Ranking the top pitchers since the 1940's

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

This is the first time ive read this thread and basically just skimmed through the first 80 posts or so... however I dont get how so many people rank Clemens as #1 yet Bonds who also used steriods has been shunned by everyone yet people are not shunning Clemens

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BBMogulLover21

This is the first time ive read this thread and basically just skimmed through the first 80 posts or so... however I dont get how so many people rank Clemens as #1 yet Bonds who also used steriods has been shunned by everyone yet people are not shunning Clemens

---

I'm 99% sure that the people ranking Clemens #1 would rank Bonds just as high (of course, it depends on what the category is and who the players being ranked are).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I'm 99% sure that the people ranking Clemens #1 would rank Bonds just as high (of course, it depends on what the category is and who the players being ranked are).

---

Javol. I would rank him among the top in many categories. Even if you take out his steriods career, he was awesome before.

he was .500 before

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

he was .500 before

---

check out 89-98, Bonds was awesome. He was the best player in the Majors. Griffey was just the best in the AL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boomboom

check out 89-98, Bonds was awesome. He was the best player in the Majors. Griffey was just the best in the AL.

---

thought u ment clemens sorry :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

thought u ment clemens sorry :p

---

Clemens was awesome before steriods as well, he just had a little drop off and then started taking them.

Clemens was not ".500" before steroids, no matter where you place the beginning of his steroid use.

IMO Bonds is one of the worst hitters of all time, because he did steroids (and who knows how long he's been doing them)... also at the bottom are players like Palmeiro and McGwire...

Which, of course, is a patently ridiculous way of looking at things. Steroids don't make bad hitters into good hitters, let alone all-time greats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Which, of course, is a patently ridiculous way of looking at things. Steroids don't make bad hitters into good hitters, let alone all-time greats.

---

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

:rolleyes:

---

Oh, I forgot! You're totally right. Steroids are the reason Alex Sanchez is at the top of the all-time leaderboards in a ton of categories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Clemens was not ".500" before steroids, no matter where you place the beginning of his steroid use.

---

yea... i dont know wWHAT the hell i was thinking thee lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

IMO Bonds is one of the worst hitters of all time, because he did steroids (and who knows how long he's been doing them)... also at the bottom are players like Palmeiro and McGwire...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Which, of course, is a patently ridiculous way of looking at things. Steroids don't make bad hitters into good hitters, let alone all-time greats.

metsguy234 :rolleyes:

---

the roll eyes mettsguy should have been after YOUR post.

moraly yes you may be correct but to make a comment like that showes for lack of a better whay to put it... how stupid you are. If you were to say something like this

Quote:

---

IMO Bonds is one of the worst PEOPLE of all time, in baseball because he did steroids (and who knows how long he's been doing them)... also players like Palmeiro and McGwire...

---

then we would maybe agree with you... but your statements are not even wrong... they are just dumb.

its like saying the sky is gray because you are colorblind... its Not gray irs blue but YOU see it that way, doesnt mean everyone does

Metsguy, do you want Nameless Fat Guy to give you a spanking in the Adventures of RSR for not doing your Baseball research?

do i spank myself since I said Clemens was under .500???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

do i spank myself since I said Clemens was under .500???

---

Good point, good point....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Oh, I forgot! You're totally right. Steroids are the reason Alex Sanchez is at the top of the all-time leaderboards in a ton of categories.

---

Steroids were the reason he made the big leagues at all.

And you know that how?

Anyway back to topic on hand here

would you guys put eckersly anywhere close to the top 10?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

Steroids were the reason he made the big leagues at all.

---

No, he did not use them until the late 90's. You can tell by looking at his baseball cards. And Poet, no, Eck may be in the top 50ish, but not the top ten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

Anyway back to topic on hand here

would you guys put eckersly anywhere close to the top 10?

---

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies

No, he did not use them until the late 90's.

---

He was talking about Alex Sanchez with that post, but EVEN11323's question remains. How does he know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

No.


He was talking about Alex Sanchez with that post, but EVEN11323's question remains. How does he know?

---

Yea, Metsguy, did you interview him?

Because these guys can't actually play baseball. They were given fake skills from these PEDs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

Because these guys can't actually play baseball. They were given fake skills from these PEDs

---

:rolleyes:

Barry Bonds was an all-time great before he started using steroids.

You ridiculously exaggerate the effects of PEDs. They do not give you baseball skills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

:rolleyes:

Barry Bonds was an all-time great before he started using steroids.

You ridiculously exaggerate the effects of PEDs. They do not give you baseball skills.

---

Barry Bonds may have been using steroids his whole career, we can't prove how long he used them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

Barry Bonds may have been using steroids his whole career, we can't prove how long he used them.

---

You can't even prove that he DID use them at all.

But, it's quite clear to anybody not blinded by personal bias and blind hatred of PEDs that he wasn't using them for his entire career.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

Barry Bonds may have been using steroids his whole career, we can't prove how long he used them.

---

When the storm its your front door, with a roar you can't ignore, but theres no place to hide mate.

Dude, stop avoiding reality, you can not escape it and it WILL hit you hard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

You can't even prove that he DID use them at all.

But, it's quite clear to anybody not blinded by personal bias and blind hatred of PEDs that he wasn't using them for his entire career.

---

Houston, I would like to agree with you - but we have no way of knowing when or if a player used steroids or other performance enhancing drugs. And I have no personal bias one way or the other. Also, we have no good measure of how PEDs affect performance. If we knew when players used them - then we could measure the differential effects (though even then there are major statistical complications) - but as it stands, there is simply no way of knowing what any player would have done if things were different.

My opinion is that we judge players based on what we can see - because I don't see any other way of assessing players from this era. I judge the steroid era in the same way I would judge the deadball era or the low offense era of the 60's - just compare players to their contemporaries. But I can see someone's point if they say that Clemens, Bonds, McGwire and others are simply excluded from the discussion of all-time great baseball players because we do not know how their career would have panned out without drugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kenny1234

Houston, I would like to agree with you - but we have no way of knowing when or if a player used steroids or other performance enhancing drugs.

---

So, that means we should assume the worst - that he used his entire career?

Quote:

---

And I have no personal bias one way or the other. Also, we have no good measure of how PEDs affect performance. If we knew when players used them - then we could measure the differential effects (though even then there are major statistical complications) - but as it stands, there is simply no way of knowing what any player would have done if things were different.

My opinion is that we judge players based on what we can see - because I don't see any other way of assessing players from this era. I judge the steroid era in the same way I would judge the deadball era or the low offense era of the 60's - just compare players to their contemporaries.

---

Yes, 100% agreed.

Quote:

---

But I can see someone's point if they say that Clemens, Bonds, McGwire and others are simply excluded from the discussion of all-time great baseball players because we do not know how their career would have panned out without drugs.

---

I can't see that point, really. "We don't know, so, let's ignore them completely"? No thanks. But, at any rate, that position is NOT what metsguy is advocating. Metsguy is saying something entirely different, and while that position is somewhat defensible, metsguy's position...isn't. At all.

He's including them in the discussion, but placing them below EVERY OTHER PLAYER, which is just ridiculous. He's not saying, "I don't know, so I'm going to ignore them." He's saying, "I know he did steroids so that means that he's the worst player ever."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

So, that means we should assume the worst - that he used his entire career?


Yes, 100% agreed.


I can't see that point, really. "We don't know, so, let's ignore them completely"? No thanks. But, at any rate, that position is NOT what metsguy is advocating. Metsguy is saying something entirely different, and while that position is somewhat defensible, metsguy's position...isn't. At all.

He's including them in the discussion, but placing them below EVERY OTHER PLAYER, which is just ridiculous. He's not saying, "I don't know, so I'm going to ignore them." He's saying, "I know he did steroids so that means that he's the worst player ever."

---

That's not the message I'm intending to send across though.