Blog Entry

Would You Rather Have: Halladay or Verlander?

Posted on: January 11, 2012 8:10 am
Edited on: January 13, 2012 7:45 am
 


By Matt Snyder


So, the Winter Meetings are far in the rearview, the Hall of Fame voting results have been revealed and we're just over five weeks away from the day when pitchers and catchers report to camp. With a very few free agents still lingering on the market -- I'm looking right at you, big boy -- we can't exactly start ramping up predictions, either. So let's do this instead: Argue. We'll start a series of posts where we set the table for you fans to vote in a poll and then argue below in the comments section. Who would you rather have? We'll pit two players of close value against each other and let you make the call.

Today, since it's the start of the series and we need something explosive, how about deciding if you'd rather have Roy Halladay or Justin Verlander.

The case for Halladay

Doc has been one of the most dominant pitchers in baseball for the better part of a decade. If you didn't know much about him until he was traded to the Phillies, you either live in a very limited baseball world, don't play fantasy baseball or both. All the way back in 2002, a young Halladay was going 19-7 with a 2.93 ERA (a freaking 159 ERA-plus, people). The following year he won the Cy Young award. After injuries sidetracked him a bit for the next two seasons, Halladay went on a ridiculous run.

For the past six seasons, Halladay has averaged the following line (again, this is an average): 18-8, 2.86 ERA, 1.10 WHIP, 187 strikeouts, eight complete games, two shutouts and 236 innings. His finishes in Cy Young voting in those six years: 3, 5, 2, 5, 1, 2.

He's doing it in the playoffs, too, as Halladay threw a no-hitter in his first career postseason start and has a 2.37 ERA and 0.74 WHIP in 38 postseason innings. This is something you could use to denigrate Verlander, too, as he sports a 5.57 ERA and 1.55 WHIP in 42 career postseason innings.

The case for Verlander

Much like Halladay, Verlander keeps his bullpen well-rested. He's averaged 238 innings pitched the past three seasons with 11 complete games and three shutouts (two of those no-hitters).

Verlander is coming off a transcendent season, one in which he won the Cy Young and MVP, while leading the leads in wins, ERA, innings, strikeouts, WHIP, hits allowed per nine innings and 100-mph fastballs later than the seventh inning (among starters). Just watching this guy work leaves you in awe. How can he crank it up to 100 in the eighth or ninth after having thrown over 100 pitches in 95-degree heat in the middle of the summer? He's like a freak of nature for avoiding injury with that kind of action, too, as he's made at least 30 starts every year since being a full-time starter (when he won Rookie of the Year in 2006). And while Halladay is pretty much already guaranteed a spot in Cooperstown, it's easy to see Verlander heading that way as well.

Finally, while their salaries are a wash (both making right around $20 million per year for the next two -- Verlander for a third and Halladay has a vesting option for a third), Verlander will be 29 this season. Halladay will turn 35 in May. So if you're saying who would we want from this point forward -- which, I mean, that's pretty obvious, right? -- do you want a 29-year-old Verlander coming off the best season in recent memory or a 35-year-old Halladay?

On the other hand, Verlander's ERA hovered between 3.37 and 3.66 in his good seasons before last year -- we'll even do him the courtesy of throwing out that dreadful 2008 season. You could argue last season was his career year and he'll regress from being out-of-this-world dominant back to merely (please note sarcasm) being a stud who makes the All-Star Game and gets Cy Young votes every year.

Our call

Man, it's just such a toss up. I think I'd go with Verlander only because of age, but if he ends up being more 2009-10 again instead of the monster we saw in 2011, Halladay is better. We started off with this one because it's one of the toughest calls, pitting the current two best pitchers in baseball. There definitely isn't a wrong answer. Vote and discuss with impunity.

Fan Vote:



For more baseball news, rumors and analysis, follow @EyeOnBaseball on Twitter, subscribe to the RSS feed and "like" us on Facebook.

Comments

Since: May 29, 2009
Posted on: January 13, 2012 11:52 am
 

Would You Rather Have: Halladay or Verlander?

I went against the more popular opinion and went with Roy Halladay. He's been more consistent, and has a better track record. Plus, I don't think Age is that relevant, as Halladay relies more on accuracy and deception than pure power. Halladay is always in shape, dedicated to his craft, and has the intangibles that I would want on a team.
I am not trying to say you are wrong -- This article is based solely on each person opinion.  So no one is right or wrong.

I have to say though -- Verlander, while he has the 100 mph fastball in his pocket, his curveball and changeup are both plus pitches -- which is why he leads the MLB in strikeouts more times than not.  You say Halladay has been more consistent, yet Verlander has improved each year since 2008 and has NEVER missed a start due to an injury.

You can say age is not a factor, but it absolutely is.  Verlander has at least 10-12 years left playing.  How many do you think Halladay has left???  Also, Verlander is one of the most physically fit pitchers in the MLB, which is why he is also at the top of IP and most pitches thrown.

The part I don't think many observers realize with Verlander -- 2011 was the FIRST year he learned how to pitch, instead of just relying on his talents to get hitters out.  He is just reaching his prime right now and coupling the art of learning how to be a pitcher and combining with his natural talents -- his stats will continue to look just like they did in 2011.

You can't really go wrong with either player as they are both absolutely dominate.  Of course I'm going to back Verlander, as I am a HUGE tigers fan and have had the luxury of watching him pitch his entire career.  In the end -- I would take Verlander for the simple fact that he is 28 and by the time he is 34, there won't be a stat you could compare between Verlander and Halladay where Verlander won't top him -- only exception will be walks.
 



Since: Jun 25, 2009
Posted on: January 13, 2012 11:36 am
 

Would You Rather Have: Halladay or Verlander?

You are the same person who said that Cabrera is a better hitter than Pujols is.At LEAST Mike d.makes VALID points.And is man enough to argue sports with being a child and calling me dumb.


Don't put words in my mouth Brian, I'm not an idiot like you. I said Cabrerra has been better then Pujols THE LAST 2 CONSECUTIVE REGULAR SEASONS.  Go back to that thread and see for yourself, it's still there.  I NEVER said Miggy has had a better career then Pujols. I simply stated that Miggy's overall numbers the last 2 seasons are better then what Pujols has done.  End of story.  The funny thing is you actually tried to argue that, something so simple to figure out just by looking at the numbers.  You didn't even once admit that Miggy has been better the last 2 years.  

You argue that people do not gauge a pitchers playoff record bases on 5 games.YOU ARE WRONG

If I'm wrong then so is almost anybody else on this site because you won't find many, if any other CBS members that agree 5 games is a good sample size to judge a pitcher.  

And I find it funny that you have not said a word to the others who agree with me that Verlander is their choice too.

Do you mean I haven't argued with others that chose Halladay?  No, I haven't.  I think Halladay is a fine choice, I have no problem with anybody's opinion.  What I have a problem with is an idiot like you that talks out of their ass on a daily basis and uses stupid logic.  Smashing a pitcher because of 5 playoff starts of which 2 or 3 were bad starts is pretty stupid.  You also said that we can't be sure there is an advantage pitching in the N.L, that was stupid as well.  You also told us you don't know how Verlander would pitch against the East, but I point out how he did, 4-0, 3.30 era with a whip of under 1 in 9 starts and you don't respond.   You tell us Cleveland and KC suck, meanwhile overall Baltimore and Tampa were worse hitting teams then they were.  Yet you don't respond to real facts....

The others backing Halladay are using their brains and respecting Verlander, they aren't being stupid.  They aren't knocking Verlander like you are... they aren't telling us the N.L isn't an easier league to pitch in.  They aren't telling us the only reason Verlander was good was because of the central division.

They are sticking to facts and making their argument properly, you on the other hand can't because you aren't a smart guy.

 



Since: Dec 7, 2006
Posted on: January 13, 2012 9:21 am
 

Would You Rather Have: Halladay or Verlander?

This is a tough call. I think if you are asking, who do I want for 2012, I would pick Halladay. If you are asking who I want the next 7 years, I'd pick Verlander.

Verlander's year last year was amazing, even for him. But his ERA was a run lower than his last couple of years. It was his first 20 win season, and he pitched over 250 innings (plus 20 more in post season). Can he really duplicate those numbers again?

Halladay has won 20+ 3 times, and has pitched 220+ innings 6 years in a row (Verlander has done in the last 3 years). I can pencil in Halladay to do it again, but Verlander may be worn out and may not repeat those amazing numbers in 2012. I'd take my chances with Halladay, because I know for sure what he will do in 2012.




Since: Apr 6, 2007
Posted on: January 13, 2012 8:26 am
 

Would You Rather Have: Halladay or Verlander?

I went against the more popular opinion and went with Roy Halladay. He's been more consistent, and has a better track record. Plus, I don't think Age is that relevant, as Halladay relies more on accuracy and deception than pure power. Halladay is always in shape, dedicated to his craft, and has the intangibles that I would want on a team.

I am not paying attention to either player's playoff record. The sample size is just too small for that to be relevant.




Since: Jul 25, 2011
Posted on: January 13, 2012 4:21 am
 

Would You Rather Have: Halladay or Verlander?

You concluded with exactly what I thought as soon as I read the title. Verlander due to age.


brian8ball
Since: Aug 3, 2011
Posted on: January 13, 2012 12:59 am
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator



brian8ball
Since: Aug 3, 2011
Posted on: January 13, 2012 12:53 am
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator




Since: Jun 25, 2009
Posted on: January 13, 2012 12:20 am
 

Would You Rather Have: Halladay or Verlander?

Mike d,
Verlander gave up 4 runs in 8 innings against the Yankees.Not your BEST point

Mike d made a great point, you're just too dumb to understand it.  For you everything is just one stat, the one that suits you. Verlander went into new york against a great hitting team and gave up 4 runs in 8 innings, I believe 3 of them in 1 inning?   He only allowed 9 base runners and had 3 walks with 11 strikeouts.  For 6 or 7 of those innings he dominated the Yankees... he looked awesome.  And we're talking Yankee Stadium, a park with a little porch in right field and a well known hitters park.  

But you're so dumb I can't bother with you anymore 


brian8ball
Since: Aug 3, 2011
Posted on: January 12, 2012 11:33 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator




Since: Aug 16, 2006
Posted on: January 12, 2012 11:24 pm
 

Would You Rather Have: Halladay or Verlander?

Coming from a Yankee fan its Doc all the way... 1 great year doesn't make me think that Verlander is the best... he is one of the best... but same was said about Greinke... we saw how that went... now Verlander is better then Greinke but lets not go and put him on the level of a hall of fame caliber pitcher.... but thats just my opinion.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com