In a close second to the Jose Reyes‘ maturity debacle, this constant underwhelming feeling given to Johan Santana for his 2008 performance has been a ridiculous theme of this season.

Santana has been the ace of the Mets, and he’s been better than two-thirds of other teams’ aces in several categories. He is in the top 10 in ERA in the NL (No. 6) and MLB (No. 9). He’s No. 7 in the NL in strikeouts and No. 12 in all of baseball. He’s never gotten injured (knock on wood), answering the bell 22 times out of 22 when his number came up in the rotation.

What is most frustrating is this myth of Santana being a complete-games factory. People act like Santana doesn’t go deep enough in games, for some reason. What exactly is this standard Santana is adhering to? Santana is 3rd (!) in the NL in innings pitched and 5th in all of baseball. You know that complete game he hurled on Sunday? That was the seventh complete game in his career. Then why has Karl Ravech and John Kruk, among others, acted like Santana’s 2008 season has been disappointing because he hasn’t churned out complete game after complete game like Roy Halladay? By the way, Halladay has about 10 innings over Santana this season.

In fact, many of his 2008 numbers have come up in synch with his career numbers. Since 2002, his ERA has always finished hovering around 3.00. His 2007 final ERA was the high watermark since he’s become a starter, 3.33, which should make his 2008 performance look all the better. Right now, he is on pace for a few less strikeouts and a few more walks, but his WHIP is still just a tick higher than his average. Hardly anything to decry the value of Santana for. He looks to also stay around his career totals for innings pitched and home runs allowed.

I suspect the real difference, the real reason why the Kruks of the world say Kyle Lohse has been a better pitcher, is the wins and losses. Is the reason why Santana wasn’t named to the All-Star Game because he isn’t among the league leaders in wins? Newsflash: Santana’s 2004 and 2006 Cy Young seasons weren’t good simply because he finished with 20 and 19 wins, respectively, though that’s probably why he won the awards. They were good because of his overall performance, which led to the wins.

I’m a big fan of team wins, but “pitcher wins” have long led to misvaluing pitchers and disporportionally rewarding pitchers with good offenses and bullpens to back them. Santana has been very unlucky in that regard, and this has led to his 2008 season being misvalued.