11/17/24
October 08, 2010
Was Tim Lincecum's Performance Better than Halladay's?: The New York Times and Joe Posnanski take a look at which of the two postseason gems thus far is most impressive.
It's funny—Halladay's big focus over his career has been pitching to contact and using his defence for the purpose of shortening at-bats and being able to go longer into games. That's probably the reason why it took him so long to get a no-hitter.
Now his no-hitter is being criticized because he didn't strike out enough people. That's essentially what the Game Score difference comes down to.
If Game Score took into account number of pitches thrown, this is a non-issue.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 01:34 PM on October 08, 2010
Also, not to get too personal about it, but Halladay spent nine years spinning one- and two-hitters and not getting nearly enough recognition for it. So I'm not losing too much sleep over the possibility of his being over-fêted for this one.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 01:40 PM on October 08, 2010
Now his no-hitter is being criticized because he didn't strike out enough people.
I do not think his no-hitter is being criticized inasmuch as some people are saying that Lincecum's game should be recognized as being pretty incredible too. No hitters are kind of like leading the league in RBIs in that they are usually indicative of greatness and/or having certain dominating traits, but do not tell the whole story -- and there is a tendency for many to overlook those who do not quite make it (to a no hitter, to a top 5 RBI finish, etc.) as somehow being objectively lesser than those who do.
The Game Score difference does not account for level of competition or pitch efficiency (Brandon Morrow's 17K, 2BB, 1H game against the Rays earlier this year garnered a 100 Game Score, but he threw 137 pitches), which is why I am inclined to say that this is at best a push and probably at least a slight edge to Halladay.
posted by holden at 01:48 PM on October 08, 2010
It's a good point. Lincecum, by the strictest measure (and by striking out more batters) was technically more dominant. But I think there is a value to watching both performances. The efficiency of Halladay was so awesome in it's own right, while to me Lincecum was gifted with an overly eager opponent - those Braves were swinging at nasty breaking stuff, but it was two feet off the plate at times. But Lincecum also was getting better and better as the game went on and in many ways performed just as awesomely as Halladay. I give the edge to Halladay because it was dominance from start to finish - first pitch to last - he was on.
Really it's a bit moot - Halladay's game will be more remembered for the same reason that no one knew Jim Longborn threw a 8 2/3 inning no hitter in the World Series until yesterday. That's just the way it is.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 02:20 PM on October 08, 2010
Fair enough, to both points. I guess the dominance of strikeouts versus pitch efficiency is just one of those eternal debates.
But man. Can you image Doc and Lincecum together on the same staff?
posted by DrJohnEvans at 03:03 PM on October 08, 2010
I'm simply waiting to see how either Lincecum or Halladay does against the Yankee or other comparable american league lineup. These are the kinds of things that hold my interest when my team isn't involved.
posted by justgary at 04:41 PM on October 08, 2010
Mrs. Jones makes a really good apple pie, but she never enters it in the county fair best pie contest.
Mrs. Smith makes a good apple pie as well, but since she enters it in the contest, it wins an award.
If you are offered a piece of each, would you turn down Mrs. Jones's because it has no award? I think not. You'd be just like me and savor them both, recognizing the incredible skills of each cook.
posted by Howard_T at 04:43 PM on October 08, 2010
When is grum going to comment & sort this out for us (hint hint)?
posted by brainofdtrain at 07:50 PM on October 08, 2010
I'm simply waiting to see how either Lincecum or Halladay does against the Yankee or other comparable american league lineup.
Me too. Mostly because I've seen Halladay carve up the Yankees and Sox before, but rarely to the effect that he's had on the NL this year. Part of that is certainly because the lineups are weaker - but he is throwing a new pitch this year. That nasty split-fingered change up. I'd love to see what the guys who know him think of that pitch.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:27 PM on October 08, 2010
When is grum going to comment & sort this out for us (hint hint)?
*puff of smoke*
The problem with using Game score as a method to compare results is that it really is just a made up scoring system.
Why, in a football game, is a two-point conversion worth only two points, while a touchdown plunge from the 1-yard line worth 6 points?
Because, that's how they decided to score it.
What if you awarded points in the system that rewarded baserunner-less innings? For example, 1 extra point for every inning where there were no baserunners. Halladay would get 8 extra points and Lincecum would get 6 extra points.
How about losing extra points for extra-base hits? Instead of just losing 2 points for each hit, about about losing an extra point for extra-base hits. There is a difference between giving up a bloop single and a solid double (or triple), but in the current scoring system it isn't taken into account.
Halladay would lose 0 points, and Lincecum would lose 1 point.
New (just-as) arbitrary Grum Score results:
Halladay - 102
Lincecum - 101
Yes, I do acknowledge that the Grum Score system is rigged to make Halladay look better, but it is to prove a point.
In my head, the reason that Halladay's performance is better is because of the following:
Lincecum's outfielders had to make five putouts, and also fielded two doubles.
Halladay's outfielders had to make four putouts.
Forcing outfielders to make plays provides more opportunity to allow runs, either through errors or the inability of the fielders to make a play.
Lincecum gave up 11 fly balls and 1 line drive.
Halladay gave up 7 fly balls and 1 line drive.
You are more likely to score runs with fly balls and line drives than you are ground balls.
Lincecum twice allowed baserunners in scoring position with less than 2 outs.
Halladay never had a baserunner reach scoring position.
If you don't put runners in scoring position, you definitely reduce the chance of them scoring runs.
That's all I've got to say about that.
*puff of smoke*
posted by grum@work at 09:11 PM on October 08, 2010
I find both performances to be equally impressive. Halladay was superb against a better lineup. Lincecum allowed less ball in play, and, of course, that's the surest way to keep runners from scoring (I guess I'm agreeing with this article).
If Halladay had 3-4 srike outs I'd have no doubt Lincecum's performance was superior, but 8 Ks is nothing to sneeze at.
Mostly because I've seen Halladay carve up the Yankees and Sox before, but rarely to the effect that he's had on the NL this year.
But not this year. Granted, small sample size, but his worst games were against the Red Sox (5.2 innings / 6 ER / 1 K) and the Yankees (6 innings / 6 ER / 3 HR).
I have no doubt if he's on Halladay can handle any lineup, but his margin for error will be smaller.
posted by justgary at 06:12 PM on October 10, 2010
I have no doubt if he's on Halladay can handle any lineup, but his margin for error will be smaller.
Maybe against the Yankees. They're the only lineup I can see being vastly better enough than the Reds to really affect that margin. Of course Halladay is a career 18-7 against the Yankees with A 2.98 ERA in 38 games.
I think the NL/AL superiority argument is full of holes. Truth is, it's the AL East vs. Everybody. The rule doesn't apply to the other divisions.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:51 PM on October 10, 2010
I think the NL/AL superiority argument is full of holes. Truth is, it's the AL East vs. Everybody. The rule doesn't apply to the other divisions.
Well, except for that whole "DH" thing.
Giving a pitcher the opportunity to face 2 or 3 batters who hit .143/.177/.176 (NL pitchers) instead of 3 or 4 batters who hit .252/.332/.425 (AL designated hitters) is a significant advantage.
No way around it, over the course of an entire season it is easier to pitch in the NL than it is in the AL.
posted by grum@work at 02:37 PM on October 11, 2010
If that's the truth it has to mean that the overall quality of talent is lower in the NL. Because they're remarkably close statistically overall.
AL: .327 OBP; .407 Slugging NL: .324 OBP; .399 Slugging
But if not - if we agree that likely the AL talent level is not across the board superior, then factoring in for the disparity in DHs' and Pichers' averages as you show - are the rest of the NL position players then superior to their AL counterparts to make up the difference and get those numbers close?
No. I think overall the game averages out and oversold dominance of the AL is mostly a product of simply having the best current teams in the AL East (and probably have been for basically a decade). The three top run producing teams in baseball finished 1, 2 and 3 in the East. Toronto was tenth out of 30 teams, but was only the 4th best in their own division.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:59 PM on October 11, 2010
If that's the truth it has to mean that the overall quality of talent is lower in the NL. Because they're remarkably close statistically overall.
AL: .327 OBP; .407 Slugging NL: .324 OBP; .399 Slugging
Well, let's do this right.
If we remove all of the pitcher plate appearances, pinch-hitting plate appearances, and designated hitter plate appearances for both leagues, you get the following numbers:
AL:
PA: 76064 (14 teams)
OPS: .735
NL:
PA: 88427 (16 teams)
OPS: .750
Among positional players, the overall batting quality is HIGHER in the NL.
posted by grum@work at 01:23 AM on October 12, 2010
[While I personally think it is bad form to be the first to comment on your own FPP, I will make an exception to my own rule, to port over a comment I originally made in the Huddle but decided to ditch in favor of starting this thread.]
While many would not recognize it or even countenance it, there is some merit to the argument that Lincecum's game last night was even more impressive than Halladay's. I think Game Score (which Posnanski uses to assess the relative merits) is a useful metric in looking at things from a fairly high level, but potentially breaks down in looking at closely bunched scores, particularly on the high end. On the one hand, Lincecum did more to take luck out of the equation and arguably controlled the things that pitchers can control to a greater degree than Halladay. On the other hand, Halladay's feat was against a much more impressive line-up. At the end of the day, I think they are both very impressive games (as in historically impressive), although I think Halladay's will likely be the only one remembered in the annals of the game (for obvious reasons).