Comments on: Remaking the Halladay-Lee comparison, a month later

By: online stock trading

online stock trading — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:48:01 +0000

Hey, I found your blog in a new directory of blogs. I dont know how your blog came up, must have been a typo, anyway cool blog, I bookmarked you.

By: Gregory Despain

Gregory Despain — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 03:20:06 +0000

Great blog, although I think some of the stuff on itt is a little pre used lol.

By: Grant

Grant — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:28:58 +0000

Agreed. The AL vs. NL is a significant difference. Halladay would almost certainly have been better in the NL. As is everyone.

By: Church of the Perpetually Outraged

Church of the Perpetually Outraged — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:18:29 +0000

All things being equal I’d still probably take Halladay over Lee long term, but the comparison is an example of why focusing strictly on performance rather than getting caught up in name recognition or perceived value can be illuminating. To the average fan Halladay was the big name and the stud pitcher, but in reality his performance was just slightly better than Lee’s during their previous 50 starts.
This isn’t exactly an apples to apples comparison though. Through the 5 games, Lee has faced SF, CO, CHC, Ari and NYM. 4/5 of those teams are in the bottom 10 of both runs scored and OPS. Meanwhile Halladay has faced the NYY, Bos, Bal and TB twice. 3/4 of those are in the top 5 in runs and OPS.
Yes Lee has done well and Halladay has struggled, but Halladay isn’t as bad as he’s been while facing far superior competition. And Lee isn’t as good facing far worse.

By: Church of the Perpetually Outraged

Church of the Perpetually Outraged — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:17:35 +0000