Some arguments that are too intriguing to take for an 0-1 count:

.

Comparing pitchers across varying eras is a difficult thing at the best of times. But look at what Halladay just accomplished -- as a 13-year vet -- the very first time he was turned loose against inferior NL opposition. A perfect game. A no-hitter in the playoffs. Could have won close to 30 games had his offense not gone on hiatus for nearly two months. A unanimous Cy Young win. Remember, Halladay is supposedly entering his twilight years.

I don't think this argument can be pooh-pooh'ed.  My bias, my preconceived notion, is against this argument ... but it needs to be considered fairly.

Roy Halladay did go to the NL, and immediately rip it limb from limb.  Including a perfect game.  Cliff Lee has been a fire-breathing gold dragon in the playoffs; Halladay did that in the NL.

Gaining the advantage of throwing against pitchers, and against fewer scary AL longball hitters .... Halladay did throw an effortless 250 innings -- and did rip off a staggering 11 W's in two month's time down the stretch.

The visual was compelling.  Halladay did tear the NL's arm off and beat them to death with it.

..................

On further review, however, you know what?  Halladay had been doing the same thing in the AL.  His peripherals didn't change much:

2008 AL:  20-11, 2.78 ... 152 ERA+ ... 7.5 k, 1.5 bb, 0.7 hr ... 246 ip

2009 AL:  17-10, 2.79 ... 159 ERA+ ... 7.8 k, 1.3 bb, 0.8 hr ... 239 ip

2010 NL:  21-10, 2.44 ... 165 ERA+ ... 7.9 k, 1.1 bb, 0.9 hr ... 250 ip

It's a cool field-view argument Geoffy makes.  All things considered, though, I'd say that what happened was that in 2008 Halladay made a leap forward from "star" to "superstar" -- and that we really noticed it when he parachuted into the NL.

As you know, SSI believes that pitchers tend to have an advantage over hitters when facing a new league, anyway.  But Halladay's overall 'improvement' in 2010 wasn't much beyond statistical fluctuation and facing pitchers, I don't think.

.

Halladay and Lee haven't needed strike calls on pitches a half-foot off the plate. Lee's accuracy is such that his self-induced margin for error comes down to an inch or two. Big difference.

Not trying to diss Glavine and Maddux, who were great in their own right. But they didn't have to face the 2000's version of the Yankees and Red Sox five times per season the way Halladay has. Didn't have to continue their dominance for both great teams and terrible ones, the way Lee just did the past three years.

Another argument that fans, 30 lbs. overweight behind their monitors, would tend to blow off :- ) but that those inside the game would take seriously.

Now, supposing you did give Cliff Lee six inches off the plate!  Wow.  What would happen then?

:: taps chin ::

HBT and Dave Allen have shown that umpires do give LHP's about six inches off the outside corner just about anytime.

.

Articles like this one and this one show that umps tend to give close strikes to all pitchers until there are two strikes -- and then pitchers face tiny strike zones.

I'm quite sure that umpires call big strike zones on 2-0 and small zones on 1-2 ... and quite sure that STAR pitchers get bigger zones on 1-2.

Am sure that applied to Glavine.  And you know what?  I'm sure that it applies to Cliff Lee, too.  And to Roy Halladay.  Which is why they both run 7:1 control ratios...

All things considered, I think that umps are pretty much as impressed with Lee and Halladay as they used to be with stars in the 1990's.  :- )  Could be wrong.

..................

Pitching in the AL East, as Halladay has, well... that's baseball's toughest division, and Halladay has run his 150 ERA+'s there.   No doubt:  Halladay is a big-game pitcher.

This argument has some traction, I'll agree:  Halladay and Lee have been fun to watch in the postseason.

...................

True that American sports leagues get harder and harder as time passes.  Babe Ruth beat up on some high-school pitchers.  ... however, that doesn't mean that you say all of today's athletes are better-in-context than all their predecessors...

...................

Was Maddux a wimp?  Career ERA:  3.16.  In the playoffs?  3.27, in 200 innings.

Glavine?  Career 3.54 ... in the playoffs, 3.30, in 220 innings.

I dunno.  Maddux and Glavine failed to pull their El Duques in the playoffs.  They pitched well, not spectacularly, and generally the '90's Braves were exposed as less than historic.

So far, Halladay and Lee have looked sensational in the playoffs -- Halladay in 22 innings (!), Lee in 76 innings.

Perhaps when a pitcher gets a rep for being a postseason pitcher, it's because he's had a good 40-inning start, and hasn't gotten to his 200th postseason inning yet?  :- )

....................

Lee's performances in the playoffs are an interesting historical phenomenon.  You've got to weigh them heavily.  I won't be surprised if he gets to 150 postseason innings with a terrific record.

.

Next

.