According to Gameday (if I counted correctly), he hit 94 seven times, and 93 quite a few more, but he only threw six sliders.

Compared to his heyday his K's are down significantly while his walks are up. Last 5 games tho he's gotten 1-4-1-2-2 runs of support.

..."on a better team, with more support on offense and defense, he’d win 15, 16, 18 games—but he’s not the Santana the Mets went out and paid all of that money to get.”

So the Santana the Mets went out and paid all that money to get doesn't play a Gold Glove left field and hit 25 homers. Did they not do their due diligence?

Face it Mets fans. Santana just doesn't know how to win.

Compared to his heyday his K's are down significantly while his walks are up. Last 5 games tho he's gotten 1-4-1-2-2 runs of support.

Another thing about Santana is it's obvious that on many days such as yesterday, his command is nothing like it was up through last July. A 56 Game Score isn't all that bad, but that pitch count of 113 in only 6 innings confirms what you could see with your own eyes yesterday: He was struggling at many points.

What the Mets are getting out of Santana is a pitcher who almost always keeps them in the game, so in that respect he's been well worth the money. Unfortunately, his performance to date is also demonstrating that the value of a 6 or 7 inning starter like Santana is not equivalent to the value of a starter with comparable rate stats who can mix in a certain number of complete games and take the pressure off of the bullpen. It's why as a Yankee fan I'm glad to see that they're putting a fair amount of effort in stockpiling young arms in their farm system to be able to finish what their own 5 or 6 inning starters have begun. I'm getting the strong feeling that the old cliche about the "25 man roster" is going become more and more true as the years pass by, and that the teams with the deep pockets will make this necessity into one of their bigger advantages.

Santana has almost always pitched better in the second half of the season. Starting out below his career norms wouldn't be a big deal at all if the Mets had corner outfielders who could hit.

that pitch count of 113 in only 6 innings confirms what you could see with your own eyes yesterday: He was struggling at many points.

he (and pettite) were also getting squeezed by some horrible home plate umpiring. yeah, you have to adjust (or at least not lose your cool, which santana did and it cost him), but gameday was showing consecutive pitches in the same location getting called different things.

Santana just doesn't know how to win.

So, he's a loser. So the Mets ARE a perfect fit!

Ugh.

Look, the guy has a 3.01 ERA, and his 103 strikeouts rank third in the National League. Nevertheless, there’s something missing.

Correct. His second-half performance.

First-half ERA:
2004 3.78
2005 3.98
2006 2.95
2007 2.75

Only last season, his second-half ERA suffered. But his first-half performance is right where it always is.

I wouldn't say the plate umpiring was horrible yesterday. Besides, he was arguing for some pitches against Abreu that weren't even close.

Is there any evidence that first half/second half splits mean anything?

Is there any evidence that first half/second half splits mean anything?

It depends on whether you believe the earlier or later studies.

Sure. Other players get tired as the season drags along and he just gets stronger. He's still pitching amazingly and I don't think he's not the old Santana just yet. The only thing is k's are down a bit (which is weird switching to the NL). He's still even on pace for 226 innings or so.

Face it Mets fans. Santana just doesn't know how to win.

If only Jack Morris could give him some lessons.

The plate umpiring *was* horrible. The strike zone changed from inning to inning. I hope that umpire got his car towed at the end of the day.

I do think there some mild cause for concern. This is a guy you expect to have a 5:1 K/BB ratio and he's sitting 3:1. He's obviously still plenty good, but that's not what you want to see.

I am dubious about guys who allegedly perform better systematically in the second half of the season than the first half, but as long as that's what we're talking about, that's not what Santana, historically, has done -- not precisely. His career ERA is over 4 for the months of March-May, then in June it's 2.58, then in July it jumps up to 3.67, and then it's back down in the mid-two for August and September. Is there a plausible explanation for why he pitches like this? If the idea is that he doesn't tire as quickly as the hitters he opposes, that doesn't really explain the June result at all. Perhaps he takes a bit to get in the swing of things, and the July result is just noise. Maybe he doesn't pitch well until after the ASB and the June result is noise. But the idea that Santana is a second half pitcher is not strictly supported by his results.

1st half k/9: 9.3
2nd half k/9: 9.5

1st half bb/9: 2.54
2nd half bb/9: 2.46

first half hr/9: 1.1
2nd half hr/9: .9

Those are his career rates. Break them down by month and it appears that when Santana gives up more runs it's when he gives up more dingers. The other rates fluctuate mildly month-to-month in what looks like an essentially random fashion. This is as true in July as it is in April or May, and while it's not any great flash of insight, it makes me wonder: Is there something specific that happens in those months that causes him to give up homers that doesn't happen other times of year? Or is it coincidental that he has tended to give up more homers in those months than others? Can April and May be rightly grouped together and July shunted aside? (These are honest questions.)

If the thesis is, "Santana is a second-half pitcher", then why does his second half last season get dismissed as a blip? Because it does not fit with the thesis? It seems to me that you either have to acknowledge that he has slipped and that there might be something wrong, or you have to abandon the idea that he's a second-half pitcher, which is only sort of supported by the data anyhow.

I think that, in light of the drop in his K rate and the slight rise in his walk rate -- things that did not happen in his previous first-half struggles -- it's probable that Santana is not quite what he was. He's facing pitchers now; these rates, all else being equal, should be going up, not down. Whether this is aging, a specific ailment, a mental problem, or something else, I don't know, but it seems to me that it's real.

Face it Mets fans. Santana just doesn't know how to win.

I don't think he is saying that. I think he is saying that the dominant Santana hasn't been there so far...and the peripherals bare that out. 3.68 FIP so far.

Last year it was 3.98, and it's possible that the league switch may be masking a new talent level for Santana, one below the dominant period from 2004-06. I think the article is absolutely right that so far, he hasn't been the same pitcher.

Voxter's right, but it still remains to be seen whether this is a temporary slump (all pitchers should have such "slumps") or whether it's the beginning of a slow decline that began last August. I think we'll know a lot more about this at the end of the year.

I don't think he is saying that.

I know. It was a fairly transparent attempt on my part to bait Mets fans. Apparently, it didn't work.

The thing that worries me about Santana is that his WHIP has gone up rather declined while switching leagues. A couple of years ago his WHIP was less than one in the AL.

The thing that worries me about Santana is that his WHIP has gone up rather declined while switching leagues.

Well, that's what'll happen when you move to the stronger league.

Does anyone think that changing leagues and not yet being familiar with the hitters may be a factor? I watched him pitch during his years in Minnesota, and he strikes me as a guy that has mostly relied on fooling hitters, rather than overpowering them. He mainly threw two pitches: a two-seam -- possibly cut -- fastball and a famous change up, with the rare slider mixed in. A big part of the magic of Johan was that he would throw either of his two main pitches for a strike with any count against any hitter; he didn't seem to have any tendencies. Perhaps not yet having much experience with many of the hitters in the national league has hurt him? (This is probably a garbage theory, but maybe it is at least is interesting to discuss.)

Hopefully he hits his grove soon, and we are not just seeing the inevitable effects of aging. I have always liked him, because he is fun to watch.

The thing that worries me about Santana is that his WHIP has gone up rather declined while switching leagues.

Well, that's what'll happen when you move to the stronger league.

I know that last comment was tongue in cheek, but until Jon Miller mentioned it a minute ago I didn't realize just how feeble the NL's been this year in interleague play: 102-148. And 431-575 from 2004 to date. That's starting to approach a pretty good sample size.

Look, the guy has a 3.01 ERA, and his 103 strikeouts rank third in the National League. Nevertheless, there’s something missing.

Correct. His second-half performance.

First-half ERA:
2004 3.78
2005 3.98
2006 2.95
2007 2.75

Only last season, his second-half ERA suffered. But his first-half performance is right where it always is.

#9 sums up Santana's entire NY career.

Geez, New York baseball fans sure sound like they just started following Santana. Maybe it is true, there certainly seems to be a big market/small market element at work here. Track record means nothing for New York/Boston baseball fans, they will take 4 weeks and use that to form their opinions on a guy's career, despite all sorts of other evidence.

What should I expect from fans of New York's triple-A franchise.

He's facing pitchers now; these rates, all else being equal, should be going up, not down. Whether this is aging, a specific ailment, a mental problem, or something else, I don't know, but it seems to me that it's real.

Nobody on here has mentioned that the NL is hitting 1.99 HR/game and the AL is hitting 1.89 HR/game, despite pitchers hitting. This fact seems to indicate the NL may have more HR power than the AL. Obviously it could all be due to weaker league pitching, but maybe not all of it.

Still, Santana is a proven 2nd half pitcher and #17 does a good job showing this to be true.

I get the feeling that if Santana were 10-1 with a 3.01 ERA, we would hear none of this whining. I'm just saying that nearly everyone is reacting to pitcher W/L record when I thought we were all over that stat.

Oliver Perez seems to have made some changes to his windup and the announcers were saying that the new pitching coach said that he didn't care if Perez varied his release point. He said he was more worried about where Perez's hands were as he was going threw his motion. I thought that was interesting.

And I think they said they moved his feet on the rubber and had him sort of jackknife his body forward as he started his motion. Very effective, today at least.

Having said that, I'm feeling like Michael Corleone in "Godfather III". Every time I try to get out of optimism for this season, they pull me back in! Especially Ollie and Delgado.

I'm just saying that nearly everyone is reacting to pitcher W/L record when I thought we were all over that stat.

We are. The author of the article specifically says that he is not reacting to the win-loss record, and the posters here are using peripheral stats.

It's because the NL has smaller parks, and probably worse pitching, too, since the AL on the whole has higher payrolls.

Every big name player the Mets acquire starts to suck as soon as he puts on the uniform. Why should Santana be any different?

Every big name player the Mets acquire starts to suck as soon as he puts on the uniform. Why should Santana be any different?

Mo Vaughn. Robbie Alomar. Pedro's been hurt. Willie Mays was barely ambulatory. Who else? Bonilla? Coleman? Were either of them "big names"?

Piazza was great. Hernandez and Carter were important players in the championship team. Saberhagen had two OK years, one good year, and one very very good year. Likewise, Viola had 1 and a half OK years and one very very good year. Beltran's been very good.

I'd say that the Mets' big name signings have worked out alright, overall. Am I missing some massive roster of highly-paid free agent scrubs, or something?

Carlos Baerga

Fair enough; that's another one. I think the overall point still stands, though: when they decide to spend big, the Mets have made some really nice pickups, and they've made some dreadful ones. Pretty much like any other team.

Bonilla? Coleman? Were either of them "big names"?

Bobby Bo was definitely a "big name." Wasn't his contract, at the time, the largest ever given? Jeromy Burnitz (second time around) also didn't do the Mets any favors.

Bobby Bo was definitely a "big name." Wasn't his contract, at the time, the largest ever given?

Ah, fair enough. In my defense, the Bonilla signing was during a time when I wasn't paying as much attention to baseball as I now do. But in any case, move him from the "provisional" list to the "big name busts" list.

Burnitz...meh. He thoroughly stunk up the joint (and given how smelly Shea can be on a hot July day, that's tough to do) his first year with the Mets, but was quite good (at least at the plate) in the half season he spent with the Mets before being traded to LA (where he promptly reverted to form, and sucked). Almost certainly not worth the $20 mil the Mets threw his way, but I don't rank him up there on the list of "kill the GM" signings.

Bonilla was the highest paid player in the NL from 1992-1994, so it's nice to know my memory isn't going.

But in any case, move him from the "provisional" list to the "big name busts" list.

His numbers, like Saberhagen's, were actually pretty good (check out the season Bonilla was having in '95 when he got traded). But he, like Saberhagen, will always be remembered in NY for his amazing jackassery.

Bonilla was a huge name (edit: as has been said ;-) And don't forget his closest parallel, George Foster. Hernandez, Carter, Sabes and Viola were all acquired thru trade (as were Baerga and Alomar.)