Ranking the top pitchers since the 1940's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pavelb1

Not at all....i can't figure out to do a team by team split, but just by eyeballing it, I can see their cumulative ERA+'s are very close.

---

Glavine, 1005.1 IP, 107 ERA+
Pedro, 486.2 IP, 108 ERA+

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

I don't care about ERA+. Glavine did better then Pedro with the Mets, and you are a fool if you think otherwise.

---

He was better, because he was healthy, and thus pitched double the innings. In terms of quality while pitching, they were even.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I never said that. But, you don't seem all that capable of looking beyond your team.

---

To metsguy, their is the Mets, the Mets, The Mets, and the Mets. That is all there is. Maine is in his head, his eyes, his heart, blinding and paralyzing him, closing his mind...

That is part of the John Maine song you wanted me to write. Yep, I wrote it :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

In terms of quality while pitching, they were even.

---

Wrong. Pedro could barely throw a baseball whenever he came back from an injury. Glavine was our Number 1 starter for 2 years

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

Wrong. Pedro could barely throw a baseball whenever he came back from an injury. Glavine was our Number 1 starter for 2 years

---

Did 2005 get mysteriously erased from history?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Did 2005 get mysteriously erased from history?

---

I'm just pounding my head for allowing myself to get drawn into this. The plus side of these discussions is it lets me look stuff up I was either unaware or periphrially (sp) aware of.

btw Houston what website lets you split up by teams like that? I can't find it on baseball ref.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pavelb1

btw Houston what website lets you split up by teams like that? I can't find it on baseball ref.

---

I used Baseball-Reference's Play Index to show me the stats of players from the years that Glavine and (separate search) Pedro pitched for the Mets, and then found Glavine and Pedro in the list. PI requires a subscription to get full results though.

I dont know why I bother talking to metsguy.... its impossible

Okay, I've taken a closer look at the 14 pitchers in the list, using ERA+, WARP3, Peak WARP3, DERA, PRAA, and PRAR. This is my revised ranking:

1) Roger Clemens
2) Greg Maddux
3) Tom Seaver
4) Randy Johnson
5) Warren Spahn
6) Steve Carlton
7) Pedro Martinez
8) Gaylord Perry
9) Tom Glavine
10) Sandy Koufax
11) Nolan Ryan
12) Phil Niekro
13) Don Sutton
14) Early Wynn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Okay, I've taken a closer look at the 14 pitchers in the list, using ERA+, WARP3, Peak WARP3, DERA, PRAA, and PRAR. This is my revised ranking:

1) Roger Clemens
2) Greg Maddux
3) Tom Seaver
4) Randy Johnson
5) Warren Spahn
6) Steve Carlton
7) Pedro Martinez
8) Gaylord Perry
9) Tom Glavine
10) Sandy Koufax
11) Nolan Ryan
12) Phil Niekro
13) Don Sutton
14) Early Wynn

---

That's funny - my list is the same except for Pedro and Koufax being flopped and Sutton and Niekro.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX

Again mistaken HGM - I am sorry to say - if Clemens has ANY result,even if it is 1 inning affected by his usage of an illicit substance then automatically it is no longer an objective comparison but de facto becomes a subjective one.

---

I really don't care if CLemens took steriods or not, he had to pitch against hitters that did, even HOF hitters that did. Everybody did it, he played within the rules of the game at the time. It is the same as saying if somebody had an advantage of working out vs not. Everybody played by the same rules, they choose if they wanted to do Steriods or not...

Steriods doesn't not help a person hit a ball nor pitch. You still have to have the talent to do so.

1-Clemens
2-Seaver
3-Maddux
4-Johnson
5-Martinez
6-Koufax
7-Spahn
8-Carlton
9-Glavine
10-Perry
11-Ryan
12-Niekro
13-Sutton
14-Wynn

Without checking stats. I would personally find a place for Palmer, Gibson, Marichal, and maybe (probably) some others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

They also leave out a lot of other good options (Bob Gibson, Jim Palmer, Bert Blyleven, Robin Roberts, Mussina, Bob Feller possibly depending on the cutoff, Whitey Ford...)

---

Yeah, that's one thing I don't like about a lot of ESPN poll--they leave out obvious choices.

I only put 10 guys on my list, to make room for guys who weren't even choices, but who IMO are in the top 14:

1 Clemens
2 Maddux
3 Spahn
4 Johnson
5 Koufax
6 Seaver
7 Carlton
8 Martinez
9 Glavine
10 Neikro

Just to clarify, if Bob Gibson, for example, had been a possible choice, he'd be in the top 5--I don't want to imply that I'd rate Neikro ahead of him.

Also, I did my voting quickly, without analysing it a lot. If I had taken more time and thought about it more, my list might be a bit different, though I'm pretty sure my top 3 would be the same.

It looks like they picked all the 300 game winners, along with a couple guys who had very high peaks (Martinez, Koufax). Well, and Johnson too, and he should get the 300 son.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boomboom

I really don't care if CLemens took steriods or not, he had to pitch against hitters that did, even HOF hitters that did. Everybody did it, he played within the rules of the game at the time. It is the same as saying if somebody had an advantage of working out vs not. Everybody played by the same rules, they choose if they wanted to do Steriods or not...

---

That's fine - I agree with you here.

Quote:

---

Steriods doesn't not help a person hit a ball nor pitch. You still have to have the talent to do so.

---

And this just isn't true. Steroids help - all I need for proof that they help is that so many players took them. How much do they help? That is a question for which we are unlikely to ever know the answer. As for when a player started using steroids - the absence of proof, or the absence of a change in their statistical record doesn't show anything close to a standard of proof.

If a person wants to downgrade where they rank a pitcher because of steroid use, that is a subjective assessment. But any list of the top pitchers is a subjective ranking, by definition, which is why it is interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

Pedro proved he can't pitch when alot is on the line, like when his team is good

---

Well, he never had to worry about that when he was with the Mets. :p