Ranking the top pitchers since the 1940's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

There is no way Clemens is not in the top 5 of these pitchers unless you incorporate personal bias into your rankings. It's that simple. If you want to continue arguing semantics and the definition of "objective", go right ahead, but I'm not going to participate. If you want to make an argument that Clemens is not in the top 5 of this list, go right ahead, but you're going to have some trouble doing that.

---

It is not semantics but precision as YOU started (see post #1) by claiming that Objectivity was the basis of some votes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

To me, that says that there's simply two groups where it comes to ranking Clemens - the people that look objectively at the performance record and rank* him based on that and the people that let the steroid issue and their personal opinion** of the guy cloud their judgment and rank him incredibly low.

---

*rank = SUBJECTIVENESS **personal opinion = SUBJECTIVITY



I simply pointed out that NO ONE can give an objective analysis of Clemens because of the "steroids" issue & its POSSIBLE Effects on his stats.Now if you believe HE NEVER did steroids EVER & obviously have proof of this,not once ,then you can claim to have an objective viewpoint.

However the athletes in question do not compete directly against one another,unlike say in 50m Freestyle or 1500M running or even in NASCAR then the rankings in themselves are totally subjective as the comparisons are based on personal weights & likes eg is K more important than IPs or Wins than ERA+ etc etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

HGM, your list is awful so your not one to talk

1) Clemens- STEROIDS *
2) Maddux- *
3) Seaver
4) Johnson- * He's not that amazing
5) Spahn
6) Pedro- * Laughable...
7) Koufax
8) Carlton
9) Wynn -LOL
10) Glavine- *
11) Perry
12) Niekro- Should be 13th
13) Ryan- Are you slow or something?
14) Sutton-



*= Can you say "Modern Bias"?

---

Wtf? Dude....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies

Wtf? Dude....

---

My list was the most accurate so far

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

But all the 90s/2000s people are right at the top... pathetic

---

But all those 90s/2000 people were good. Just because they all played at once should not count against them...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

My list was the most accurate so far

---

ROFL! LMAO! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Your not serious, are you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies

ROFL! LMAO! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Your not serious, are you?

---

I am indeed serious

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

I am indeed serious

---

Why do you guys even discuss baseball with him? His Pedro bias alone disqualifies him. And...he's like 14, isn't he?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pavelb1

Why do you guys even discuss baseball with him? His Pedro bias alone disqualifies him. And...he's like 14, isn't he?

---

My Pedro bias?

The dude was awful with the Mets... I have my reasons to hate him

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

My Pedro bias?

The dude was awful with the Mets... I have my reasons to hate him

---

Pedro is awesome, never insult him. And dude, Pavelb raised a good point. Why do you argue constantly againt logic and give lame reasons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies

Pedro is awesome, never insult him. And dude, Pavelb raised a good point. Why do you argue constantly againt logic and give lame reasons?

---

2006 34 NYM NL 9 8 23 23 0 0 0 0 132.7 108 72 66 19 39 137 10 2 550 2 1 4.48 4.36 97 1.108
2007 35 NYM NL 3 1 5 5 0 0 0 0 28.0 33 11 8 0 7 32 2 1 128 1 0 2.57 4.26 166 1.429
2008 36 NYM NL 5 6 20 20 0 0 0 0 109.0 127 70 68 19 44 87 6 2 493 3 1 5.61 4.21 75 1.569

AWESOME rIGHT LOL? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

2006 34 NYM NL 9 8 23 23 0 0 0 0 132.7 108 72 66 19 39 137 10 2 550 2 1 4.48 4.36 97 1.108
2007 35 NYM NL 3 1 5 5 0 0 0 0 28.0 33 11 8 0 7 32 2 1 128 1 0 2.57 4.26 166 1.429
2008 36 NYM NL 5 6 20 20 0 0 0 0 109.0 127 70 68 19 44 87 6 2 493 3 1 5.61 4.21 75 1.569

AWESOME rIGHT LOL? :rolleyes:

---

Why do you leave out the details.. Look at his stats in Montreal and Boston. He was for about 10 years the best pitcher in baseball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

2006 34 NYM NL 9 8 23 23 0 0 0 0 132.7 108 72 66 19 39 137 10 2 550 2 1 4.48 4.36 97 1.108
2007 35 NYM NL 3 1 5 5 0 0 0 0 28.0 33 11 8 0 7 32 2 1 128 1 0 2.57 4.26 166 1.429
2008 36 NYM NL 5 6 20 20 0 0 0 0 109.0 127 70 68 19 44 87 6 2 493 3 1 5.61 4.21 75 1.569

AWESOME rIGHT LOL? :rolleyes:

---

1. You left out his first year with the Mets.

2. It's not his fault he got hurt...but those injury cut-off numbers in 2007 are pretty good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies

Why do you leave out the details.. Look at his stats in Montreal and Boston. He was for about 10 years the best pitcher in baseball.

---

For about 10 years... and then he went to the Mets and sucked ass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

For about 10 years... and then he went to the Mets and sucked ass

---

No, he was above average when he played there. And you can NOT rank a career based on a few seasons alone. LOOK AT THE WHOLE THING!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies

Sutter? He should not be any where near Mariano, why is Seaver so low, and why is Maddux not Numerò Uno?

---

First off did YOU ever see Seaver or Sutter pitch ? Sutter basically was down right nasty & dominant as they come - ERA of 2.83,ERA+ 141,300 SVs in 661 games,5 SV leader etc etc



Second Pedro was the most dominant pitcher DURING the "steroids era" & has a career ERA of 154+ thus why I ranked him at #1.Maddux I ranked compared to the others & what I saw as being the P who I would (if as a GM/Manager) call on to pitch .........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

"subjective" ranking. Basically, he ranked his favorite players.

---

Yes it is a SUBJECTIVE ranking ;) & no it is NOT based on my favourite players otherwise I would not have ranked Clemens nor Mo' (Yankees bias) :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

For about 10 years... and then he went to the Mets and sucked ass

---

How long was Koufax great? How long was Bob Gibson great?

'Sucked ass'? I'll bet his cumulative Mets numbers are over 110+ ERA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

Because Clemens wouldn't be half as good without the steroids

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

By all current evidence, the EARLIEST "starting point" of steroid use by Clemens was the mid/late-1990's. He was already an all-time great pitcher without steroids. Having used steroids doesn't then make him a terrible player. In terms of on-field performance, he's one of the top 5 pitchers of all-time, let alone the last half-century. The ONLY way to deny that is to incorporate a huge amount of personal bias into your evaluation, which you're no stranger of.

---

Also, please provide evidence that steroids double a player's effectiveness. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

But all the 90s/2000s people are right at the top... pathetic

---

Clemens and Maddux are two of the top 5 pitchers of all time. Randy Johnson's up there too. Pedro has a Koufax-level peak. It's not my bias that made it so 4 of the best pitchers ever happened to pitch in the 1990's/2000's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

My list was the most accurate so far

---

How's that for arrogance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

My Pedro bias?

The dude was awful with the Mets... I have my reasons to hate him

---

Being awful with the Mets doesn't discount what he did in his career for other teams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX

Sutter basically was down right nasty & dominant as they come - ERA of 2.83,ERA+ 141,300 SVs in 661 games,5 SV leader etc etc

---

And Rivera was still better.

His ERA+ was actually 136. He had an extremely short career, but apparently, you're an extreme peak evaluator.


Any way, I'm about to delve into a more in depth ranking of these players.

Modern Bian on Maddux!!! he pithed at least 1/2 his career in 5 man rotations that the guys in the 40's NEVER would have heard of. if anything to me that means he shoud have MORE wins and MORE k's and a BETTER lifetime ERA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pavelb1

And walks...and wild pitchs....

---

and even as bad as he was with that he still was a DOMINANT pitcher

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Being awful with the Mets doesn't discount what he did in his career for other teams.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pavelb1

How long was Koufax great? How long was Bob Gibson great?

'Sucked ass'? I'll bet his cumulative Mets numbers are over 110+ ERA.

---

Even with his "bad" Mets years he is 2nd ALL TIME on ERA+ ! :rolleyes: Just Imagine if HE DIDNT pitch post 2004 what those numbers would be LOL

example 2000 ERA+ 291 !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

My list was the most accurate so far

---

Glavine is deserviing of that star and MAYBE pedro, but johnson and maddux... ur smokin something

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

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

---

Uh, what? He got injured, so that means, he can't pitch when a lot is on the line?

Also, he played for good teams in Boston.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

For about 10 years... and then he went to the Mets and sucked ass

---

so did Glavine lol yet you have him ranked

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Uh, what? He got injured, so that means, he can't pitch when a lot is on the line?

Also, he played for good teams in Boston.

---

Boston's 2004 win was a fluke, we all know it. And yes, he always gets hurt under pressure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

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

---

lol um... he won the ws with the sox... or are u too young to remember that???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

so did Glavine lol yet you have him ranked

---

Glavine did good with the Mets though... and it's not like I can pick who got on the list

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

Boston's 2004 win was a fluke, we all know it.

---

Uh, right. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

And yes, he always gets hurt under pressure.

---

Uh, right. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

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

---

/facepalm....well I tried.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

Boston's 2004 win was a fluke, we all know it. And yes, he always gets hurt under pressure.

---

Wtf? You are showing that you are completely uneducated when it comes to baseball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

Glavine did good with the Mets though...

---

And here is where you admit your bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

And here is where you admit your bias.

---

Glavine did do good with the Mets though.


You're lying if you said Pedro did better with the Mets then Glavine did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

Glavine did do good with the Mets though.

You're lying if you said Pedro did better with the Mets then Glavine did.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

Glavine did do good with the Mets though.


You're lying if you said Pedro did better with the Mets then Glavine did.

---

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.

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.

---

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

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.