendall=Very good
Prince Fielder=Terrible
Rickie Weeks=below average
J.J. Hardy=Very Plus defender
Ryan Braun=Below average
Corey Hart=Mediocre, below average slightly
Bill Hall=Plus defender
Mike Cameron=Very good

Although the Brewers weren't bad, they were pretty average, and do not compare to the Mets defensively.

The two ballparks are about the same, with Miller Park probably favoring hitters slightly more.

Despite that, their ERA and WHIP were almost identical.

Oh, and K%, BB% and HR% are a big freaking deal? You're right, since those are the most important things that a pitcher has control over. C.C. did all of them better than Johan, quite easily too actually. And C.C. got the job done better than Johan because of that.

C.C. is the better pitcher.


I figured someone would go with sabermetrics. Bunch of estimates and predictions like Cam said.

That's solely your opinion. Nothing more.

And the opinions of some of the greater baseball minds out there.

I think I'd take them over homerish fans and fans who have the misconception that Johan is still the same that he was a few years ago.


Johan Santana is the best pitcher in baseball.

And this just proves my point. Thanks.

Matchstckman
12-12-2008, 07:10 PM
Santana's still a very good pitcher, but he's undoubtedly regressed the past 3 years.

I'll take CC

todu82
12-12-2008, 07:15 PM
Sabathia

C1Bman88
12-12-2008, 07:41 PM
tRA is such a weak stat. you dont even know. some of those are based off of predicted results, and not what actually happened.
its estimates, expectations, and predictions.
its not purely coincidence that Santana has had better #'s over the last however many years.

Technically ERA is an estimate, expectation and prediction. A pitcher doesn't always throw a full 9 innings.

FIP isn't a predicted result like tRA. It's an isolation statistic, as in it isolates variables the pitcher has control over.

Johan FIP:

2004: 2.92
2005: 2.80
2006: 3.04
2007: 3.82
2008: 3.51

Why was Johan's ERA so low in 2008? In part due to having a good defense behind him. It's also because he had a remarkably high strand rate of 82.6% (after averaging 78% the previous 4 seasons). That is by far the highest he's ever had, and it's not something that seems likely to repeat itself. Johan was damn good at pitching in high leverage situations in 2008 as compared to normal ones, meaning he was particularly good at pitching out of jams. It was the best he has posted in his entire career, and, once again, not something that is likely to repeat itself.

C.C. FIP:

2004: 4.21
2005: 3.69
2006: 3.30
2007: 3.14
2008: 2.91

One pitcher's isolated pitching stats show a positive trend (Sabathia), while the other shows a negative trend (Santana).

Even if you still want to try and dispute the relevance of FIP, you can take a look at the simple K% and BB% trend. Johan's hovered around 26.5% from 2005-2007, but it dipped down to 21.37% in 2008 while his BB% has steadily risen from 4.95% (2005) to 5.09% (2006) to 5.92% (2007) to 6.54% (2008). Sabathia's been stable or has shown improvement in those trends in that same amount of time.



That's solely your opinion. Nothing more.

As is yours . . .but his is based on some very intriguing evidence.

Sick Of It All
12-12-2008, 08:08 PM
Well I would say a rapid decline would be more along the lines of Barry Zito (no offense :D) but you see my point. I agree though, a lot of his numbers get padded by having both Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran playing behind him. Its kinda funny to see so many people still think he is the best though.

Being that Sanata is a fly ballpitcher and last year the Mets had 1 good defensive outfielder in Beltran I do not get where you guys get this idea that he had great defense behind him.

Mets had the worst 2nd base defense in baseball.
Mets had bad defense at 1st base with Delgado.
Wright won the GG was actually was just a bit above average on defense.
Reyes while good was not great on defense.
In LF they had guys like Murphy a guy with no position, Tatis who had minor experience in the outfield in his career.


Church was above average too, but reality is they had 1 great fielder in Beltran and thats it, so this idea that Sanata was lucky because his defense save him is absolutly bull ****.

Gigantes4Life
12-12-2008, 10:59 PM
Being that Sanata is a fly ballpitcher and last year the Mets had 1 good defensive outfielder in Beltran I do not get where you guys get this idea that he had great defense behind him.

Mets had the worst 2nd base defense in baseball.
Mets had bad defense at 1st base with Delgado.
Wright won the GG was actually was just a bit above average on defense.
Reyes while good was not great on defense.
In LF they had guys like Murphy a guy with no position, Tatis who had minor experience in the outfield in his career.


Church was above average too, but reality is they had 1 great fielder in Beltran and thats it, so this idea that Sanata was lucky because his defense save him is absolutly bull ****.

Delgado was not bad at 1B, he was just average or a bit below.

They had Endy Chavez roaming around which saved 14+ runs.

If you distribute defense equally, Johan had at least 15 runs saved for him on defense.

I'm sure that didn't lower his ERA or anything.

Maybe he wasn't lucky because he had good defense, but he's not as good as his ERA was because he had good defense.

quiksilver2491
12-13-2008, 12:04 AM
Being that Sanata is a fly ballpitcher and last year the Mets had 1 good defensive outfielder in Beltran I do not get where you guys get this idea that he had great defense behind him.

Mets had the worst 2nd base defense in baseball.
Mets had bad defense at 1st base with Delgado.
Wright won the GG was actually was just a bit above average on defense.
Reyes while good was not great on defense.
In LF they had guys like Murphy a guy with no position, Tatis who had minor experience in the outfield in his career.


Church was above average too, but reality is they had 1 great fielder in Beltran and thats it, so this idea that Sanata was lucky because his defense save him is absolutly bull ****.

I don't have the exact numbers, but I believe a little under 50% of the balls in play off of Santana go to the CF or the SS, the Mets just happen to have to excellent defensive players at those positions. Having below average defense at a postition such as 2B is not nearly as critical as it would be at a position such as SS or CF where defense is valued the most.

Gigantes4Life
12-13-2008, 12:19 AM
http://firstinning.com/i/chart/276371-2008-mlb-hc.gif

I wouldn't say 50%, but 40% is probably pretty accurate. But 10% of that probably goes to Wright anyways so that's not bad either.

quiksilver2491
12-13-2008, 12:21 AM
A little under 50% is close enough to 40% :p

Gigantes4Life
12-13-2008, 12:26 AM
Yeah, half his balls are going to either Reyes, Beltran or Wright.

That will equal success.

I'm guessing everyone next year will say "Told you so, Johan is better than C.C." since his ERA is going to increase a lot next year. And he can thank the atrocious Yankee defense for that.

nymetsrule
12-13-2008, 12:28 AM
Santana's still a very good pitcher, but he's undoubtedly regressed the past 3 years.

I'll take CC

How was 2008 at all a regression.:confused::confused::confused:

Gigantes4Life
12-13-2008, 12:30 AM
Read the thread.

nymetsrule
12-13-2008, 12:42 AM
Read the thread.

I did, and I read were a bunch of posts about stats that predict what could have happened, yet did not and prove nothing. And I also saw some people *****ing...

Sick Of It All
12-13-2008, 01:37 AM
http://firstinning.com/i/chart/276371-2008-mlb-hc.gif

I wouldn't say 50%, but 40% is probably pretty accurate. But 10% of that probably goes to Wright anyways so that's not bad either.

Again look at Reyes and Wright plus/minus they were a tad above average last year, they were not great by any means, both were better in 07 than 08.


.... now you say about 50% of the play go to those 3 guys, what about the other 50% to ****** defenders like Tatis, Delgado, Castillo, Easley, Murphy.


Yes they do have the best center fielder in Beltran and I wont deny that helps a fly ball pitcher, but you guys are making it out tobe as if it was mostly luck due to the Mets defense and thats bull ****.

Twitchy
12-13-2008, 01:54 AM
I did, and I read were a bunch of posts about stats that predict what could have happened, yet did not and prove nothing. And I also saw some people *****ing...

I'll make this explanation as simple as possible.

You know how in 2006 Barry Zito had a 3.83 ERA? Awesome, right? Well, after he got that massive contract by the Giants, everybody (except Sabean I guess) LOLed because they knew Zito would regress.

Why would anybody expect Zito to regress or decline like he did? How could this be?

Well, his FB speed was slowing down for starters, and it wasn't great to begin with. In addition, his FIP, was 4.89. So based on his 4.89 FIP, we can determine that Zito's 3.83 ERA was based on luck, and that he was actually pitching really poorly. So most people knew based on these "predictions" that Zito was going to have a really bad couple of years (07-08) in SF.

On top of this, Zito strikeouts (K/9) was dropping while his walks were increasing (BB/9). That's a bad combination.

Now, had Sabean used these "predictions", he would have realized Zito was going to significantly regress, and that he wouldn't post a 3.83 ERA or better with the Giants.

What happened?

Zito ended up with a 4.53 ERA in 07 and a 5.15 ERA in 2008.

How could this have been prevented?

Well, had Sabean looked at these "predictive stats", such as tRA or FIP, he would have realized that Zito wasn't the dominant pitcher his ERA made us believe he was.

Moral of the story - These "Predictions" are fairly accurate, and the best way to really analyze how effective a pitcher is. It can help us to determine who's going to be better in the future, and who's most likely to decline. Focusing on controllable stats, even if they are predictions, is the best way to determine who's giving their team the best chance to win.

Santana's still a dominant pitcher, but based on controllable factors (K/9, BB/9, LD%, FIP, tRA) we have learned that the past few years, CC Sabathia has given his team a better chance to win than Johan Santana.

nymetsrule
12-13-2008, 01:58 AM
Whatever happened to just enjoying the game of baseball. Nothing takes the fun out of things more than a pile of stats and mathematical predictions... :pity:


I watched both pitchers enough to feel more confident with Santana. Based on what I have seen, I believe Santana is a better pitcher. **** the stats, I just love watching the game and believing what I see.

cwilson21
12-13-2008, 02:52 AM
^^^ Feel the same way. With all of these stupid mathematical equations, people go off on all this **** to decide who they want instead of actually watching him pitch. I hate that ERA gets degraded because people bring up the "well he has a great defense and that's more luck than anything" response. Perhaps Santana throws the ball over the part of the plate where he knows the hitter will hit it to Beltran, Reyes, or Wright. I believe there's an equation for that too. **** Bill James and **** sabermetrics. Santana's OBA is still low, K/BB is still good, ERA is still good (oh wait it doesn't matter because it's more of the defense instead of the pitcher), he's one year older than Sabathia pitching in the biggest pressure-cooker in America called New York while Sabathia pitched in Milwaukee knowing that if he had success he was going to get a huge payday regardless if they made the playoffs or not, and Santana has done it for a longer period of time. Can't wait til people say "well Sabathia sucked because NY's defense wasn't good" when in actuality it is because he won't be able to live up to that fatass contract they gave him.

mikedesi1004
12-13-2008, 02:53 AM
i rather have johan

Gigantes4Life
12-13-2008, 03:16 AM
I'll make this explanation as simple as possible.

You know how in 2006 Barry Zito had a 3.83 ERA? Awesome, right? Well, after he got that massive contract by the Giants, everybody (except Sabean I guess) LOLed because they knew Zito would regress.

Why would anybody expect Zito to regress or decline like he did? How could this be?

Well, his FB speed was slowing down for starters, and it wasn't great to begin with. In addition, his FIP, was 4.89. So based on his 4.89 FIP, we can determine that Zito's 3.83 ERA was based on luck, and that he was actually pitching really poorly. So most people knew based on these "predictions" that Zito was going to have a really bad couple of years (07-08) in SF.

On top of this, Zito strikeouts (K/9) was dropping while his walks were increasing (BB/9). That's a bad combination.

Now, had Sabean used these "predictions", he would have realized Zito was going to significantly regress, and that he wouldn't post a 3.83 ERA or better with the Giants.

What happened?

Zito ended up with a 4.53 ERA in 07 and a 5.15 ERA in 2008.

How could this have been prevented?

Well, had Sabean looked at these "predictive stats", such as tRA or FIP, he would have realized that Zito wasn't the dominant pitcher his ERA made us believe he was.

Moral of the story - These "Predictions" are fairly accurate, and the best way to really analyze how effective a pitcher is. It can help us to determine who's going to be better in the future, and who's most likely to decline. Focusing on controllable stats, even if they are predictions, is the best way to determine who's giving their team the best chance to win.

Santana's still a dominant pitcher, but based on controllable factors (K/9, BB/9, LD%, FIP, tRA) we have learned that the past few years, CC Sabathia has given his team a better chance to win than Johan Santana.

Perfect example Twitch. And it is an extremely good comparison (just not as severe). Unfortunately, most people are too ignorant to read, comprehend and respond to your post because they want to keep believing that Johan is God.


^^^ Feel the same way. With all of these stupid mathematical equations, people go off on all this **** to decide who they want instead of actually watching him pitch. I hate that ERA gets degraded because people bring up the "well he has a great defense and that's more luck than anything" response. Perhaps Santana throws the ball over the part of the plate where he knows the hitter will hit it to Beltran, Reyes, or Wright. I believe there's an equation for that too. **** Bill James and **** sabermetrics. Santana's OBA is still low, K/BB is still good, ERA is still good (oh wait it doesn't matter because it's more of the defense instead of the pitcher), he's one year older than Sabathia pitching in the biggest pressure-cooker in America called New York while Sabathia pitched in Milwaukee knowing that if he had success he was going to get a huge payday regardless if they made the playoffs or not, and Santana has done it for a longer period of time. Can't wait til people say "well Sabathia sucked because NY's defense wasn't good" when in actuality it is because he won't be able to live up to that fatass contract they gave him.

Sabathia won't suck in New York. His ERA will just be in the 3.5+ range most likely. Sure, you can say **** sabermetrics because you fail to understand how they are applied, if you even understand them at all.

Of course, I'm sure Johan is also better than C.C. because he's more clutch too right?

I also like how you say C.C. won't be able to live up to the contract he received.

You want to know something else?

08:$19M, 09:$20M, 10:$21M, 11:$22.5M, 12:$24M, 13:$25.5M, 14:$25M

That's Santana's contract status. You honestly think he'll live up to that? :laugh2:

C.C. will live up to his contract better than Johan will. Why? Because he's the better pitcher now, and has yet to begin his decline, while Johan is on his way down, and they're basically being paid the same.

Your ignorance won't let you see it now, but in a couple of years when Johan is pitching like a #2 at best, you'll understand.

nymetsrule
12-13-2008, 01:25 PM
Perfect example Twitch. And it is an extremely good comparison (just not as severe). Unfortunately, most people are too ignorant to read, comprehend and respond to your post because they want to keep believing that Johan is God.



Sabathia won't suck in New York. His ERA will just be in the 3.5+ range most likely. Sure, you can say **** sabermetrics because you fail to understand how they are applied, if you even understand them at all.

Of course, I'm sure Johan is also better than C.C. because he's more clutch too right?

I also like how you say C.C. won't be able to live up to the contract he received.

You want to know something else?

08:$19M, 09:$20M, 10:$21M, 11:$22.5M, 12:$24M, 13:$25.5M, 14:$25M

That's Santana's contract status. You honestly think he'll live up to that? :laugh2:

C.C. will live up to his contract better than Johan will. Why? Because he's the better pitcher now, and has yet to begin his decline, while Johan is on his way down, and they're basically being paid the same.

Your ignorance won't let you see it now, but in a couple of years when Johan is pitching like a #2 at best, you'll understand.

You seem to think:

A) C.C. is much longer than Johan
B) C.C. has a shorter contract than Johan. Why would C.C. live up to a contract that Johan could not live up to?
C) "Johan is on his way out." Total ********.

Kenny
12-13-2008, 02:04 PM
LMAO Santana didnt lose a game in the 2nd half and if his bullpen wasnt the worst in the history of baseball is taking home another cy young... But YES HE'S ON THE DECLINE BECAUSE MORONS ON THIS SITE SEEM TO THINK SO/

Matchstckman
12-13-2008, 03:38 PM
LMAO Santana didnt lose a game in the 2nd half and if his bullpen wasnt the worst in the history of baseball is taking home another cy young... But YES HE'S ON THE DECLINE BECAUSE MORONS ON THIS SITE SEEM TO THINK SO/

So he should have won the Cy Young based on how well his bullpen performed? Hmm.

nymetsrule
12-13-2008, 03:55 PM
So he should have won the Cy Young based on how well his bullpen performed? Hmm.

The Cy Young award is based highly on wins for some odd and stupid reason, and wins are the stupidest stat in existence. If he had a strong bullpen, he would have had a lot more wins, and would have won the Cy Young award.

Gigantes4Life
12-13-2008, 04:23 PM
The Cy Young award is based highly on wins for some odd and stupid reason, and wins are the stupidest stat in existence. If he had a strong bullpen, he would have had a lot more wins, and would have won the Cy Young award.

Probably, but Lincecum, Webb and Haren all deserved it before him.

acousticmike80
12-16-2008, 01:57 PM
Probably, but Lincecum, Webb and Haren all deserved it before him.

Lincecum is the only pitcher who had comparable stats to Santana....they were virtually a draw across the board...

Aside from wins, Santana had a MUCH better resume than Webb or Haren.

And, it bears repeating....aside from Sabathia....Santana pitched in more "big" and "meaningful" games than any of these guys....especially down the stretch.

Also not a coincedence that the NL West pitchers have faired so well in a division that has some bad lineups....

degnor
12-17-2008, 02:32 PM
sabathia is 28, and santana is 29. age isnt the issue here.

i take santana. Sabathia has two great seasons. But santana has been the best pitcher of the past 5+ years.

Gigantes4Life
12-17-2008, 04:52 PM
Lincecum is the only pitcher who had comparable stats to Santana....they were virtually a draw across the board...

Aside from wins, Santana had a MUCH better resume than Webb or Haren.

And, it bears repeating....aside from Sabathia....Santana pitched in more "big" and "meaningful" games than any of these guys....especially down the stretch.

Also not a coincedence that the NL West pitchers have faired so well in a division that has some bad lineups....

Lincecum ERA vs. NL East: 2.11

Webb ERA vs. NL East: 2.62

Haren ERA vs. NL East: 2.96

I didn't do the AL Central because it's too much work. But yeah, looks like they just can't pitch at all outside of the NL West. Everywhere they go they get hammered it seems.

I don't care if they pitched in more "meaningful" games. Just because you pitch in more types of those games does not make you a better pitcher. Whatever "meaningful" means.

ritz
12-17-2008, 05:57 PM
Lincecum ERA vs. NL East: 2.11

Webb ERA vs. NL East: 2.62

Haren ERA vs. NL East: 2.96

I didn't do the AL Central because it's too much work. But yeah, looks like they just can't pitch at all outside of the NL West. Everywhere they go they get hammered it seems.

I don't care if they pitched in more "meaningful" games. Just because you pitch in more types of those games does not make you a better pitcher. Whatever "meaningful" means.

Honestly man, you're gonna have Mets fans get upset because we saw Santana come through in critical times and you know yourself that counts for a lot. I'm not throwing sabermetrics out the window just because I don't understand all of it because there's a lot of time and research behind those stats.

As long as Johan stays healthy and comes up for us like he did in '08 then I'll be happy. :D

Gigantes4Life
12-17-2008, 06:13 PM
I'm not saying he didn't come up big in those situations, but that doesn't make him any better than Webb, Haren or Lincecum.

Who knows, if you had Webb instead of Johan you might have won ONE more game. Or two, or three. Or won less of course.

NYY NYJ NYK
12-17-2008, 06:14 PM
Johan Santana

ritz
12-17-2008, 09:49 PM
I'm not saying he didn't come up big in those situations, but that doesn't make him any better than Webb, Haren or Lincecum.

Who knows, if you had Webb instead of Johan you might have won ONE more game. Or two, or three. Or won less of course.

I was just trying to make excuses for some people. ;)

acecrusher06
12-18-2008, 03:13 AM
santana. he is clutch too

acousticmike80
12-18-2008, 12:07 PM
Lincecum ERA vs. NL East: 2.11

Webb ERA vs. NL East: 2.62

Haren ERA vs. NL East: 2.96

I didn't do the AL Central because it's too much work. But yeah, looks like they just can't pitch at all outside of the NL West. Everywhere they go they get hammered it seems.

I don't care if they pitched in more "meaningful" games. Just because you pitch in more types of those games does not make you a better pitcher. Whatever "meaningful" means.

First off, I never said the NL East was the deciding factor. My point was that Lincecum faced the Padres 5-7 times and only gave up like 3 or 4 runs in 45+ innings.

They are all great pitchers....but isn't the idea to pitching to give up the least amount of runs?

The team with more RUNS wins a baseball game. So, the pitcher who does a better job of keeping the other team from scoring runs, is doing the best job.

I have no problem with Lincecum winning, since the stats were very close.

BUT....Santana had a MUCH better ERA, meaning he gave up less runs than Webb or Haren did.

Not to mention, he threw more innings than both pitchers.

He also led the league in quality starts.

So, in summary....Santana had the most quality starts as a pitcher and gave up less runs, while pitching more innings.

So, how exactly did Webb and Haren have better years?

Davey24
12-19-2008, 03:46 AM
CC is a great pitcher, probably in the top 5 in the league. But Santana might very well be number one on that list, with Brandon Webb right behind him. Both are great, but Santana has the overall edge.

Gigantes4Life
12-19-2008, 04:36 AM
First off, I never said the NL East was the deciding factor. My point was that Lincecum faced the Padres 5-7 times and only gave up like 3 or 4 runs in 45+ innings.

They are all great pitchers....but isn't the idea to pitching to give up the least amount of runs?

The team with more RUNS wins a baseball game. So, the pitcher who does a better job of keeping the other team from scoring runs, is doing the best job.

I have no problem with Lincecum winning, since the stats were very close.

BUT....Santana had a MUCH better ERA, meaning he gave up less runs than Webb or Haren did.

Not to mention, he threw more innings than both pitchers.

He also led the league in quality starts.

So, in summary....Santana had the most quality starts as a pitcher and gave up less runs, while pitching more innings.

So, how exactly did Webb and Haren have better years?

It's not that simple, a pitcher doesn't have full control over how many runs he can allow. He can only control things like LD, GB, FB, K, and BB rates.

First, Haren and Webb pitched in much more hitter-friendly ballparks.

Secondly, the Mets defense was much better than the D-Backs. I believe the Mets total UZR was around 20 runs, while the D-Backs were negative.

The average team plays about 1440 innings a year, which for the Mets would be about .01389 runs an inning, or .125 lower runs per 9 IP. So you could say Johan's should have been more around 2.66 rather than 2.53.

It might actually be higher since I think their UZR was above 20.

I don't know what the D-Backs were exactly so I can't estimate them.

When you introduce park factors, luck and defense Webb and Haren are better than Johan.

bartoron
12-19-2008, 09:01 AM
Johan.

MetsFan19
12-19-2008, 11:39 AM
I laughed out loud when you Said "whatever Meaningful means"

because you wouldnt know in the 1st place

your a Giants fan...

Gigantes4Life
12-19-2008, 04:04 PM
Great. I see you have nothing else to add to this debate.

You really shouldn't be talking since your team has been much worse than mine until recently.

1 division title in the last 15 years, right?

HOOTIE
12-19-2008, 04:48 PM
Santana easily. CC won't be pitching in the NL anymore, where the hitters didn't know him. He has a ton of pitches on his arm. He has the pressure of NY and the contract now. Take away CC 3 months in NL, and his stock comes down some.

BLOMETSFAN
12-20-2008, 07:53 AM
Gotta take Johan, but if CC pitches like he did down with the Brewers then it is a lot closer then a Mets fan would like

nyyfan4life
12-20-2008, 03:38 PM
Santana easily. CC won't be pitching in the NL anymore, where the hitters didn't know him. He has a ton of pitches on his arm. He has the pressure of NY and the contract now. Take away CC 3 months in NL, and his stock comes down some.

You're right. CC certainly sucked in the AL in 2006 and 2007 right? Besides a few bad starts in April, CC was great in the AL in 2008 too.

Maybe Santana is better now but I'd take CC going forward.

asufan55
12-20-2008, 04:52 PM
Although CC is a great pitcher to have in your rotation, I still think that Santana is the best pitcher in baseball.

MetsFan19
12-22-2008, 12:02 AM
Great. I see you have nothing else to add to this debate.

You really shouldn't be talking since your team has been much worse than mine until recently.

1 division title in the last 15 years, right?

oo your right

have you seen the record on those teams that play in the NL west?
worst division in baseball my friend

futureheisman
12-24-2008, 10:46 AM
Johan

MJ-BULLS
01-20-2009, 01:52 PM
cc