Pretty good argument in favor of Roy Halla-fame-day here:

www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24369988/yes-roy-halladay-is-a-hall-of-famer

For a decade, one could have argued that Halladay was the best pitcher in baseball -- in a hitters' era. From 2002-11, Halladay was 170-75 (.694 -- which calculates out to 112-50 in 162 games) with a 2.97 ERA. That was good for a 148 ERA+, which is to say that Halladay was a whopping 48 percent better than the average pitcher for an entire decade at run prevention. He made the All-Star team eight times while finishing in the top five of Cy Young voting seven times -- winning twice. That screams elite-level production for an era.

Let us also keep in mind the work Halladay did in spite of playing for losing teams. In 2002, Halladay went 19-7 for a 78-84 team. In 2005, he was 12-4 for an 80-82 team. In 2009, he was 17-10 for a 75-87 club. Going 148-76 in 12 years for the Blue Jays in the vaunted AL East during a hitters' era is remarkable.

I'd say that's a pretty poor argument.  Any idiot who twice suggests that pitching in a hitters' era somehow makes his RECORD special has 0 credibility with me.  That's such a moronic argument it's just straight-up asinine.  So he was (arguably) the best pitcher in baseball during a hitters' era.  For 7 years.  I haven't been remotely thorough, but I don't see any pitcher in the HOF with fewer IP than Halladay that doesn't have a better ERA+.

Except Rollie Fingers.

pitching in the AL EAST for a long period of time does make his really good numbers even more impressive. As most people said he didn't pitch enough IP, etc. totally agree. Too bad he didn't pitch mostly in the NL facing pitchers instead of the DH.

Posted by dahsdebater on 12/9/2013 11:39:00 PM (view original):
I'd say that's a pretty poor argument.  Any idiot who twice suggests that pitching in a hitters' era somehow makes his RECORD special has 0 credibility with me.  That's such a moronic argument it's just straight-up asinine.  So he was (arguably) the best pitcher in baseball during a hitters' era.  For 7 years.  I haven't been remotely thorough, but I don't see any pitcher in the HOF with fewer IP than Halladay that doesn't have a better ERA+.

Do you agree that Halladay was the best pitcher for the 10 seasons (2002-2011) the writer indicates? 

If not, which pitcher(s) would you rank ahead of him?

If yes, why isn't that enough to get into the HOF? 

Posted by keymaster on 12/10/2013 1:50:00 AM (view original):
pitching in the AL EAST for a long period of time does make his really good numbers even more impressive. As most people said he didn't pitch enough IP, etc. totally agree. Too bad he didn't pitch mostly in the NL facing pitchers instead of the DH.

He started more games against Boston (39) and NY (36) than against anyone else -- and he was 10 games over .500 (32-22) against them.  How many weak-hitting lineups did those two field from 2002-2011?

Throughout that period, at various points, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Johan Santana, Justin Verlander, and Clayton Kershaw were head-and-shoulders better than Doc.  Probably would agree that over this arbitrarily defined 10-year period Halladay may have been the best pitcher on balance, although CC Sabathia is not very far behind.  But he was really only even arguably "the best pitcher in baseball" for the last 3 or 4 years of that span, and even then I think I'd take Verlander and Kershaw, as implied above.  2011 is the only year in which he led his league in ERA+.  Kershaw is still just 25 and he's done it twice.  Santana did it 2004-2006 - clearly he was the "best pitcher in the world" at that time.  Verlander's done it twice.  And those other two guys I named did it 6 and 5 times, respectively - twice each during the arbitrarily defined 10-year period in which Halladay is supposed to have been the best pitcher in baseball.  In summary - yes, it just so happens that with the way different pitchers' careers happened to line up, Halladay was probably on balance the best pitcher in a decade in which is best competition was CC Sabathia and Tim Hudson.  But guys who overlap the front and back halves of the career were far more dominant than Halladay ever was.  And it's not even like Johan Santana is ever going to sniff the Hall.  Because durability and longevity count; Halladay was durable, but his longevity leaves a huge amount to be desired.

It's clear from the tone of the last 2 posts that you're not going to change your mind.  In fact, it's getting increasingly clear you expected people to just agree with you when you made the thread, and now it turns out that very few do.  There's a very good reason for that - guys who retire at age 36 just don't tend to make the hall unless they die or were Koufax dominant.  Halladay wasn't even close.

Probably would agree that over this arbitrarily defined 10-year period Halladay may have been the best pitcher on balance.

Thanks.  That's all I wanted you to acknowledge.

In fact, it's getting increasingly clear you expected people to just agree with you when you made the thread, and now it turns out that very few do.

And that's how "victory" is declared in these debates, huh?  Oh, well.  Congrats!

To the poster who faulted Halladay for never leading the league in ERA, and leading in WHIP only once...boy, that's a really poor way to evaluate anything.  Willie Mays, for example, never lead the league in RBI -- should we conclude that he wasn't very good at batting runs in?  You can't give a player 1 point for being the leader in a category, and everyone else the same 0 for not being the leader.  Halladay never lead in ERA, but he finished 2nd three times, 3rd twice and 5th twice; he finished 1st in WHIP only once, but he finished 2nd four times.  Does that not count for anything?

I don't care much if a player leads the league in RBI. Mays did lead the league in OPS+ 6 times, and added a ton of value with his legs and defense. He also has the counting stats to be HOF-worthy than Halladay does not have.

If you want me to vote for a player for the HOF, and you don't have the counting numbers to do it, I want you to have a dominant peak, to be considered by many to be the best for multiple years. I don't think it's obvious Halladay was the best for more than a few years. Although, he did lead in ERA+ once, which is probably a better stat than ERA. So I'll give you that stat. But yea, be dominant if you have a shorter career. Be Pedro. Be Koufax.

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/10/2013 7:31:00 AM (view original):
I don't care much if a player leads the league in RBI. Mays did lead the league in OPS+ 6 times, and added a ton of value with his legs and defense. He also has the counting stats to be HOF-worthy than Halladay does not have.

If you want me to vote for a player for the HOF, and you don't have the counting numbers to do it, I want you to have a dominant peak, to be considered by many to be the best for multiple years. I don't think it's obvious Halladay was the best for more than a few years. Although, he did lead in ERA+ once, which is probably a better stat than ERA. So I'll give you that stat. But yea, be dominant if you have a shorter career. Be Pedro. Be Koufax.

"I want you to have a dominant peak, to be considered by many to be the best for multiple years. I don't think it's obvious Halladay was the best for more than a few years."
 
Over a nine season span (2003 - 2011), Halliday went 151-68 (average of 17-8), with three 20 win seasons, a 2.97 ERA, and a 147+ ERA plus.  He also led or tied for the league lead in complete games in 7 of those 9 seasons, and finished in the top five of Cy Young Award voting 7 out of those 9 seasons (winning twice).

How does that not fit your "requirement"?

Posted by tecwrg on 12/10/2013 8:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/10/2013 7:31:00 AM (view original):
I don't care much if a player leads the league in RBI. Mays did lead the league in OPS+ 6 times, and added a ton of value with his legs and defense. He also has the counting stats to be HOF-worthy than Halladay does not have.

If you want me to vote for a player for the HOF, and you don't have the counting numbers to do it, I want you to have a dominant peak, to be considered by many to be the best for multiple years. I don't think it's obvious Halladay was the best for more than a few years. Although, he did lead in ERA+ once, which is probably a better stat than ERA. So I'll give you that stat. But yea, be dominant if you have a shorter career. Be Pedro. Be Koufax.

"I want you to have a dominant peak, to be considered by many to be the best for multiple years. I don't think it's obvious Halladay was the best for more than a few years."
 
Over a nine season span (2003 - 2011), Halliday went 151-68 (average of 17-8), with three 20 win seasons, a 2.97 ERA, and a 147+ ERA plus.  He also led or tied for the league lead in complete games in 7 of those 9 seasons, and finished in the top five of Cy Young Award voting 7 out of those 9 seasons (winning twice).

How does that not fit your "requirement"?

I'm a big hall guy, so I wouldn't be too upset if Halladay went in. But Schilling, Mussina, and Glavine were all significantly better. So I would have a problem putting him in before any of those three. Also, putting Halladay in means that Kevin should also get in, since their careers were very, very similar.

How was Mike Mussina "significantly better" than Halladay?

Posted by tecwrg on 12/10/2013 12:01:00 PM (view original):
How was Mike Mussina "significantly better" than Halladay?

800 more innings, 700 more strikeouts, same career WHIP, longer peak, 20 more wins above replacement.

Halladay has the better ERA+ but if you bring Mussina's IP down to Halladay's, that advantage is eliminated.