who's better: johan santana or tom glavine?

Answer 1

Santana is the best pitcher right now. Glavine to this point has had a more productive career simply because he has pitched longer, but I would venture a guess that by the time he has retired, Santana will have the better numbers overall, including more wins, strikeouts, and a lower e.r.a. Not to knock Glavine, he was a great pitcher, but Santana is better.

Answer 2

This question is skewed. Of course, all of us would agree that Santana is better right now (in my opinion, he's the best in baseball right now). However, you can't compare a pitcher in his 20th year of playing (Glavine started with the Braves in 1987, when Santana was EIGHT years old!) with someone in the prime of their career. If comparing Glavine in his prime to Santana now, I'd give the nod to Santana, because he's more dominating than Glavine ever was. Even in his best years, Glavine averaged around 160 K's per year; Santana is averaging around 250 per year. Glavine's WHIP was never lower than 1.15; Santana has been at or under 1.00 for the past three years.

Glavine, however, has been consistent pretty much his whole career. That's why he's almost a lock for the Hall of Fame. If Santana can keep up what he's done so far, then he'll be there himself in a few years.

A more interesting matchup to me is Pedro Martinez in his prime vs. Johan Santana now. Two guys who get a lot of strikeouts and have a low ERA and low WHIP.

Answer 3

Santana, not EVEN close. It doesn't matter if you are comparing Santana to the Glavine of today, or the 90s, Santana is clearly better.

Santana pitches in a hitter's league, has great ERAs, averages better than a strikeout per inning (with no pitchers batting), and is always around 20 wins.

Glavine was great in his prime, and will get 300 wins, but he was helped immensely by the extra six inches off the plate that the Braves pitchers received from umpires in the past. I don't even want to hear that Glavine's better because of his body of work, or because he's been doing it longer. Santana has been doing it for several years now, and by the time he is done, will have much better numbers than Glavine, even though he pitches to lineups that go nine deep, with no pitchers to bat or number 8 hitters to pitch around.

Answer 4

Santana has been the best pitcher the last 3 years, hands down. He won the triple crown of pitching last year......but if you mean over a career, of course, Glavine is better. But if Santana keeps this pace up, you might as well rename the Cy Young award to Johan Santana award.

Answer 5

I'm a huge Mets fan...

But I'd take Santana any day, in Glavine's prime, on Glavine's Hall of Fame induction day, when Santana was only 8 years old.

Answer 6

They are very different pitchers. I never rememeber Glavine being as dominant as Santana is being right now, but Santana needs to keep it consistent, and he will pass Glavine on the Left Handed wins list. When it is all said and done, Santana.

Answer 7

Johan Santana has much better "stuff" than Glavine. However, Johan had better keep it up for another 15 years to be considered in the same breath.

Answer 8

That's not a fair question. Santana is in his prime and Glavine is not. Glavine in his prime was every bit as good as his career stats will show. Glavine needs 10 more wins to join the 300 win club. Let's see how Santana progresses over the next 15 years.

Answer 9

Santana is the better of the 2 pitchers right now. Tom Glavine was better back in the day (90s). Santana has more stikeouts and younger. Glavine is still a fine pitcher, but doesn't pitch 9 innings anymore.

Answer 10

Well, we will have to see if Johan can be good for twenty years like Glavine. Plus Glavine has had more 20-win seasons and championships. It's just too early to tell. Dwight Gooden, in his most dominant season, was MUCH better than Glavine in his most dominant season. However, who is better in the end depends on the career numbers plus the dominant seasons, so we will have to wait on Johan.