Posted by bad_luck on 12/10/2013 12:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 12/10/2013 12:17:00 PM (view original):
You clearly didn't watch Halladay pitch. Had he been in a bigger market, this wouldn't even be a discussion. He also pitched to game situation - he pitched to contact and risked giving up runs with big leads if it helped him get outs quicker. His numbers could be even better than they are.

He was an absolute stud and for a 6-7 year span (maybe more), there was NO other pitcher I would have wanted in a big game.

I don't think anyone is saying that Halladay wasn't very, very good. It's just that, to be a starting pitcher with a limited amount of innings, you have to be on another level if you want to make it to the Hall of Fame.

I don't think Halladay was on that level. Close, but not quite.

And you'd pick Halladay over every other pitcher? I'd take Pedro's peak over Halladay's every time.

From 2003-2010, Pedro was only better in 2003 and 2005. I wasn't talking about who had a better peak. I'm saying during Halladay's peak, he was pretty much the big game guy when you asked people who they wanted to start that one game for you.

Posted by smeric on 12/10/2013 2:41:00 PM (view original):
I'm from Toronto, I'm a Blue Jays fan, I do believe Roy Halladay was the most dominant pitcher of his "era", I consider myself fairly intelligent and capable of unbiased consideration of all baseball players/teams regardless of location ... all that being said I still voted that Doc does NOT merit HOF induction.  Although he was the most dominant pitcher of his "era" that "era" wasn't long enough to be among the "Best of All Time" which is what the HOF should be.

To me, Doc is a classic "feel vs. stats" guy. I think his numbers are borderline and could be considered HOF worthy, but having watched him pitch for so long, he sure as hell feels like a HOFer.

Posted by Jtpsops on 12/10/2013 4:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by smeric on 12/10/2013 2:41:00 PM (view original):
I'm from Toronto, I'm a Blue Jays fan, I do believe Roy Halladay was the most dominant pitcher of his "era", I consider myself fairly intelligent and capable of unbiased consideration of all baseball players/teams regardless of location ... all that being said I still voted that Doc does NOT merit HOF induction.  Although he was the most dominant pitcher of his "era" that "era" wasn't long enough to be among the "Best of All Time" which is what the HOF should be.

To me, Doc is a classic "feel vs. stats" guy. I think his numbers are borderline and could be considered HOF worthy, but having watched him pitch for so long, he sure as hell feels like a HOFer.

He doesn't feel like one for me. (not that that's a good argument) Why are you watching so many more Halladay starts than me?

Johan Santana feels like a HOF guy for me.  But he isn't as of right now.

Posted by Jtpsops on 12/10/2013 4:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/10/2013 12:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 12/10/2013 12:17:00 PM (view original):
You clearly didn't watch Halladay pitch. Had he been in a bigger market, this wouldn't even be a discussion. He also pitched to game situation - he pitched to contact and risked giving up runs with big leads if it helped him get outs quicker. His numbers could be even better than they are.

He was an absolute stud and for a 6-7 year span (maybe more), there was NO other pitcher I would have wanted in a big game.

I don't think anyone is saying that Halladay wasn't very, very good. It's just that, to be a starting pitcher with a limited amount of innings, you have to be on another level if you want to make it to the Hall of Fame.

I don't think Halladay was on that level. Close, but not quite.

And you'd pick Halladay over every other pitcher? I'd take Pedro's peak over Halladay's every time.

From 2003-2010, Pedro was only better in 2003 and 2005. I wasn't talking about who had a better peak. I'm saying during Halladay's peak, he was pretty much the big game guy when you asked people who they wanted to start that one game for you.

I'd probably take Santana over that exact 7 season span. But Pedro and Clemens were around for most of it. Along with guys like Hernandez and Cliff Lee towards the end.

Halladay was really, really good. As good as Kevin Brown, better than David Cone. But, unfortunately, he comes up a little short of the Hall of Fame.

Maybe I watched too many Yankee games when Brown pitched...but if I need a win and my choices are Halladay or Brown, I'm laughing at you that you even let me consider Kevin Brown. 

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/10/2013 4:40:00 PM (view original):
Maybe I watched too many Yankee games when Brown pitched...but if I need a win and my choices are Halladay or Brown, I'm laughing at you that you even let me consider Kevin Brown. 

The Brown that pitched for the Yankees was a 40 year old shell of his former self. He was an absolute stud from the mid 90s to the early 2000s.

Take a look at the link chrisk posted:

www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_P.shtml

I think Brown's really underrated.  

WAR: 37th (Halladay is 45th)
WAR7: 58th (Halladay is 40th)
JAWS: 47th (Halladay is 43th)

I rank Halladay ahead of Brown, but not by much.  Considering there are 57 HOF pitchers, an excellent argument could be made that both deserve induction.

(Of course, if a person believes that 40 or 50 of those HOF pitchers should be kicked out, then I understand why they'd be against Halladay or Brown getting in.  But based on what the reality is, on who is already in, yeah, these guys deserve serious consideration.)

I know Brown was great.

I have Halladay a step above Brown...we talked about this earlier.

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/10/2013 4:56:00 PM (view original):
I know Brown was great.

I have Halladay a step above Brown...we talked about this earlier.

I think they're very close. I wouldn't have a problem with either one a spot or two ahead of the other.

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/10/2013 4:56:00 PM (view original):
I know Brown was great.

I have Halladay a step above Brown...we talked about this earlier.

"but if I need a win and my choices are Halladay or Brown, I'm laughing at you that you even let me consider Kevin Brown."  Sorry, it seemed to me you were denigrating Brown here, saying he's not in the same league as Halladay.  

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/10/2013 4:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 12/10/2013 4:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by smeric on 12/10/2013 2:41:00 PM (view original):
I'm from Toronto, I'm a Blue Jays fan, I do believe Roy Halladay was the most dominant pitcher of his "era", I consider myself fairly intelligent and capable of unbiased consideration of all baseball players/teams regardless of location ... all that being said I still voted that Doc does NOT merit HOF induction.  Although he was the most dominant pitcher of his "era" that "era" wasn't long enough to be among the "Best of All Time" which is what the HOF should be.

To me, Doc is a classic "feel vs. stats" guy. I think his numbers are borderline and could be considered HOF worthy, but having watched him pitch for so long, he sure as hell feels like a HOFer.

He doesn't feel like one for me. (not that that's a good argument) Why are you watching so many more Halladay starts than me?

I live in Ontario. Lot of Blue Jay games

jtpsops said  " I'm saying during Halladay's peak, he was pretty much the big game guy when you asked people who they wanted to start that one game for you."

I'd rather have Curt Schilling pitching in a big game.

Posted by ncmusician_7 on 12/10/2013 8:07:00 PM (view original):
jtpsops said  " I'm saying during Halladay's peak, he was pretty much the big game guy when you asked people who they wanted to start that one game for you."

I'd rather have Curt Schilling pitching in a big game.

Shilling took government money whilst being a right wing "boot-strap" fool-he's worse than Pete Rose-ban him for life