Best pitcher of all time?

[FedEx227]

Yes, sorry, left him out but he's in that category too. To answer the question I'm going Walter Johnson. If we have to do post WWII then I'll do Roger Clemens.

[Sven Draconian]

Since we have to go post-WWII I'll do Clemens, Maddux or Pedro but lean heavier on Clemens.

I will not however that even with team/league adjusted statistics, Walter Johnson, Cy Young, Pete Alexander, Kid Nichols and Lefty Grove all grade out extremely well. I understand Sven's point but that's why we have stats that regulate for the era, the ballparks and the offensive prowess of the time.

The only one in that group who I would partially concede to is Johnson.
Pete Alexander shouldn't be in the discussion (his peak has no comparison to the modern guys or Johnson).
Cy Young shouldn't be in the discussion (he didn't even have a real peak)
Kid Nichols - It was 1890s baseball.... we have no stats that can regulate for that mess.

Lefty Grove is interesting because at least he follows a modern career track (has a peak around 30). His K/BB and WHIP are nothing special, but the ERA+ and Winning % are awesome. He might have a legit spot in the top 10 as a best of all time. Those other three.... eh, somewhere in the top 50 probably.

[FedEx227]

Pete Alexander certainly had a top peak. 1911-1920 he was 148 ERA+, 2.06 ERA and led the league in strikeouts six times in that period. Cy Young had unmatched longevity while never having a real "peak" but it's hard to argue with a guy who pitched 22 years and still had a 138 ERA+. He didn't have a peak because he was really, really good for 20+ years. Kid Nichols, yeah, it's hard because it's 1890s baseball, but they've done a great job digging through box scores and we have a pretty clear idea what he did. Lefty Grove absolutely deserves to be in the discussion. Walter Johnson is a no-brainer.

Those dudes are without a doubt not only top 50 but top 10, shit top 5.

WAR7 (seven best years, not necessarily in order) all has them in the top 5. JAWS (7-year peak/Career WAR) puts Cy Young, Nichols and Alexander in the top 5 meaning they absolutely had "peaks" that are more worthwhile than you're giving credit for. Young, Alexander and Nichols are also both top 15 in ERA+.

Walter Johnson speaks for himself: 2nd in WAR (Cy Young is 1st btw), 1st in WAR7, 1st in JAWS. He's the best pitcher ever. Led the league in Ks 12 times, including 8 years in a row.

[Senser81]

Lefty Grove or Walter Johnson for the old era. Clemens was such a freak that if you look at numbers he is the most impressive modern-era guy, IMO...but how much of his post-Boston success was due to PEDs?

Pedro is hard for me to judge. I remember reading an article that shows how much more dominant Pedro was than Koufax. It gave a pretty good pro-Pedro argument. He has such a defined peak and was such an idiot, I wonder if he wasn't the product of PEDs. He wasn't a workhorse, and won 20+ games once, but he was a great pitcher when he pitched (which I guess is kind of the point).

Randy Johnson would be my third modern guy behind Clemens & Pedro.

[SuperKevin]

Sven, I'd like to see a list of 50 pitchers you think are better than Cy Young please.

[Senser81]

Sven, I'd like to see a list of 50 pitchers you think are better than Cy Young please.

I don't know...who's pitched against the most Australian and Dutch players?

[x0xHumblex0x]

without the Roids;
Nolan Ryan
with the Roids;
Roger Clemons

lol @ some of you youngstas picking guys who your parents wouldnt have even seen pitch

[FirstTimer]

Just a thought of mine from CCS on a similar subject(Position players not having to play against black pitchers):

I see sort of where you are going for this and I don't have empirical data to back it up but was there a large jump in statistical norms after blacks were included?

I mean Mays etc were all great but it's not as though white players hadn't put up similar or better seasons over the course of MLB history prior to the color line being broken. Black players came in and proved they belonged..but didn't dismantle the record books or embarrass the white players. They pretty much fell in line with what other players were doing..both good and bad.

I guess I just don't see Ruth having to face black pitchers as that big of a deal or something that would have mattered.

I guess I'd apply it to the Pre WWII white pitchers as well. yeah we missed out on seeing them pitch against Josh Gibson but over the sample size of their careers...would it really have made that much of a difference or would they have not pitched as well against them? Plus it could have helped them too with better fielding players behind them possibly....

[Senser81]

without the Roids;
Nolan Ryan
with the Roids;
Roger Clemons

lol @ some of you youngstas picking guys who your parents wouldnt have even seen pitch

I never saw Roger Clemons pitch, either.

[FirstTimer]

without the Roids;
Nolan Ryan
with the Roids;
Roger Clemons

lol @ some of you youngstas picking guys who your parents wouldnt have even seen pitch

[FirstTimer]

Oh and do answer the question:

Pedro post WWII.

Pre WWII: Walter Johnson.

[SuperKevin]

If we are only talking about the best in our respective lifetimes, I have to say Greg Maddux. He did more with less physical talent than anyone else.

[Sven Draconian]

Pete Alexander certainly had a top peak. 1911-1920 he was 148 ERA+, 2.06 ERA and led the league in strikeouts six times in that period. Cy Young had unmatched longevity while never having a real "peak" but it's hard to argue with a guy who pitched 22 years and still had a 138 ERA+. He didn't have a peak because he was really, really good for 20+ years. Kid Nichols, yeah, it's hard because it's 1890s baseball, but they've done a great job digging through box scores and we have a pretty clear idea what he did. Lefty Grove absolutely deserves to be in the discussion. Walter Johnson is a no-brainer.

Those dudes are without a doubt not only top 50 but top 10, shit top 5.

I don't question the accuracy of stats from 1890 (ok, a little), the issue is that it was closer to semi-pro baseball than professional baseball. You had gambling, collusion, teams and leagues folding and teams skipping games. No, sorry, those numbers are in no way comparable to the modern era.

I mean, cripes, the foul-strike rule wasn't even adopted until 1901/1903. For Nichols and Young they played a couple of season before the mound was moved to 60 feet 6 inches.

Lets not forget that the American League doubled the size of the "majors" in 1901... (you know, Young's best seasons), without anything resembling a modern farm system. It can barely even be considered a major league at that point.

WAR7 (seven best years, not necessarily in order) all has them in the top 5. JAWS (7-year peak/Career WAR) puts Cy Young, Nichols and Alexander in the top 5 meaning they absolutely had "peaks" that are more worthwhile than you're giving credit for. Young, Alexander and Nichols are also both top 15 in ERA+.

Walter Johnson speaks for himself: 2nd in WAR (Cy Young is 1st btw), 1st in WAR7, 1st in JAWS. He's the best pitcher ever. Led the league in Ks 12 times, including 8 years in a row.

Of course those guys are going to rate well in WAR, which is largely a product of IP. When you are starting 40+ games a year and throwing 300 innings you are going to rack up counting stats.

No question that Walter Johnson is the most "greatest" pitcher of all time. That doesn't make him the best on a talent basis. Leading the "league" in K's 12 times / 8 times in a row is impressive, but I do feel it is an impressive as Pedro finishing first or second 7 times in 8 seasons (the only year he did not was 2001, injury shortened). Johnson played in an 8 team league, Pedro played in a 14 team league. Pedro played with a 5 man rotation, Johnson played with a 4 man rotation. Pedro had to beat significantly more people for his "titles" than Johnson did. I have Clemens finishing 1st/2nd 10 times.

Just a thought of mine from CCS on a similar subject(Position players not having to play against black pitchers):



I guess I'd apply it to the Pre WWII white pitchers as well. yeah we missed out on seeing them pitch against Josh Gibson but over the sample size of their careers...would it really have made that much of a difference or would they have not pitched as well against them? Plus it could have helped them too with better fielding players behind them possibly....

You're asking the wrong question. The issue isn't that "black players wouldn't have dominated," the issue is that the general talent pool would level out.

It's a silly premise anyway,
1) Since 1946, # 1, 2 and 3 in offensive WAR are black and 7 of 10 are minority.
2) 7 of the top 10 HR hitters of all time are black
3) In career OPS since 1946, #2, 3 and 4 are minority

So yes, they have dominated the game.

[SuperKevin]

Still waiting on that list Sven

[Warner2BruceTD]

*DERAIL ALERT*

Funny how every pitcher being mentioned in this thread racked up a ton of wins, and has a stellar W/L record.

It's almost as if, the larger the sample grows, the more pitcher W's & L's become a pretty decent indicator of how well a pitcher pitched.

*DERAIL ALERT*