Rocket v. The Franchise

[Xanadu Dragon]

Heard a guy on the radio yesterday who said Seaver was better than Clemens. Not sure I agree. Your thoughts?

[Duque]

Very similar types of pitchers, but given the park Clemens has pitched most of his career in, his better K/IP numbers (.76 for Seaver, .96 for Clemens) and ERA + (127 for Seaver, 145 for Clemens), I think Clemens is pretty solidly the better pitcher.

[BuzzBuzzard]

They are very very close. The next two years could make or break it. Seaver had solid success late in his career, age 39 - 40. Let's see what Rog does. There is more to it that just K/IP. Argue its merits, but Seaver's got the better ERA by a good margin and better H/IP. Some of that is definitely NL influenced. Seaver also pitched 900 innings more than Rocket has to date. Something to be said for that.

[KCBOOMER]

Man you wouldn't want to have to live on the difference between the two.

Roger has always played on good offensive clubs while Seaver did not.

[Duque]

Seaver does have the better ERA - which is why I think ERA + (or relative ERA) is a good measure. It compares a pitcher's ERA to the league average ERA of a guy pitching in the same park. The league average ERA for Seaver's time period (park-adjusted) is 3.64. For Clemens, it's 4.49. So you can argue that Clemens's ERA is relatively better than Seaver's.

[SmedIndy]

I'd take Tom Terrific in his peak, but Clemens has aged better.

[Xanadu Dragon]

The host said that Seaver never had the bump that Clemens had during ages 30-33. Looking it over, Seaver had a worse bump, one year alone, in 1982.

[gyb13]

Seaver's 1982 being the exception, both pitchers at their worse have been about league average, and have had periods of dominance. Seaver had stretches from 67-71 and 75-79 in which his ERA was 20% better than the league every year. Clemens had such a streak from 85-92, 96-98, and over the past 2 yrs. Clemens' peak was also higher. He has had an ERA of less than half the lgERA twice in his career (1.93 x 4.07 in 1990 and 2.05 x 4.62 in 1997) - these are quasi-Pedro levels. Seaver came close (1.76 x 3.40 in 1971), but of course it's harder to half the lgERA when the lgERA is lower.
Maybe too close to call? But considering the Rocket's career thus far, I'd pick him. Uninterrupted dominance for 8 straight seasons and no down year. But that's just me...

[gyb13]

Originally posted by Xanadu Dragon
The host said that Seaver never had the bump that Clemens had during ages 30-33. Looking it over, Seaver had a worse bump, one year alone, in 1982.
More like at age 30 and 32, and I think the host was only looking at his record.
In 1994 (age 31) he made only 24 starts, and despite his 9-7 record, had a 2.85 ERA (x 5.05 lgERA) and 8.9 K/9.
In 1996 (age 33), he was 10-13, but had a 3.63 ERA (x 5.15 lgERA) and 257 K (9.5 K/9)!
In Seaver's down year (was it injury-related?), not only was he 5-13, he posted a 5.50 ERA (x 3.72 lgERA) and had a paltry 5 K/9 while pitching just over 110 innings.

[Baudib]

One thing that is always left out of these discussions is the quality of defense behind each pitcher. I really, really don't think there can be any doubt that Seaver generally had better defenses behind him than Clemens did.

I think a lot of Clemens' "bump" can be attributed to this.

I owned Clemens in a roto league in 1996, and his numbers are superficially mediocre -- 10-13, 3.63 was very good, but not great. But I watched him pitch all year and I think he had just as good stuff on a consistent basis as he did the next year with Toronto, when he won the Triple Crown.

The Red Sox had a decent offense that year, but their defense was really godawful. Mike Stanley, Mo Vaughn, Jeff Frye, Tim Naehring, John Valentin -- all good hitters for their positions, but not a B or A glove among them, and the outfield was worse -- 55 games of Reggie Jefferson and Jose Canseco in LF, Mike Greenwell for 75, Tinsley and Bragg weren't exactly Devon White, and you got O'Leary, who's OK, in right backed up by guys like Jose Malave and Kevin Mitchell.

Look at the ERAs and the hits/inning of the other pitchers on that team. Gordon, Wakefield and Sele aren't Mussina, Maddux and Glavine, but they've all been generally successful pitchers, by coincidence (?) they all had ERAs around two runs higher than the previous year. Vaughan Eshelman was a vaguely promising rookie in 1995, with a 4.85 ERA...he had a 7.08 ERA the next year.
The Red Sox were first in pitcher strikeouts, middle of the pack in homers allowed, but 11th in hits allowed. That doesn't happen when you have any kind of defense. They were tied for last in errors and ninth in double plays.

And what happens when you have no defense?
You try to make perfect pitches and walk a lot of guys. Clemens walked 106, a career high....on top of that, there must have been 5-6 games where he had a brilliant game through 7, 8 innings, and he gets left in too long (trying to save the poor bullpen) and gave up 4 runs in the eighth or ninth.

I think you can make an honest argument that Clemens was every bit as good as Hentgen, the Cy Young winner, that year.

In any event, that's just one year, and the worst year, but the Red Sox never had a catcher as good as Grote, or a center fielder as good as Agee, or a shortstop as good as Harrelson.

In any event, they're awfully close. I like Clemens better but I could see it either way. Clemens is probably going to end up with a better winning percentage; his teams have been better, so that's probably a wash. But he'll also end up with a better relative ERA, however you want to score it, despite pitching in worse parks with worse defenses. He has a better strikeout to walk ratio, despite not getting to whiff pitchers all these years, although, since he has more walks per game, you could argue about which is better there. Surprisingly, Seaver gave up more homers per inning.

Peak value? Wow. Seaver was fantastic but I can't take him over Clemens. Clemens won two straight Triple Crowns, and actually, I think 1986 was his best year. Of course, the 1.91, 21-6 year when Boston was under .500 when he didn't get a decision was pretty nice, too.

You could make the (valid) point that Seaver pitched against better pitchers, more Hall of Famers and 200-game winners than Clemens.

The one knock against Clemens was his performance in big games, particularly in the postseason with Boston, but he now has the eight shutout innings in the WS clincher in '99, perhaps the best back-to-back postseason performances ever in 2000 against the M's and Mets (bat-tossing incident aside), and he outpitched Curt Schilling in Game 7.

[BuzzBuzzard]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
I'd take Tom Terrific in his peak, but Clemens has aged better. Go back and look at Seaver's '85 and '86 seasons with the White Sox. 31 wins, 16 CG, and 475 IP at an age the Clemens has not yet reached. Seaver aged like a nice Bordeaux.

[SmedIndy]

But there was that period right before he with the Sox where he only had one good year out of four.

[BuzzBuzzard]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
But there was that period right before he with the Sox where he only had one good year out of four. Hold up. First, I screwed up my last post. I meant '84 and '85. That was a typo, but does not change the facts. In '83, he was 9-14 with 230 IP and 3.55 with the Mets, a team that was 22 games under .500. Not too shabby. '82 was a terrible year, no question about it. '81 he was 14-2 with a 2.54 ERA. Arguably, he should have won the Cy Young that year.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by BuzzBuzzard
Hold up. First, I screwed up my last post. I meant '84 and '85. That was a typo, but does not change the facts. In '83, he was 9-14 with 230 IP and 3.55 with the Mets, a team that was 22 games under .500. Not too shabby. '82 was a terrible year, no question about it. '81 he was 14-2 with a 2.54 ERA. Arguably, he should have won the Cy Young that year.

Not to shabby in '83, but his RSAA was only 1, and in 1980 his RSAA was low, too. That's three out of four where he was average or below, and for a guy like Seaver that's a huge dropoff.

[NMH Yeti]

This being my virgin post, I don't mean to but heads with anyone, but I wouldn't say that Clemens out-pitched Schilling Game 7...granted he had to deal with Gonzo, but I would argue that Schilling was facing a much tougher lineup (and with less rest).
The sad thing here with Clemens is that yet again he got screwed by not going the distance in a World Series Game. He once again turned in a great performance only to watch it go down the drain. If I were him I would be pretty displeased with the whole thing. I might even throw a bat or two.

I would take Seaver in the long run though, because Rocket almost ran me over once.

[Fritz Buelow]

Welcome NMH Yeti - - PS - good idea to stay out of the Rockets way!

[Duque]

Originally posted by NMH Yeti

The sad thing here with Clemens is that yet again he got screwed by not going the distance in a World Series Game. He once again turned in a great performance only to watch it go down the drain. If I were him I would be pretty displeased with the whole thing. I might even throw a bat or two.


I do think Clemens's rep as a post-season choker has been pretty much erased though. He's 3-0, 1.56 ERA in WS games.

[gemyt]

Not even really close. Seaver was great, but it's Roger by any measure.

Relative ERA is the correct measure, unless you want to argue that Mel Stottlemyre was better than Roger. I love Mel, and his 2.97 career ERA was stellar, but it was compiled during a pitcher's era. like Seaver's. Roger's relative ERA is up there with Grove, Johnson and Maddux. Seaver's is excellent, but Roger's is historic.

Roger has a much better career winning % than Seaver as well. The 6 Cy Youngs speak pretty loudly. The back-to-back pitching triple crowns with Toronto is another astounding achievement.

Tom pitched more innings, and has more wins (at least for the moment). But he pitched primarily in the era of the four man rotation. We must take that into consideration when comparing starting pitchers in the 80's and 90's against their predecessors.

Roger is better than Seaver, by objective measures and in the estimation of his contemporaries (i.e., the 6 Cy's).

[Fritz Buelow]

I always forget the BTB TCs. The guy is a marvel.

[hmrsf]

Clemens, Clemens, Clemens. There I said it three times. God, I miss the big guy.:(

[bacchus]

Originally posted by gemyt


Relative ERA is the correct measure, achievement.



While relative ERA is a better measure of comparison than unadjusted ERA it is not perfect. It is slanted in favour of pitchers who pitch in hitters eras in hitters parks. That being said I still think Clemens is better than Seaver. I especially find the comment about the defense enlightening.

[pathogan]

Seaver...Neither of these guys is Mr Personality.More innings picthed, games started{Clemens has never started 35 games in a season!} cg[yeah I know no one finishes now,so Tom SUFFERS because of that?Ridiculous} CY Youngs? Seaver got jobbed out of one,{1981} maybe two 1971}...dont know how many Games Seaver lost 1-0 or 2-1 with the Mutts over his career, He played for mediocore defensive teams{harrellson was a good glove man, agee gone in 71grote was terrific]...Clemens is the quintessential modern pitcher.6 innings,much strum and drang...its aesthetics perhaps, Seaver played in a much tougher era,and i'll always always remember clemes ,with the Mets on their knees whelping, Clemens bailing out of the 6th game after 6 innings with mystery blisters...
so personally as a Met fan, this is an easy one,so yes, its just my opinion, and i can be easily disuaded with a mountain of statistics

[Fritz Buelow]

Pat - you also have to consider the Tom toiled in the era of the pitcher whereas Clemens pitches now, in the days of the Big O.

[KCBOOMER]

Originally posted by pathogan
I'll always always remember clemes ,with the Mets on their knees whelping, Clemens bailing out of the 6th game after 6 innings with mystery blisters...

That will always be my memory of Clemens in the WS.