Has Halladay Had 'hall of fame peak'?

[willshad]

Maybe it is because he plays for the Blue Jays, and maybe because he had a couple of injury seasons where he was kind of forgotten, but i think Roy Halladay is underrated. He was great in 2002-2003, and great again in 2006-2007, and even better in 2005, but got hurt and missed half the season. he also was hurt in 2004. He is doin Ok this year, and should end up with another good season. If he continues this level a few seasons, then declines, would he be considered a possible hall of famer? Where does he rank among current pitchers in their primes now? Im talking about Oswalt, Santana, Webb, Peavy, Wang, Beckett, Zambrano, Sabathia, Hudson etc.

[Bothrops Atrox]

Maybe it is because he plays for the Blue Jays, and maybe because he had a couple of injury seasons where he was kind of forgotten, but i think Roy Halladay is underrated. He was great in 2002-2003, and great again in 2006-2007, and even better in 2005, but got hurt and missed half the season. he also was hurt in 2004. He is doin Ok this year, and should end up with another good season. If he continues this level a few seasons, then declines, would he be considered a possible hall of famer? Where does he rank among current pitchers in their primes now? Im talking about Oswalt, Santana, Webb, Peavy, Wang, Beckett, Zambrano, Sabathia, Hudson etc.

Santana - fast track for Hall. Only needs a few more solid seasons

Oswalt and Webb - Mussina/Glavine types - very good every year, rarely "great" (by great I mean 200 ERA+, Pedro-esque), never bad. Both are heading towards HOF careers. Never hurt.

Zambrano/Sabathia/Peavy: more inconsistant and injury/mental breakdown prone than the first three mentioned. I don't think any will make it, but it wouldn't be shocked either.

Wang/Beckett - no

Hudson - probably not, unless he compiles a lot of counting numbers.

I think Halladay is a mixture of a lot of these guys: very good pitcher, eats tons of innings when healthy, tons of injuries, never Pedro-esque dominant. He could go either way.

[BenHertz]

Would Roy Halladay be considered this generation's Bert Blyleven?

[willshad]

I think you underrate Hudson...he is almost a perfect match for Mussina at the same age, and this may end up being his best yeat ever (although it is early yet).

Peavy and Webb have been inconsistent so far i their careers, but both are young, and may be just reaching their peak. If they can continue their performanc from last year and so far this year they are on a good pace for hall consideration.

Zambrano may have more potential than all of them. he has been dominant this year, and is still only 27, with 87 wins under his belt. he may turn out a Santana-type peak the next few years.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I think you underrate Hudson...he is almost a perfect match for Mussina at the same age, and this may end up being his best yeat ever (although it is early yet).

Peavy and Webb have been inconsistent so far i their careers, but both are young, and may be just reaching their peak. If they can continue their performanc from last year and so far this year they are on a good pace for hall consideration.

Zambrano may have more potential than all of them. he has been dominant this year, and is still only 27, with 87 wins under his belt. he may turn out a Santana-type peak the next few years.

How is Peavy inconsistent? His led the NL in ERA in 2004. Sin then his ERA+ has been

2004: 171
2005: 134
2006: 99
2007: 159
2008: 154 (so far)

His '06 season was a fluke off season. Even then it wasn't such a bad season. He pitched 202.3 innings, allowed 187 hits, 215 K, 62 BBs. One can say he was inconsistant in '06 (his ERA varied wildly month to month) but Peavy hasn't been inconsistent since '04 to now.

[Bothrops Atrox]

How is Peavy inconsistent? His led the NL in ERA in 2004. Sin then his ERA+ has been

.

Along with Peavy, how has Webb been inconsistant? He has pitched 200 innings (with the exception of his rookie year - 185 ip) and had an ERA+ of around 130 or higher every single season.

I agree that I may be underestimating Hudson a bit.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Would Roy Halladay be considered this generation's Bert Blyleven?

I think Halladay is more highly regarded than Blyleven ever was. Halladay has won a Cy Young and Blyleven never did. Also, Hallday has made four All-Star teams already. Shockingly, Blyleven only made two All-Star teams his entire career ('73, '85).

[brett]

Halliday has had a 5 year peak that is on the border for 5 year peaks for hall of famers.

For his 5 year peak he has a composite 147 ERA+ but only 200.0 innings.

[nerfan]

I'd envision Halladay ending up in the Drysdale group, maybe a little ahead. Maybe about 200-160 for his career, with a 115 ERA+, 230-180 with a 125 ERA+ if he gets lucky.

[dgarza]

Halliday has had a 5 year peak that is on the border for 5 year peaks for hall of famers.

For his 5 year peak he has a composite 147 ERA+ but only 200.0 innings.

It's not like he pitched in the 70s. Halladay lead his league in Innings twice and was in the Top 4 four times, plus he's leading currently for this year. He has pitched his share of innings.
That 147 ERA+ for a 5 year peak is not overwhelming, but it is better than Ferguson Jenkins's and Gaylord Perry's 5 year peaks. If you balance out the innings differences, they probably come out similar.

[willshad]

How is Peavy inconsistent? His led the NL in ERA in 2004. Sin then his ERA+ has been

2004: 171
2005: 134
2006: 99
2007: 159
2008: 154 (so far)



to me thats inconsistent . especially when you consider it was 96 in 2003. what the heck happened in 2006?

also, i was looking at Halladay's record, and in 2000 he pitched 67 innings to a 10.64 ERA...Is this the worst season ever for a pitcher with at least 50 innings pitched?

[willshad]

I think Halladay is more highly regarded than Blyleven ever was. Halladay has won a Cy Young and Blyleven never did. Also, Hallday has made four All-Star teams already. Shockingly, Blyleven only made two All-Star teams his entire career ('73, '85).

Blyleven also had much better competition.

[brett]

It's not like he pitched in the 70s. Halladay lead his league in Innings twice and was in the Top 4 four times, plus he's leading currently for this year. He has pitched his share of innings.
That 147 ERA+ for a 5 year peak is not overwhelming, but it is better than Ferguson Jenkins's and Gaylord Perry's 5 year peaks. If you balance out the innings differences, they probably come out similar.

While his innings are good for today, every hall of famer with a peak ERA+ at or below Halliday's did so in far more innings. Those guys had to face the same batters 4+ times a game, and in an 8 team league faced the same batters FAR more than a modern starter. It is statistically confirmed that batters do better against pitchers the 3rd and 4th time they face them.

[brett]

Blyleven also had much better competition.

But he didn't have specialty relievers cutting into the league ERA.

[willshad]

But he didn't have specialty relievers cutting into the league ERA.

Eh I dont know if i buy this theory. People keep saying that hitters are at a disadvantage now because of relievers and such, but then whys the league ERA always higher now than it was in the 60s, 70s and 80s? Guys pitched longer into games because they COULD..if the manager thought a reliever would have been better then he would have brought one in. I dont know if its always an advantage to have specialty relievers come in during the 7th, 8th and 9th innings, even when the starter is pitching a great game. If that was the case then i think such a strategy would have become common much earlier