Greatest Righty Ever Poll on ESPN.

[SmedIndy]

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/polling?event_id=712

Hmmm...a lot of pimping for Clemens, then this poll.

Walter Johnson is running second right now, early in the polling. I hope people aren't that...well...mis-informed.

[mgoettsche]

I'm actually surprised that the voters have Mathewson 3rd (which is probably correct!)...yeah, I love the Rocket, but there's NO WAY that he's better than Big Train

[KCBOOMER]

These ten question gadgets of ESPN are fun. I can't believe people are actually picking Clemens and Ryan over Hank Hill for "King of the Hill" in Texas. For crissakes, Hank has his own TV show.

Considering the ESPN hype job the Big Train and Big Six are holding their own. I guess putting Pedro and Gibson was to give more names the casual/younger fan has heard. Seems like some guy named Young might have been on the ballot.

[Crash Course]

It's close.


1900-2003

RIGHT HANDED PITCHERS
BASERUNNERS/9 IP vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
STRIKEOUTS/WALKS vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
STRIKEOUTS/9 IP vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
NEUTRAL WINS displayed only--not a sorting criteria
ERA vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria

RSAA RSAA BR/9 IP SO/BB SO/9 IP N_W ERA
1 Walter Johnson 643 2.33 1.43 1.81 470 1.07
2 Roger Clemens 613 2.03 1.25 2.69 306 1.20
3 Greg Maddux 540 2.11 1.39 -.09 297 1.16
4 Grover C Alexander 524 1.91 1.13 0.53 374 0.83
5 Pedro Martinez 453 3.46 2.49 4.08 172 1.87
6 Christy Mathewson 405 2.03 1.68 1.07 361 0.78
7 Tom Seaver 404 1.88 0.95 1.44 312 0.79
8 Bob Gibson 350 1.00 0.50 1.55 264 0.67
9 Bert Blyleven 344 1.23 1.20 1.46 313 0.50
10 Phil Niekro 322 0.52 0.17 0.15 337 0.33

[sweaver]

You can make an argument for Clemens, based on timeline. I'd put Walter #1, but it's an arguable point.

[mgoettsche]

Yet again Pedro's dominance shines through...I think he's toast in a couple of years, but his ratios blow away his peers on this grouping.

[Joseph]

I'm a bit surprised at how high pedro's BR/9 and era are compared to the rest of the group.

[pwdennis]

Two thoughts

1) RSAA/IP or RSAA/9 IP would make an interesting ratio to tabulate
2) at #9 Bert Blyleven !

[Crash Course]

Agreed, Bert Blyleven must have really pissed someone somewhere to end up this way........

[nyy26wc]

I'm a bit surprised at how high pedro's BR/9 and era are compared to the rest of the group.

They are only high because of the era in which he pitched in.

Nobody with at least 700 IP, a figure that which is only 1/3 of Martinez's total, has better BR/9 or ERA vs. the league average.

In fact, if you look at the gap between Martinez and the rest, in terms of comparisions to the average, it's surprising how bad everyone else is, compared to him.

Martinez still needs more longevity to get my vote. But, in terms of his rates, there's no competition.

[manny tortolero]

Why Pete Alexander or Cy Young were not included in that poll by ESPN?

[Makofan]

Because Grover is only the greatest pitcher that nobody has ever heard of

[sweaver]

Have we already lost the story of Alex in the 1926 Series from the lexicon?

[Joseph]

They are only high because of the era in which he pitched in.

Nobody with at least 700 IP, a figure that which is only 1/3 of Martinez's total, has better BR/9 or ERA vs. the league average.

In fact, if you look at the gap between Martinez and the rest, in terms of comparisions to the average, it's surprising how bad everyone else is, compared to him.

Martinez still needs more longevity to get my vote. But, in terms of his rates, there's no competition.

Lee, isn't the chart steve posted the stats vs the league avg?

BASERUNNERS/9 IP vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
STRIKEOUTS/WALKS vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria

[TimmyB]

Have we already lost the story of Alex in the 1926 Series from the lexicon?

If ESPN didn't cover it, it didn't happen... :rolleyes:

[nyy26wc]

Lee, isn't the chart steve posted the stats vs the league avg?

I didn't realize that you were referring to Steve's chart. I just thought you meant that Pedro has a higher ERA and BR/9 than the rest of the group.

[Iron Horse]

Pedro's stats are certainly in the clouds. But I would like to see him make it past the 7th inning more. Could he also make it in a four man rotation with the same stats. His stats would suffer I think if he went every four and had to go 8-9 innings more often. Here I like Gibson and Koufax for there stanima. If a pitcher cannot go 8-9 in a five man rotation than when could he ever. This is Pedro's only weakness.


In the five man rotation era I like Clemens because he admittantly could have pitched more complete games in his younger years in Boston if Lee Smith were not around.

Otherwise it's Johnson although his era rose significantly in the 1920's with the high scoring in that era with Lefty Grove a close second.

Also, I am not a big timeline fan. If Walter could throw in the mid 90's in the 1910-1920 time period why could he not throw it now. A curve ball is also a curve ball no matter when thrown. Same with the srewball by Hubbell etc.

[pwdennis]

Otherwise it's Johnson although his era rose significantly in the 1920's with the high scoring in that era with Lefty Grove a close second.

Also, I am not a big timeline fan. If Walter could throw in the mid 90's in the 1910-1920 time period why could he not throw it now. A curve ball is also a curve ball no matter when thrown. Same with the screwball by Hubbell etc.

Yes, but batters take more pitches and swing and miss at more pitches. The lessened contact causes pitchers to need to make more pitches per batter to record an out. In the early days batters strove to make contact whereas now they want to hit it hard. Most at bats were one or two pitch at bats

In his autobiography Christy Mathewson indicated that pitchers need to stay in shape, to even be able to make AS MANY AS 100 pitches, if necessary. Pitchers are as durable as ever but they can't simply lob the ball over the plate since anyone can hit a homerun off batting practice pitches. Walter Johnson might still be able to throw 300 innings today for a season or two but he wouldn't be able to do it nine times nor throw the 340+ he did on four occasions, let alone doing 370 twice

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Agreed, Bert Blyleven must have really pissed someone somewhere to end up this way........

"Blyleven's supporters insist that his victory total suffered because he pitched for a lot of bad teams, but I dispute that." - BBWAA Member Jim Caper

You know, this has been discussed many times before, and I am still at a complete loss as to why Blyleven hasn't been enshrined LONG ago. Like his first or second year of eligibility.

As long as guys like Jim Caper are voting, there isn't a damned thing anyone can do about it. I'm sure Joe Morgan is the same. I can here Morgan now, "Well, you know you can throw out those fancy stats like ERA+ and all that other crud, the fact is that his W-L percentage just wasn't that good...he was an underachiever."

Makes me want to strangle someone.

[Iron Horse]

Walter Johnson may have been more durable than you think. Even in his later years he threw a decent amount of innings. He also relieved some games as well. I also have heard that he mostly threw fastballs anyway.

Many modern day players posted 300 plus innings. But a pitcher has to start more than 32 games to get there.

The following are some who have several 300 plus innings seasons so it can be done but a pitcher has to start 35-40 games or so to do it.

Jenkins -5
R. Roberts-6
Gaylord Perry-6
Lolich-4
Koufax-3
Ryan-2
Carolton-5 seasons of 289 plus inn.

[mgoettsche]

More significant than # of starts is the use of relief pitchers. Just look at the CG leaders over the past 20 years and notice the trend. More relief pitchers and a stricter adherance to pitch count would make it difficult for guys starting 40 games to reach 300 IP.

Just for illustration the last pitcher to approximate 300 was Blyleven back in '85...he threw 24 CG that year in 37 starts for 293 IP. No one has thrown for more than 15 CG since '88, with many recent league leaders only posting high single digits.

[Iron Horse]

Perhaps that is why Pedro and some others have such great stats. Not only do they pitch with more rest but they are taken out before they tire so their ERA's, Hits/walk per inning etc are better than say a pitcher who stays in their longer and tires.

I can see a Bob Gibson going 7-8 inn strong only to get knocked out in the 9th inning and seeing that extra run scored because he stayed in there. The result would be more hits/ walks against him and his era a little higher.

It is a different time and perhaps the pitchers today can not be fairly compared against the ones prior.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Walter Johnson may have been more durable than you think. Even in his later years he threw a decent amount of innings. He also relieved some games as well. I also have heard that he mostly threw fastballs anyway.

Many modern day players posted 300 plus innings. But a pitcher has to start more than 32 games to get there.


Compared to his peers, only one modern pitcher racked up quality innings year after year like Johnson, and that's Greg Maddux.

It's been posted many times before, but a pitcher's job is to eat up innings without giving up runs, and the best way to measure those numbers are to compare them to his peers, since usage and competition levels change over the decades.

When you look at innings and ERA+, the two pitchers who are at or near the top of their leagues in BOTH categories year after year are Walter Johnson and Greg Maddux. No other right-handers are even close.

[nyy26wc]

The problem with your theory is the rest of the league's in the same situation. The league rates are also going to be inflated by other pitchers giving up extra runs when they would be out of the game if they pitched today.

In fact, Gibson, as well as other elite pitchers of the day, benefitted from this. Since Gibson was an elite pitcher, it is only natural to assume that a tired Gibson would have given up less runs when tired than the average pitcher, when tired. Therefore, the league average rates are increased more by tired pitchers than Gibson's own rates were increased for when he was tired. So, the gap betwen Gibson and the league, for both his rates and RSAA, would be increased by this factor.

Now, it was probably the case that Gibson got to pitch the 9th inning when tired more often than the typical. However, that has to be balanced against the fact that the typical pitcher got to pitch later in the game, when in trouble, then he would have with today's usage patterns. And even though it didn't occur in the 9th inning, the fact that those extra runs would have been scored still have the same impact on the league average figures.

[nyy26wc]

When you look at innings and ERA+, the two pitchers who are at or near the top of their leagues in BOTH categories year after year are Walter Johnson and Greg Maddux. No other right-handers are even close.

Clemens has over 300 more IP than Maddux, plus more than 100 more RSAA than him.

But, you're right. Clemens's lead over Maddux is enough to no longer be considered "close."

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Clemens has over 300 more IP than Maddux, plus more than 100 more RSAA than him.

But, you're right. Clemens's lead over Maddux is enough to no longer be considered "close."

Okay, let's compare the two directly in innings and ERA+.

Using career stats through last season, Clemens pitched 4279 innings and Maddux pitched 3969. Clemens is three years older than Maddog.

Career ERA+: Clemens 140. Maddux 143.

Number of times leading league in IP: Clemens 2. Maddux 5.

Number of time in top-3 in IP: Clemens 5. Maddux 9.

Number of times leading league in ERA+: Clemens 7. Maddux 5.

Number of times in top-3 in ERA+: Clemens 9. Maddux 8.

Again, Clemens is three years older than Maddux, but Maddux has the best in ERA+ and ERA+ COMBINED with IP, year after year.

There is no way that Clemens has had a better career than Maddux. Slightly longer" yes. Better? No.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Or look at the 162-game averages. They are nearly identical, except for Ks and BBs. Clemens has a big advantage in Ks and Maddux has a big advantage in BBs. Which is more valuable?

Maddux has the edge in ERA+, WHIP. Clemens has the edge in big seasons and the "Joe Morgan" stats, like W-L% and K's. And he's three years older and has pitched about 1.5 seasons more than Maddux.

That's it. Clemens has more wins than Maddux and has more strikeouts and has pitched a little longer.. Maddux is better in every other respect.

[Iron Horse]

[QUOTE=nyy26wc]The problem with your theory is the rest of the league's in the same situation. The league rates are also going to be inflated by other pitchers giving up extra runs when they would be out of the game if they pitched today.

I think that what I am trying to say is that I think it would be easier for a Bob Gibson, Fergue Jenkins or a Koufax to pitch today because of their stanima than it would for a Pedro Martinez or someone like him with weaker stanima to pitch in the 1960's or similar era. They would come out of the game earlier and not be subject to the late fatiguing innings whereas Pedro would be in there through the 8th or 9th inning. I was not trying to compare Gibson vs Pedro Martinez or any eara normalizations. Obvioulsy Pedro is the best now but may not be in some prior eras is my thinking. One positive in Pedro's favor is that he would not be facing the power in other eras like he does today so he would probably give up more singles and doubles than he would HR.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Maybe if you put Sandy and Gibby on a lower mound in today's bandbox parks with much stronger batters and much smaller strike zones, they would pitch fewer innings.

Maybe putting Pedro on a higher mound with a huge strike zone in Dodger Stadium, he would pitch many more innings and would be just as dominant.

[sweaver]

Indeed. Good is good, regardless of era.

[pwdennis]

Clemens vs Maddux


The fact that Clemens is 3 yrs older with only about 1.5 seasons worth of innings than Maddux is entirely attributable to the fact that Clemens went to college before entering professional baseball

Clemens leads in both complete games (117 to 103) and shutouts (46 to 34)

Maddux played in the NL with its rather more elastic strike zone (any wide pitch within the general area code of the plate was called a strike). If the Atlanta Braves had been an AL squad, John Smoltz would have emerged as the Ace of the staff. Both Maddux and Glavine would have issued more walks as AL pitchers. Even Randy Johnson, who needs no help from any umpire, saw his walk rates drop upon moving to the NL

I predict that Maddux will see his ERA+ fall below Clemens before his career ends

[SmedIndy]

Gibson, Koufax, et. al. pitched in an anachronistic era. For years, IP were declining, and yet they spiked up during the 60's.

I picked 1955 just at random. Only one NL pitcher pitched 300 innings - Robin Roberts, who was indestructibe. No one else was close. The AL leader just had 260 innings in 35 starts.

In 1968 thee NL and one AL pitchers hurled over 300 innings, and two were real close.

Their durability is a product of the era, nothing more. Now they'd be making 33 to 35 starts and pitch 220 innings - and still be dominant.

[pwdennis]

Gibson, Koufax, et. al. pitched in an anachronistic era. For years, IP were declining, and yet they spiked up during the 60's.

I picked 1955 just at random. Only one NL pitcher pitched 300 innings - Robin Roberts, who was indestructibe. No one else was close. The AL leader just had 260 innings in 35 starts.

In 1968 thee NL and one AL pitchers hurled over 300 innings, and two were real close.

Their durability is a product of the era, nothing more. Now they'd be making 33 to 35 starts and pitch 220 innings - and still be dominant.

Quite true - the period 1963-1975 represents a complete aberration to the historical trend that started in the 1920s

[Ytown Tribe fan]

It's funny that after he retired, many considered Tom Seaver the best righty ever (after Johnson). James, in his NHBA, rate Seaver as the 5th best pitcher ever, and argues that he may in fact be the BEST ever. Now, he doesn't make the top-3 or even top-5 on a lot of lists.

Maybe being dominant in a hitter's era is the key to guys like Clemens, Maddux and Pedro getting a lot of attention.

[Joseph]

Yes, but batters take more pitches and swing and miss at more pitches. The lessened contact causes pitchers to need to make more pitches per batter to record an out. In the early days batters strove to make contact whereas now they want to hit it hard. Most at bats were one or two pitch at bats

In his autobiography Christy Mathewson indicated that pitchers need to stay in shape, to even be able to make AS MANY AS 100 pitches, if necessary. Pitchers are as durable as ever but they can't simply lob the ball over the plate since anyone can hit a homerun off batting practice pitches. Walter Johnson might still be able to throw 300 innings today for a season or two but he wouldn't be able to do it nine times nor throw the 340+ he did on four occasions, let alone doing 370 twice

I wonder if innings pitched are really that good an indicator of durabilitty when comparing older pitchers to current ones.
As PW says here, maybe pitchers in the past threw far less pitches per game than pitchers today. Perhaps 110 pitches per start from Pedro or Clemens today would be enought to pitch 250+ innings in 1966. The increase in offense shurley has an impact on number of pitches thrown, perhaps looking at the changes in the league averages of strikeouts and walks will help tell us if more pitches are being thrown today. Any way I can find these league averages on my SBE?

[Iron Horse]

I too would like to know more about this.

Any way I still like Tom Seaver for the time period he pitched in.

Perhaps one pitcher should be taken from each era so that all of the Era's are represented. Ex. Best Deadball era, 1920's, 1930, 1960's etc.

Not just counting RHP you may have to leave off three of these dominting pirchers for the current era since you only get one choice. Pedro, Clemens, Johnson, Maddox.

[nyy26wc]

It's funny that after he retired, many considered Tom Seaver the best righty ever (after Johnson). James, in his NHBA, rate Seaver as the 5th best pitcher ever, and argues that he may in fact be the BEST ever. Now, he doesn't make the top-3 or even top-5 on a lot of lists.

Maybe being dominant in a hitter's era is the key to guys like Clemens, Maddux and Pedro getting a lot of attention.

Or being the star in New York is the key to Seaver.

[mgoettsche]

It's funny that after he retired, many considered Tom Seaver the best righty ever (after Johnson). James, in his NHBA, rate Seaver as the 5th best pitcher ever, and argues that he may in fact be the BEST ever. Now, he doesn't make the top-3 or even top-5 on a lot of lists.

Maybe being dominant in a hitter's era is the key to guys like Clemens, Maddux and Pedro getting a lot of attention.

Amen! I certainly agree that their dominance in this era should garner a couple points in their favor when comparing across eras.

[Iron Horse]

Smedindy or anyone else,

What factors make the 1960's different from the prior decades to make 300 innings then an anomoly?

I did not think the mounds were lowered until after the 1960's so they must have been high in the decades prior to the 60's. I know the strike zone was enlarged in the early 60's but the zone was large even before that. Perhaps only certain pitchers can pitch 300 plus innings while others can not.

Perhaps the smaller zone of today forces more pitches per inning.

[SmedIndy]

Frankly, it was the strike zone change, coupled with the high mounds and the cycle of offense swinging back to the pitchers. In times of high offense, no pitchers could get 300 innings (1930, for example, no NL pitcher got close). But in the 60's and early to mid 70's, they could because they weren't facing that many batters per start because no one was getting on base, and if they were they were playing little ball for the most part.

And they didn't use strict four man rotations back in the day. No one started more than 35 games or so, mainly because the best pitchers also were used in relief.

In the 60's they went to pretty much straight rotations, and then when the DH era started they had no need to pinch hit - so the AL went a bit nutty for a while with nine man staffs (and even one or two of those guys weren't used a lot on some teams) since every games was 4-2 or 3-1.