I think it would be a shame if Halladay resigned.

What rot? Blimey! Sling yer 'ook!

Stieb was great, of course.

Halladay’s career line is 2046.2 innings with a 133 ERA+. Dave Stieb pitched 2873 innings with a 123 ERA+. The innings more than balance out the difference in ERA, and things are worse than they look for Doc, as Stieb had a better peak, too. Take their three best consecutive seasons. Stieb averages 278 innings per year with a 142 ERA+; Halladay, 237 innings with a 141 ERA+. Make it their best five straight seasons and it’s 256 innings with a 144 ERA+ for Stieb and 214 innings with a 146 ERA+ for Halladay. Yes, there are some era effects in play here, but it’s not as if Stieb pitched in the 19th century; he was basically just as effective and pitching 40 more innings per year in their respective primes.

If you are ceding the point that adjusting IP for era is necessary, I am not convinced that an appropriate '80s to aughts adjustment would be fewer than 40 IP/year.

Halladay hasn’t thrown five one-hitters.

So?

I’d bet if you took 20 sharp fans and asked them who the best pitcher in Toronto history was, 19 of them would name Halladay, which is kind of weird.

"I'd bet" is not a great argument to begin with, but in any event... Stieb's W-L record was worse than his level of pitching suggested. He also retired a good long time ago, while Halladay is currently active. Both of these factors would naturally hurt Stieb's performance in a "man on the street" poll.

Not sure what the point of this was.

Roger Clemens is the best pitcher the Jays have ever had.

I think you'd get some votes for Roger Clemens too, in a "best pitcher to wear a Toronto uniform" sense.

EDIT: You know, I'm not sure how the hell I missed post 4 before I submitted this.

Stieb top 10 AL ranks in IP: 1 1 2 3 5 (led by 20 and 1 IP)
Halladay top 10 AL in IP:::: 1 1 1 2 3 4 (led by 0.1, 24 and 23 IP)


Stieb top 10 AL in ERA+:::: 1 1 3 3 4 6 (led by 1 and 18)
Halladay top 10 AL in ERA+: 2 3 3 4 4


Not sure what the point is, but they were both really, really good.

"I think you'd get some votes for Roger Clemens too, in a "best pitcher to wear a Toronto uniform" sense."

Would be fun if Pedro, Maddux, or Big Unit did a photo spread for Vanity Fair or something just so they could trump this angle all over.
I suppose Seaver, Carlton and a few others could wreak some havoc as well, lol

What angle? Should they all pose in Blue Jays uniforms?

Yes, there are some era effects in play here, but it’s not as if Stieb pitched in the 19th century; he was basically just as effective and pitching 40 more innings per year in their respective primes.

Not sure Stieb gets much credit here, if any, given the era difference. Stieb led his league in IP twice (granted a smaller league), and finished in the top five 5 times. Halladay has led his league in IP three times, and has finished in the top five 6 times.

It doesn't make much sense to me to give a clear edge to Stieb here.

Plus Halladay hasn’t thrown five one-hitters.

Pass.

I should say that I like Halladay’s chances of aging better than Stieb did

Not exactly going out on a limb there, given that Halladay has now pitched through his age-32 season, while Stieb was basically done after his age-32 season. (Though I love that he came back for an ok cameo in 1998.)

Stieb > Halladay

Um, no.

Stieb: 6'1", 195 lb
Halladay: 6'6", 225lb

Not even close.

You know, there was a moment in time when I thought Juan Guzman was going to be the best pitcher the Jays ever had. Ah well.

He is right about the mustache, though.

I hate hate HATE when people try to do serious analysis then add crap like "he had a great mustache."

"What angle? Should they all pose in Blue Jays uniforms?"

They could pose in 15-20 uniforms or more, and be the answer to that cliched 'best player to wear the uniform' question.

hate hate HATE when people try to do serious analysis then add crap like "he had a great mustache."

The hormonal shots still not allowing you to grow one?

I have no strong opinions about which one was better. In general I think that people have short memories and will tend to underestimate the guy who played twenty years ago.

Obviously Clemens is better than either one, but as great as his efforts were while wearing the uniform, he was only here two years and cleared out at his earliest opportunity. He shouldn't be part of this discussion.

Obviously Clemens is better than either one, but as great as his efforts were while wearing the uniform, he was only here two years and cleared out at his earliest opportunity. He shouldn't be part of this discussion.

Agreed, but it's interesting to note that Clemens enters the discussion in the same way for the Houston organization as well:

38-18, 539 IP, 2.40 ERA with Houston.

With Toronto he was 41-13, 499 IP, 2.33 ERA.

So that's two organizations where you at least have to give a passing nod to Clemens in these types of discussions. And, of course, he wins the contest as far as the Red Sox organization goes.

With the Yankees he wasn't too shabby but of course is not their best pitcher: 83-42, 1103 IP, 4.01 ERA.

So that's two organizations where you at least have to give a passing nod to Clemens in these types of discussions. And, of course, he wins the contest as far as the Red Sox organization goes.

Probably, but that Cy Young guy put up some numbers for the Sox, too, a better ERA+ in essentially the same number of innings. Pedro is all peak, no career, with 1/2 the Sox innings as Clemens, but a pretty wide ERA+ margin--190-145

Have we all forgotten Aquilino Lopez?

Probably, but that Cy Young guy put up some numbers for the Sox, too, a better ERA+ in essentially the same number of innings.

I looked at Young but I can't compare their raw innings on a 1-1 basis. Clemens was never going to throw 380-inning seasons (he did throw 240+ innings seven times for Boston, including one season of 281 innings). Granted Young was leading the league with the 380 innings (twice), but, then, Clemens was finishing pretty high in innings also (leading once).

If you look at individual seasons, which seems a more fair way to do it, then Clemens has 9 very good to great seasons and Young has 7. Would a more detailed look put Young ahead of Clemens? Maybe; I haven't done that.

Pedro is all peak, no career, with 1/2 the Sox innings as Clemens, but a pretty wide ERA+ margin--190-145

But you can't take the higher rate of performance given the huge innings disparity.

Hallady vs. Stieb is an interesting discussion
I can see coming down on either side of the argument, but being so adamant that one side is right seems odd.

With Toronto he was 41-13, 499 IP, 2.33 ERA.

Good God, that's just two seasons. You'd be happy to get that in six seasons from a closer.

But you can't take the higher rate of performance given the huge innings disparity.

Maybe not, but on pure aesthetics, I take Pedro every day of the week and twice on Sunday. The most electrifying pitcher I ever saw. Clemens has always been workmanlike: everything hard, everything down. Pedro was like watching an artist in a fury of creation.

But you can't take the higher rate of performance given the huge innings disparity.

In that case, Roger can't enter in the Jays or Astros discussions.

In that case, Roger can't enter in the Jays or Astros discussions.

I fully agree; I think he's worth a footnote in those discussions, nothing more.

#3 According to Greg Spira's article that I referenced in another thread Stieb's W-L record is only slightly worse than you'd expect given his runs scored and allowed. Missed by 6 wins over his career -- 4 in 1985.

I'd assumed that 1985 was at least part due to bullpen sabotage. Nope. He just lost a lot of close games that year.

As a kid, I remember Stieb starting back to back All-Star games, and thinking that he must be the best pitcher on the planet. I think that was in 84-85 or so. (I know it's easy enough to check, but it's also fun to dig deep and try to actually recall.)

In my mind, Stieb is one of those great players that has been mostly forgotten. Quisenberry is another. It'll be interesting to see which players from this era fit into that category 20 years from now.

Probably, but that Cy Young guy put up some numbers for the Sox, too, a better ERA+ in essentially the same number of innings.

ERA+ isn't necessarily the best way to evaluate deadball pitchers, because there were so many unearned runs back then.

Not that I'm going to run RA+ numbers for Young's Boston years right now. But maybe OCF will show up and offer them.

As a kid, I remember Stieb starting back to back All-Star games, and thinking that he must be the best pitcher on the planet. I think that was in 84-85 or so. (I know it's easy enough to check, but it's also fun to dig deep and try to actually recall.)

Hmm. I'd put my $5 on Dan Haren being forgotten like Stieb. Rob Nen, who has already been pretty much forgotten, might be a decent comp for Quisenberry. Maybe. Of active guys...I'm not really sure.

Of active guys...I'm not really sure.

Nathan, maybe, or he'll be remembered only for the trade. He's been one of the best closers in baseball for awhile, but overshadowed by all his contemporaries.

Nathan is a good guess. Has The Quis been forgotten, really? He's still more well known than a guy like Tom Henke, no? And Henke was a monster.

Has The Quis been forgotten, really?

Pretty much. He's now remembered more for his quoteworthiness and being a submariner than for actually being a ridiculously good reliver. As to Henke, he's also rapidly fading from most people's memories.

(Quisenberry is) now remembered more for his quoteworthiness

It's sad to realize that the future of the man who said, "I have seen the future...it's like the present, only longer" is already past...