Doc vs. Freak

Two days ago, Roy Halladay pitched a no-hitter for the Phillies in Game 1 of their Divisional Series against the Reds. Philly celebrated, sports writers everywhere salivated, Mets fans seriously thought about setting themselves on fire.

Last night, Tim Lincecum pitched a complete game, 14K, 2-hit shut-out against the Atlanta Braves to win 1-0 for his Giants. San Francisco celebrated, and a few other people noticed, too.

One of those people was NY Times columnist Dan Rosenheck, who wrote the following article: Keeping Score: Did Lincecum Pitch Better Than Halladay? Here he argued thay, based on advanced statistics, Lincecum's 14K night was actually "better" than Halladay's no-hit afternoon. In the comments section of his article he is naturally shouted down by stat-haters and Philly fans, who argue that NO WAY are 14K's (and other things) more impressive than only the second postseason no-hitter of all time. NO WAY! (And also that advanced stats are stupid.)

I think it's kind of silly (but fun if you're a stat geek) to argue who was "better". It's like asking which is better: a steak dinner or a lobster dinner. Who's to say? Forget "better", both performances were examples of pitching at its finest. But I did say this (I've added a bit for this post):

Two great pitchers, two great performances. I'm not going to sit here and say who of these two was "better", because most no-hitters involve luck, and you can argue about umpire's strike zones and who got more help, etc., etc. But here's why Lincecum's performance was more important than Halladay's: The Phillies are much better than the Giants.

If Halladay had stunk it up, the Phils still have Oswalt and Hamels lined up to go after him. If Lincecum had stunk it up, then the other pitchers behind him (Cain and Sanchez) are very good, but not as good as that Phillies staff. Look at it this way: Price laid an egg for the Rays over in the ALDS. The sense in that series for Tampa immediately turned to, "What do we do now?" Same thing would have happened if Lincecum hadn't shown up for the Giants.

Also, the Phils have the stronger line-up facing the weaker pitching; the Braves staff (Lowe, Hudson, Hanson) is better than the Reds staff (Volquez, Arroyo, Cueto; you'll be forgiven if you say 'Who?'), so it will be harder for the Giants offense (weaker than the Phils offense) to score in games 2 and 3 (and 4 and 5).

Simply put, the Giants needed Lincecum to come up big more than the Phils needed Halladay to come up big, and it's harder to pitch with a 1-0 lead (as Lincecum did) than it is a 4-0 lead (as Halladay did), AND the Reds haven't been to the playoffs in years whereas the Braves organization is more used to October baseball. That familiarity matters.

Halladay's performance was fantastic. Lincecum's performance was more important.