Forum: base
Page 18309
Subject: Best Pitcher Ever (hint: not Nolan Ryan)

  Posted by: blue hen - Leader [710321114] Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 11:14
Top Pitchers In Adjusted ERA+ from Baseball Reference

Yesterday, I claimed that Roger Clemens is the greatest pitcher of All-Time. A discussion of who else was up there ensued. The name Nolan Ryan came up, and much as Sludge will hate to admit it, he has no place in this discussion. There are good arguments for Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez, and perhaps even Greg Maddux. Plus all the old guys - I think I put Walter Johnson at the head of that list. And what about our fathers' aces? Gibson, Koufax, Seaver, Carlton?

My vote is for Clemens. Longevity, great seasons, and great moments. There are very few areas where he falls short.
 
1Razor
      ID: 36241218
      Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 11:32 		Clemens is surprisingly close, but I'd give the nod to Big Train unless Clemens can put in one more year of big time pitching.
 
2Tree
      Sustainer
      ID: 599393013
      Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 11:35 		and why would Nolan Ryan not even be close?
 
3Razor
      ID: 36241218
      Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 14:29 		Because despite being the all-time K leader by a mile, he's also the all-time walk leader by a mile.
 
4Toral
      ID: 10858715
      Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 15:26 		IMO Clemens has it now.
 
5Sludge
      ID: 27751510
      Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 15:26 		The name Nolan Ryan came up, and much as Sludge will hate to admit it, he has no place in this discussion.

Since when would I hate to admit it?

A Bone to Pick

I quote:



ESPN's Jeff Merron has provided us with a list of the most overrated athletes of all time.

He lists Nolan Ryan as #7.

Let me start out by saying that Nolan Ryan is easily my favorite baseball player of all time. I have a Nolan Ryan baseball card collection that is composed of 890 cards (672 if you don't count duplicates). Every one of the cards has been graded, accounted for in an Excel worksheet (the insanity of which Ryan can attest to), and carefully preserved in a sleve/toploader combination or a screwdown (when appropriate).

Having said that, I have no problems with Nolan Ryan being on a list of overrated athletes. As stated in the accompanying story (How we made the lists):



For example, Nolan Ryan. On several occasions in the past at ESPN.com, we've asked users to name the greatest pitcher of all time. Ryan, with his legacy of strikeouts and no-hitters, has won the poll. But he wasn't a greater pitcher than Tom Seaver or Steve Carlton, to name just two of his contemporaries. That's why we feel Ryan, who never won a Cy Young Award, is overrated.



No, Ryan is not the greatest pitcher of all time. Despite his being my favorite baseball player, even I know that.



Don't assume.
 
6Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 15:43 		Clemens is an amazing player. And (unlike many athletes) whenever he retires he's likely to still be on top of his game.

But he does, indeed, fall short in a few areas. He's 85th in WHIP all time (5th active). He's only 5th in ERA for active players. He's third for active players in win %. 6th for K/9IP.

All amazing numbers--a shoe-in for HOF. If he's not on every ballot, the guys who don't vote for him should be booted.

In absolute numbers (K's, etc) he's right up there. But he's started more games than any other active pitcher as well.

Clemens in certainly a top guy. But all-time best? There are too many others who would also qualify, and Pedro Martinez is blazing a trail which will leave many of Clemens' numbers in the dust.
 
7Motley Crue
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 16:00 		Pedro Martinez is blazing a trail to early retirement. His body won't hold up for the next 3 years. The Red Sox wished they had him this season, but he's out of this race sooner than you think.
 
8Tree
      Sustainer
      ID: 599393013
      Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 16:00 		i find it amazing that anyone finds it easy to dismiss a player with the following career stats:
324 wins
.526 winning pct
222 complete games
61 shutouts
5714 strike outs
3.19 ERA
1.25 career WHIP

i will not deny that Clemens probably has better overall numbers, but it's almost like people dismess Ryan because he played for a long time, instead of praising him for that feat.
 
9Toral
      ID: 10858715
      Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 16:10 		.526 winning pct

You realize how
mediocre that is, right?

Likewise a 1.25 WHIP.
 
10Motley Crue
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 16:21 		Tree, Ryan was great, but he's not the best ever. Here's the other side of the stats:

292 losses (3rd most ever)
2795 BB allowed (most ever, 962 more than #2, Carlton)
Around 4.67 BB allowed/9 IP
He only won 32 more games than he lost!
277 wild pitches (most ever)
158 Hit batsmen (9th most ever)

Obviously those last 2 are just for fun and show longevity more than anything else. But I didn't know until I looked. And add those numbers to the walks allowed, and it is apparent Ryan was a bit wild. Ok, he was Hella-wild.
 
11Sludge
      ID: 27751510
      Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 16:32 		And add those numbers to the walks allowed, and it is apparent Ryan was a bit wild. Ok, he was Hella-wild.

If Bull Durham taught us anything besides how old Sarandon looked even back then, it's got to be that being wild isn't always a bad thing.
 
12Razor
      ID: 36241218
      Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 16:37 		I can't believe how far Clemens has climbed up the all-time win list. Simply getting to 300 is an amazing feat these days. If he sticks around for another two years, he could concievably finish his career in third place behind only Walter Johnson and Cy Young. For a modern day pitcher to mentioned with those guys is almost inconceivable.
 
13Razor
      ID: 36241218
      Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 16:40 		If Bull Durham taught us anything besides how old Sarandon looked even back then

Phew. Being only 24 now and like 10 when it came out, I always wondered why they cast Sarandon as the supposedly hot older lady when she looked way too old to be appealing to me.
 
14biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 16:44 		Bah. If he manages to pass the great Pud Galvin (aka Gentle Jeems), the best the Buffalo Bisons ever had, then I will never speak to Clemens again.
 
15blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 710321114
      Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 16:48 		It's not easy to dismiss a player as electric as Ryan, who has also proved to be a good person. Especially one who was on top of his game until he was 46. In the early 70s, Ryan could have been called one of the best pitchers in baseball. Granted, Seaver and Carlton were ahead of him and pitchers like Vida Blue and Ron Guidry had big single seasons. By the 80's and 90's, Ryan was a strikeout machine, but far outdone by guys like Dwight Gooden, Bret Saberhagen, Dave Stewart and even Clemens himself.

With Clemens, there has been no question. He was the best pitcher in baseball in 86-87, in 90-91, in 97-98, and in 04-05. He also had a pretty good season in 01. Ryan can't claim anything like that except maybe 72-73-74, and the league ERA was 2.92 in 1972.

To me, there is no doubt about Clemens, and also about Ryan. Both great pitchers, but Clemens was much, much better.
 
16Boxman
      ID: 148111710
      Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 16:49 		I'm a big Rocket fan, he's my favorite player actually, but not putting Ryan at or near the top is ludicrous.

Regarding post #5, you can usually measure the amount of BS in a news article by the length of the pre-amble before the insult. :)

7 no-hitters gets a guy 0-love? SEVEN?

Maybe if Ryan played for some above .500 teams the first, I don't know, 15-20 years of his career, he'd have 400+ wins.

I'm curious about this, what were the total combined records of all the teams that Clemens played for versus Ryan?

Clemens had the benefit of playing for some good/decent Boston teams, the Yanks, and now the 'Stros. I cannot recall, but wasn't Toronto also decent when he was there?

Clemens has had the benefit of playing with the following players:

Boggs
Jim Rice
Dwight Evans
Delgado
Shawn Green, back when he was good.
Posada
Jeter
Bernie Williams in his prime.
Soriano
Giambi
Matsui
Bagwell
Kent
Beltran
Biggio
Berkman

Ryan played with both Palmeiro and Pudge during his later years in Texas. Including those guys, Ryan cannot come up with a list of accomplished teammates like Clemens did.

Cy Young Awards don't necessarily mean anything by themselves. In the aggregate they matter, but how many pitchers are Cy Young winners one year and answers to a trivia question the next?

Anyone have a list of Cy Young winners over the last twenty years? How many of them are HOF'ers?

In the modern era of the middle reliever and closer, Ryan has 222 career complete games.

Clemens has 118.

Over their careers that comes out to an average of 8.2 for Ryan and 5.3 for Clemens per season.

Ryan is more durable. The very fact that he pitched more complete games could also be indicative of the teams he played for. The manager very well could have left him in there because he knew the pen would blow it.

If we're going to fault guys for being "wild", then let's go after Bob Gibson too.

Ryan is by no means anything to be dismissed.

:)
 
17blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 710321114
      Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 17:04 		Boxman: When Clemens started his career, Ryan had already been pitching in the majors for 18 years. The "modern era of the middle reliever and closer" is worthless at best. And arguing for complete games in general is a bad idea.

In addition to the fact that the whole "played with" idea is pretty shoddy, your specific examples are even worse: Shawn Green hit 11 and 16 homers in two full seasons with Clemens. Delgado hit 25 and 30 homers in those two seasons, topping out at .270. Clemens played one season with a late-30's Kent. Even worse for Bagwell. And Biggio was about 5 years past his prime at that point. And Beltran? Two months? Clearly, Clemens benefitted from that interaction.

Juan Gonzalez hit 40 homers (twice!) as a teammate of Ryan. Julio Franco won a batting title. Hell, even Dean Palmer had a 30 homer season as a Ryan-teammate. With the Astros, Ryan had Jose Cruz and Glenn Davis, who were at least as good as several of the guys you mentioned. Even Joe Morgan was a teammate for a couple years (as long as you're counting Kent). Ryan pitched nine years in the best pitchers' park in the history of baseball. The Ryan-Angels had Reggie Jackson, Bobby Bonds, Frank Robinson, Bobby Grich, Don Baylor and Rod Carew. Is that shabby?

Not that it even matters. Bob Meusel was a teammate of Babe Ruth. And Marquis Grissom was a teammate of Barry Bonds. What's your point?
 
18blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 710321114
      Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 17:06 		Actually, take out that bit about Joe Morgan. It was only one year, and Morgan was 36 and had a bad year. But the rest of the points are still valid.
 
19biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 17:08 		BH - instead of scarfing the low-hanging fruit, get that superior database (not. - I can't even find Jeter's 2004 post-season numbers in ESPN-land), up and humming and answer Boxman's question regarding the cumulative W-L record of Ryan's teams vs. Clemen's teams.

That would be actually useful.
 
20Razor
      ID: 36241218
      Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 17:13 		Who cares? How about the superior pitching of Clemens relative to Ryan. Clemens' ERA blows Ryan's away, adjusted, unadjusted, whatever. Ryan would've been the greatest pitcher of all-time if he also wasn't incredibly wild. Think Kaz Ishii-wild.
 
21blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 710321114
      Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 17:17 		Agreed - why does it matter? If pitching wins were the topic of discussion, then context would matter. I'd be more concerned about Ryan's 9 years in the Astrodome and Clemens' 12 in Fenway.
 
22biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 17:17 		Let's not get carried away, Razor. Not many players are Ishii for long and continue to be pitch in the major leagues. a WHIP of 1.53 is a truly remarkable and distinguished achievment.
 
23Razor
      ID: 36241218
      Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 17:43 		Ryan completely negated the fact that he was the most unhittable pitcher ever by also issuing walks by the truckload. A walk is almost as good as a single, and Ryan gave up way, way too many walks to be as dominant as the Rocket or any of the other all-time greats.
 
24Boxman
      ID: 148111710
      Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 20:07 		Blue Hen:

"And arguing for complete games in general is a bad idea."

Yet you don't indicate why...

Complete games mean nothing?

OK, and you criticize my examples?

"Shawn Green hit 11 and 16 homers in two full seasons with Clemens. Delgado hit 25 and 30 homers in those two seasons, topping out at .270."

Not sure where you get your data on Green, but here's his stats from '98...

.278/35/100

Since Clemens only played two full seasons with Toronto, your numbers are coming from? Zogby would be my guess.

Maybe I don't have enough fish in my diet and my brain is slipping, but can you find me the exact year that Reggie Jackson was on the same team as Nolan Ryan? I can't find it in Baseball Reference.com.

Ryan was on the Angels from 72-79 and Reggie was on that team from 82-86.

The point about teammates is that good teammates make your record better.

Who would you rather have in left field, Todd Hollandsworth or Barry Bonds?

Get my point?

It matters to a pitcher because on the nights they are off their game, superior hitting can make up for pitching mistakes.

On a side note: If you're going to be a rude jackass, at least be right.

:)
 
25Boxman
      ID: 148111710
      Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 20:21 		Biliruben:

I had some minutes to kill before the Sox game so I took the liberty to compile this.

Career Team Records:

Ryan 2171 Wins, 2143 Losses

Winning Percentage = .503

Clemens 1891 Wins, 1603 Losses

Winning Percentage = .541
 
26biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 20:26 		Thanks, Boxman.

I'm surprised Clemen's teams racked up that many losses. I guess some of the 90s Boston teams sucked butkis.
 
27Razor
      ID: 9919418
      Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 20:44 		Now subtract out Ryan's and Clemens' starts and see what you've got. Considering Clemens is 170 games over .500 while Ryan is just 30, the gap between the pitchers' respective teams' records isn't as large you would think. You'd have to think the Clemens' teams have faired better in his no decisions than Ryan's teams have in his.
 
28Seattle Zen
      ID: 178161719
      Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 21:27 		Walter Johnson is amazing.

What Walter Johnson did was just amazing. I never realized how often he came out of the bullpen: 136 times. During his heyday - 1910-1919 - he averaged nine apperances in addition to his 36 starts.

It certainly helps that the ball was DEAD. He only gave up one home run in his 706 2/3rd innings of his 1915 and 1916 seasons. I just have to think it was easier to pitch to guys knowing even if they get all of it, it's not going out of the park.

The arm motion has never changed. The fact that Walter Johnson averaged 330IP for an entire decade is jaw dropping, but the high scoring offenses that Clemens, Martinez, RJ, Maddux silenced is a touch more impressive.

I don't believe Ryan is in the top ten. In fact, he was never as good as Tom Seaver.
 
29Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 21:29 		Clemens has 5 fewer seasons than Ryan as well. So he accomplished that in 135 fewer games.
 
30blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 710321114
      Wed, Oct 12, 2005, 10:48 		One home run? But how many homers did the league leader have that year?

As for Shawn Green, it looks like I was off by a year. I was looking at 96-97. Still, in 1998, he only had an .844 OPS, hardly the great Shawn Green of which you are speaking.

Not sure where Reggie's name came from, but that 1979 Angels team did win the AL West.

My point is that Ryan played with roughly the same amount of great players that Clemens did.

And it's not about wins. They were both great and played a lot - they have a lot of wins. I'm not as concerned about Ryan's low winning percentage as I am about his failures in other areas.

And as for my complete games case - those are not a very good measure of a player's performance. If a player goes 8 2/3 innings and gets taken out, he gets a zero in that category for that day. Meanwhile, if he loses on the road, he only needs to go 8 innings. Too arbitrary. Besides, if you pitch a lot of games, you will finish a lot of games. The reason there are fewer CG's these days? Managers are smarter.
 
31Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 2824911
      Wed, Oct 12, 2005, 11:42 		The arm motion has never changed.

But the strain on the shoulder has. By the standards of his day, Johnson was not a freak.

Pud Gavin averaged 450 IP from 1879-1888.

Pete Alexander averaged 311 from 1911-1920.

Kid Nichols averaged 398 from 1890 - 1899.

Tim Keefe averaged 431 from 1881 to 1890.

Christy Matthewson averaged 325 from 1903 to 1912
 
32blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 710321114
      Wed, Oct 12, 2005, 12:19 		All five are HOFers. But I noticed that the only two who should be in our discussion had the lowest averages. Coincidence?
 
33Myboyjack
      ID: 27651610
      Wed, Oct 12, 2005, 12:32 		By the standards of his day, Johnson was not a freak.

I firmly believe that Americans were, in general, stronger and had far more physical stamina in that era compared to today. Today atheletes are more massive, muscular and explosive, but not nearly as "strong"

Some of the 'feats' of that era in boxing (40-50 round bouts were not uncommon), martial arts, (there was an old time wretstler from Iowa who would have a noose ties around his neck and drop twenty feet without injury) etc have convinced me that out ancestors were made of far sturdier stuf than we are.

Their childhoods were far active and healthy and their diet, while not conducive to a long life, made them stronger.

They grew up throwing the baseball a lot more than future generations did, as well.
 
34Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 2824911
      Wed, Oct 12, 2005, 12:43 		Hen, should any of them be in this disussion?

Anyway, maybe MBJ is right, but I tend to think that if that were the case, foreign athletes from at least some countries would reflect similar "strength". I just don't see that today.

IIRC, In 1901 The American Association changed its name to the American League and joined the National League to form what is today MLB. The level of competition at that point increased significantly, as other organized baseball leagues couldn't keep up and the best talent found its way to the new MLB. So maybe that's why there is a significant decrease in IP for pitchers after 1901. It looks like the next significant decrease happens in the late teens, right at the end of the dead ball era. I really just think that pitchers didn't have to throw nearly as hard back then. Or maybe their bodies weren't strength conditioned to allow them to throw as hard as they do today, resulting in less strain on their joints.
 
35Myboyjack
      ID: 27651610
      Wed, Oct 12, 2005, 17:37 		I really just think that pitchers didn't have to throw nearly as hard back then.


I think there something to that - at least during the dead ball era. I wonder if there's any data on pitch count from back then. It wouldn't surprise me if it took significantly fewer pitches to get 27 outs in an era when pitchers weren't concerned with the threat of a lon ball. dunno.
 
36blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 710321114
      Fri, Oct 14, 2005, 11:19 		Yse, BMD. Mathewson is definitely at the forefront of the discussion. While worse than Johnson, he has a pretty good case for having been better than Cy Young.

Alexander also gets a lot of talk in that department, but he's probably at the bottom of our list (although ahead of Keefe, Galvin, etc).
 
37Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 2824911
      Fri, Oct 14, 2005, 12:47 		Lefty Grove deserves mention. The 1930s was another live ball era that produced more of the great offensive seasons than its fair share. There aren't very many pitchers from that time that came out of it with great stats. Dizzy Dean, Red Ruffing, Carl Hubble and Lefty Gomez make up the rest of the cream of the era but I think they all clearly fall short of the discussion.
 
38blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 710321114
      Fri, Oct 14, 2005, 13:48 		Grove definitely has a place in any such discussion. He's number 2 (behind Pedro and ahead of Big Train) on the ERA+ list. While his K totals weren't so hot by today's standards, he did win 7 consecutive strikeout titles to start his career. Hell, he was also 10th in the majors in batter K's in 1926. Grove had a lot of wins and a great winning percentage, so a lot of statheads dismiss him too quickly, but I'd say he has a definite spot in any such discussion.

Who are we talking about here? Clemens, Pedro, Maddux, Randy of the modern guys, Young, Mathewson, Grove, W. Johnson of the old guys, and Seaver, Gibson, and Carlton of the middle guys. That's 11 mentioned above. I'd like to narrow it to 10 and then rank them.

Anyone else? Palmer? Three-Finger Brown?


 
39blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 710321114
      Fri, Oct 14, 2005, 13:56 		Koufax, Marichal, and the aforementioned Alexander too.
 
40Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 2824911
      Fri, Oct 14, 2005, 14:04 		Not Brown. Include him and there are 5 or 7 more names from that era that match up very well with him. I like Carlton and especially Palmer too but I don't think they make the cut, either. Maybe if they played in a less pitcher-friendly era.
 
41Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 2824911
      Fri, Oct 14, 2005, 14:06 		Koufax was amazing for 4 years. Need more than that. Marichal is tough to find fault with. Borderline in the discussion, no chance at the top name I think.
 
42Razor
      ID: 36241218
      Fri, Oct 14, 2005, 14:14 		To name the best pitcher ever, you have to define the term. Do you mean for one game, one season or total career value? And if you mean career value, which takes greater precedence, longevity or peak value?

Off the top of my head, my ten best pitchers ever over the course of my career would be in no particular order:

Roger Clemens
Greg Maddux
Cy Young
Walter Johnson
Christy Mattheson
Lefty Grove
Warren Spahn
Tom Seaver
+ 2 more

Which two is up to debate, but those guys are locks in my opinion even though some have no claim to #1.

If you're talking about one game or one season, then you can start to talk about Sandy Koufax.
 
43blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 710321114
      Fri, Oct 14, 2005, 15:52 		I'd put Randy ahead of Maddux. He at least should be one of the two extras. And I'll put Pedro there too, because he is exactly what Koufax was, but lasted a little longer. I'd put Carlton ahead of Maddux, so I'll leave him on, for now. Other than that, I'm fine with your 10. Let's start with this and adjust.

1. Roger Clemens
2. Walter Johnson
3. Lefty Grove
4. Cy Young
5. Tom Seaver
6. Randy Johnson
7. Christy Mathewson
8. Warren Spahn
9. Steve Carlton
10. Pedro Martinez

Complaints about the order?
 
44Razor
      ID: 36241218
      Fri, Oct 14, 2005, 16:24 		Uh, ya. You left off Greg Maddux, whose career destroys Pedro Martinez's to date. No contest, Greg Maddux has helped his team win more games than Pedro Martinez. Not even close. Not even close to close.

Maddux is clearly better than Carlton, too. Better on a rate basis and better peak. Despite four Cy Youngs, Carlton only finished top 10 in his league in ERA+ seven times. Maddux has done it twelve times. That's five more seasons of dominant pitching. And Maddux's best seasons are better than Carlton's.

Maddux is also better than Big Unit. Maddux was steadily dominant since he came into the league. Big Unit had some big bumps in the road inititally and has had a couple of injury-riddled seasons along the way, something Maddux has NEVER had.

I'd probably put Maddux somewhere in the Seaver-Spahn class in the 4-8 range.
 
45Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Fri, Oct 14, 2005, 16:46 		I'd certainly second that Mad Dog needs to be considered. One thing that he has that the others don't is great fielding ability--he's got 14 Gold Gloves.

While he's clearly on the downside of his career, he could very easily finish in the top ten all-time in wins and Ks, and has an outside chance of IP. 4 CYA bolster his argument as well.
 
46blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 710321114
      Fri, Oct 14, 2005, 18:57 		Maddux started a few years before Pedro, so he was helped by the pitchers' mini-era of 1988-1990. And Pedro is far ahead of everyone (including Grove and Johnson) on the ERA+ chart. I'd have to think that we're only about 2 or 3 more great years before Pedro goes up with the top guys, so he'd have to go with the lesser guys, right?

It's hard to leave Maddux off. But four guys from the 90's to 2000s? Seems odd. Randy, at his best, was probably more dominating than Maddux, although Maddux was pretty damn spectacular.

Seems like an outpouring of support to Maddux, so I guess he belongs on the list. I'm fine losing Carlton, but we have to think what it means to have four modern guys. Thoughts?

From Razor's list, we left Seaver off. Seems odd, but I'm generally ok with it.
 
47blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 710321114
      Fri, Oct 14, 2005, 19:28 		Maybe Maddux does belong. A few people IM'd me.

Do Randy's strikeouts help him? That means "dominance." I mean, we're not just listing the ERA+ list. What other factors go into it?
 
48Razor
      ID: 9919418
      Fri, Oct 14, 2005, 21:40 		Strikouts, walks, homers, batting average against, defense, peak value, consistency, longevity, postseason performance, single game dominance.
 
49Wilmer McLean
      ID: 28901415
      Sat, Oct 15, 2005, 04:43 		Just a curious q - what is Roger Clemens' career record at Shea Stadium? (regular season and postseason) Has Clemens ever won a game at Shea stadium?

How does that compare to other teams and stadiums?

Also, how many grand slams did Roger Clemens give up?

If I'm not mistaken, Mike Piazza's grand slam off of Clemens on Jun 09, 2000 was only the second of Clemens' career. I was in attendance with my nephew, his first game. A subway series game that myself and the other Mets fans at Yankee Stadium roundly booed Clemens when he took the humbled walk to the dugout after giving up 10 hits and 8 earned runs in five innings in the House the Ruth Built.
 
50biliruben
      ID: 531202411
      Tue, Oct 18, 2005, 11:47 		Kaufax should make the top 10:

Bill James did a statistical analysis of Sandy's career, tabulating his won-loss record when his team scored 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 run. (The Dodgers hardly ever scored more than five.) James thus uncovered what he described as the most amazing statistic in the history of baseball: when the Dodgers scored just one run, Koufax's W-L record was better than .500.



Name any other pitcher who could pitch a shutout on demand.
 
51Razor
      ID: 36241218
      Tue, Oct 18, 2005, 13:52 		Talk about going out on top - Koufax won back-to-back triple crowns and unanimous Cy Youngs. Had Koufax been around in the Tommy John surgery era, I suspect he'd have gone on to win 250+ games, amass 4,000 K's and add another Cy Young or two.
 
52Khahan
      ID: 456411614
      Tue, Oct 18, 2005, 18:54 		The only problem with Koufax being in this conversation is the durability factor. If we look at Koufax's career , he was the absolute best for about 3 years. Guess what, so were a lot of other pitchers. But those pitchers (yes, even Pedro), have proven to be more durable.

What could have been if Koufax had access to the same medical technology and treatments? Who knows. But he did not have access to it. In my eyes, we have to base this argument on what did happen, not what might have happened.

I'd say that one thing everybody seems to have overlooked is this:
There is one guy that was so good that every other pitcher measures their season by his award: Cy Young.

Ok, that is a bit faceous. But not completely without merit.

I'd say the top 10 should include:

Cy Young
Walter Johnson
Roger Clemens
Pedro Martinez
Randy Johnson
Greg Maddux
Lefty Grove
Christy Mathewson
Warren Spahn
Nolan Ryan


Not too sure about the order. I'll have to sit down and think about that some more.
 
53blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 710321114
      Wed, Oct 19, 2005, 10:44 		Disagree on Cy Young. He had the most wins, so it figures that the award usually goes to the guy with the most wins. But Grove and Johnson are demonstrably better, and Mathewson probably is, too. And Ryan, as noted, has no place on the list.

Disagree on Koufax. While only Pedro can match his peak, it was a really, really short peak. As noted, even the fragile Pedro has exceeded it.
 
54Boxman
      ID: 148111710
      Sat, Oct 22, 2005, 19:07 		I did a glance-over on some career stats and here's my Top 10 of All Time.

1. Roger Clemens
2. Walter Johnson
3. Tom Seaver
4. Christy Matthewson
5. Greg Maddux
6. Nolan Ryan - Can't discount 7 no-no's and 5700 Ks.
7. Warren Spahn - Top 10 in wins from 1947-1963. Unreal. If he had 1 more win in 1952 he would've had 17 straight seasons with 15 or more wins.
8. Steve Carlton
9. Cy Young - I'd like to see him pitch in this era.
10. Bob Gibson - My favorite old school player that played way before my time so I threw him on here. A 1.12 ERA in '68. I like pitchers that don't take guff from hitters.

I'm trying to understand the love affair with Lefty Grove. 3.00 ERA and exactly 300 wins. What am I missing? He was a "little" before my time.

All this being said, the best pitcher I've ever seen personally was Greg Maddux in the mid-90's. I've also seen Clemens and Ryan multiple times, but they don't compare.

Maddux never had the physical skills that Clemens and others did. He had to actually pitch and use his brain. In his prime, his two-seamer should've been illegal. I don't think there's ever been a bigger student of the game than Maddux.

I intentionally left off RJ, Pedro and Koufax. Koufax didn't last long enough, Pedro's prime was too short and RJs only claim to fame are the Ks. He differs from Ryan in that Ryan has 7 no hitters and over 300 wins.

I still can't make up my mind about having a pitcher for just one win. Maddux's playoff record leaves a lot to be desired. He's 11-10.
 
55Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Sat, Oct 22, 2005, 20:35 		I don't think you can overlook the fact that while Lefty won 300 games, he also had 298 complete games.

Different era, you say? He led the league in K's 7 straight years. He was dominating. Hell, in 1930 he was 28-5, and still led the league in saves with 9.

He had a long career in which he was at the top of the game and was among the best ever seen.
 
56Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Sun, Oct 23, 2005, 12:34 		Well you want to talk about best pitcher ever, I think Satchel Page's name should have at least come up.
 
57blue hen
      ID: 349532121
      Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 10:47 		Grove played in the best hitters' era in history. In fact, if you look at the link way up top, you'll see that Grove has the best ERA relative to his league of anyone other than Pedro. When the league as a whole was hitting .300, Lefty was throwing shutouts.

If you think Randy Johnson was "just about K's" then you are absolutely incorrect. He won 4 ERA titles and finished in the top two 7 times. He finished in the top two in K/W 6 times. He's finished in the top 5 in innings 8 times. He led the majors in WHIP 3 times. He finished in the top two in H/9 10 times. Oh yeah, and the strikeouts.

Nolan? Move along.
 
58Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 15:16 		I think if you want the cherry-pick the stats they all can look pretty damn good. I do believe RJ belongs in the discussion, but to dismiss a guy out-of-hand who led the league in Ks for 11 seasons reveals either a real bias or a gap in baseball knowledge.

Ryan led the league in K/9 IP in 12 seasons, and while he was "only" the leader in ERA twice, he was pretty damn good for a long period of time.
 
59Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 2824911
      Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 15:43 		Ryan was kind of a three-trick pony (Ks, no-nos and longevity).

OK a three-trick war horse, but you know what I mean. I think to be solidly in the discussion you have to either be exceptional in more categories than Ryan or display fewer warts than Ryan.
 
60blue hen
      ID: 349532121
      Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 15:52 		Don't get me wrong. Ryan is great. One of the greatest pitchers that ever lived. But one of the ten best?

The no-hitters are really a bad example to be using. He had so many no-hitters because he had the lowest BAA of all-time. This is great, but it's just like leading the league in batting average. We all know Jason Giambi's .260 is more valuable than Jeff Francouer's .380. Where does Nolan rank in OBP allowed? How about in low-baserunner games?

It seems hard to put Ryan ahead of Johnson, and we are already questioning Johnson's place around here.
 
61Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 19:08 		We don't all know that Giambi is better than Francoeur. He wasn't last year and when history is said and done he might not be either.

It's hard to talk about all time greats when they are removed from their relative era. Some people say that Koufax was more greater than the #2 pitcher of that time than any other. Maybe Walter Johnson and Lefty was as well. I certainly don't know. Whoever makes these lists are going to use some numbers and throw them together using an opinion. So it's hard to discount out of hand any top notch pitcher in their particular era. Those are what makes some good discussions. I hear Cy Young was pretty good in his era too.
 
62blue hen
      ID: 349532121
      Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 19:40 		We don't all know that Giambi is better than Francoeur. He wasn't last year and when history is said and done he might not be either.

If you don't think Jason Giambi was better than Jeff Francouer in 2005, you probably don't understand most of the concepts discussed in this thread. Not only was Giambi better than Francouer this year, he was MUCH better than Francouer this year.

It's hard to discount anyone who was a top notch pitcher in any era. Should Maddux, Pedro, and Randy lose points because they're not as good as Clemens? Yes, probably.

Koufax was the best pitcher for a very short time. Clemens, on the other hand, was the best pitcher in baseball in 4 different two year periods. All those other guys had much more longevity than Koufax. Somebody gave Grove a hard time for winning "only" 300 games? Look at Sandy's total.
 
63Boxman
      ID: 5932418
      Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 20:12 		I'm typing this from class right now so pardon the briefness, but you've GOT to factor in longevity.

That's partly where Ryan gets involved. He had 7 no-hitters over the course of I believe 3 decades. 90s, 80s, and 70s.

You can't have a serious discussion about great pitchers and leave out a guy who leads in strikeouts (By about 15-20% over the guy in second place.) and is at or near the top in no hitters and has achieved the 300 win plateau.

I do not think Ryan was the greatest ever. Had his ERA been better, the argument would be harder to take away a top 3 slot.

You have to look at the stats that only the pitcher has control over as well as the dependent stats. Wins and losses are indeed important, but they are dependent upon your supporting cast.

Did Michael Jordan only become great when Pippen, Grant and Rodman showed up? Not likely.

Ryan leads or is at the top of key INDIVIDUAL pitching stats. Tops in Ks and probably at the top or darn near close to it in no-hitters.
 
64Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 21:55 		Blue Hen, just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't aren't intellignet enough to understand some concepts. Quit being so damn condescending. Francoeur was a lot more valuable than some give him credit for. His defense was often overlooked. He only played in part of the year--too bad Giambi didn't only play in part of the year as well.
 
65blue hen
      ID: 349532121
      Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 22:14 		Ref, I will never profess to be more intelligent than you (or anyone for that matter), but if you think Francouer was better than Giambi, you are clearly missing something. 100 points of OBP is a significant difference. Defense is about the only think Francouer has going for him, but a right fielder can't make up that kind of difference. Didn't he have Andruw Jones helping him out?

But this isn't about Francouer/Giambi. That's a non-issue. When you talk about no-hitters or BAA, you're only talking about batting average and ignoring the walks. You can't do that. Much as we raise Ted Williams a few notches for walking so much, we must penalize Nolan Ryan. Sure, he led everyone in strikeouts and had a ton of wins. But didn't he lead everyone in walks and have a ton of losses?

Ryan leads or is at the top of key INDIVIDUAL pitching stats.

Like OPS against?

 
66Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 25337239
      Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 07:02 		I'll take a player with Giambi's 2005 and his .953 ops over Francoeur's '05 and .884 every time. Even in his awful April and May his OBP was a solid .395 and .349, respectively. And we know about what he did after that.

But more importantly, there's been a breakdown in the established theme of this thread. This discussion is about the best ever, not the "top 10 ever". Around post 50 or so people started talking about "top 10". Understand that trying to pare down the discussion to 10 names that qualify as best ever (as Hen suggested in post 38 after the number of names we were discussing started to baloon) is a different thing from trying to establish a top 10 list. Nolan Ryan has a great case to make a top-10-all-time list, I think. But there is no way that he belongs in a discussion about the "best ever", except as a distraction. Take away the Ks and and he's not all that much better than Phil Neikro.
 
67blue hen
      ID: 349532121
      Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 10:48 		That may be true, but Niekro is a Hall of Famer and Nolan has a world of K's on him.

I don't think Ryan has much chance at Top 10, either.

But exactly. Ditto what MITH says on Giambi.
 
68Razor
      ID: 36241218
      Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 11:26 		I actually think it's close between Giambi and Francoeur, and I think a case could be made that the latter was better. Of course, this assumes you are willing to scale up for playing time because Francoeur is at a gross disadvantage there, but consider that Giambi is somewhere between below average and bad as a defender and baserunner, while Francoeur gets high marks on both counts. Francoeur also was decidely clutch.

Now BP has Giambi at 5.9 WARP1 over 545 PA's, which comes out to about 1.08 WARP per 100 PA's.

BP has Francoeur at 2.9 WARP1 over 274 PA's (almost exactly half...eerie), which comes out to about 1.06 WARP per 100 PA's.

Now, without accounting for playing time, Giambi clearly destroys Francoeur, but on a rate basis, I think Francoeur was at least as good as Giambi, if not better as Baseball Prospectus' defensive figures may not give Francoeur enough credit for his defense and definitely don't give any credit for his far superior baserunning and clutchness.

As for Nolan Ryan, he probably has a case for the top 10, but not a great one. WALKS, WALKS, WALKS!.
 
69blue hen
      ID: 349532121
      Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 11:37 		I have been a loyal subscriber to BP for several years now. I own no fewer than six of their annuals, as well as Mind Game.

However, I really can't figure out how in the blue hell Francouer can make up 100 points of OBP (despite hitting .300) with baserunning and defense.
 
70Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 2824911
      Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 11:49 		don't give any credit for his far superior baserunning and clutchness

True re baserunning, but where do you get your measure for "clutchness"?

Giambi
Situation ...... .sample..OPS
Runners On..........199..1.005
Scoring Position....116..1.004
Men On, 2 out....... 71..0.929
Scoring Posn, 2 out.116..0.930
Man on 3rd, <2 out.. 21..1.262
Close and Late...... 49..0.869

Francoeur
Situation .......sample..OPS
Runners On..........112..1.005
Scoring Position.... 65..1.100
Men On, 2 out....... 53..0.879
Scoring Posn, 2 out. 39..1.057
Man on 3rd, <2 out.. 7..1.014
Close and Late...... 42..0.881

Sample sizes are in AB
 
71Flying Polack
      Donor
      ID: 378582811
      Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 11:57 		It looks like BP has Francouer as 8 runs above replacement in RF, which would before worth almost one win.
 
72Flying Polack
      Donor
      ID: 378582811
      Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 11:58 		There's no such thing as "clutchness."
 
73Sludge
      ID: 27751510
      Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 12:06 		Razor 68 -

Well, sure the walks are a ding. But they're surely balanced out by the beat down Ryan gave to Ventura. That alone makes up for a lot of warts.
 
74Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 12:08 		ROFL! Yeah, that's worth a couple of hundred walks right there.
 
75Razor
      ID: 36241218
      Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 12:19 		OBP itself isn't everything. Giambi's OBP is relatively "empty" compared to Francoeur's. That is, an OBP of .450 with 150 walks isn't as good as an OBP of .450 with 0 walks. Giambi is a pretty lousy defender at this stage of the game (when he plays defense at all, and I've always contended that traditional and many sabermetric stats to punish DH's enough), while Francoeur was a revelation in right field. If anything, I think BP underrates hit-heavy players like Francoeur and overrates hit-light players like Giambi.
 
76Razor
      ID: 36241218
      Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 12:21 		There's no such thing as "clutchness."

Says who? At any rate, performing well in key situations is better than not performing well in them. When evaluating performance over the course of the past year, I would definitely take it into account, while I would probably not when looking for someone to repeat that performance.
 
77Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 2824911
      Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 12:30 		Giambi was not a hit-light player in 2005. He hit .271, about the league average.

That is, an OBP of .450 with 150 walks isn't as good as an OBP of .450 with 0 walks.

You're comparing a .440 OBP to a .335 or something. There is no comparison.
 
78Flying Polack
      Donor
      ID: 378582811
      Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 12:40 		Equivalent Average does a good job of comparing offensive value. In 2005 it wasn't even close, although Francoeur rated very well, about 12% above average.

Equivalent Average. A measure of total offensive value per out, with corrections for league offensive level, home park, and team pitching. EQA considers batting as well as baserunning, but not the value of a position player's defense. The scale is deliberately set to approximate that of batting average. League average EqA is always equal to .260. EqA is derived from Raw EqA, which is (H + TB + 1.5*(BB + HBP + SB) + SH + SF) divided by (AB + BB + HBP + SH + SF + CS + SB). REqA is then normalized to account for league difficulty and scale to create EqA.

Giambi's .332
Francoeur's .289
 
79Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 13:35 		Guys, I wasn't trying to get this thread off track. I was just commenting that not everyone "knows" that they'd rather have a .260 Giambi rather than a .380 Francouer. I mean heading into next year, I'd certainly take Francouer over Giambi. My point was that just because it makes sense to one person, doesn't nec. mean that it is obvious to everyone. I thought that this example was proof of that.

That's why this thread makes for good discussion. I was trying to commend bh on this and other threads that make for good discussions.
 
80blue hen
      ID: 349532121
      Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 14:03 		Fair. Everyone knows I have utmost respect for Ref and especially Razor, so I'm not trying to stir any pots.

Razor is generally right that Giambi's OBP was pretty empty, and he's not the world's greatest defender. But Giambi did play 71 games at first base this season, so he's hardly Rafael Palmeiro. Giambi certainly has his warts, but Francouer should be very happy if he has one season as good as Giambi's 2005.
 
81Razor
      ID: 36241218
      Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 15:28 		Francoeur will likely have many seasons as good or better than Giambi's 2005, which with a 5.9 WARP, is good but nowhere near what Francoeur is capable of. For reference, Shawn Green was on par with Giambi this year. Let's just say that Giambi wasn't that great this year.
 
82Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 2824911
      Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 15:34 		If Giambi wasn't that good this year, so be it. By just about any reasonable measure, Francoeur was less good than Giambi. Let it die. Giambi and Franceour have nothing to do with this discussion. What Francoeur does in future seasons (!?boggle?) is not even relevant to this tangent about who was better this year, which is totally irrelevant to begin with.
 
83blue hen
      ID: 349532121
      Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 17:54 		Shawn Green had a .355 on-base percentage in 2005. While that's a few points ahead of Francoeur's much heralded .336, it still trails Giambi's .440 by quite a bit. Given Giambi's 60 point advantage in slugging, is it really possible that an aging corner outfielder fielded well enough to overcome a 140 point difference in OPS?

And Francoeur, who was not as good as Jason Giambi in 2005, does have a ton of upside. You know who else had a ton of upside? Kevin Maas. Corey Patterson. Bob Hamelin. Marty Cordova. Todd Hollandsworth. Edwin Jackson. I mean, why don't we just annoint Felix Hernandez as the greatest pitcher of all time?
 
84swami
      ID: 46851118
      Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 23:39 		I think Oil Can Boyd deserves consideration for the top 10 of all time...
 
85 Neil
      ID: 46101922
      Wed, Nov 02, 2005, 03:21 		Who is the greatest pitcher of all-time? Well, in 1999/2000 Mastercard- Visa did a nationwide poll and people can google the results.

Nolan Ryan was number one with Koufax a close second. I concur with this.

Yes, you have bandwagon live for today idiots on this site and others who will say Clemens is better than Ryan and Barry Steroid Bonds better than Hank Aaron. Ryan has better overall lifetime stats including complete games, shutouts, innings pitched, strikeouts, no-hitters (Clemens has none), and Ryan holds 54 records, most of any MLB player. Was voted 2nd highest % in 1999 to the Hall of Fame. Tom Seaver is number one.

I rest my case....You morons probably think Michael Jordan isn't the greatest bashetball player of all-time... Why? Well, you morons think of today's players the greatest...So shut up if you don't know what you're talking about.
 
86Sludge
      ID: 27751510
      Wed, Nov 02, 2005, 09:41 		I rest my case....You morons probably think Michael Jordan isn't the greatest bashetball player of all-time... Why? Well, you morons think of today's players the greatest...So shut up if you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm probably the biggest Ryan fan on this site, so let me be the first to break it to you that Ryan is one of "today's players". He is a contemporary, in baseball terms, with those playing today. Break out this argument in about 20 years.
 
87Flying Polack
      ID: 25633176
      Wed, Nov 02, 2005, 09:54 		Hi Neil,

You wouldn't want to let facts get in the way of your argument or calling someone else a "bandwagon idiot."

 
88Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Wed, Nov 02, 2005, 10:18 		I always let six-year-old credit card polls dictate my beliefs. We know, of course, that they are completely unbiased, reflect true baseball fans, and nothing has happened since then.
 
89Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Wed, Nov 02, 2005, 10:28 		Neil, don't walk away mad...

Why all the name calling? Why the hatred? Did your girlfriend leave you? Dog die? pick-up break down? Anyway, there are a lot of ways to make a point w/o being an ass. I'm still learning myself how to do that, but do know that your's isn't the way.

I think Sludge hit the nail on the head. I view contemporary players as guys in the last 30-35 years or so. I mean there were some great players in there that no one even talks about anymore. I bet some of you haven't even heard of them. Off the top of my head, I'm going to list some hitters that were feared for a time starting with Dave Kingman, George Foster, George Hendrick, hell even Kevin Mitchell for a couple years. Why do people don't know them nowadays? Because they didn't have the longevity I guess.

I consider Ryan one of the greatest pitchers of all-time. I never saw Koufax pitch, but what I've read and the numbers I've seen, he's got to be right there--though he didn't pitch many years at all. Hershiser was dominating for a few years as well. In '88 he was the most dominating pitcher. At the end of the year and the postseason it was nearly impossible to hit him it seems. But that doesn't mean he deserves to be on the best all time list.

Some people say Cy Young with his 511 wins is the best. Some say Satchel Paige was the best pitcher ever and had a lot more wins than that in the Negro Leagues. Some say the Negro Leagues were better than MLB back then, but who knows. That's why this is all about opinion. Times are different. Technology is ever-changing. Pitchers and hitters are better today. Bigger and stronger people, better made bats, better parks, better balls, better gloves, video technology, you name it. So it's pretty hard to come up with a fair list that everyone will agree with over the course of time, but it's fun thinking about it and throwing it out there.
 
90blue hen
      ID: 349532121
      Wed, Nov 02, 2005, 11:24 		Ryan holds 54 records, most of any MLB player

Hmm. Walks. Walks per game. Most no-hitters allowing a walk. Most strikeouts by a pitcher with a ton of walks. Most balls per plate appearance. Most seasons leading the leading the league in walks.

Ryan also holds the record for most no-hitters on Tuesdays (2). Is that one of the 54?
 
91Razor
      ID: 36241218
      Wed, Nov 02, 2005, 11:31 		Did anyone who ever watched Nolan Ryan pitch ever feel as though he were the best of all-time? Seaver, Palmer and Carlton were clearly better than him in the first part of his career, and Clemens was better than Ryan during the last 10 years of his career. It's really not even debatable. Ryan isn't the best pitcher ever or even close.
 
92Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Wed, Nov 02, 2005, 11:34 		Good points, bh.

Ryan does have more CG, but it's worth noting that the game has changed. Ryan has nearly twice as many CG but only led the league once in the category. Clemens has led the league three times in CG, and is the active leader. Hard to hold that against Clemens too much.

That said, the argument isn't whether Ryan was a very good pitcher, it's whether he was the best all time. Most people in this thread agree he belongs in the discussion but don't believe he's the best ever.
 
93Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 2824911
      Wed, Nov 02, 2005, 11:49 		I think Razor's point resonates most with me. At no point in the last 10 years or so of his career do I ever remember thinking or feeling that he was one of the toughest pitchers in baseball to beat. Lots of pitchers with mediocre to very good careers have seasons in which they are really tough to beat. But I don't ever remember respecting Ryan like I did Gooden or Tudor or Hershiser or Viola or Saberhagen in the peaks their heydays. I can't speak about what Ryan might have been like before the 1980s but looking at his career stats it doesn't look like he was ever really that dominant at any point in time.
 
94Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Wed, Nov 02, 2005, 11:54 		Man, I feared Ryan. As a Dodger fan having to face him and J.R. Richard, man that was always scary. Ryan was one of the best.
 
95Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Wed, Nov 02, 2005, 11:56 		Btw, I can't remember exactly, but I was thinking that Richard and Ryan only played together that one year in '80 when LA and Houston battled all the way to that one game playoff. That was a great year!
 
96Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Wed, Nov 02, 2005, 12:02 		One more thing...Ryan may not have had a lot of 20 win seasons or had a dominating stat line per se every year, but look at all the bad teams he played on!!! He had 61 Shutouts and several of them when he had or nearly had a losing record. Add that to his no-nos and his longevity and you have greatness.
 
97Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 2824911
      Wed, Nov 02, 2005, 12:03 		I'm a little too young to remember many baseball particulars from 1980 but Ryan was 11-10 that year with an ERA about the same as the league's. 200 ks in 233 innings, WHIP around 1.5. 4CG, 2 SO. Obviously, some guys have a powerful presence about them but as far as actual effectiveness is concerned, he appears to have been pretty mediocre that year.
 
98loki
      Dude
      ID: 4211201420
      Wed, Nov 02, 2005, 21:02 		Koufax had only had 5 great years, and for that reason he may not be at the top of many lists of "Greatest Pitchers." However for those years he was as dominant as any pitcher could be. The only reason that he did not win 30 games in a season was that the Dodgers could not hit during those years. The duo of Koufax and Drysdale was as good as you could get.(As an aside some of you may recall their hold out for salaries of $100,000 each. What would they command today?) Ryan and Richards were great, but Ryan was a strikeout pitcher with longevity, not a pitcher with a significant W-L percentage. Remember who the Mets received in return for Ryan? They were thereafter cursed at third base until the arrival of David Wright. The only pitcher trade that was worse was when LA traded Pedro Martinez to the Expos.
 
99Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 25337239
      Thu, Nov 03, 2005, 07:14 		They were thereafter cursed at third base until the arrival of David Wright.

Well, maybe until the arrival of Howard Johnson who was a very good offensive player for them. After Hojo, Eduardo Alfonso was also pretty good. And after Fonzie Robin Ventura might not have been great but he was servicible.
 
100Stuck in the 60s
      Dude
      ID: 274132811
      Thu, Nov 03, 2005, 08:24 		Sandy Koufax doesn't have the long-term stats because his arm was hurt so much of the time, but I'll tell you a story that I witnessed myself.
It was spring, 1998, and Koufax was at the Dodgers' spring training complex in Vero Beach, FL. His advice was perceived as so valuable that several of the Mets pitchers drove up from Port St. Lucie to work with him.

Explaining how to deliver a fastball, Koufax (dressed in a sweatsuit and sneakers) threw a ball to the BP catcher. One of the scouts had a gun on it and it read: 93. I'm not sure how old he was then, but certainly in his mid-50s.

OK, that has nothing to do with what happened to him in his prime.

But whenever Koufax pitched, the ball sounded different when it hit the catcher's mitt. And opposing hitters would often stop to admire his performance in the face of adversity (his arm was ALWAYS hurting).

Had he been able to pitch for 15 years or so, there's no telling what he might have done. The numbers he actually posted aren't too bad, either.

Don
 
101loki
      ID: 419151014
      Fri, Nov 04, 2005, 13:22 		Re: #99-You are absolutely right; I had forgotten about those third baseman. However the long standing joke among NY sports fans was the number of players the Mets used at third base in the years after the Ryan-Fregosi trade. I once heard the figure 37 tossed around.
 
102blue hen
      ID: 4810542515
      Thu, Dec 08, 2005, 13:46 		SportsNation weighs in, from the Rocket article:

25.4% Roger Clemens
21.3% Nolan Ryan
15.9% Cy Young
12.3% Sandy Koufax
7.2% Walter Johnson
6.7% Bob Gibson
2.8% Satchel Paige
2.6% Greg Maddux
1.6% Christy Mathewson
1.2% Tom Seaver
1.2% Warren Spahn
0.9% Steve Carlton
0.6% Randy Johnson
0.4% Lefty Grove

Figures Grove gets screwed.
 
103 Neil
      ID: 28339222
      Sat, Apr 22, 2006, 04:39 		Nolan Ryan is thhe best all-time. 7 no-hitters, 5714 K's, owner of 48 ,ajor-league records, and voted best pitcher all-time in Master Card poll in 1998 or 1999.

Maddux has 321 wins. All the Clemens fans, his ERA is 3.12 compared to Ryan's 3.19-but played more seasons to age 46.

Looks like Clemens is on steroids like Bonds. Both are bloated. Ryan was slender in his 40's. Clemens is no better than Seaver and Carlton.
 
104 Neil
      ID: 28339222
      Sat, Apr 22, 2006, 04:43 		Nolan Ryan is the best all-time. 7 no-hitters, 5714 K's, owner of 48 major-league records, and voted best pitcher all-time in Master Card poll in 1998 or 1999.

Maddux has 321 wins. All the Clemens fans, his ERA is 3.12 compared to Ryan's 3.19-but played more seasons to age 46.

Looks like Clemens is on steroids like Bonds. Both are bloated. Ryan was slender in his 40's. Clemens is no better than Seaver and Carlton.
 
105Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Sat, Apr 22, 2006, 07:42 		That's called "getting older," Neil. You going to tell me that guy on Without a Trace is on steroids, too?

:)
 
106Khahan
      ID: 333108
      Sat, Apr 22, 2006, 13:55 		Post 103: "All the Clemens fans, his ERA is 3.12 compared to Ryan's 3.19-but played more seasons to age 46."

Clemens also pitched during the live ball and steroid era.
 
107blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 710321114
      Sun, Apr 23, 2006, 15:25 		Neil, you're wrong.

And which 48 records does Ryan own? Most career walks? Most walks in a season? Highest rate of walks per inning? Most losses in the modern era?
 
108blue hen
      ID: 38135621
      Mon, May 01, 2006, 15:35 		ESPN has been talking about this today. The experts list Ryan 11th among pitchers who are alive. SportsNation puts him 3rd.
 
109Razor
      ID: 1477414
      Mon, May 01, 2006, 16:32 		How can SportsNation vote Glavine 10 spots behind Smoltz? 1 year older, 200 more starts, 1000 more innings, 100 more wins. They pitched in the same rotation for chrissake. Glavine was always better.
 
110Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Mon, May 01, 2006, 16:45 		Smoltz no doubt got points for his dominating 3 years of saves--144 in three years.
 
111blue hen
      ID: 38135621
      Mon, May 01, 2006, 16:58 		Neither one is on the experts poll. But Dave Stewart got two votes.

I don't anyone will disagree that Glavine has always been better than Smoltz. Of course, they did put Ryan at #3, so don't they already lose credibility?
 
112 mistersports07
      ID: 4511252813
      Thu, Dec 28, 2006, 14:26 		For all it's worth, Roger Clemens is leading the "Best pitcher ever"
ranking on target="_blank">www.rankopedia.com
 
113blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 710321114
      Thu, Dec 28, 2006, 17:15 		Thanks for your contribution. And your spam.
 
114Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Fri, Dec 29, 2006, 13:56 		Hint - It's not Barry Zito either.
 
115blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 710321114
      Fri, Jan 05, 2007, 13:16 		Still never really got an answer to post 83 above...
 
116chode
      ID: 211491619
      Fri, Jan 05, 2007, 16:34 		Yes, it's possible.
 
117blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 710321114
      Fri, Jan 05, 2007, 17:25 		Do tell.
 
118chode
      ID: 211491619
      Fri, Jan 05, 2007, 19:36 		Nah, I won't indulge you by educating you on the difference between possible and impossible. You pined for an answer and I gave it to you.


 
119 Steve Siler
      ID: 44728919
      Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 20:28 		In Nolan Ryan's first five years with the Angels the team finished last in runs scored three times
and second to last twice. Additionally, in 4 of those 5 years the team averaged even fewer runs per game when Ryan was pitching.

When did Clemens EVER have that kind of lack of support?

Just from those five years alone Ryan could have easily won fifteen to twenty games and lost several fewer.

There is simply no reason to argue win percentage when comparing pitchers who played for teams with such different offensive weapons.
 
120blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 710321114
      Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 22:21 		So now LACK of run support is a category? Man, Bert Blyleven must be the best pitcher of all time. Or maybe Scott Kazmir.
 
121holt
      ID: 41512278
      Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 22:46 		the all-time career leader in league-adjusted ERA is Pedro Martinez, by a fairly wide margin.

Pedro Martinez 160
Lefty Grove 148
Walter Johnson 146
Joe Wood 146
Ed Walsh 145
Johan Santana 144
Roger Clemens 143
Addie Joss 142
Brandon Webb 142
Roy Oswalt 141
Kid Nichols 139
Mordecai Brown 138
Cy Young 138
Randy Johnson 137

 
122Seattle Zen
      ID: 86541617
      Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 23:17 		Re - 4 Toral

Clemens? Why he's no better than Joseph Stalin! Each of Clemens chemically enhanced strike outs is like a thousand innocent Georgians.
 
123 DW
      ID: 58937420
      Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 22:38 		You are all a bunch of whiny bitches. Please Nolan Ryan was an amazing pitcher maybe not the best? But Clemens didn't consistently go out there and throw a solid nine innings. So what if Ryan was wild that's what makes him eccentric from the others. The other guys were just great pitchers Nolan Ryan was in a class of his own an individual. You ass clowns who argue about this thread have nothing better to do? Nolan Ryan was a tough ass I'd like to see you titty babies throw like him. I'd have to say I’m the best pitcher of all time. I can skip rocks in a lake like no other. Not to mention my keen ninja throwing star ability. Why don't you guys get off your ass and get laid. I'm going to do that myself cause I've stooped to your level. Pussy here I come. Peace out I'm gonna get some stank on my hang low. I got the push for the tush. The slam for the ham. The nutt for the butt. I got the shooter for the cooter. There's no muff too tough I dive till five. If she's feeling wreckless I'll give her a pearl necklace. Ok that's enough you get the point.
 
124biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 09:44 		ROFL!
 
125Great One
      Sustainer
      ID: 053272014
      Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 09:52 		Instant Classic.
 
126Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 13:42 		LMAO!!!
 
127Perm Dude
      ID: 5593356
      Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 13:53 		ROFL! Is that David Wells?
 
128RecycledSpinalFluid
      Dude
      ID: 204401122
      Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 13:59 		After that post, all the cattle in Texas got suddenly nervous.
 
129Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Sat, Oct 06, 2007, 22:33 		If Ryan is going to be considered one of the best pitchers of all time, then Bob Feller, the same type of high K, high BB pitcher should be considered as well.

When looking at his overall numbers, it must be remembered he missed 4 seasons in his prime during WW2.(age 23-26) In 1946, he pitched 36 complete games with 26 wins, a 2.18 ERA and 348 Ks.

His repuatation as a bigot and all around A-hole probably hurts his status, but as purely a pitcher, he makes my top 10.
 
130Tree
      ID: 53912711
      Sun, Oct 07, 2007, 18:45 		As the best pitcher ever, i am certain that Nolan Ryan never needed to get some trim that was "stank", as you profess to adore. maybe you should find women who actually, ya know, bathe?
 
131patriotsaredicks
      ID: 40951821
      Mon, Oct 08, 2007, 23:51 		I agree with DW wow that's freaking hilarious. Sad but true though. Nolan Ryan is my Hero. DW right on for breaking it down. Yes you are right about pitchers not going a solid 9 innings like he did. Clemens was out in the 3rd last night.

#34 rules
 
132jetersucks
      ID: 299313113
      Wed, Oct 31, 2007, 15:31 		DW I gotta say you rule. Great lines I'm gonna have to use some of those.
 
133johnjay78
      ID: 321152413
      Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 14:52 		Nolan Ryan is the king
 
134Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Thu, Dec 13, 2007, 15:41 		My vote is for Clemens. Longevity, great seasons, and great moments. There are very few areas where he falls short.

so, where do we rank Clemens now?
 
135blue hen
      ID: 16322314
      Thu, Dec 13, 2007, 15:45 		How many times did Clemens face Paul LoDuca in his career?
 
136Great One
      Sustainer
      ID: 053272014
      Thu, Dec 13, 2007, 15:59 		Posts 104/105
Neil
Looks like Clemens is on steroids like Bonds. Both are bloated. Ryan was slender in his 40's. Clemens is no better than Seaver and Carlton.

PD
That's called "getting older," Neil. You going to tell me that guy on Without a Trace is on steroids, too?
:)

 
137Seward Norse
      ID: 4852178
      Thu, Dec 13, 2007, 21:36 		I'm just hoping this conversation brings DW back.
 
138steve houpt
      ID: 451161019
      Fri, Dec 14, 2007, 22:12 		104/105 here to - I must have started taking steroids when I was 39. :) According to my Navy PRT folder I weighed 140 lbs then. Those steroids put on about 7 lbs of "bulk' each of the next seven years. [really - actually almost exactly 7 per year, like a straight line on the chart]. The Navy must have been putting it in the water in the hangar, because I have been pretty steady at 185-190 since I retired.

Although, giving up beer about that time may have had something to do with it.
 
139clv@folks'
      ID: 1711132312
      Sat, Dec 15, 2007, 01:27 		I've avoided this thread forever, but since I'm doing laundry on a Friday night/Saturday morning...

How can SportsNation vote Glavine 10 spots behind Smoltz? 1 year older, 200 more starts, 1000 more innings, 100 more wins. They pitched in the same rotation for chrissake. Glavine was always better.

Come on now...Glavine's NEVER been in the same league as Smoltz, healthy version or not.
 
140Razor
      ID: 221145821
      Sat, Dec 15, 2007, 18:01 		You are a Braves fan? It was always Maddux then Glavine then Smoltz.

Glavine has six top 3 Cy Young finishes; Smoltz has two.

If Smoltz won 25 games each of the three years he closed full time, he'd still have about 20 wins less than Glavine.
 
141clv@folks'
      ID: 1711132312
      Sun, Dec 16, 2007, 06:10 		RE 140...

You're not really going to use a category like wins to measure the better Pitcher, are you? If that's the criteria, the greatest ever is Cy Young. Obviously most feel he's not the greatest ever.

Cy Young Top 3 Finishes? Clemens has 10 (chemically enhanced or not).

The point is that you can make an argument for any of 10-12 Pitchers being the "greatest" based on what category you choose, which is why I have avoided the thread. When asking a lifelong Braves fan who has seen over 95% of their games since 1987 who he'd rather have, my answer would be maybe Maddux in his prime, but based on his entire body of work including his effectiveness late in his career, it's Smoltz by a wide margin. While Maddux and Glavine are still somewhat effective, Smoltz is still an "Ace" today.

My preferred stat to measure "greatness"? Postseason effectiveness - the best against the best when every pitch counts...

Glavine:
24 Series, 35 starts, 14-16, 218.1 IP, 3 CGs, 191 Hits, 83 ER, 143 Ks, 87 BBs, 3.42 ERA

Maddux:
21 Series, 30 Starts, 11-14, 1 Save, 194 IP, 2 CGs, 191 Hits, 72 ER, 122 Ks, 50 BBs, 3.34 ERA

Smoltz:
24 Series, 27 Starts, 15-4, 4 Saves, 207 IP, 2 CGs, 168 Hits, 61 ER, 194 Ks, 67 BBs, 2.65 ERA

So yes, I'll take Smoltz, thanks.
 
142Razor
      ID: 221145821
      Sun, Dec 16, 2007, 12:22 		Smoltz is a better pitcher now, but if you line up all the years of the three pitchers' careers, you will see many more Maddux and Glavine seasons towards the top than Smoltz seasons. So while Smoltz is ending his career better than Maddux and Glavine, both Glavine and Maddux had finished in the top 3 for Cy Young four or more times each before Smoltz even got his first Cy Young vote. It should also be noted that Smoltz's only Cy Young was one I don't even think he deserved. The bottom line is that Smoltz has never been the best pitcher in his league and for much of his career, he was the 3rd best starter on his own team.
 
143clv
      Sustainer
      ID: 5911351713
      Sun, Dec 16, 2007, 12:40 		Measure them side-by-side? Thought you might ask. Added a few select others as well...


Tom Glavine:
669 Starts, 56 CGs, 25 Shutouts, 4350 IP, 4231 Hits, 1695 ER, 345 HR, 2570 Ks, 1463 BBs, 3.51 ERA, 119 ERA+, 1.309 WHIP, 5.317 K/9, 1.76 K/BB
Postseason
35 Starts, 3 CGs, 218.1 IP, 191 Hits, 83 ER, 143 Ks, 87 BBs, 3.42 ERA, 1.255 WHIP, 5.895 K/9, 1.64 K/BB

Greg Maddux:
707 Starts, 109 CGs, 35 Shutouts, 4814.1 IP, 4522 Hits, 1665 ER, 332 HR, 3273 Ks, 979 BBs, 3.11 ERA, 134 ERA+, 1.141 WHIP, 6.119 K/9, 3.34 K/BB
Postseason
30 Starts, 2 CGs, 194 IP, 191 Hits, 72 ER, 122 Ks, 50 BBs, 3.34 ERA, 1.242 WHIP, 5.659 K/9, 2.44 K/BB

John Smoltz:
461 Starts, 53 CGs, 16 Shutouts, 3367 IP, 2954 Hits, 1221 ER, 275 HR, 2975 Ks, 984 BBs, 3.26 ERA, 127 ERA+, 1.170 WHIP, 7.952 K/9, 3.02 K/BB
Postseason
27 Starts, 2 CGs, 207 IP, 168 Hits, 61 ER, 194 Ks, 67 BBs, 2.65 ERA, 1.13 WHIP, 8.434 K/9, 2.89 K/BB

Roger Clemens:
707 Starts, 118 CGs, 46 Shutouts, 4916.2 IP, 4185 Hits, 1707 ER, 363 HR, 4672 Ks, 1580 BBs, 3.12 ERA, 143 ERA+, 1.173 WHIP, 8.55 K/9, 2.95 K/BB
Postseason
34 Starts, 1 CG, 199 IP, 173 Hits, 83 ER, 173 Ks, 70 BBs, 3.75 ERA, 1.22 WHIP, 7.82 K/9, 2.47 K/BB

Bob Gibson:
482 Starts, 255 CGs, 56 Shutouts, 3884.1 IP, 3279 Hits, 1258 ER, 257 HR, 3117 Ks, 1336 BBs, 2.91 ERA, 127 ERA+, 1.188 WHIP, 7.22 K/9, 2.33 K/BB
Postseason
9 Starts, 8 CGs, 81 IP, 55 Hits, 17 ER, 92 Ks, 17 BBs, 1.89 ERA, 0.88 WHIP, 10.22 K/9, 5.41 K/BB

Don Drysdale:
465 Starts, 167 CGs, 49 Shutouts, 3432 IP, 3084 Hits, 1124 ER, 280 HR, 2486 Ks, 855 BBs, 2.95 ERA, 121 ERA+, 1.148 WHIP, 6.519 K/9, 2.91 K/BB
Postseason
6 Starts, 3 CGs, 39.2 IP, 36 Hits, 13 ER, 36 Ks, 12 BBs, 2.95 ERA, 1.22 WHIP, 8.17 K/9, 3 K/BB

Sandy Koufax:
314 Starts, 137 CGs, 40 Shutouts, 2324.1 IP, 1754 Hits, 713 ER, 204 HR, 2396 Ks, 817 BBs, 2.76 ERA, 131 ERA+, 1.106 WHIP, 9.28 K/9, 2.93 K/BB
Postseason
7 Starts, 4 CGs, 57 IP, 36 Hits, 6 ER, 61 Ks, 11 BBs, 0.95 ERA, 0.82 WHIP, 9.63 K/9, 5.55 K/BB

Nolan Ryan:
773 Starts, 222 CGs, 61 Shutouts, 5386 IP, 3923 Hits, 1911 ER, 321 HR, 5714 Ks, 2795 BBs, 3.19 ERA, 111 ERA+, 1.247 WHIP, 9.55 K/9, 2.04 K/BB
Postseason
7 Starts, 1 CG, 58.2, 39 Hits, 20 ER, 63 Ks, 14 BBs, 3.07 ERA, 0.90 WHIP, 9.66 K/9, 4.5 K/BB

 
144Tree, in LA
      ID: 2311401512
      Sun, Dec 16, 2007, 12:49 		interesting to see Ryan, Clemens, and Maddux' numbers, and Clemens is closer the Maddux in most categories than he is to Ryan.

to me, those numbers overwhemingly favor Ryan over Clemens, and that's not even taking into consideration Clemens' alleged steroid use.
 
145clv
      Sustainer
      ID: 5911351713
      Sun, Dec 16, 2007, 12:49 		Cy Young voters vote with their hearts and egos, they very seldom care what the actual numbers are. Glavine's meaningful numbers (ERA+, WHIP, K/9, and K/BB) don't belong with the others listed above, no matter how many times someone liked him in a popularity contest. Remember, everyone in Atlanta loved him, hated him, and now some love him again. That doesn't change his numbers.
 
146clv
      Sustainer
      ID: 5911351713
      Sun, Dec 16, 2007, 12:54 		I liken Cy Young voting to Gold Glove voting...David Wright (who's screamed about as a great defender) made 21 errors this season, Chipper Jones (who's lauded as average at best) made 6...winner? Wright, of course.
 
147Razor
      ID: 221145821
      Sun, Dec 16, 2007, 14:15 		Ryan over Clemens? The numbers aren't even close unless you just don't know which numbers to read.

Same goes for Smoltz over Glavine or Maddux. And by the way, Glavine was never hated here. Except perhaps by you?
 
148Tree, in LA
      ID: 2311401512
      Sun, Dec 16, 2007, 17:57 		Ryan over Clemens? The numbers aren't even close unless you just don't know which numbers to read.

no?


Roger Clemens:
707 Starts, 118 CGs, 46 Shutouts, 4916.2 IP, 4185 Hits, 1707 ER, 363 HR, 4672 Ks, 1580 BBs, 3.12 ERA, 143 ERA+, 1.173 WHIP, 8.55 K/9, 2.95 K/BB

Nolan Ryan:
773 Starts, 222 CGs, 61 Shutouts, 5386 IP, 3923 Hits, 1911 ER, 321 HR, 5714 Ks, 2795 BBs, 3.19 ERA, 111 ERA+, 1.247 WHIP, 9.55 K/9, 2.04 K/BB

for Ryan, it's 100 more CG, 15 more Shutouts, less hits despite more IP, less HR, 1000 more Ks, ERA and WHIP that are slightly worse but really not that different, and 1 more K per IP...

what numbers are YOU looking at that put Roider Clemens above Nolan Ryan?

 
149blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 710321114
      Sun, Dec 16, 2007, 19:11 		Ryan pitched from 1969-1994. Clemens pitched from 1984-2007. Look at the runs scored per game for those years.

Ryan had (many) more walks, a worse ERA, worse WHIP, and a much worse K/BB despite all those K's. Those numbers matter MUCH more than CG and shutouts. On the magnitude of Albert Pujols to Miguel Cairo.

Ryan did a lot well. He struck out batters on command, and he allowed a very low batting average. He's clearly an all-time great. But when compared to Clemens, it's not even close.
 
150ChicagoTRS
      ID: 344311322
      Mon, Dec 17, 2007, 01:32 		Are we talking the clemens career before steroids or after steroids? I think if you give clemens a more typical fading of his career with age his numbers do not look anywhere near as good...he and Bonds are clearly the poster boys for steroid enhancement. Turned two legitimate hall of fame type players into all-time best type players.
 
151Razor
      ID: 281191313
      Mon, Dec 17, 2007, 10:38 		I agree. Clemens won 4 of his 7 Cy Youngs after he started juicing and would likely have not stuck around as long as he has at the level that he has without help. It's a pointless comparison now since I think Clemens is a total fraud, but Tree did not make that point. He thinks Ryan is better than Clemens even with steroids, which is simply not the case. I am not really sure how you could come to that conclusion. ERA+, W-L and Cy Youngs are all enormously in Clemens' favor.
 
152Perm Dude
      ID: 11136178
      Mon, Dec 17, 2007, 11:00 		I agree--if Roger juiced than it all goes away.

That said the cherry-picking of Nolan's numbers is just silly. Hen says that ERA matters but SO don't? So runs count when you are talking about Ryan but not about Clemens? Jeez.

Both were amazing pitchers (and it appears one had some help). A case can now be made more strongly for Ryan with Clemens off the table, though I think it is hard to have a "Best Pitcher" if guys insist on making era-specific judgements.
 
153blue hen
      ID: 16322314
      Mon, Dec 17, 2007, 11:38 		Ryan was a better strikeout pitcher. Clemens was a better run-preventing pitcher. Guess what - it's possible to lose a game with 27 strikeouts. It's impossible to lose a game where you give up no runs. Clemens has better career numbers than Ryan. I have yet to hear an argument anywhere near convincing against that.

A few facts:
1. We don't know for 100% sure that Clemens used steroids (or even HGH) although it seems very likely.

2. We don't know for 100% sure that Ryan didn't use steroids, although it seems very unlikely.

3. We don't know the exact effects of steroids on baseball players, although we assume it helps their stats.

4. Clemens had many appearances against Dave Justice, Jose Canseco, Rafael Palmeiro, and other supposed juicers. Ryan faced far fewer players using steroids. Doesn't that cancel out some of what we're punishing Clemens for?
 
154Perm Dude
      ID: 11136178
      Mon, Dec 17, 2007, 12:40 		You misread my post, hen. When a guy throws a shutout, by definition he gave up no runs. Perhaps in your rush to dismiss Ryan you threw away the wrong stat, I dunno.

On the other matter, is isn't comparable at all. There exists no evidence that Ryan used any PEDs. There now exists a lot of evidence that Clemens did. What Clemens did or did not do while on PEDs is moot.
 
155Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Mon, Dec 17, 2007, 13:05 		Ryan was a better strikeout pitcher. Clemens was a better run-preventing pitcher. Guess what - it's possible to lose a game with 27 strikeouts. It's impossible to lose a game where you give up no runs.

Ryan had 15 more shut outs. he allowed 42 less home runs. his ERA was .07 higher, and his WHIP was .07 higher.

are you really going to continue with that argument that Clemens was better at preventing runs? looks pretty similar to me, and quite frankly, i'd still give the nod to Ryan.

additionally, you're absolutely wrong about it being impossible to lose a game when you allow zero runs. there have been a nearly uncountable amount of games where the starting pitcher allowed zero runs, and his team still lost.

i'm purposely leaving out the PED argument for now, because if you include that argument, there isn't even a conversation to be had here.
 
156Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Mon, Dec 17, 2007, 13:23 		Tree you're not considering the difference in the eras in which they pitched. Ryan played the bulk of his career in the most pitcher-friendly era since the time of the dead ball. The bulk of Clemens' carrer was in the most hitter-friendly era in history. Taking that into consideration, differences of .07 in WHIP and ERA are quite significant.
 
157Khahan
      ID: 561119313
      Mon, Dec 17, 2007, 13:28 		I've never heard anything to suggest Ryan used any drugs, but the truth is he pitched in an era when uppers were so common place you'd think they were league issued.

Players for decades have found different ways to cope with the long season. The drug of choice has changed and there are additional benefits, but people need to stop acting like this is the first drug era of baseball.

Compare the pitchers for what they did on the mound.
 
158Perm Dude
      ID: 11136178
      Mon, Dec 17, 2007, 13:32 		MITH: If Clemens to PEDs it doesn't matter.
 
159blue hen
      ID: 16322314
      Mon, Dec 17, 2007, 14:12 		Clemens faced players who were doping and dominated them. Does he get any credit for that?
 
160Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Mon, Dec 17, 2007, 14:15 		Tree you're not considering the difference in the eras in which they pitched.

that's just not relevant to me. you can flip that around and say "boy, Ryan played from some crappy teams..."

seriously - if that's the argument you go with, then ever hitter ever is a wimp compared to Babe Ruth.

Clemens faced players who were doping and dominated them. Does he get any credit for that?

is that really what it's come to?

 
161Perm Dude
      ID: 11136178
      Mon, Dec 17, 2007, 14:37 		#159: If he was on PEDs, nope. The Clemens argument is now reduced to: "Yeah, I cheated. But didn't I do well while cheating?"
 
162blue hen
      ID: 16322314
      Mon, Dec 17, 2007, 14:43 		Crappy teams? Does that affect a pitcher anywhere other than in the wins and losses? And didn't we just totally discount those? That's totally different than playing in a hitters' era vs. a pitchers' era.

And yes, it matters a lot to me that Clemens faced batters who doped. And Ruth didn't face black players. There's a lot of context here, and just about all of it paints a pretty great picture of Clemens.
 
163Perm Dude
      ID: 11136178
      Mon, Dec 17, 2007, 14:48 		It would look like a great picture if Clemens wasn't juiced.
 
164Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Mon, Dec 17, 2007, 15:00 		And Ruth didn't face black players.

Or Cubans or Dominicans or Panamanians or Venezuelans or Japanese or Koreans.

One can certainly make the point that today's game features the best players in the world from a much bigger pool.
 
165Razor
      ID: 221145821
      Mon, Dec 17, 2007, 20:19 		One can certainly make the point that today's game features the best players in the world from a much bigger pool.

Sorta. The talent pool might be more diverse internationally, but domestically, there are relatively far fewer Americans trying to make it as baseball players now than there were in the old days when baseball was the only major sports league around.

 
166holt
      ID: 129202215
      Mon, Dec 17, 2007, 20:28 		getting off topic, but fwiw, baseball now faces more competition from other sports in getting the attention of young athletes. baseball used to be THE game in the US. semi-pro clubs could be found virtually everywhere. kids dreamed of being major leaguers, not football/basketball/guitar/poker/playstation players.

It's easy to downplay the abilities of earlier generations, but really, there was a significant number of players busting their asses to break into the big leagues, and there weren't very many big league roster spots available.

If Rogers Hornsby was dropped back on earth to play just one season, I think he'd still be the best secondbaseman around. He lived and breathed baseball. The guy refused to read or watch movies because he wanted to preserve his "batting eye". Drop someone like Brian Roberts back into 1925 and see how he handles the train rides, small paychecks, spit balls, lack of "supplements", and crappy equipment. My guess is that Hornsby would still be a great player in today's baseball, and Brian Roberts would not put up Hornsby'ish stats.
 
167blue hen
      ID: 16322314
      Wed, Dec 19, 2007, 15:09 		Posts 62 and 90. No wonder Ref hated me.
 
168TacoJohn
      ID: 590291817
      Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 14:45 		I realize it's just 3 games but the '05 series alone seems like almost enough reason to give the nod to Mathewson. Offenses were a lot weaker then, but that still has to be one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of baseball.
 
169blue hen
      ID: 16322314
      Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 15:08 		I know it's just one game, but Kerry Wood gave up one infield hit with 20 strikeouts.

Give it up. It's all about sample size there.
 
170TacoJohn
      ID: 590291817
      Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 16:19 		BH, perhaps I misunderstood the intent of this thread.

I was under the impression that we were including some component of "most accomplished" along with most talented. In most sports discussions both are included. If this is purely a question of most talented then I agree that Mathewson is not #1 (though he's still very high up on the list).
 
171TacoJohn
      ID: 590291817
      Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 16:20 		Also, even if you were assuming I was talking only about pure talent (a really dense assumption) the Kerry Wood comparison still sucks.
 
172blue hen
      ID: 16322314
      Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 10:11 		For Mathewson, three games is NOT accomplishment. He's in this discussion for other reasons, but one particular World Series doesn't carry a lot of weight with me.
 
173blue hen
      ID: 16322314
      Thu, Feb 07, 2008, 10:06 		The Rangers are going to be better in 2008 than 2007. Nolan Ryan was just named Team President.
 
174Stuck in the 60s
      ID: 281511218
      Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 20:08 		The trouble with this argument is that it rests on stats. So, because of his relatively short career, Koufax is dissed. But on the day he retired because of a sore arm, Roberto Clemente said "he couldn't possibly be pitching with a sore arm."

There should be a place for Koufax in the top 10, because no one who ever hit against him wanted to do it again!

Don
 
175Khahan
      ID: 486552412
      Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 22:31 		Stuck, while I have to acknowledge your argument as a strong point for Koufax, the matter still remains that this thread is to discuss the best pitcher ever. There have been a lot of pitchers who were the 'best in their league' or 'best of their era,' over the years. And the reason Koufax falls short in this debate is because those guys did what Koufax did PLUS they continued to pitch and compile very impressive career stats.

I think longevity is a very relevant issue when it comes to this dicussion and that is where Koufax falls a bit short. Can't argue with him at his peak. But on the whole of his career, there were more impressive.
 
176blue hen
      ID: 16322314
      Wed, Feb 13, 2008, 14:23 		Koufax DOES have a place in this discussion. But he falls short of most of the others because his career was VERY short.
 
180Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Thu, Aug 19, 2010, 20:48 		time to revisit this, no?
 
181blue hen
      Dude
      ID: 710321114
      Fri, Aug 20, 2010, 10:27 		I still prefer Clemens over Ryan.

I've been pondering this question a lot, and I think it comes down to Pedro and Grove. There are some other strong cases, but I can't make a great case to put anyone ahead of those two.
 
182Razor
      ID: 57854118
      Fri, Aug 20, 2010, 10:49 		Pedro Martinez pitched 2,800 innings. Greg Maddux pitched 5,000 innings. 2,200 league average innings would drag down Pedro's ERA+ quite a bit.
 
183blue hen
      Dude
      ID: 710321114
      Fri, Aug 20, 2010, 12:21 		To what?
 
184Razor
      ID: 57854118
      Fri, Aug 20, 2010, 12:33 		To worse than Maddux's. And league average is generous. PT matters, dude.
 
185Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Aug 20, 2010, 12:44 		I agree. Take pretty much any very good pitcher's first 2200 innings only and they'll look pretty good.
 
186blue hen
      Dude
      ID: 710321114
      Fri, Aug 20, 2010, 13:39 		Wait a minute. Pedro pitched 2800 innings, not 2200. And Pedro is 20 points ahead in ERA+. That's a long way for him to have to fall. For context, 20 points below Maddux you would find Josh Beckett, Bartolo Colon, Orel Hershiser, and Juan Guzman. I can't subscribe to the idea that Pedro would fall that much with "league average" innings.
 
187Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Aug 20, 2010, 14:48 		We don't really have to guess, here. Look at the last 4 seasons Pedro pitched. There's no reason to think he would continue anything other than what he did those last 4 years, which show a very good but no longer overwhelming pitcher.
 
188Kyle
      Sustainer
      ID: 052753312
      Fri, Aug 20, 2010, 15:29 		ERA+ is figured by taking the "League Average ERA" during that players playing time and dividing it by the players ERA. You take that number and multiply by 100.

During Pedro's playing career the "League Average ERA" was 4.51 based on some tricky math formula I just tried to explain. If you give him 2200 IPs so that he reaches the 5k mark Maddux pitched he would have had a 3.62 career ERA. After doing the math it would work out to an ERA+ of 125.

Now Lefty Grove only pitched 3900 IPs. Back in his day the "League Average ERA" was 4.53. If you give him another 1100 IPs to hit Maddux's 5k then you get a 3.37 career ERA and a ERA+ of 134

Maddux clearly stays the same with 5000 IPs. 3.16 career ERA and ERA+ of 132

I think this math exercise clearly shows how dominate Walter Johnson's 147 ERA+ is over the span of 5914 IP and proves that he is truly the greatest pitcher of all time.
 
189Razor
      ID: 265539
      Fri, Aug 20, 2010, 15:31 		People, we had this thing wrapped up in post #1.
 
190Kyle
      Sustainer
      ID: 052753312
      Fri, Aug 20, 2010, 15:32 		Also if you want to quibble over those numbers look at Pedro's final 4 seasons and see he had a 4.58 ERA over 350 IPs. Giving him 4.51 for another 2200 IPs is actually being kind to him.
 
191 Ryan Express
      ID: 2892911
      Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 02:30 		The fact is that Clemens has 150 plus wins after he was accused of doping. I don't argue that he was playing against other players that were or were not doping but if he doesn't dope exactly how long does clemens career last. Most of the players seem to have doped to give them the ability to recover which put you on the field on a more frequent basis. I.E Andy Petite's reason for taking them. I was always a Clemens fan, he has a lot of the same qualities that made Nolan Ryan the great that he is, but I have to admit when the alligations came out it tarnishes his career statitics to me. Nolan Ryan to me should not only be on that list be he should always be somewhere a top that list.
 
192blue hen
      Dude
      ID: 710321114
      Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 10:21 		Then I guess your opinion is wrong.
 
193Seattle Zen
      Leader
      ID: 055343019
      Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 11:46 		he has a lot of the same qualities that made Nolan Ryan the great that he is,

Oh, you are right there, in ways you probably haven't imagined yet...

but I have to admit when the allegations came out it tarnishes his career statistics to me.

Does Nolan remain at the top when HE is alleged to have done much the same as Clemens?
 
194Mötley Crüe
      ID: 108312919
      Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 20:11 		Roy Halladay did something today that has never happened during most of our lives.

Throw in the perfect game during the regular season and the guy at least has to be in the conversation. Maybe the best pitcher of the 2000's anyway.
 
195C1-NRB
      ID: 401412422
      Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 23:03 		Satchel Paige.
 
196Seattle Zen
      Leader
      ID: 055343019
      Thu, Oct 07, 2010, 01:31 		C1-NRB, you don't have time to post here, go scout!
 
197Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Thu, Oct 07, 2010, 09:17 		194 Motley. halladay may well be on his way, but he still has quite a few years left in him. At some point we very well could be discussing him for all time.


As for best pitcher of the 2000's, so far I'd have to agree.
 
198blue hen
      Dude
      ID: 710321114
      Thu, Oct 07, 2010, 09:34 		Dallas Braden? Don't judge a book by one game.
 
199loki
      SuperDude
      ID: 4211201420
      Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 13:06 		On 10/14/1965 pitching with 2 days rest Sandy Koufax threw a 3 hit shutout vs. the Minnesota Twins to win the "65 World Series. In my opinion he was the best pitcher in baseball but frequently is excluded from discussion because of his injury shortened career.

Having said that, Christy Matthewson pitched his 3rd shutout vs. the Philadelphia Athletics to win the 1905 Worlds Series , also on 10/14. He pitched with one day's rest.
 
200holt
      Donor
      ID: 308491916
      Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 13:50 		Koufax = greatness

Career Stats for the Left Arm of God

It's no wonder his career ended so abruptly. 54 CG's in his last two seasons (and that doesn't include post-season action). I'd bet that Jesse James treated his horses with more care than the Dodgers did with Koufax.
 
201loki
      SuperDude
      ID: 4211201420
      Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 14:29 		Koufax was great, but he had to be the worst hitter that I have ever seen. He looked like he would injure himself ever time he swung the bat but he did manage to hit 2 HRs in his career. One was a 3 run HR, but he ended up losing that game.
If you are a Koufax fan or would just like to read a good baseball book, I would recommend Sandy Koufax: A Lefty's Legacy by Jane Leavy. Leavy also wrote the recently published The Last Boy: Mickey Mantle and the End of America's Childhood.
 
202holt
      Donor
      ID: 308491916
      Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 19:31 		Oddly enough, my Dad (who is a huge Mantle and Koufax fan) interviewed several close relatives, friends, and teammates of Mantle (David Mantle, Jim Richardson, Max Mantle, Benny Lee, a couple of guys, can't recall their names atm, who along with Mickey were known as the three musketeers, a few others I can't recall atm. I edited the interviews together onto a couple DVD's, and I am almost positive that Jane Leavy bought one of those copies. I remember we had to send it twice because the first copy was in the wrong format, and it was a Washington, D.C. address. I'd have to do a little research to make sure it was her, but I'll definitely read the book.
 
203holt
      Donor
      ID: 308491916
      Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 19:43 		btw - one of the "three musketeers" went to MIT, iirc. He might be mentioned in the book somewhere.

Sorry for the thread hijack.
 
204loki
      SuperDude
      ID: 4211201420
      Sat, Oct 16, 2010, 22:01 		Re: 202-Your Dad could not be a greater Koufax fan than me. I think that he and you will like this link. Vin Scully announcing the 9th inning of Koufax's perfect game.
 
205Razor
      ID: 57854118
      Sat, Oct 16, 2010, 23:34 		Halladay is doing something that is pretty rare, I think - he is both the most accomplished pitcher in terms of career accomplishments and simultaneously the best pitcher in the game today.
 
206holt
      Donor
      ID: 308491916
      Sun, Oct 17, 2010, 22:14 		re 204 - that's awesome - thanks. Didn't know he threw no-hitters in 4 consecutive years. Scully's explanation at the end was pretty interesting too (regarding why he kept stating the date and time).